4.7 Article

Direct determination of acrylamide in food by gas chromatography-high-resolution time-of-flight mass spectrometry

期刊

ANALYTICA CHIMICA ACTA
卷 578, 期 2, 页码 234-240

出版社

ELSEVIER
DOI: 10.1016/j.aca.2006.07.001

关键词

acrylamide; gas chromatography; high-resolution time-of-flight mass spectrometry; food analysis

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Simple and rapid gas chromatographic (GC) method employing a high-resolution time-of-flight mass analyzer that enables direct analysis (no derivatization) of acrylamide in various heat-processed foodstuffs has been developed and validated. Co-isolation of acrylamide precursors such as sugars and asparagine, constituting the risk of results overestimation due to additional formation of analyte in hot GC injector, is avoided by the extraction with n-propanol followed by solvent exchange to acetonitrile (MeCN). Introduction of a novel purification strategy, dispersive solid phase extraction, based on addition of primary-secondary amine (PSA) sorbent into deffated extract in MeCN, provides a significant reduction of some abundant matrix co-extracts (mainly free fatty acids). Isotope dilution technique (d(3)-acrylamide as an internal standard) is employed for compensation of potential target analyte losses and/or matrix-inducted chromatographic response enhancement. Limits of quantifications (LOQs) ranged between 15 and 40 mu g kg(-1) and recoveries were between 97 and 108% depending on the examined food matrix. The repeatability of measurements (expressed as relative standard deviation, R.S.D.) was as low as 1.9% for potato crisps containing acrylamide at a level of 1 mg kg(-1). Slightly higher values (R.S.D. < 4.0%) were achieved for breakfast cereals and crisp bread with approximately 10 times lower content of this processing contaminant. Trueness of results generated by this new method was demonstrated via FAPAS (R) (Food Analysis Performance Assessment Scheme) interlaboratory proficiency tests. (c) 2006 Elsevier B.V. All rights reserved.

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