4.6 Article

Application of a new nanocarbonaceous sorbent in electromembrane surrounded solid phase microextraction for analysis of amphetamine and methamphetamine in human urine and whole blood

期刊

JOURNAL OF CHROMATOGRAPHY A
卷 1396, 期 -, 页码 1-6

出版社

ELSEVIER SCIENCE BV
DOI: 10.1016/j.chroma.2015.03.077

关键词

Electromembrane surrounded solid phase microextraction; Gas chromatography; Flame-based prepared fiber; Urine; Whole blood

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Application of a new carbon-based sorbent was studied for the first time for extraction and quantification of amphetamine and methamphetamine as model analytes by means of electromembrane surrounded solid phase microextraction (EM-SPME). Since the basis of this microextraction method is adsorption of target analytes on the sorbent surface (after transferring across a supported liquid membrane) in an electrical field, the sorbent, which also performs the electrical potential, should have a conductive nature. On the other hand, using a synthesized fiber is a suitable solution to eliminate the interfering compounds existing in the fiber. To extract the model analytes from acidic sample solution through a thin layer of organic phase and into the aqueous acceptor phase and their final adsorption, 150V electrical potential was applied for 15 min. Regardless of the high sample cleanup ability of the proposed method, which makes the analysis of complicated biological fluids possible, admissible extraction recoveries (9.0-18.8%) and suitable detection limits (less than 2.0 ng mL(-1)) were obtained. Repeatability and reproducibility of the method were studied and intra- and inter-assay precisions were in the ranges of 2.0-7.3% and 7.5-12.5%, respectively. Coefficients of determination larger than 0.9964 were achieved by scrutinizing of the linearity up to 500 ng mL-1 and calibration curves were utilized for quantification of analytes of interest in human urine and whole blood samples. (C) 2015 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

4.6
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