4.7 Article

Evaluation of a modified QuEChERS method for analysis of mycotoxins in rice

Journal

FOOD CHEMISTRY
Volume 153, Issue -, Pages 44-51

Publisher

ELSEVIER SCI LTD
DOI: 10.1016/j.foodchem.2013.12.029

Keywords

QuEChERS; Mycotoxin; Foods analysis; Rice; Ultra-high performance liquid chromatography; Tandem mass spectrometry

Funding

  1. Higher Education Research Promotion and National Research University Project of Thailand, Office of the Higher Education Commission [FW648I]
  2. Chulalongkorn University Centenary Academic Development Project [CU56-FW06]
  3. Ratchadaphiseksomphot Endowment Fund of Chulalongkorn University [RES560530019-FW]
  4. Royal Golden jubilee Ph.D. Program [PHD003612550]
  5. TRF Master Research [TRF-MAG-WI525S005]

Ask authors/readers for more resources

A simple and efficient QuEChERS (Quick, Easy, Cheap, Effective, Rugged, and Safe) sample preparation method was modified to provide good analytical results for 14 mycotoxins in rice. The method involved mixing sample with acidified aqueous acetonitrile, followed by salt-out liquid partitioning using MgSO4, NaCI, and citrate buffer salts. The extract was cleaned-up by dispersive solid-phase extraction with MgSO4, PSA, C-18, and alumina-neutral. The analysis was performed using ultra-high performance liquid chromatography coupled to triple-quadrupole tandem mass spectrometry (UHPLC-MS/MS). Throughout the validation experiments, 70-98% overall recoveries were achieved with RSDs 7% for most analytes at concentrations 10-100 mu g kg(-1). Limit of detections were 0.5-15 mu g kg. Inter-laboratory precision was performed by proficiency testing, vertical bar Z vertical bar <= 2 was considered satisfactory. We compared our modified QuEChERS method against sample preparation using an immunoaffinity column; the recovery and specificity were comparable for the two methods, but the QuEChERS approach was more time- and cost-effective. (C) 2013 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