4.6 Article

New oxidant used for the post-column derivatization determination of Malachite Green and Leucomalachite Green residues in cultured aquatic products by high-performance liquid chromatography

期刊

JOURNAL OF CHROMATOGRAPHY A
卷 1203, 期 1, 页码 21-26

出版社

ELSEVIER
DOI: 10.1016/j.chroma.2008.07.029

关键词

high-performance liquid chromatography; Malachite Green; Leucomalachite Green; post-column derivatization; iodine

资金

  1. National Natural Science Foundation of China [20575082]
  2. Natural Science Foundation of Guangdong Province [7003714]
  3. Scientific Technology Project of Guangdong Province [20051330101003]
  4. Scientific Technology Project of Guangzhou City [2007Z3-E0441]
  5. Ph.D. Programs Foundation of Ministry of Education of China [20070558010]
  6. second phase of 985 project, Sun-Yat-Sen University
  7. Medical Key Program for the 11th Five-year Plan and the Medical Science Foundation of Guangdong Province [A2008084]

向作者/读者索取更多资源

With a new oxidant for post-column chemical derivation, a novel approach was developed for the determination of Malachite Green (MG) and Leucomalachite Green (LMG) in fish by high-performance liquid chromatography (HPLC). A C-8 column was used for separation, and elution was performed with a pH 2.5 phosphate buffer (0.02 mol L-1) containing 40% acetonitrile. When the eluate was combined with 3.0 x 10(-4) mol L-1 iodine solution, LMG was converted to MG and detected at 618 nm after post-column derivatization. The recoveries of MG and LMG were ranged from 67.3% to 73.9% and 84.7% to 92.1%, respectively. which were obtained by measuring the amount Of MG and LMG in the samples with solvent calibration curve. The decision limit (CC alpha) and the detection capability (CC beta) obtained for MG and LMG were in the range of 0.10-0.17 and 0.13-0.23 mu g kg(-1) in grass carp, shrimp and shellfish. This method appeared suitable for the control of MG and LMG residues in aquatic products. (C) 2008 Elsevier B.V. All rights reserved.

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

4.6
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