4.7 Article

Target analysis and retrospective screening of veterinary drugs, ergot alkaloids, plant toxins and other undesirable substances in feed using liquid chromatography-high resolution mass spectrometry

Journal

TALANTA
Volume 149, Issue -, Pages 43-52

Publisher

ELSEVIER SCIENCE BV
DOI: 10.1016/j.talanta.2015.11.032

Keywords

Retrospective analysis; Veterinary drugs; Ergot alkaloids; Animal feed; LC-HAMS; Orbitrap

Ask authors/readers for more resources

A comprehensive strategy combining a quantitative method for 77 banned veterinary drugs, mycotoxins, ergot alkaloids and plant toxins, and a post-target screening for 425 substances including pesticides and environmental contaminants in feed were developed using a QuEChERS-based extraction and an ultra-high performance liquid chromatography coupled to high-resolution mass spectrometry (UHPLC-HRMS). The quantitative method was validated after previous statistical optimisation of the main parameters governing ionisation, and presented recoveries ranging, in general, from 80 to 120%, with a precision in terms of Relative Standard Deviation (RSD) lower than 20%. The full-scan accurate mass data were acquired with a resolving power of 50000 FWHM and a mass accuracy lower than 5 ppm. The method LOQ was lower than 12.5 mu g kg(-1) for the majority of the veterinary drugs and plant toxins and 20 mu g kg(-1) for ergot alkaloids. For post-target screening a customised theoretical database including the exact mass, the polarity of acquisition and the expected adducts was built and used for post-run retrospective screening. The analytical strategy was applied to 32 feed samples collected from farms of the Valencia Region (Spain). Florfenicol, zearalenone and atropine were identified and quantified at concentrations around 10 mu g kg(-1). In the post-target screening of the real samples, Sulfadiazine, Thrimetoprin and Pirimiphosmethyl were tentatively identified. (C) 2015 Elsevier B.V. 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