Comparison of packed column supercritical fluid chromatography-tandem massspectrometry with liquid chromatography-tandem mass spectrometry for bioanalytical determination of (R)- and (S)-ketoprofen in human plasma followingautomated 96 well solid-phase extraction
Sh. Hoke et al., Comparison of packed column supercritical fluid chromatography-tandem massspectrometry with liquid chromatography-tandem mass spectrometry for bioanalytical determination of (R)- and (S)-ketoprofen in human plasma followingautomated 96 well solid-phase extraction, ANALYT CHEM, 72(17), 2000, pp. 4235-4241
The popularity of packed-column supercritical fluid, subcritical fluid, and
enhanced fluidity liquid chromatographies (pcSFC) for enantiomeric separat
ions has increased steadily over the past few years. The addition of a sign
ificant amount (typically 20-95%) of a viscosity lowering agent, such as ca
rbon dioxide, to the mobile phase provides a number of advantages for chira
l separations. For example, higher mobile-phase now rates can often be atta
ined without a concomitant loss in chromatographic efficiency since diffusi
on coefficients, and optimum velocities, are typically higher in pcSFC, Ult
ratrace enantioselective quantitation of drugs in biomatrixes is an ideal a
pplication for these chromatographic attributes. To demonstrate the utility
of this approach, a pcSFC tandem mass spectrometry (pcSFC-MS/MS) method wa
s compared to a LC-MS/MS method for quantitation of the (R)- and (S)-enanti
omers of ketoprofen (kt), a potent nonsteroidal, anti-inflammatory drug, in
human plasma. After preparation using automated solid-phase extraction in
the 96-well format, kt enantiomers were separated on a Chirex 3005 analytic
al column using isocratic conditions. Validation data and study sample data
from patients dosed with either orally or topically administered ketoprofe
n were Generated using both pcSFC and LC as the chromatographic methods to
compare and contrast these analytical approaches. Generally, most analytica
l attributes, including specificity, linearity, sensitivity, accuracy, prec
ision, and ruggedness, for both of these methods were comparable with the e
xception that the pcSFC separation provided a roughly 3-fold reduction in a
nalysis time. A 2.3-min pcSFC separation and a 6.5-min LC separation provid
ed equivalent, near-baseline-resolved peaks, demonstrating a significant ti
me savings for analysis of large batch pharmacokinetic samples using pcSFC.