Accéder au contenu
MilliporeSigma
  • Comparison of hollow fiber liquid-phase microextraction and ultrasound-assisted low-density solvent dispersive liquid-liquid microextraction for the determination of drugs of abuse in biological samples by gas chromatography-mass spectrometry.

Comparison of hollow fiber liquid-phase microextraction and ultrasound-assisted low-density solvent dispersive liquid-liquid microextraction for the determination of drugs of abuse in biological samples by gas chromatography-mass spectrometry.

Journal of chromatography. B, Analytical technologies in the biomedical and life sciences (2015-03-25)
Liang Meng, Wenwen Zhang, Pinjia Meng, Binling Zhu, Kefang Zheng
RÉSUMÉ

Two microextraction techniques based on hollow fiber liquid-phase microextraction (HF-LPME) and ultrasound-assisted low-density solvent dispersive liquid-liquid microextraction (UA-LDS-DLLME) had been applied for the determination of drugs of abuse (methamphetamine, amphetamine, 3,4-methylenedioxymethamphetamine, 3,4-methylenedioxyamphetamine, methcathinone, ketamine, meperidine, and methadone) in urine and blood samples by gas chromatography-mass spectrometry. Parameters affecting extraction efficiency have been investigated and optimized for both methods. Under the optimum conditions, linearities were observed for all analytes in the range 0.0030-10 μg/ml with the correlation coefficient (R) ranging from 0.9985 to 0.9995 for HF-LPME and in the range 0.0030-10 μg/ml with the R ranging from 0.9985 to 0.9994 for DLLME. The recovery of 79.3-98.6% with RSDs of 1.2-4.5% was obtained for HF-LPME, and the recovery of 79.3-103.4% with RSDs of 2.4-5.7% was obtained for DLLME. The LODs (S/N=3) were estimated to be in the range from 0.5 to 5 ng/ml and 0.5 to 4 ng/ml, respectively. Compared with HF-LPME, the UA-LDS-DLLME technique had the advantages of less extraction time, suitability for batches of sample pretreatment simultaneously, and higher extraction efficiency, while HF-LPME has excellent sample clean-up effect, and is a robust and suitable technique for various sample matrices with better repeatability. Both methods were successfully applied to the analysis of drugs of abuse in real human blood sample.

MATÉRIAUX
Référence du produit
Marque
Description du produit

Sigma-Aldrich
Toluène, ACS reagent, ≥99.5%
Sigma-Aldrich
Hexane, suitable for HPLC, ≥97.0% (GC)
Sigma-Aldrich
Toluène, suitable for HPLC, 99.9%
Sigma-Aldrich
Toluène, HPLC Plus, for HPLC, GC, and residue analysis, ≥99.9%
Sigma-Aldrich
Hexane, ReagentPlus®, ≥99%
Sigma-Aldrich
Hexane, suitable for HPLC, ≥95%
Sigma-Aldrich
Cyclohexane, ACS reagent, ≥99%
Sigma-Aldrich
Benzène, suitable for HPLC, ≥99.9%
Sigma-Aldrich
Benzène, ACS reagent, ≥99.0%
Sigma-Aldrich
Cyclohexane, suitable for HPLC, ≥99.9%
Sigma-Aldrich
Hexane, Laboratory Reagent, ≥95%
Sigma-Aldrich
Hexane, puriss. p.a., ACS reagent, reag. Ph. Eur., ≥99% (GC)
Sigma-Aldrich
Hexane, HPLC Plus, for HPLC, GC, and residue analysis, ≥95%
Sigma-Aldrich
o-xylène, puriss. p.a., ≥99.0% (GC)
Sigma-Aldrich
Toluène, puriss. p.a., ACS reagent, reag. ISO, reag. Ph. Eur., ≥99.7% (GC)
Sigma-Aldrich
Butyl acetate, ACS reagent, ≥99.5%
Sigma-Aldrich
Cyclohexane, suitable for HPLC, ≥99.7%
Sigma-Aldrich
Octyl acetate, ≥99%
Sigma-Aldrich
o-xylène, reagent grade, ≥98.0%
Sigma-Aldrich
Toluène, anhydrous, 99.8%
Sigma-Aldrich
Cyclohexane, puriss. p.a., ACS reagent, ≥99.5% (GC)
Sigma-Aldrich
Butyl acetate, suitable for HPLC, 99.7%
Sigma-Aldrich
Benzène, puriss. p.a., reag. Ph. Eur., ≥99.7%
Sigma-Aldrich
Toluène, ACS reagent, ≥99.5%
Supelco
Benzène, analytical standard
Sigma-Aldrich
Cyclohexane, Laboratory Reagent, ≥99.8%
Supelco
o-xylène, suitable for HPLC, 98%
Sigma-Aldrich
Hexane, anhydrous, 95%
Sigma-Aldrich
Toluène, Laboratory Reagent, ≥99.3%
Sigma-Aldrich
Benzène, anhydrous, 99.8%