4.7 Article

Development of a molecularly imprinted polymer based solid-phase extraction of local anaesthetics from human plasma

期刊

ANALYTICA CHIMICA ACTA
卷 526, 期 2, 页码 147-154

出版社

ELSEVIER SCIENCE BV
DOI: 10.1016/j.aca.2004.09.051

关键词

molecular imprints; solid-phase extraction; local anaesthetics

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Molecular imprints selective for a homologous series of local anaesthetics, including bupivacaine, ropivacaine and mepivacaine, were prepared and the resultant polymers were used for solid-phase extraction of human plasma. The template was a structural analogue, pentycaine, which was imprinted in methacrylic acid-ethylene glycol dimethacrylate copolymers. Equilibrium ligand binding experiments using radiolabelled bupivacaine were performed to characterize the imprinted polymers, as well as to identify optimal conditions for selective extraction of plasma samples. Dilution of the plasma prior to extraction with citrate buffer pH 5.0 containing ethanol and Tween 20 was found optimal for selective imprint-analyte binding, and for reduction of non-specific adsorption of lipophilic contaminants to the hydrophobic MIP surface. Wash steps using 20% methanol in water followed by a solvent switch to 10% ethanol in acetonitrile removed contaminants and strengthened the selective imprint-analyte binding. Elution under basic conditions using triethyl amine-water-acetonitrile mixtures recovered bupivacaine in 89% yield with superior selectivity over elution under acidic conditions. The final protocol extracted trace levels of ropivacaine and bupivacaine from human plasma and allowed determination of bupivacaine in the range of 3.9-500 nmol L-1 and ropivacaine in the range of 7.8-500 nmol L-1 with inter-assay accuracies of 94-99 and 95-104%, respectively. This present investigation provides an improved understanding of approaches available for optimization of protocols for molecular-imprint based solid-phase extraction of plasma samples. (C) 2004 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

4.7
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