4.7 Article

A Simple and Fast Extraction Method for the Determination of Multiclass Antibiotics in Eggs Using LC-MS/MS

期刊

JOURNAL OF AGRICULTURAL AND FOOD CHEMISTRY
卷 65, 期 24, 页码 5064-5073

出版社

AMER CHEMICAL SOC
DOI: 10.1021/acs.jafc.7b01777

关键词

antibiotics; eggs; extraction optimization; multiclass analysis; LC-MS/MS

资金

  1. National Natural Science Foundation of China [21477115]
  2. Fundamental Research Funds for the Central Universities [20720150072]

向作者/读者索取更多资源

The purpose of this study was to develop and validate a simple, fast, and specific extraction method for the analysis of 64 antibiotics from nine classes (including sulfonamides, quinolones, tetracyclines, macrolides, lincosamide, nitrofurans, beta-lactams, nitromidazoles, and cloramphenicols) in chicken eggs. Briefly, egg samples were simply extracted with a mixture of acetonitrile-water (90:10, v/v) and 0.1 mol.L-1 Na(2)EDTA solution assisted with ultrasonic. The extract was centrifuged, condensed, and directly analyzed on a liquid chromatography coupled to tandem mass spectrometry. Compared with conventional cleanup methods (passing through solid phase extract cartridges), the established method demonstrated comparable efficiencies in eliminating matrix effects and higher or equivalent recoveries for most of the target compounds. Typical validation parameters including specificity, linearity, matrix effect, limits of detection (LODs) and quantification (LOQs), the decision limit, detection capability, trueness, and precision were evaluated. The recoveries of target compounds ranged from 70.8% to 116.1% at three spiking levels (5, 20, and 50,mu g.kg(-1)), with relative standard deviations less than 14%. LODs and LOQs were in the ranges of 0.005-2.00 mu g.kg(-1) and 0.015-6.00 mu g.kg(-1) for all of the antibiotics, respectively. A total of five antibiotics were successfully detected in 22 commercial eggs from local markets. This work suggests that the method is suitable for the analysis of multiclass antibiotics in eggs.

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