4.6 Article

Simple and sensitive monitoring of sulfonamide veterinary residues in milk by stir bar sorptive extraction based on monolithic material and high performance liquid chromatography analysis

期刊

JOURNAL OF CHROMATOGRAPHY A
卷 1216, 期 46, 页码 8240-8245

出版社

ELSEVIER SCIENCE BV
DOI: 10.1016/j.chroma.2009.05.031

关键词

Stir bar sorptive extraction; Monolithic material; HPLC/DAD; Poly (vinylimidazole-divinylbenzene); Sulfonamide antibacterial; Milk

资金

  1. National Nature Science Foundation of China [20805039]
  2. Youth Talent Foundation of Fujian Province [2006F3117]
  3. Innovation Foundation of Xiamen University [XDKJCX20063007]

向作者/读者索取更多资源

A simple, rapid, and sensitive method for the quantitative monitoring of five sulfonamide antibacterial residues (SAs) in milk was developed by stir bar sorptive extraction (SBSE) coupling to high performance liquid chromatography with diode array detection. The analytes were concentrated by SBSE based on poly (vinylinlidazole-divinylbenzene) monolithic material as coating. The extraction procedure was very simple, milk was diluted with water then directly sorptive extraction without elimination of fats and protein in samples was required. To achieve optimum extraction performance for SAs, several parameters, including extraction and desorption time, desorption solvent, ionic strength and pH value of sample matrix were investigated. Under the optimized experimental conditions, low detection limits (S/N = 3) quantification limits (S/N = 10) of the proposed method for the target compounds were achieved within the range of 1.30-7.90 ng/mL and 4.29-26.3 ng/mL from spiked milk, respectively. Good linearities were obtained for SAs with the correlation coefficients (R-2) above 0.996. Finally, the proposed method was successfully applied to the determination of SAs compounds in different milk samples and satisfied recoveries of spiked target compounds in real samples were obtained. (C) 2009 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