2023
DOI: 10.1039/d3ay01298k
|View full text |Cite
|
Sign up to set email alerts
|

Detection of coca alkaloids in oral fluid from coca leaf (tea) consumers: using solid phase extraction to improve validation parameters and widen the detection window

I. Álvarez-Freire,
P. Cabarcos-Fernández,
N. C. Rubio
et al.

Abstract: Hygrine and Cuscohydrine, two coca leaf alkaloids, have been previously proposed as markers to differentiate legal and illegal cocaine consumption. This is a very common problem in some countries of...

Help me understand this report

Search citation statements

Order By: Relevance

Paper Sections

Select...
3
1

Citation Types

0
4
0

Year Published

2024
2024
2024
2024

Publication Types

Select...
2

Relationship

1
1

Authors

Journals

citations
Cited by 2 publications
(4 citation statements)
references
References 19 publications
0
4
0
Order By: Relevance
“…We found no information regarding other analytes such as TRO, t-CIN, EME, and CUS in oral fluid subjected to GC-MS analysis, and this was also true for when the samples were collected by drooling or the use of the Quantisal ® device. Our findings show improved LOD and LOQ values for COC, TRO, t-CIN, EME, and CUS pertaining to when oral fluid samples were collected by drooling, followed by SPE (Oasis ® HLB extraction cartridge) and liquid chromatography-tandem mass spectrometry (LC-MS/MS) analysis [22]. We can speculate that the poor results obtained with the use of the Quantisal ® device are due to the fact that EME and CUS are more polar alkaloids than TRO, COC, and t-CIN, and they were more likely to be retained on the Quantisal ® pad (moreover possible interferences from the Quantisal ® buffer).…”
Section: Experimental Part 3: Process Efficiency or Apparent Recovery...mentioning
confidence: 80%
See 3 more Smart Citations
“…We found no information regarding other analytes such as TRO, t-CIN, EME, and CUS in oral fluid subjected to GC-MS analysis, and this was also true for when the samples were collected by drooling or the use of the Quantisal ® device. Our findings show improved LOD and LOQ values for COC, TRO, t-CIN, EME, and CUS pertaining to when oral fluid samples were collected by drooling, followed by SPE (Oasis ® HLB extraction cartridge) and liquid chromatography-tandem mass spectrometry (LC-MS/MS) analysis [22]. We can speculate that the poor results obtained with the use of the Quantisal ® device are due to the fact that EME and CUS are more polar alkaloids than TRO, COC, and t-CIN, and they were more likely to be retained on the Quantisal ® pad (moreover possible interferences from the Quantisal ® buffer).…”
Section: Experimental Part 3: Process Efficiency or Apparent Recovery...mentioning
confidence: 80%
“…The CUS and EME concentrations at 500 ng/mL showed recoveries of 90%. Concentrations at 500 ng/mL and higher are typically found in oral fluid contaminated with coca leaves or coca tea [ 4 , 21 , 22 ]. TRO, COC, and t-CIN showed recoveries from the pad close to 50% when the absolute areas were used, while recoveries higher than 90% were obtained using the IS approach (R(n) in Table 3 .…”
Section: Discussionmentioning
confidence: 99%
See 2 more Smart Citations