4.4 Article

Modular Method for the Determination of Polycyclic Aromatic Hydrocarbons in Spices and Dried Herbs by Gas Chromatography-Tandem Mass Spectrometry

期刊

FOOD ANALYTICAL METHODS
卷 12, 期 10, 页码 2383-2391

出版社

SPRINGER
DOI: 10.1007/s12161-019-01579-4

关键词

PAHs; Spices; Dried herbs; Gas chromatography; Mass spectrometry

资金

  1. Belgian Federal Agency for the Safety of the Food Chain (AFSCA-FAVV)

向作者/读者索取更多资源

This paper describes a method for quantification of the four regulated polycyclic aromatic hydrocarbons (PAHs), (benzo[a]anthracene [BaA], chrysene [CHR], benzo[b]fluoranthene [BbF] and benzo[a]pyrene [BaP]), in the wide matrix group of spices and dried herbs by gas chromatography-tandem mass spectrometry (GC-MS/MS). The design of this method was drawn up using basic material and equipment available in most laboratories and a modular clean-up fitting for each category of this very diverse matrix group. The clean-up strategy consists of dividing this matrix group into three subclasses: regular spices, highly pigmented matrices and complex mix of spices/fatty spices. Depending on the subclass, SPE sorbent is adapted to remove maximum of co-extracts and to obtain clean samples. This method has a limit of quantification of 0.5 mu g kg(-1) for each PAH and the validation criteria fully satisfied the Commission Regulation (EU) No. 836/2011 (< 0.9 mu g kg(-1)). The quantification performed by isotopic dilution allowed the complete correction of matrix effect and led to very good validation data with a mean recovery close to 100% and a within-laboratory reproducibility below 10% (<= 22% in Regulation (EU) No. 836/2011) for each PAH and for each matrix group at all concentration levels tested. Furthermore, the method's performance characteristics have been successfully assessed using a representative certified reference material for each subclass and at a level close to the MRL: 10 mu g kg(-1) for BaP and 50 mu g kg(-1) for the sum of the 4 PAHs.

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

4.4
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