4.5 Article

Analytical aspects in doping control: Challenges and perspectives

期刊

FORENSIC SCIENCE INTERNATIONAL
卷 213, 期 1-3, 页码 49-61

出版社

ELSEVIER IRELAND LTD
DOI: 10.1016/j.forsciint.2011.07.024

关键词

Doping control; Sample preparation; Gas chromatography; Ultra-high pressure liquid chromatography; Mass spectrometry; Proteins and peptides

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Since the first anti-doping tests in the 1960s, the analytical aspects of the testing remain challenging. The evolution of the analytical process in doping control is discussed in this paper with a particular emphasis on separation techniques, such as gas chromatography and liquid chromatography. These approaches are improving in parallel with the requirements of increasing sensitivity and selectivity for detecting prohibited substances in biological samples from athletes. Moreover, fast analyses are mandatory to deal with the growing number of doping control samples and the short response time required during particular sport events. Recent developments in mass spectrometry and the expansion of accurate mass determination has improved anti-doping strategies with the possibility of using elemental composition and isotope patterns for structural identification. These techniques must be able to distinguish equivocally between negative and suspicious samples with no false-negative or false-positive results. Therefore, high degree of reliability must be reached for the identification of major metabolites corresponding to suspected analytes. Along with current trends in pharmaceutical industry the analysis of proteins and peptides remains an important issue in doping control. Sophisticated analytical tools are still mandatory to improve their distinction from endogenous analogs. Finally, indirect approaches will be discussed in the context of anti-doping, in which recent advances are aimed to examine the biological response of a doping agent in a holistic way. (C) 2011 Elsevier Ireland Ltd. 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

4.5
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