4.6 Article

Optimization of silylation using N-methyl-N-(trimethylsilyl)-trifluoroacetamide, N,O-bis-(trimethyl.silyl)-trifluoroacetamide and N-(tert-butyldimethylsilyl)-N-methyltrifluoroacetamide for the determination of the estrogens estrone and 17α-ethinylestradiol by gas chromatography-mass spectrometry

期刊

JOURNAL OF CHROMATOGRAPHY A
卷 1108, 期 1, 页码 121-128

出版社

ELSEVIER SCIENCE BV
DOI: 10.1016/j.chroma.2005.12.098

关键词

silylation; GC-MS; estrone; ethinylestradiol

向作者/读者索取更多资源

This paper reports in improved silylation procedure for simultaneous determination of the steroid hormones 17 alpha-ethinylestradiol (EE2) and estrone (E1) Using gas chromatography-mass spectrometry (GC-MS). This follows a re-assessment of some of the popular silylation procedures using N-methyl-N-trimethylsilyltriifluoroacetamide (MSTFA), N-O-bis-(trimethylsilyl)-trifluoroacetamide (BSTFA) and N-(tert-butyldimethylsilyl)-N-methyltrifluoroacetamide (MTBSTFA), which lead to the formation of trimethylsilyl (TMS) and tert-butyldimethylsilyl (TBS) derivatives. Silylation of EE2 using MSTFA or BSTFA + 1% TMCS in ethyl acetate, acetonitrile and dichloromethane solvents produced Multiple peaks corresponding to TMS-E1, and 3-mono-TMS-EE2 and/or 3,17-di-TMS-EE2 in variable proportions depending oil the solvent used. When pyridine or dimethyl formamide solvents were used in the silylation of EE2 under the same reaction conditions, only 3,17-di-TMS-EE2 derivative was formed. Derivatization using MTBSTFA reagents using ethyl acetate, acetonitrile, dichloromethane, pyridine and dimethyl formamide resulted in almost 100% conversion of mono-TBS-EE2 to the TBS-E1. Therefore, typical methods used in some previous GC-MS determinations of El and EE2 in environmental water and/or sediment samples are Subject to speculation. However, we can confirm that any of the TMS reagents can be used with either pyridine or dimethyl formamide under suitable reaction conditions. (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