4.4 Article

A Validated Method for the Sensitive Determination of Macrolide Antibiotics by Capillary Electrophoresis with Electrochemiluminescence Detection and its Applications

期刊

CURRENT ANALYTICAL CHEMISTRY
卷 7, 期 4, 页码 325-332

出版社

BENTHAM SCIENCE PUBL LTD
DOI: 10.2174/157341111797183029

关键词

Capillary electrophoresis; Electrochemiluminescence; Egg; Human urine; Macrolides; Pig fodder

资金

  1. National Natural Science Foundation of China [21075106]
  2. Henan Innovation Project for University Research Talents [2005126]
  3. Natural Science Foundation of Henan Province of China [092300410122]

向作者/读者索取更多资源

A sensitive method for the simultaneous determination of azithromycin (AZI), tilmicosin (TIL), acetylspiramycin (ACE), and roxithromycin (ROX) has been established using capillary electrophoresis (CE) coupled with electrochemiluminescence (ECL) detection. The use of ionic liquid (IL) significantly improved separation efficiency and detection sensitivity. The conditions for CE separation and ECL detection were investigated in detail. Under the optimal conditions, the four macrolides were well separated and detected within 7 min. The limits of detection (LOD, S/N = 3) of AZI, TIL, ACE, and ROX were 1.3 x 10(-9), 2.5 x 10(-9), 2.3 x 10(-8), and 7.0 x 10(-8) mol L-1, respectively. The precisions of the peak area and migration times were from 1.1 to 4.9% and from 1.3 to 2.4% within a day and from 3.3 to 6.0% and from 2.4 to 4.8% in three days. The limits of quantitation (LOQ, S/N = 10) in human urine for AZI, TIL, ACE, and ROX were 9.3 x 10(-8), 1.2 x 10(-7), 7.6 x 10(-7), and 2.1 x 10(-6) mol L-1, respectively. The recoveries of the four analytes at different concentration levels, found in human urine, drug, pig fodder, and egg samples were between 87.4 - 107.9% with relative standard deviations (RSDs) ranging from 1.0 to 7.2%. The developed method has been successfully applied to the determination of AZI, TIL, ACE, and ROX in human urine, tablets, pig fodder, and egg samples.

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

4.4
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