4.4 Article

A rapid screening LC-MS/MS method based on conventional HPLC pumps for the analysis of low molecular weight xenobiotics: application to doping control analysis

期刊

DRUG TESTING AND ANALYSIS
卷 2, 期 7-8, 页码 311-322

出版社

WILEY
DOI: 10.1002/dta.148

关键词

fused-core particle columns; LC-MS/MS; anti-doping analysis; xenobiotics

资金

  1. Italian Department of Health (Ministero della Salute, Commissione)

向作者/读者索取更多资源

This study presents a fast multi-analyte screening method specifically developed for the detection of xenobiotics in urine. The proposed method allows the screening of several classes of substance in a single chromatographic method with a run-time of 11 min, inclusive of post-run and reconditioning times. Chromatographic separation is achieved in 7.2 min using a reversed-phase 2.7 mu m fused-core particle column, generating a back-pressure not exceeding 400 bar and therefore enabling the use of traditional high performance liquid chromatography (HPLC) instruments. The effectiveness of this approach was evaluated, by liquid-chromatography tandem mass spectrometry (LC-MS/MS) in positive electrospray ionization, using 20 blank urine samples spiked with 45 compounds prohibited in sport: 11 diuretics, 16 glucocorticoids, 9 stimulants, 5 anti-oestrogens, as well as formoterol, carboxy-finasteride (previously prohibited by the World Anti-Doping Agency (WADA) in 2008), gestrinone and tetrahydrogestrinone. Qualitative validation shows the proposed method to be specific with no significant interference. All of the analytes considered in this study were clearly distinguishable in urine, with limits of detection ranging from 5 ng/mL to 350 ng/mL, significantly below the Minimum Required Performance Levels (MRPL) set by WADA for the accredited sports anti-doping laboratories. All compounds of interest were separated, including synthetic and endogenous glucocorticoids with similar retention times and fragmentation patterns. Copyright (C) 2010 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.

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