Skip to Content
Merck
  • 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
ABSTRACT

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.

MATERIALS
Product Number
Brand
Product Description

Supelco
Cyclohexane, analytical standard
Supelco
Butyl acetate, analytical standard
Sigma-Aldrich
Butyl acetate, natural, ≥98%, FG
Sigma-Aldrich
Butyl acetate, ≥99%, FCC, FG
Sigma-Aldrich
Cyclohexane, anhydrous, 99.5%
Sigma-Aldrich
Butyl acetate, anhydrous, ≥99%
Sigma-Aldrich
Rhein
Supelco
Butyl acetate, Pharmaceutical Secondary Standard; Certified Reference Material
Sigma-Aldrich
Butyl acetate, ACS reagent, ≥99.5%
Sigma-Aldrich
Rhein, technical grade
Sigma-Aldrich
Butyl acetate, ReagentPlus®, 99.5%
Sigma-Aldrich
Cyclohexane, suitable for HPLC, ≥99.7%
Sigma-Aldrich
Cyclohexane, Laboratory Reagent, ≥99.8%
Sigma-Aldrich
Cyclohexane, ACS reagent, ≥99%
Sigma-Aldrich
Cyclohexane, puriss. p.a., ACS reagent, ≥99.5% (GC)
Sigma-Aldrich
Cyclohexane, suitable for HPLC, ≥99.9%
Sigma-Aldrich
Butyl acetate, suitable for HPLC, 99.7%
Sigma-Aldrich
Cyclohexane, ACS reagent, ≥99%
Supelco
o-Xylene, analytical standard
Sigma-Aldrich
1-(2-Methoxyphenyl)piperazine, 98%
Sigma-Aldrich
o-Xylene, anhydrous, 97%
Sigma-Aldrich
Octyl acetate, ≥99%
Supelco
Benzene, analytical standard
Supelco
Cyclohexanone, Selectophore, ≥99.5%
Sigma-Aldrich
Hexane, anhydrous, 95%
Sigma-Aldrich
Benzene, anhydrous, 99.8%
Supelco
Toluene, analytical standard
Supelco
Hexane, analytical standard
Supelco
Cyclohexanone, analytical standard
Sigma-Aldrich
Cyclohexanone, 99.8%