4.7 Article

A sensitive and selective direct competitive enzyme-linked immunosorbent assay for fast detection of Sudan I in food samples

期刊

JOURNAL OF THE SCIENCE OF FOOD AND AGRICULTURE
卷 91, 期 10, 页码 1836-1842

出版社

WILEY
DOI: 10.1002/jsfa.4392

关键词

Sudan I; dc-ELISA; enzyme tracer; monoclonal antibody; food samples; HPLC

资金

  1. National Natural Science Foundation of China (NSFC) [20675054]

向作者/读者索取更多资源

BACKGROUND: Sudan I, a synthetic azo dye, is considered to be a genotoxic carcinogen and is prohibited in foodstuffs for any purpose at any level worldwide. In this study, a sensitive and specific direct competitive enzyme-linked immunosorbent assay (dc-ELISA) for fast detection of Sudan I in food samples was developed for the first time. The monoclonal antibody against Sudan I was used as capture protein, while horseradish peroxidase labeled Sudan I conjugate prepared by the periodate method via ovalbumin (OVA) as a bridge was used as enzyme tracer. RESULTS: The standard curve of dc-ELISA for Sudan I was constructed in the range 0.1-100 ng mL(-1) and the assay time was within 80 min. Sensitivity was 2.6 ng mL(-1) and the limit of detection was 0.08 ng mL-1. Cross-reactivity values of the assay with Sudan II, III and IV were 5.78%, 1.72% and 0.64%; no cross-reactivity was found with six other edible colorants. The assay was tolerated to 30% of methanol and 10% of acetonitrile without significant loss of IC50. Recoveries of spiked Sudan I in five different samples including chilli powder, tomato sauce, hotpot seasoning and chilli sauce I and II were within 88.4-113.2% and the intra-assay relative standard deviation was less than 14%. The dc-ELISA was confirmed by conventional high-performance liquid chromatography and the correlation coefficient of the two methods was 0.9902. CONCLUSION: The proposed dc-ELISA method provides an alternative method for sensitive, specific and fast determination of Sudan I in food samples. (C) 2011 Society of Chemical Industry

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