4.5 Article Proceedings Paper

Capillary zone electrophoresis (CZE) coupled to time-of-flight mass spectrometry (TOF-MS) applied to the analysis of illicit and controlled drugs in blood

期刊

ELECTROPHORESIS
卷 29, 期 19, 页码 4078-4087

出版社

WILEY
DOI: 10.1002/elps.200800087

关键词

Blood analysis; Capillary electrophoresis; Drugs of abuse; Time-of-flight mass spectrometry

向作者/读者索取更多资源

A new method for the determination of illicit and abused drugs in blood by capillary zone electrophoresis-electrospray ionization-time-of-flight mass spectrometry is proposed, in view of its application in clinical and forensic toxicology. The analytes (methamphetamine, methylenedioxyamphetamine, methylenedioxyethylamphetamine, methylenedioxymethamphetamine, methadone, cocaine, morphine, codeine, 6-acethylmorphine, benzoylecgonine) were separated with capillary zone electrophoresis by applying 15 W within 25 min, in an uncoated fused-silica capillary (75 mu m x 100 cm) using a 25 mM ammonium formate electrolyte solution (pH 9.5). The capillary electropherograph was coupled to time-of-flight mass spectrometry through an orthogonal electrospray ionization source, with a coaxial sheath liquid interface. The sheath liquid was composed of isopropanol-water (1:1 v/v) containing 0.5% formic acid delivered at 4 l,mu/min. Forensic drugs were identified by exact mass determination (mass accuracy typically <= 5 ppm) and by matching of the isotopic pattern. Under optimized conditions, linearity was assessed in the range 10-2000 ng/mL, with correlation coefficients between 0.9744 and 0.9982 for all the analytes. LODs were in the range of 2-10 ng/mL (SIN 3) and LOQs of 10-30 ng/mL. The CVs (tested at 40 and 800 ng/mL in biological matrix) were below 2.97% for migration times and below 14.61% for peak area ratios (analyte/internal standard). Blood samples were extracted by using a liquid-liquid extraction procedure and injected under field-amplified sample stacking conditions. The method was successfully applied to real cases.

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

4.5
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