4.6 Article Proceedings Paper

Determination of amphetamine and methamphetamine in serum via headspace derivatization solid-phase microextraction-gas chromatography-mass spectrometry

期刊

JOURNAL OF CHROMATOGRAPHY A
卷 896, 期 1-2, 页码 265-273

出版社

ELSEVIER SCIENCE BV
DOI: 10.1016/S0021-9673(00)00596-3

关键词

amphetamines; methamphetamine

向作者/读者索取更多资源

This study evaluates solid-phase microextraction (SPME) coupled with gas chromatography-mass spectrometry (GC-MS) to determine trace levels of amphetamine and methamphetamine in serum. Headspace post-derivatization in a laboratory-made design with heptafluorobutyric anhydride vapor following SPME was compared with that without derivatization SPME. The SPME experimental procedures to extract amphetamine and methamphetamine in serum were optimized with a relatively non-polar poly(dimethylsiloxane) coated fiber at pH 9.5, extraction time for 40 min and desorption at 260 degreesC for 2 min. Experimental results indicate that the concentration of the serum matrix diluted to a quarter of original (1:3) ratio by using one volume of buffer solution of boric acid mixed with sodium hydroxide and two volumes of water improves the extraction efficiency. Headspace derivatization following SPME was performed by using 6 mul 20% (v/v) heptafluorobutyric anhydride ethyl acetate solution at an oil bath temperature of 270 degreesC for 10 s. The precision was below 7% for analysis for without derivatization and below 17% for headspace derivatization. Detection limits were obtained at the ng/l level, one order better obtained in headspace derivatization than those achieved without derivatization. The feasibility of applying the methods to determine amphetamine and methamphetamine in real samples was examined by analyzing serum samples from methamphetamine abused suspects. Concentrations of the amphetamine and methamphetamine ranged from 6.0 mug/l (amphetamine) to 77 mug/l (methamphetamine) in serum. (C) 2000 Elsevier Science 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

4.6
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