4.7 Article

Drugs of abuse screening in urine as part of a metabolite-based LC-MSn screening concept

期刊

ANALYTICAL AND BIOANALYTICAL CHEMISTRY
卷 400, 期 10, 页码 3481-3489

出版社

SPRINGER HEIDELBERG
DOI: 10.1007/s00216-011-5032-1

关键词

Urine; Screening; LC-MS; Library; Metabolite; Drugs of abuse

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Today, immunoassays and several chromatographic methods are in use for drug screening in clinical and forensic toxicology and in doping control. For further proof of the authors' new metabolite-based liquid chromatography-mass spectrometry (LC-MSn) screening concept, the detectability of drugs of abuse and their metabolites using this screening approach was studied. As previously reported, the corresponding reference library was built up with MS2 and MS3 wideband spectra using a LXQ linear ion trap with electrospray ionization in the positive mode and full scan information-dependent acquisition. In addition to the parent drug spectra recorded in methanolic solution, metabolite spectra were identified after protein precipitation of urine from rats after administration of the corresponding drugs and added to the library. This consists now of data of over 900 parent compounds, including 87 drugs of abuse, and of over 2,300 metabolites and artifacts, among them 436 of drugs of abuse. Recovery, process efficiency, matrix effects, and limits of detection for selected drugs of abuse were determined using spiked human urine, and the resulting data have been acceptable. Using two automatic data evaluation tools (ToxID and SmileMS), the intake of 54 of the studied drugs of abuse could be confirmed in urine samples of drug users after protein precipitation and LC separation. The following drugs classes were covered: stimulants, designer drugs, hallucinogens, (synthetic) cannabinoids, opioids, and selected benzodiazepines. The presented LC-MSn method complements the well-established gas chromatography-mass spectroscopy procedure in the authors' laboratory.

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

4.7
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