4.7 Article

Development and fast screening of salbutamol residues in swine serum by an enzyme-linked immunosorbent assay in Taiwan

期刊

JOURNAL OF AGRICULTURAL AND FOOD CHEMISTRY
卷 56, 期 14, 页码 5494-5499

出版社

AMER CHEMICAL SOC
DOI: 10.1021/jf800625f

关键词

enzymatic methods; immunoassay; beta-agonists; salbutamol; swine serum; enzyme-linked immunosorbent assay (ELISA); residues

向作者/读者索取更多资源

The analysis of salbutamol in swine serum is the more practical basis for large scale surveillance programs in Taiwan. Objectives of the study were to develop a new assay and to compare with a commercially available kit in field test screens. A simple and reliable enzyme-linked immunosorbent assay (ELISA) to monitor the presence of beta-agonist, salbutamol, in 1,358 field samples of swine serum that were collected from local meat markets was described. The method proved to be suitable and sensitive for the detection of beta-agonist residues caused by growth promoting dosage. The limit of detection of the developed ELISA directly performed on diluted serum was 0.25 ng/mL. The application and the results of two ELISA kits (homemade and commercially available) for the screening of salbutamol were presented. For further confirmation, all samples that showed to be ELISA positive for salbutamol residues were analyzed by GC-MS. Adopting 1 ng/mL salbutamol as a cutoff value, the commercial beta-agonist ELISA had a sensitivity of 89.2% and a specificity of 86.7% versus GC-MS at a cutoff of 1 ng/mL. The homemade salbutamol ELISA had a sensitivity of 81.1% and a specificity of 98.6% and gave a low proportion of false-positive rate results. The reliability of the developed kit in terms of the percentage of false-positive rate results is evaluated. In conclusion, a sensitive, specific salbutamol ELISA has been developed that could serve as a rapid screening assay, and the detection of positive samples at the place of sampling can result in more effective control of the illegal use of beta-agonists.

作者

我是这篇论文的作者
点击您的名字以认领此论文并将其添加到您的个人资料中。

评论

主要评分

4.7
评分不足

次要评分

新颖性
-
重要性
-
科学严谨性
-
评价这篇论文

推荐

暂无数据
暂无数据