4.6 Article

Automated determination of ethyl carbamate in stone-fruit spirits using, headspace solid-phase microextraction and gas chromatography-tandem mass spectrometry

Journal

JOURNAL OF CHROMATOGRAPHY A
Volume 1108, Issue 1, Pages 116-120

Publisher

ELSEVIER SCIENCE BV
DOI: 10.1016/j.chroma.2005.12.086

Keywords

solid-phase microextraction (SPME); gas chromatography (GC); tandem mass spectrometry (MS/MS); ethyl carbamate (urethane); stone-fruit spirits

Ask authors/readers for more resources

A fully automated procedure using headspace solid-phase microextraction (HS-SPME) followed by gas chromatographic/tandem mass spectrometric (GC/MS/MS) detection was developed for the determination of the toxic contaminant ethyl carbamate (C) in stone-fruit spirits. After addition of deuterated internal standard, the optimised HS-SPME extraction with carbowax/divinylbenzene fibres (30 min at 70 degrees C) was done applying salting out with sodium chloride in the presence of pH 7 buffer solution. For quantitative analysis the characteristic fragmentations of m/z 74 > 44 and m/z 62 > 44 for ethyl carbamate as well as m/z 64 > 44 for ethyl carbamate-d(5) were monitored in the multiple reaction monitoring (MRM) mode using a triple quadrupole instrument. In the validation studies, ethyl carbamate exhibited good linearity with a regression coefficient of 0.998. The limits of detection and quantitation were 0.03 and 0.11 mg/l. The precision never exceeded 4.3% (intraday) and 8.2% (interday) at any of the concentrations examined. A good agreement of analysis results in comparison to conventional sample clean-up over diatomaceous earth columns was found (R = 0.956, Bias 0.08 mg/l). The new HS-SPME/GC/MS/MS procedure is suitable for the fast. reliable and inexpensive determination of ethyl carbamate in alcoholic beverages in an automated, and therefore, convenient procedure. (c) 2006 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

4.6
Not enough ratings

Secondary Ratings

Novelty
-
Significance
-
Scientific rigor
-
Rate this paper

Recommended

No Data Available
No Data Available