4.6 Article

Determination of Olanzapine in rat brain using liquid chromatography with coulometric detection and a rapid solid-phase extraction procedure

期刊

JOURNAL OF CHROMATOGRAPHY A
卷 1122, 期 1-2, 页码 21-27

出版社

ELSEVIER
DOI: 10.1016/j.chroma.2006.04.011

关键词

Olanzapine; rat brain; HPLC; coulometric detection; solid phase extraction

向作者/读者索取更多资源

A sensitive and selective method was developed for the determination of the antipsychotic drug Olanzapine levels in rat brain tissue, based on HPLC with electrochemical detection. The analyses were carried out on a C8 reversed phase column (150 mm x 4.6 mm, 5 mu m), using a mobile phase composed of methanol and a phosphate buffer (44.0 mM, pH 3.5), containing triethylamine (21:79, v/v), flowing at 1.2 mL min(-1). A high sensitivity coulometric detection analytical cell containing two flow-through low volume working electrodes was used: electrode I was set at +0350 V and electrode 2 at -0.200 V. Olanzapine, administered to rats in different doses or in different times, was extracted from tissue homogenate of either the whole brain or specific areas (cortex, hyppocampus, nucleus striatum) with a rapid solid phase extraction procedure (SPE) on Oasis HLB cartridges. The method provided a high extraction yield of Olanzapine and internal standard (2-methylolanzapine) from brain tissue homogenate with absolute recovery values higher than 90.0%. The detector response was linear over a concentration range of 0.2-100.0 ng mL(-1) of Olanzapine. The limit of quantification (LOQ) was 0.2 ng mL(-1). Precision results, expressed by the intra-day and the inter-day relative standard deviation values. were satisfactory, better than 4.6%. Accuracy was satisfactory as well. This method proved to be suitable for the analysis of Olanzapine in rat brain tissues and for the study of distribution and pharmacokinetics of Olanzapine in rat brain after a single treatment with the antipsychotic drug (c) 2006 Elsevier B.V. All rights reserved.

作者

我是这篇论文的作者
点击您的名字以认领此论文并将其添加到您的个人资料中。

评论

主要评分

4.6
评分不足

次要评分

新颖性
-
重要性
-
科学严谨性
-
评价这篇论文

推荐

暂无数据
暂无数据