4.8 Article

Direct Quantitative Analysis of Nicotine Alkaloids from Biofluid Samples using Paper Spray Mass Spectrometry

Journal

ANALYTICAL CHEMISTRY
Volume 85, Issue 23, Pages 11540-11544

Publisher

AMER CHEMICAL SOC
DOI: 10.1021/ac402798m

Keywords

-

Funding

  1. National Science Foundation [CHE 0847205]
  2. National Science Foundation Instrumentation Development for Biological Research [DBI 0852740]
  3. National Center for Research Resources [5R21RR031246]
  4. National Institute of General Medical Sciences from the National Institutes of Health [8 R21 GM103454]
  5. Alfred Mann Institute for Biomedical Research at Purdue University
  6. Direct For Mathematical & Physical Scien
  7. Division Of Chemistry [0847205] Funding Source: National Science Foundation

Ask authors/readers for more resources

The determination of tobacco derived nicotine alkaloids in biofluid samples is of great importance to testing for tobacco use, tobacco cessation treatment, and studies on exposure to secondhand smoke. Paper spray mass spectrometry (MS) has been adapted for direct, quantitative analysis of tobacco alkaloids from biofluid samples, such as blood, urine, and saliva in liquid and dried form. Limits of quantitation as low as several nanograms per milliliter were obtained for nicotine, cotinine, trans-3'-hydroxycotinine, and anabasine. Direct analysis of fresh blood samples has also been achieved with improved sensitivity using print paper substrates of high density. Quantitation of the cotinine in the blood of a rat was performed with both direct analysis using paper spray and a traditional analysis protocol using liquid chromatography MS. Comparable results were obtained and the precision of the two methods was similar. The paper spray MS method is rapid and shows potential for significantly improved analytical efficiency in clinical laboratories as well as for point-of-care tobacco use assessment.

Authors

I am an author on this paper
Click your name to claim this paper and add it to your profile.

Reviews

Primary Rating

4.8
Not enough ratings

Secondary Ratings

Novelty
-
Significance
-
Scientific rigor
-
Rate this paper

Recommended

No Data Available
No Data Available