4.6 Article

Is Blood a Good Indicator for Detecting Antimicrobials in Meat? Evidence for the Development of In Vivo Surveillance Methods

期刊

ANTIBIOTICS-BASEL
卷 9, 期 4, 页码 -

出版社

MDPI
DOI: 10.3390/antibiotics9040175

关键词

antibiotic; sulfonamide; quinolone; HPLC-FLD; LC-MS; MS; meat; blood

资金

  1. European Regional Development Fund (ERDF) through the Interreg V-A Spain-France-Andorra programme (POCTEFA (Programa INTERREG V-A Espana-Francia-Andorra))
  2. EFA(Espana-Francia-Andorra) [152/16]

向作者/读者索取更多资源

The introduction of antimicrobial residues in the food chain has a significant impact on human health. An innovative solution to avoid their presence in meat is the adaptation of current control methods for use with in vivo matrixes. Thus, the aim was to obtain paired blood and muscle samples from pigs treated with some of the main antimicrobials currently used in veterinary medicine (oxytetracycline, sulfamethoxypyridazine, enrofloxacin, amoxicillin), and to compare their rate of depletion in both matrixes. Antimicrobial concentrations in paired samples of blood and muscle were determined by liquid chromatography with tandem mass spectrometry (LC-MS/MS) or high performance liquid chromatography with fluorescence detection (HPLC-FLD). A comparison between values obtained in muscle and blood showed a similar distribution in both matrixes for oxytetracycline; for sulfamethoxypyridazine, a similar decrease rate but a concentration three times higher in blood compared to muscle was found; for enrofloxacin, we found significant differences in the rate of depletion, with similar antimicrobial concentrations in both matrixes with values close to the maximum residue limit (MRL) and higher amounts in muscle for values that lay considerably over the MRL. Conversely, amoxicillin depletion was so rapid that its appearance in carcasses does not seem to pose a risk. Therefore, blood would be a feasible matrix for the development of new in vivo tests.

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