跳转至内容
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
摘要

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.

材料
货号
品牌
产品描述

Sigma-Aldrich
甲苯, ACS reagent, ≥99.5%
Sigma-Aldrich
正己烷, suitable for HPLC, ≥97.0% (GC)
Sigma-Aldrich
甲苯, suitable for HPLC, 99.9%
Sigma-Aldrich
甲苯, HPLC Plus, for HPLC, GC, and residue analysis, ≥99.9%
Sigma-Aldrich
正己烷, ReagentPlus®, ≥99%
Sigma-Aldrich
正己烷, suitable for HPLC, ≥95%
Sigma-Aldrich
环己烷, ACS reagent, ≥99%
Sigma-Aldrich
苯, suitable for HPLC, ≥99.9%
Sigma-Aldrich
苯, ACS reagent, ≥99.0%
Sigma-Aldrich
环己烷, suitable for HPLC, ≥99.9%
Sigma-Aldrich
正己烷, Laboratory Reagent, ≥95%
Sigma-Aldrich
正己烷, puriss. p.a., ACS reagent, reag. Ph. Eur., ≥99% (GC)
Sigma-Aldrich
正己烷, HPLC Plus, for HPLC, GC, and residue analysis, ≥95%
Sigma-Aldrich
邻二甲苯, puriss. p.a., ≥99.0% (GC)
Sigma-Aldrich
甲苯, puriss. p.a., ACS reagent, reag. ISO, reag. Ph. Eur., ≥99.7% (GC)
Sigma-Aldrich
乙酸丁酯, ACS reagent, ≥99.5%
Sigma-Aldrich
环己烷, suitable for HPLC, ≥99.7%
Sigma-Aldrich
乙酸辛酯, ≥99%
Sigma-Aldrich
邻二甲苯, reagent grade, ≥98.0%
Sigma-Aldrich
甲苯, anhydrous, 99.8%
Sigma-Aldrich
环己烷, puriss. p.a., ACS reagent, ≥99.5% (GC)
Sigma-Aldrich
乙酸丁酯, suitable for HPLC, 99.7%
Sigma-Aldrich
苯, puriss. p.a., reag. Ph. Eur., ≥99.7%
Sigma-Aldrich
甲苯, ACS reagent, ≥99.5%
Supelco
苯, analytical standard
Sigma-Aldrich
环己烷, Laboratory Reagent, ≥99.8%
Supelco
邻二甲苯, suitable for HPLC, 98%
Sigma-Aldrich
正己烷, anhydrous, 95%
Sigma-Aldrich
甲苯, Laboratory Reagent, ≥99.3%
Sigma-Aldrich
苯, anhydrous, 99.8%