4.8 Article

Analysis of street drugs in seized material without primary reference standards

期刊

ANALYTICAL CHEMISTRY
卷 76, 期 24, 页码 7375-7379

出版社

AMER CHEMICAL SOC
DOI: 10.1021/ac048913p

关键词

-

向作者/读者索取更多资源

A novel approach was used to analyze street drugs in seized material without primary reference standards. Identification was performed by liquid chromatography/time-of-flight mass spectrometry (LC/TOFMS), essentially based on accurate mass determination using a target library of 735 exact monoisotopic masses. Quantification was carried out by liquid chromatography/chemiluminescence nitrogen detection (LC/CLND) with a single secondary standard (caffeine), utilizing the detector's equimolar response to nitrogen. Sample preparation comprised dilution, first with methanol and further with the LC mobile phase. Altogether 21 seized drug samples were analyzed blind by the present method, and results were compared to accredited reference methods utilizing identification by gas chromatography/mass spectrometry and quantification by gas chromatography or liquid chromatography. The 31 drug findings by LC/TOFMS comprised 19 different drugs-of-abuse, byproducts, and adulterants, including amphetamine and tryptamine designer drugs, with one unresolved pair of compounds having an identical mass. By the reference methods, 27 findings could be confirmed, and among the four unconfirmed findings, only 1 apparent false positive was found. In the quantitative analysis of 11 amphetamine, heroin, and cocaine findings, mean relative difference between the results of LC/CLND and the reference methods was 11% (range 4.2-21%), without any observable bias. Mean relative standard deviation for three parallel LC/CLND results was 6%. Results suggest that the present combination of LC/TOFMS and LC/CLND offers a simple solution for the analysis of scheduled and designer drugs in seized material, independent of the availability of primary reference standards.

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

4.8
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