A comprehensive chromatographic comparison of amphetamine and methylamphetamine extracted from river water using molecular imprinted polymers and without the need for sample derivatization |
| |
| Authors: | Worawit Wongniramaikul Aree Choodum Lynn Dennany Niamh Nic Daeid |
| |
| Institution: | 1. Faculty of Technology and Environment, Prince of Songkla University, Phuket Campus, , Phuket, Thailand;2. Trace Analysis and Biosensor Research Center, Prince of Songkla University, , Hat Yai, Songkhla, Thailand;3. National Center of Excellence for Environmental and Hazardous Waste Management (EHWM)‐Southern Consortium Universities at Prince of Songkla University, , Hat Yai, Songkhla, Thailand;4. Center of Excellence for Innovation in Chemistry, Faculty of Science, Prince of Songkla University, , Hat Yai, Songkhla, Thailand;5. Department of Applied Science, Faculty of Science, Prince of Songkla University, , Hat Yai, Songkhla, Thailand;6. Department of Pure and Applied Chemistry, Centre for Forensic Science, WestCHEM, University of Strathclyde, Royal College, , Glasgow, Scotland, UK |
| |
| Abstract: | This work explores the differences between two GCMS instruments for the determination of amphetamine and methylamphetamine extracted from water samples (ultra pure water and river water) without the necessity for derivatization. The instruments contained different generations of gas chromatograph and mass selective detector components and revealed significantly different results when presented with the same samples. The extraction methodology also compared two SPE systems. The extraction efficiency of commercially available molecular imprinted polymers as a sorbent in SPE was compared with commonly used hydrophilic balance sorbent. Molecular imprinted polymers provided excellent recoveries (81 ± 2% and 108 ± 3% at 30 μg L?1, and 94 ± 2% and 94 ± 2% at 200 μg L?1 for amphetamine and methylamphetamine, respectively). The best LOD obtained was sufficient for the determination of both drugs extracted from river water (0.029 ± 0.003 and 0.015 ± 0.004 μg L?1 for amphetamine and methylamphetamine, respectively). These were comparable to literature values obtained through conventional extraction and analysis using LC‐MS/MS but had the advantage of being achieved using an underivatized GCMS method. |
| |
| Keywords: | Amphetamine Methylamphetamine MIP River water |
|
|
