4.7 Article

Multiresidue analysis of sulfonamides, quinolones, and tetracyclines in animal tissues by ultra-high performance liquid chromatography-tandem mass spectrometry

Journal

FOOD CHEMISTRY
Volume 204, Issue -, Pages 252-262

Publisher

ELSEVIER SCI LTD
DOI: 10.1016/j.foodchem.2016.02.142

Keywords

Sulfonamides; Quinolones; Tetracyclines; Ultra-high performance liquid chromatography; Tandem mass spectrometry

Funding

  1. Special Fund for Agro-scientific Research in the Public Interest [201203040, 201203069-2]
  2. Chinese Universities Scientific Fund [2015QC076, 2016QC121, 2016DY003]

Ask authors/readers for more resources

A multiresidue method for the efficient identification and quantification of 38 compounds from 3 different classes of antibiotics (tetracyclines, sulfonamides, and quinolones) in animal tissues has been developed. The method optimization involved the selection of extraction solutions, comparison of different solid-phase extraction cartridges and different mobile phases. As a result, the samples were extracted with Mcllvaine and phosphate buffers, followed by clean-up step based on solid-phase extraction with Oasis HLB cartridge. All compounds were determined by ultra-high performance liquid chromatography-tandem mass spectrometry, in one single injection with a chromatographic run time of only 9 min. The method efficiency was evaluated in 5 tissues including muscle, liver, and kidney, and the mean recoveries ranged from 54% to 102%, with inter-day relative standard deviation lower than 14%. The limits of quantification were between 0.5 and 10 mu g/kg, which were satisfactory to support future surveillance monitoring. The developed method was applied to the analysis of swine liver and chicken samples from local markets, and sulfamethazine was the most commonly detected compound in the animal samples, with the highest residue level of 998 mu g/kg. (C) 2016 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.

Authors

I am an author on this paper
Click your name to claim this paper and add it to your profile.

Reviews

Primary Rating

4.7
Not enough ratings

Secondary Ratings

Novelty
-
Significance
-
Scientific rigor
-
Rate this paper

Recommended

No Data Available
No Data Available