4.7 Article

Broad screening and identification of β-agonists in feed and animal body fluid and tissues using ultra-high performance liquid chromatography-quadrupole-orbitrap high resolution mass spectrometry combined with spectra library search

期刊

FOOD CHEMISTRY
卷 192, 期 -, 页码 188-196

出版社

ELSEVIER SCI LTD
DOI: 10.1016/j.foodchem.2015.06.104

关键词

beta-Agonists; Animal body fluid and tissues; Identification; UHPLC-Q-Orbitrap HRMS; Spectra library

资金

  1. Special Fund for Agro Scientific Research in the Public Interest [201203088]
  2. National Natural Science Foundation of China [31170343]

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Broad screening and identification of beta-agonists in feed, serum, urine, muscle and liver samples was achieved in a quick and highly sensitive manner using ultra high performance liquid chromatogra phy-quadrupole-orbitrap high resolution mass spectrometry (UHPLC-Q-Orbitrap HRMS) combined with a spectra library search. Solid-phase extraction technology was employed for sample purification and enrichment. After extraction and purification, the samples were analyzed using a Q-Orbitrap high-resolution mass spectrometer under full-scan and data-dependent MS/MS mode. The acquired mass spectra were compared with an in-house library (compound library and MS/MS mass spectral library) built with TraceFinder Software which contained the M/Z of the precursor ion, chemical formula, retention time, character fragment ions and the entire MS/MS spectra of 32 beta-agonist standards. Screening was achieved by comparing 5 key mass spectral results and positive matches were marked. Using the developed method, the identification results from 10 spiked samples and 238 actual samples indicated that only 2% of acquired mass spectra produced false identities. The method validation results showed that the limit of detection ranged from 0.021-3.854 mu g kg(-1) and 0.015-1.198 ng mL(-1) for solid and liquid samples, respectively. (C) 2015 Elsevier Ltd. 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

4.7
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