4.6 Article

A fast and sensitive detection of low-level chloramphenicol in food samples using the IMS/homogenizer assisted DLPME combination

期刊

出版社

ACADEMIC PRESS INC ELSEVIER SCIENCE
DOI: 10.1016/j.jfca.2021.104204

关键词

Chloramphenicol; Homogenizer; Microextraction; Ion mobility spectrometry; Cow milk; Chicken meat

向作者/读者索取更多资源

The new method of dispersive liquid-phase microextraction (DLPME) assisted by a homogenizer is efficient for chloramphenicol extraction and preconcentration. By combining this method with ion mobility spectrometry (IMS), a fast and sensitive analysis of chloramphenicol in food samples can be achieved. The method's parameters can be adjusted to optimize performance and obtain appropriate calibration curves, with good stability and accuracy demonstrated during evaluation.
A new dispersive liquid-phase microextraction (DLPME) assisted by a homogenizer was employed for the extraction-preconcentration of chloramphenicol. The combination of this method with the ion mobility spectrometry (IMS) provided a fast and sensitive way to chloramphenicol analysis in food samples. The effect of parameters influencing the extraction efficiency was evaluated. The type and amount of solvent used, the pH and ionic strength of the sample solution, and the rate and time of homogenization were the investigated parameters. The obtained calibration curve under the optimized conditions was linear in the range from 0.5 to 20 mu g L-1. The detection limit and limit of quantitation were calculated 0.13 and 0.43 mu g L-1. The appraised intra-day and inter-day relative standard deviations of the method were evaluated to be 4.8 % and 6.2 %, respectively. The proposed method allowed to access an enrichment factor of 821. The applicability of this method was examined for the determination of chloramphenicol in a cow milk, and two chicken meat samples purchased from local providers (Zanjan Province, Iran). The relative recoveries were found in the range of 91.4-112.0 %.

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