4.5 Article

Determination of sulfadiazine in eggs using molecularly imprinted solid-phase extraction coupled with high-performance liquid chromatography

期刊

JOURNAL OF SEPARATION SCIENCE
卷 39, 期 11, 页码 2204-2212

出版社

WILEY-V C H VERLAG GMBH
DOI: 10.1002/jssc.201600233

关键词

Eggs; Molecularly imprinted polymer microspheres; Sulfadiazine; Suspension polymerization

资金

  1. National Programme on Global Change and Air-Sea Interaction [GASI-03-01-02-01]
  2. Assessment of Nanomaterials on Biological and Ecological Effects in Coastal Area Grant [201505034]

向作者/读者索取更多资源

The development of a simple and effective method for the isolation and purification of sulfadiazine residues in food of animal origin is of great significance since it is a great danger to human health. An off-line molecularly imprinted solid-phase extraction with high-performance liquid chromatography method was proposed for the selective pretreatment and determination of sulfadiazine in eggs, rapidly and effectively. The molecularly imprinted polymer was proved to have a homogeneous spherical structure and porous surface morphology with excellent adsorption capacity of 5258 mu g/g for sulfadiazine. The newly established method showed a good linearity in the range of 0-200 mu g/L, low limits of detection (0.06 mu g/L), acceptable reproducibility (RSD, 2.60-5.03%, n = 3), and satisfactory relative recoveries (78.22-86.10%). It was demonstrated that the proposed molecularly imprinted solid-phase extraction with high-performance liquid chromatography method could be applied to determine sulfadiazine in eggs, which simplified the pretreatment procedure and improved the accuracy of the analysis process by reducing the loss of sulfadiazine in the fat-removing procedure compared with traditional methods. Molecularly imprinted solid-phase extraction with excellent selectivity and adsorption capacity is a simple, rapid, selective, and effective pretreatment method for the determination of sulfadiazine in egg samples.

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