4.5 Article

Validated semiquantitative/quantitative screening of 51 drugs in whole blood as silylated derivatives by gas chromatography-selected ion monitoring mass spectrometry and gas chromatography electron capture detection

出版社

ELSEVIER
DOI: 10.1016/j.jchromb.2004.04.005

关键词

screening; derivatization; GC; drugs of abuse

向作者/读者索取更多资源

A comprehensively validated procedure is presented for simultaneous semi quantitative/quantitative screening of 51 drugs of abuse or drugs potentially hazardous for traffic safety in serum, plasma or whole blood. Benzodiazepines (12), cannabinoids (3), opioids (8), cocaine, antidepressants (13), antipsychotics (5) and antiepileptics (2) as well as zolpidem, zaleplon, zopiclone, meprobamate, carisoprodol, tizanidine and orphenadrine and internal standard flurazepam, were isolated by high-yield liquid-liquid extraction (LLE). The dried extracts were derivatized by two-step silylation and analyzed by the combination of two different gas chromatographic (GC) separations with both electron capture detection (ECD) and mass spectrometry (MS) operating in a selected ion-monitoring (SIM) mode. Quantitative or semiquantitative results were obtained for each substance based on four-point calibration. In the validation tests, accuracy, reproducibility, linearity, limit of detection (LOD) and limit of quantitation (LOQ), selectivity, as well as extraction efficiency and stability of standard stock solutions were tested, and derivatization was optimized in detail. Intra- and inter-day precisions were within 2.5-21.8 and 6.0-22.5%, and square of correlation coefficients of linearity ranged from 0.9896 to 0.9999. The limit of quantitation (LOQ) varied from 2 to 2000 ng/ml due to a variety of the relevant concentrations of the analyzed substances in blood. The method is feasible for highly sensitive, reliable and possibly routinely performed clinical and forensic toxicological analyses. (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

4.5
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