4.7 Article

Simple assay for analyzing five microcystins and nodularin in fish muscle tissue:: Hot water extraction followed by liquid chromatography-tandem mass spectrometry

Journal

JOURNAL OF AGRICULTURAL AND FOOD CHEMISTRY
Volume 53, Issue 17, Pages 6586-6592

Publisher

AMER CHEMICAL SOC
DOI: 10.1021/jf050257m

Keywords

microcystins; nodularin; cyanotoxins; fish; muscle tissue; LC-MS/MS

Ask authors/readers for more resources

A simple, specific, and sensitive procedure for determining six cyanotoxins, that is, microcystins FIR, LR, YR, LA, and LW and nodularin, in fish muscle tissue is presented. This method is based on the matrix solid-phase dispersion technique with heated water as extractant followed by liquid chromatography (LC)-tandem mass spectrometry (MS) equipped with an electrospray ion source. Target compounds were extracted from tissue by 4 mL of water acidified to pH 2 and heated at 80 degrees C. After acidification and filtration, 0.2 mL of the aqueous extract was injected in the LC column. MS data acquisition was performed in the multireaction monitoring mode, with at least two precursor ion > product ion transitions selected for each target compound. Analyte recovery ranged between 61 and 82% and was not substantially affected by either the analyte concentrations or the type of fish. The nonexcellent recovery of some of the microcystins was traced to binding of these compounds to protein phosphatases in fish tissue occurring during sample treatment. The existence of covalently bound microcystins in fish has been evidenced by several studies. Compared to an older sample preparation procedure, this one extracted larger amounts of the analytes in a simpler and much more rapid way. On the basis of a signal-to-noise ratio of 10, limits of quantification were estimated to range between 1.6 and 4.0 ng/g. The effects of temperature and volume of the extractant on the analyte recovery were studied.

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