4.7 Article

Advantages of Multiplexing Ability of the Orbitrap Mass Analyzer in the Multi-Mycotoxin Analysis

期刊

TOXINS
卷 15, 期 2, 页码 -

出版社

MDPI
DOI: 10.3390/toxins15020134

关键词

fast mycotoxin measurement; parallel ion monitoring multiplexing; high throughput

向作者/读者索取更多资源

In this study, a 1-minute multi-mycotoxin analysis method was developed using high-resolution equipment and a short column. This method was able to detect 11 mycotoxins in corn and wheat matrices within one minute, utilizing the multiplexing and high-resolution capability of the QExactive Orbitrap MS.
In routine measurements, the length of the analysis time and nfumber of samples analysed during a time unit are crucial parameters, which are especially important for the food analysis, particularly in the case of mycotoxin determinations. High-resolution equipment, including time-of-flight or Orbitrap analyzators, can provide stable instrumental background for high-throughput analyses. In this report, a short, 1 min MS-based multi-mycotoxin method was developed with the application of a short column as a reduced chromatographic separation, taking advantages of the multiplexing and high-resolution capability of the QExactive Orbitrap MS possessing sub-1 ppm mass accuracy. The performance of the method was evaluated regarding selectivity, LOD, LOQ, linearity, matrix effect, and recovery, and compared to a UHPLC-MS/MS method. The final multiplexing method was able to quantify 11 mycotoxins in defined ranges (aflatoxins (corn, 2.8-600 mu g/kg; wheat, 1.5-350 mu g/kg), deoxynivalenol (corn, 640-9600 mu g/kg; wheat, 128-3500 mu g/kg), fumonisins (corn, 20-1500 mu g/kg; wheat, 30-3500 mu g/kg), HT-2 (corn, 64-5200 mu g/kg; wheat, 61-3500 mu g/kg), T-2 (corn, 10-800 mu g/kg; wheat, 4-250 mu g/kg), ochratoxin (corn, 4.7-600 mu g/kg; wheat, 1-1000 mu g/kg), zearalenone (corn, 64-4800 mu g/kg; wheat, 4-500 mu g/kg)) within one minute in corn and wheat matrices at the MRL levels stated by the European Union.

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