4.2 Article

High-performance liquid chromatographic-mass spectrometric determination of methamphetamine and amphetamine enantiomers, desmethylselegiline and selegiline, in hair samples of long-term methamphetamine abusers or selegiline users

期刊

JOURNAL OF ANALYTICAL TOXICOLOGY
卷 30, 期 4, 页码 232-237

出版社

OXFORD UNIV PRESS INC
DOI: 10.1093/jat/30.4.232

关键词

-

向作者/读者索取更多资源

We devised a highly sensitive method for simultaneously determining methamphetamine (MA) and amphetamine (AP) enantiomers, desmethylselegiline (DMSG) and selegiline (SG), in human hair using a derivatization technique and high-performance liquid chromatography-electrospray ionization-mass spectrometry (HPLC-ESI-MS). MA and AP enantiomers and DMSG were effectively converted to trifluoroacetic acid (TFA) derivatives, and the sensitivity of MA and DMSG increased five times over compared with that of free bases. The TFA derivatives of each compound were stable within one week in a stock solution of methanol or for 24 h in the HPLC mobile phase (mixture of methanol and ammonium formate buffer). Each compound was well separated, and calibration curves were linear in the concentration range 0.04-40 ng/mg for MA enantiomers, SG and DMSG, and 0.240 ng/mg for AP enantiomers. The accuracy and precision of the method were evaluated, and relative standard deviations were within 7%. Our method was successfully applied to hair samples obtained from long-term MA abusers and SG users. (+)-MA and (+)-AP were detected from three MA abusers at concentrations of 0.79-20.85 and 0.04-3.30 ng/mg, respectively. On the other hand, (-)-MA, (-)-AP, DMSG, and SG were detected in three SG users at concentrations of 2.48-9.05, 0.72-3.10, 0.12-0.59, and 0-0.04 ng/mg, respectively. Based on our obtained data, discrimination of MA abusers from SG users was considered to be possible by comparing optical isomers of MA and AP, the existence of DMSG and/or SG, and the concentration ratio of AP to MA in hair samples.

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

4.2
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