4.5 Article

Development of a readily applied method to quantify ractopamine residue in meat and bone meal by QuEChERS-LC-MS/MS

出版社

ELSEVIER
DOI: 10.1016/j.jchromb.2016.01.063

关键词

Swine; Feed ingredient; beta-agonist; Method development; Mass spectrometer; Dispersive solid phase extraction

资金

  1. FAPESC (Fundacao de Amparo a Pesquisa do Estado de Santa Catarina) [T.O.TR2012000271]
  2. CAPES (Coordenacao de Aperfeicoamento de Pessoal de Nivel Superior)
  3. CNPq (Conselho Nacional de Pesquisa e Desenvolvimento Cientifico e Tecnologico)

向作者/读者索取更多资源

A QuEChERS method of ractopamine (RCT) residue detection in swine meat and bone meal (MBM) samples was demonstrated. Samples were hydrolyzed with protease and beta-glucuronidase prior to QuEChERS (Quick, Easy, Cheap, Effective, Rugged and Safe) extraction and clean-up. Samples were analyzed in a Liquid Chromatography (equipped with ACE 5 C18 column under gradient elution) coupled with a triple quadrupole mass spectrometer operating in positive electrospray ionization mode (using multiple reaction monitoring, MRM). The method was validated for its specificity, decision limit (CC alpha), detection capability (CC(3), recovery, repeatability, reproducibility, linearity, limits of detection (LODs), quantification (LOQs), and stability according to international guidelines (European Commission Decision 2002/657/EC). Recoveries ranged from 96.3 to 107.0%. Repeatability and reproducibility showed both RSD < 5.7% and 3.1%, respectively. LODs and LOQs were 1.91 and 6.36 ppb, respectively. CC alpha and CC beta values were 1.91 and 2.37 ppb, respectively. RCT showed good stability for spiked samples and real samples when the concentration was higher, otherwise at lower concentration stability was lower. The proposed method can be successfully applied on a regular basis for the determination of RCT in MBM, demonstrating the usefulness of the method as a tool for compliance monitoring in regulatory laboratories. (C) 2016 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

4.5
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