Vis enkel innførsel

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


Tilhørende fil(er)

Thumbnail

Denne innførselen finnes i følgende samling(er)

Vis enkel innførsel

Navngivelse 4.0 Internasjonal
Med mindre annet er angitt, så er denne innførselen lisensiert som Navngivelse 4.0 Internasjonal