4.7 Article

Selenium speciation in urine by ion-pairing chromatography with perfluorinated carboxylic acids and ICP-MS detection

期刊

JOURNAL OF ANALYTICAL ATOMIC SPECTROMETRY
卷 17, 期 6, 页码 570-575

出版社

ROYAL SOC CHEMISTRY
DOI: 10.1039/b202256g

关键词

-

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Five aqueous standards, selenomethionine (SeMet), methylselenomethionine (MeSeMet), methylselenocysteine (MeSeCys), selenogammaaminobutyric acid (SeGaba) and the trimethylselenonium ion (TMSe), were separated in ion-pairing chromatographic systems based on perfluorinated carboxylic acids in methanol. Two different perfluorinated carboxylic acids, heptafluorobutanoic acid (HFBA) and nonafluoropentanoic acid (NFPA), were used as ion-pairing agents in the separation. The selectivities of the ion-pairing agents were different. The separation was performed on a microbore column, which was connected to the ICP-MS via a laboratory-made direct injection nebuliser. This nebulisation system allowed methanol concentrations of 50% in the eluent when a flow rate of 50 ml min(-1) was used. The detection limits in urine were between 0.8 and 1.7 mug l(-1) corresponding to absolute detection limits of between 2.3 and 5.1 pg. Urine samples from different individuals before and during supplementation with selenomethionine were analysed. Several species were separated in the different urine samples. A major component eluting at the beginning of the chromatogram was predominant in many samples, especially after selenium consumption. This species was not identified and solid phase extraction experiments suggested that it was neutral. When different urine samples were spiked with the available standards, co-elution of species with TMSe, MeSeMet or SeMet was observed in some samples. None of these species were major compounds in urine samples-even after massive consumption of selenium-containing supplements. The selenium species in the urine samples showed a limited stability, as they changed during storage at +4 degreesC as well as -18 degreesC.

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