4.5 Article

Determination of chlorpyrifos metabolites in human urine by reversed-phase/weak anion exchange liquid chromatography-electrospray ionisation-tandem mass spectrometry

出版社

ELSEVIER
DOI: 10.1016/j.jchromb.2005.06.003

关键词

chlorpyrifos; metabolites; reversed-phase/weak anion exchange stationary phase; liquid chromatography-tandem mass spectrometry; human poisoning; urine

向作者/读者索取更多资源

A liquid chromatography-electrospray ionisation-tandem mass spectrometry (LC-ESI-MS/MS) method for the quantification of major chlorpyrifos (CP) metabolites, i.e. diethyl thiophosphate (DETP), diethyl phosphate (DEP), and 3,5,6-trichloro-2-pyridinol (TCP), in human urine was developed. Simultaneous separation of the parent compound and its primary biotransformation products was achieved within 20 min in gradient elution mode employing a mixed-mode reversed-phase/weak anion exchange (RP/WAX) separation principle. The analytical method was developed for a toxicokinetic study of an acute poisoning incidence with a CP containing pesticide formulation. An initial mass spectrometric screening performed with unprocessed urine samples revealed that CP is not excreted unchanged by the kidney. Hence, the quantitative assay was validated for DETP (quantifier transition: m/z 169 -> 95, qualifier transition: m/z 169 -> 141), DEP (m/z 153 -> 79, 153 -> 125), and TCP (m/z 196 -> 35, 198 -> 35) taking dibutyl phosphate (DBP) (m/z 209 -> 79, 209 -> 153) as internal standard. Clean-up of urine samples prior to LC-ESI-MS/MS analysis was carried out by a liquid-liquid extraction step with a mixture of ethylacetate and acetonitrile (70:30; v/v). Linearity was observed between 0.25 and 75 mg L-1, and the signal-to-noise ratio at 0.25 mg L-1 was better than six for the individual analytes. Recoveries, precision, and accuracies were all adequate across the validated range of 1-75 mg L-1 for the present toxicological case study. (c) 2005 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

4.5
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