4.7 Article Proceedings Paper

Multiresidue determination of sulfonamides in a variety of biological matrices by supported liquid membrane with high pressure liquid chromatography-electrospray mass spectrometry detection

期刊

TALANTA
卷 64, 期 1, 页码 87-100

出版社

ELSEVIER
DOI: 10.1016/j.talanta.2004.02.038

关键词

sulfonamides; biological matrices; supported liquid membrane; electrospray-mass spectrometry

向作者/读者索取更多资源

A high performance liquid chromatography (HPLC) coupled to a mass spectrometer (MS) was used for a simultaneous determination of 16 sulfonamide compounds spiked in water, urine, milk, and bovine liver and kidney tissues. Supported liquid membrane (SLM) made up of 5% tri-n-octylphosphine oxide (TOPO) dissolved in hexyl amine was used as a sample clean-up and/or enrichment technique. The sulfonamides mixture was made up of 5-sulfaminouracil, sulfaguanidine, sulfamethoxazole, sulfamerazine, sulfamethizole, sulfamethazine (sulfadimidine), sulfacetamide, sulfapyridine, sulfabenzamide, sulfamethoxypyridazine, sulfamonomethoxine, sulfadimethoxine sulfasalazine, sulfaquinoxaline, sulfadiazine, and sulfathiazole. Some of these compounds, such as, sulfaquinoxaline, sulfadiazine, sulfabenzamide, sulfathiazole and sulfapyridine failed to be trapped efficiently by the same liquid membrane (5% TOPO in hexylamine). The detection limits (DL) obtained were 1.8 ppb for sulfaguanidine and sulfamerazine and between 3.3 and 10 ppb in bovine liver and kidney tissues for the other sulfonamides that were successfully enriched with SLM; 2.1 ppb for sulfaguanidine and sulfamerazine and between 7.5 and 15 ppb in cow's urine, whereas the DL values in milk were 12.4 ppb for sulfaguanidine and sulfamerazine and between 16.8 and 24.3 for the other compounds that were successfully enriched by the membrane. Several factors affecting the extraction efficiency during SLM enrichment, such as donor pH, acceptor pH, enrichment time and the membrane solvent were studied. (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