English (United Kingdom)

https://curated-unify.zendy.io/wp-json/zendy-region/v1/featured_content/oa?rat=en

https://curated-unify.zendy.io/wp-json/zendy-region/v1/highlighted_journal/

Global: Zendy Tools annual

Presents the keyphrase highlighting as premium feature

Keyphrase Highlighting

Presents the summarisation as premium feature

Summarisation

Insights

Presents the pdf analysis as premium feature

PDF Analysis

Presents the zaia usage as premium feature

ZAIA

Global: Zendy Tools monthly

Global: Zendy Plus monthly

Presents the access of premium content as premium feature

Premium Content

Global: Zendy Plus annual

Global: Zendy Free Plan

We read carefully the very interesting article by Jones et al. (1), which appears in the latest issue of the Journal. To our surprise, we realized that, during the determination of opiates in blood, although the described derivatization procedure involves BSTFA, the authors use, for their qualitative and quantitative analysis, mass fragments that correspond to their pentafluoroderivatives and the respective pentafluorodeuterated internal standards [m/z 414/417 (qualifier ions 361 and 577) for morphine, m/z 445/448 (qualifier ion 282) for codeine, m/z 414/417 (qualifying ions 361 and 473) for 6-AM, and m/z 459/448 (qualifier 296 and 430) for ethyl morphine]. Nevertheless, for the determination of 6-AM in urine, the correct mass-to-charge ratio of the 6-AM trimethylsilylester derivative was used (399/402). This mistake should be corrected as it is a significant flaw in an otherwise excellent article.

journal of analytical toxicology.

Error in the Article: "Driving Under the Influence of Opiates: Concentration Relationships Between Morphine, Codeine, 6-Acetyl Morphine, and Ethyl Morphine in Blood"