Show simple item record

dc.contributor.authorSkaalvik, Tonje Gottenberg
dc.contributor.authorØiestad, Elisabeth Leere
dc.contributor.authorPedersen-Bjergaard, Stig
dc.contributor.authorHegstad, Solfrid
dc.date.accessioned2024-09-02T13:07:54Z
dc.date.available2024-09-02T13:07:54Z
dc.date.created2023-06-02T13:12:33Z
dc.date.issued2023
dc.identifier.citationDrug Testing and Analysis. 2023, 15 (8), 909-918.en_US
dc.identifier.issn1942-7603
dc.identifier.urihttps://hdl.handle.net/11250/3149707
dc.description.abstractSeparation and quantification of amphetamine enantiomers are commonly used to distinguish between consumption of prescription amphetamine (mostly S ‐amphetamine) and illicit forms of the drug (racemate). In this study, electromembrane extraction with prototype conductive vials was combined with ultra‐high performance supercritical fluid chromatography (UHPSFC‐MS/MS) to quantify R ‐ and S ‐amphetamine in urine. Amphetamine was extracted from 100 μL urine, diluted with 25 μL internal standard solution and 175 μL 130 mM formic acid, across a supported liquid membrane (SLM) consisting of 9 μL of a 1:1(w/w) mixture of 2‐nitrophenyloctyl ether (NPOE) and bis(2‐ethylhexyl)phosphite (DEHPi) into an acceptor phase containing 300 μL 130 mM formic acid. The extraction was facilitated by the application of 30 V for 15 min. Enantiomeric separation was achieved using UHPSFC‐MS/MS with a chiral stationary phase. The calibration range was 50–10,000 ng/mL for each enantiomer. The between‐assay CV was ≤5%, within‐assay CV ≤ 1.5%, and bias within ±2%. Recoveries were 83%–90% (CV ≤ 6%), and internal standard corrected matrix effects were 99–105 (CV ≤ 2%). The matrix effects ranged from 96% to 98% (CV ≤ 8%) when not corrected by the internal standard. The EME method was compared with a chiral routine method that employed liquid–liquid extraction (LLE) for sample preparation. Assay results were in agreement with the routine method, and the mean deviation between methods was 3%, ranging from −21% to 31%. Finally, sample preparation greenness was assessed using the AGREEprep tool, which resulted in a greenness score of 0.54 for conductive vial EME, opposed to 0.47 for semi‐automated 96‐well LLE.en_US
dc.language.isoengen_US
dc.publisherWileyen_US
dc.rightsNavngivelse 4.0 Internasjonal*
dc.rights.urihttp://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/deed.no*
dc.titleDetermination of amphetamine enantiomers in urine by conductive vial electromembrane extraction and ultra-high performance supercritical fluid chromatography tandem mass spectrometryen_US
dc.title.alternativeDetermination of amphetamine enantiomers in urine by conductive vial electromembrane extraction and ultra-high performance supercritical fluid chromatography tandem mass spectrometryen_US
dc.typePeer revieweden_US
dc.typeJournal articleen_US
dc.description.versionpublishedVersionen_US
dc.source.pagenumber909-918en_US
dc.source.volume15en_US
dc.source.journalDrug Testing and Analysisen_US
dc.identifier.doi10.1002/dta.3487
dc.identifier.cristin2151227
cristin.ispublishedtrue
cristin.fulltextoriginal
cristin.qualitycode1


Files in this item

Thumbnail

This item appears in the following Collection(s)

Show simple item record

Navngivelse 4.0 Internasjonal
Except where otherwise noted, this item's license is described as Navngivelse 4.0 Internasjonal