The electromembrane extraction of pharmaceutical compounds from animal tissues

Piskáčková, Hana Bavlovič; Kollárová-Brázdová, Petra; Kučera, Radim; Macháček, Miloslav; Pedersen‐Bjergaard, Stig

doi:10.1016/j.aca.2021.338742

Cited by 6 publications

(2 citation statements)

References 45 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…We expect conventional sample preparation procedures to be replaced by EME to some extent, but most likely EME will be more important in areas where the use of traditional techniques is complicated. This may be in cases where the sample matrix is highly complex, such as with tissue samples 32 ; or in cases where the analytes are very complex molecules, such as with proteins and peptides. Finally, unlike traditional extraction techniques such as liquid–liquid extraction and solid‐phase extraction, EME is perfectly suited for implementation in microchip technologies 33 .…”

Section: Concluding Remarks and Outlookmentioning

confidence: 99%

See 1 more Smart Citation

Conductive vial electromembrane extraction – Principles and practical operation

Schüller

Hansen

Skaalvik

et al. 2023

Analytical Science Advances

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Electromembrane extraction (EME) is a microextraction technique where charged analytes are extracted from an aqueous sample solution, through a liquid membrane, and into an aqueous acceptor, under the influence of an external electric field. The liquid membrane is a few microliters of organic solvent immobilized in a polymeric support membrane. EME is a green technique and provides high selectivity. The selectivity is controlled by the direction and magnitude of the electric field, the chemical composition of the liquid membrane and the pH. Recently, commercial prototype equipment for EME was launched based on the use of conductive vials, and interest in EME is expected to increase. The current article is a tutorial and discusses the principle and practical work with EME. The practical information is related to the commercial prototype equipment but is valid also for other technical configurations of EME. The tutorial is intended to give readers a fundamental understanding of EME, which is required for method development and operation, and for avoiding common pitfalls.

show abstract

Section: Concluding Remarks and Outlookmentioning

confidence: 99%

Section: Concluding Remarks and Outlookmentioning

confidence: 99%

Conductive vial electromembrane extraction – Principles and practical operation

Schüller

Hansen

Skaalvik

et al. 2023

Analytical Science Advances

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

Conductive vial electromembrane extraction of opioids from oral fluid

et al. 2023

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

The use of oral fluid as sample matrix has gained significance in the analysis of drugs of abuse due to its non-invasive nature. In this study, the 13 opioids morphine, oxycodone, codeine, O-desmethyl tramadol, ethylmorphine, tramadol, pethidine, ketobemidone, buprenorphine, fentanyl, cyclopropylfentanyl, etonitazepyne, and methadone were extracted from oral fluid using electromembrane extraction based on conductive vials prior to analysis with ultra-high performance liquid chromatography–tandem mass spectrometry. Oral fluid was collected using Quantisal collection kits. By applying voltage, target analytes were extracted from oral fluid samples diluted with 0.1% formic acid, across a liquid membrane and into a 300 μL 0.1% (v/v) formic acid solution. The liquid membrane comprised 8 μL membrane solvent immobilized in the pores of a flat porous polypropylene membrane. The membrane solvent was a mixture of 6-methylcoumarin, thymol, and 2-nitrophenyloctyl ether. The composition of the membrane solvent was found to be the most important parameter to achieve simultaneous extraction of all target opioids, which had predicted log P values in the range from 0.7 to 5.0. The method was validated in accordance to the guidelines by the European Medical Agency with satisfactory results. Intra- and inter-day precision and bias were within guideline limits of ± 15% for 12 of 13 compounds. Extraction recoveries ranged from 39 to 104% (CV ≤ 23%). Internal standard normalized matrix effects were in the range from 88 to 103% (CV ≤ 5%). Quantitative results of authentic oral fluid samples were in accordance with a routine screening method, and external quality control samples for both hydrophilic and lipophilic compounds were within acceptable limits.

show abstract