4.7 Article

Elaboration and validation of the method for the quantification of the emetic toxin of Bacillus cereus as described in EN-ISO 18465-Microbiology of the food chain - Quantitative determination of emetic toxin (cereulide) using LC-MS/MS

期刊

出版社

ELSEVIER
DOI: 10.1016/j.ijfoodmicro.2018.03.021

关键词

Validation; Toxin; Cereulide; Bacillus cereus; ISO 18465; LC-MS; Inter-laboratory study

向作者/读者索取更多资源

A method for the quantification of the Bacillus cereus emetic toxin (cereulide) was developed and validated. The method principle is based on LC-MS as this is the most sensitive and specific method for cereulide. Therefore the study design is different from the microbiological methods validated under this mandate. As the method had to be developed a two stage validation study approach was used. The first stage (pre-study) focussed on the method applicability and the experience of the laboratories with the method. Based on the outcome of the pre-study and comments received during voting at CEN and ISO level a final method was agreed to be used for the second stage the (final) validation of the method. In the final (validation) study samples of cooked rice (both artificially contaminated with cereulide or contaminated with B. cereus for production of cereulide in the rice) and 6 other food matrices (fried rice dish, cream pastry with chocolate, hotdog sausage, mini pancakes, vanilla custard and infant formula) were used. All these samples were spiked by the participating laboratories using standard solutions of cereulide supplied by the organising laboratory. The results of the study indicate that the method is fit for purpose. Repeatability values were obtained of 0.6 mu g/kg at low level spike (ca. 5 mu g/kg) and 7 to 9.6 mu g/kg at high level spike (ca. 75 mu g/kg). Reproducibility at low spike level ranged from 0.6 to 0.9 mu g/kg and from 8.7 to 14.5 mu g/kg at high spike level. Recovery from the spiked samples ranged between 96.5% for mini-pancakes to 99.3% for fries rice dish.

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