4.6 Article Proceedings Paper

Dispersive liquid-liquid microextraction for the determination of macrocyclic lactones in milk by liquid chromatography with diode array detection and atmospheric pressure chemical ionization ion-trap tandem mass spectrometry

期刊

JOURNAL OF CHROMATOGRAPHY A
卷 1282, 期 -, 页码 20-26

出版社

ELSEVIER SCIENCE BV
DOI: 10.1016/j.chroma.2013.01.086

关键词

Endectocides; Avermectins; Antihelminthics; Milk; Dispersive liquid-liquid microextraction (DLLME); LC-MS/MS

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Eprinomectin (EPRI), abamectin (ABA), doramectin (DOR), moxidectin (MOX) and ivermectin (IVM) were determined in milk samples using dispersive liquid-liquid microextraction (DLLME) and liquid chromatography with diode array detection (LC-DAD) coupled to atmospheric pressure chemical ionization in negative ion mode ion-trap tandem mass spectrometry (APCI-IT-MS/MS). Milk proteins were removed by precipitation with trichloroacetic acid and the analytes were preconcentrated using 2 mL of acetonitrile containing 200 mu L of chloroform as extraction mixture. The effect of several parameters for the liquid-liquid microextraction efficiency was evaluated. Standard additions method was used for quantification purposes, the correlation coefficients were better than 0.9970 in all cases and the quantification limits ranged from 1.0 to 4.7 ngg(-1) and from 0.1 to 2.4 ngg(-1) when using DAD and MS, respectively. The DLLME-LC-APCI-IT-MS/MS optimized method was successfully applied to different milk samples and none of the studied analytes was detected in the samples studied. The recoveries for milk samples spiked at concentration levels ranging between 0.5 and 50 ngg(-1), depending on the compound, were between 89.5 and 105%, with relative standard deviations lower than 9% (n = 135). Simplicity, rapidity and reliability are important advantages of the proposed method, while the sample preparation step can be regarded as environmentally friendly. (C) 2013 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