Erratum to “Development and Validation of a LC/MS/MS Method for the Determination of Duloxetine in Human Plasma and Its Application to Pharmacokinetic Study”
Table 2
Absolute matrix effect, relative recovery, and process efficiency for duloxetine.
Analyte
(%CV)
(%CV)
(%CV)
Matrix effect (%ME)d
Recovery (%RE)e
Process efficiency (%PE)f
ISTD
STD 1
Duloxetine
170 (4.86)
160 (3.75)
136 (4.32)
94.23
85.40
80.47
Fluoxetine
106783 (2.34)
96545 (2.99)
81421 (1.32)
90.41
84.34
76.25
STD 3
Duloxetine
708 (3.23)
739 (4.13)
575 (1.22)
104.38
77.77
81.18
Fluoxetine
104735 (1.31)
108227 (1.56)
81902 (1.80)
103.33
75.68
78.20
STD 5
Duloxetine
57893 (1.74)
57170 (1.69)
45749 (0.96)
98.75
80.02
79.02
Fluoxetine
100839 (1.94)
98731 (1.65)
82613 (0.68)
97.91
83.67
81.93
STD 6
Duloxetine
174918 (1.09)
172409 (1.24)
138067 (1.01)
98.57
80.08
78.93
Fluoxetine
95399 (1.53)
94770 (1.56)
76090 (1.07)
99.34
80.29
79.76
STD 8
Duloxetine
349836 (1.09)
344817 (1.24)
269986 (6.06)
98.57
78.30
77.18
Fluoxetine
85599 (1.61)
87554 (2.23)
71346 (0.67)
102.28
81.49
83.35
aMean area response of six replicate samples prepared in mobile phase (neat samples).
bMean area response of six replicate samples prepared by spiking in postextracted blank.
cMean area response of six replicate samples prepared by spiking in plasma before extraction.
d% Matrix effect: postextracted mean response/aqueous neat mean response × 100.
e% Recovery: extracted mean response/postextracted mean response × 100.
f% Process efficiency: extracted mean response/aqueous mean response × 100.
