ArticleRapid communications in mass spectrometry : RCM2017
Polymer-spray mass spectrometric detection and quantitation of hydrophilic compounds and some narcotics.
Article in Rapid communications in mass spectrometry : RCM, 2017. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 6 papers.
What it found
Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.
The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.
The trial behind it
Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
6 citing papers in PubMed.
- Paper Spray Mass Spectrometry with On-Paper Electrokinetic Manipulations: Part-Per-Trillion Detection of Per/Polyfluoroalkyl Substances in Water and Opioids in Urine.Angewandte Chemie (International ed. in English) · 2024Article
- Distinguishing between Isobaric Ions Using Microdroplet Hydrogen-Deuterium Exchange Mass Spectrometry.Metabolites · 2021Article
- Applications of ambient ionization mass spectrometry in 2020: An annual review.Analytical science advances · 2021Review
- Introducing Nafion forFrontiers in chemistry · 2021Article
- Emerging trends in paper spray mass spectrometry: Microsampling, storage, direct analysis, and applications.Mass spectrometry reviews · 2020Review
- Ambient Ionization Mass Spectrometry: Recent Developments and Applications.Analytical chemistry · 2019Review
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
2 authors.
Funding
Abstract
rationaleHigh-throughput screening of biofluids is essential in monitoring concentration of a variety of drugs to determine their efficacy and toxicity. Organosiloxane polymers prepared by sol-gel chemistry as sample supports, and electrospray ionization emitters in a single material and as an alternative to paper substrates, is described in this study.
methodsHydrophobic drugs and hydrophilic streptomycin were analyzed by polymer-spray mass spectrometry with an LTQ-Orbitrap mass spectrometer. Drug samples in urine (1-2 μL) were deposited on an OSX polymer, allowed to dry, then electrosprayed from the polymer tip into the mass spectrometer without sample pretreatment. The OSX polymers, whose polarity and porosity can be controlled, were prepared by sol-gel chemistry where methyl-substituted alkoxysilanes were hydrolyzed in the presence of a pore template and an acid catalyst.
resultsFive nanograms each of seven narcotic drugs were detected in <1 min (relative standard deviation (RSD) of response <1% for each drug). Calibration curves of cocaine and streptomycin in urine were used to establish the performance of the polymer. For sample 1 (n = 2), the mean recovery for cocaine was 81% with paper and 90% with polymer. Streptomycin is detected with polymer, not with paper; for samples 1 and 2 (n = 3), mean recovery was 97% and 95%, respectively.
conclusionsOrganosiloxane polymers achieve more sensitive analysis than paper, allowing for more accurate quantitation of both hydrophobic and hydrophilic drug compounds. The ability to tailor the polymer polarity and porosity allows for the synthesis of a wide range of polymers, and thus opens many possibilities for further development and applications.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.