These tools will no longer be maintained as of December 31, 2024. Archived website can be found here. PubMed4Hh GitHub repository can be found here. Contact NLM Customer Service if you have questions.


Pubmed for Handhelds

PUBMED FOR HANDHELDS

Search MEDLINE/PubMed

  • Title: Direct injection versus liquid-liquid extraction for plasma sample analysis by high performance liquid chromatography with tandem mass spectrometry.
    Author: Jemal M, Huang M, Jiang X, Mao Y, Powell ML.
    Journal: Rapid Commun Mass Spectrom; 1999; 13(21):2125-32. PubMed ID: 10523770.
    Abstract:
    Direct injection versus liquid-liquid extraction for post-dose human plasma sample analysis by high performance liquid chromatography with tandem mass spectrometry (LC/MS/MS) have been studied using a drug candidate compound. For the direct-injection method, an Oasis(R) HLB column (1 x 50 mm, 30 micrometer) was used as the on-line extraction column and a conventional Waters symmetry C18 column (3.9 x 50 mm, 5 micrometer) was used as the analytical column. Each plasma sample (100 microL) was mixed with 100 microL of a working solution of the internal standard in aqueous 0.05 M ammonium acetate (pH 6.9), and portions (10 microL) of these samples were then injected into the LC/MS/MS system. For the liquid-liquid extraction method, a YMC Basic C18 column (2.0 x 50 mm, 5 micrometer) was used as the analytical column. Each sample (0.5 mL) was extracted with methyl tert-butyl ether and the extract was reconstituted and injected into the LC/MS/MS system. The total analysis time for both methods was 2.0 min per sample. The accuracy, inter-day precision and intra-day precision obtained from the quality control samples were within 8% for both methods. The analysis results of post-dose human plasma samples showed that the deviations of 91% of the concentrations obtained using the direct-injection method were within +/-20% from the concentrations obtained using the liquid-liquid extraction method, and the overall average percentage deviation was -1.5%. The results showed that the two methods were equivalent in terms of total chromatographic run time, accuracy and precision. However, for a batch of 100 samples, the sample preparation time for the direct-injection method was only about 25% of the time required for liquid-liquid extraction. This decrease in sample preparation time resulted in the doubling of the overall sample analysis throughput.
    [Abstract] [Full Text] [Related] [New Search]