4.5 Article

Screening for illicit and medicinal drugs in whole blood using fully automated SPE and ultra-high-performance liquid chromatography with TOF-MS with data-independent acquisition

期刊

JOURNAL OF SEPARATION SCIENCE
卷 36, 期 13, 页码 2081-2089

出版社

WILEY-V C H VERLAG GMBH
DOI: 10.1002/jssc.201200921

关键词

Designer drugs; Driving under the influence of drugs; Forensic drug screening; UHPLC-TOF-MS with fragmentation; Whole blood

向作者/读者索取更多资源

A broad forensic screening method for 256 analytes in whole blood based on a fully automated SPE robotic extraction and ultra-high-performance liquid chromatography (UHPLC) with TOF-MS with data-independent acquisition has been developed. The limit of identification was evaluated for all 256 compounds and 95 of these compounds were validated with regard to matrix effects, extraction recovery, and process efficiency. The limit of identification ranged from 0.001 to 0.1 mg/kg, and the process efficiency exceeded 50% for 73 of the 95 analytes. As an example of application, 1335 forensic traffic cases were analyzed with the presented screening method. Of these, 992 cases (74%) were positive for one or more traffic-relevant drugs above the Danish legal limits. Commonly abused drugs such as amphetamine, cocaine, and frequent types of benzodiazepines were the major findings. Nineteen less frequently encountered drugs were detected e. g. buprenorphine, butylone, cathine, fentanyl, lysergic acid diethylamide, m-chlorophenylpiperazine, 3,4-methylenedioxypyrovalerone, mephedrone, 4-methylamphetamine, p-fluoroamphetamine, and p-methoxy-N-methylamphetamine. In conclusion, using UHPLC-TOF-MS screening with data-independent acquisition resulted in the detection of common drugs of abuse as well as new designer drugs and more rarely occurring drugs. Thus, TOF-MS screening of blood samples constitutes a practical way for screening traffic cases, with the exception of delta-9-tetrahydrocannabinol, which should be handled in a separate method.

作者

我是这篇论文的作者
点击您的名字以认领此论文并将其添加到您的个人资料中。

评论

主要评分

4.5
评分不足

次要评分

新颖性
-
重要性
-
科学严谨性
-
评价这篇论文

推荐

暂无数据
暂无数据