Development of two fully automated quick, easy, cheap, effective, rugged, and safe pretreatment methods for the extraction of psychotropic drugs from whole blood samples
Development of two fully automated quick, easy, cheap, effective, rugged, and safe pretreatment methods for the extraction of psychotropic drugs from whole blood samples
复制标题
DOI：
10.1002/jssc.202200681
复制
发表时间：
2022-12-16
影响因子：
3.1
通讯作者：
Chinaka，Satoshi
中科院分区：
文献类型：
--
作者：
Murakami，Takaya;Ishimaru，Reiko;Chinaka，Satoshi
快速、简单、廉价、有效、坚固且安全的提取策略在各个分析领域越来越多地被采用来测定生物样本中的药物。在本研究中，我们开发了两种全自动快速，简单，廉价，有效，坚固，安全的提取方法，基于乙腈盐析辅助液液萃取（方法1）和乙腈盐析辅助液液萃取，然后使用市售自动液液萃取系统进行分散固相萃取（方法2）。我们应用这些方法从全血样品中提取了14种精神药物（11种苯二氮卓类药物和卡马西平，喹替利嗪和唑吡坦）。在液相色谱-串联质谱分析之前，两种方法均表现出校准曲线的高度线性（相关系数，> 0.9997）、ppt水平检测灵敏度、以及令人满意的精密度（< 8.6%相对标准偏差）、准确度（± 16%相对误差内）和基质效应（81-111%）。方法1的回收率（80-91%）高于方法2（72-86%），而方法2的检测灵敏度（检测限，0.003-0.094 ng/mL）高于方法1（0.025-0.47 ng/mL），因为其分散固相萃取净化步骤有效。这些全自动提取方法实现了从全血样本中可靠、省力、用户友好和卫生地提取目标分析物。
Quick, easy, cheap, effective, rugged, and safe extraction strategies are becoming increasingly adopted in various analytical fields to determine drugs in biological specimens. In the present study, we developed two fully automated quick, easy, cheap, effective, rugged, and safe extraction methods based on acetonitrile salting‐out assisted liquid‐liquid extraction (method 1) and acetonitrile salting‐out assisted liquid‐liquid extraction followed by dispersive solid‐phase extraction (method 2) using a commercially available automated liquid‐liquid extraction system. We applied these methods to the extraction of 14 psychotropic drugs (11 benzodiazepines and carbamazepine, quetiapine, and zolpidem) from whole blood samples. Both methods prior to liquid chromatography–tandem mass spectrometry analysis exhibited high linearity of calibration curves (correlation coefficients, > 0.9997), ppt level detection sensitivities, and satisfactory precisions (< 8.6% relative standard deviation), accuracies (within ± 16% relative error), and matrix effects (81–111%). Method 1 provided higher recovery rates (80–91%) than method 2 (72–86%), whereas method 2 provided higher detection sensitivities (limits of detection, 0.003–0.094 ng/mL) than method 1 (0.025–0.47 ng/mL) owing to the effectiveness of its dispersive solid‐phase extraction cleanup step. These fully automated extraction methods realize reliable, labor‐saving, user‐friendly, and hygienic extraction of target analytes from whole blood samples.