4.6 Article

Determination of nifursol metabolites in poultry muscle and liver tissue. Development and validation of a confirmatory method

期刊

ANALYST
卷 130, 期 5, 页码 763-771

出版社

ROYAL SOC CHEMISTRY
DOI: 10.1039/b414320e

关键词

-

向作者/读者索取更多资源

A method is described for the identification and quantitative determination of 3,5-dinitrosalicylic acid hydrazide (DSH), the marker residue of nifursol metabolites in poultry ( turkey, broiler) muscle and liver tissue. The method is based on the acid-catalysed hydrolysis of tissue-bound metabolites to free DSH and in situ derivatisation with 2-nitrobenzaldehyde to the corresponding nitrophenyl derivative NPDSH. A structural analogue of DSH, 4-hydroxy-3,5-dinitrobenzoic acid hydrazide (HBH) was synthesised to serve as an internal standard. The analytes were isolated from the matrix by liquid-liquid extraction with ethyl acetate. Determination was performed by LC-MS/MS with negative electrospray ionisation. The [M-H](+) ions of NPDSH and NPHBH at m/z 374 were fragmented by collision induced dissociation (CID) producing transition ions at m/z 182, 183 and 226. The transition ions at m/z 182 and 226 were selected for monitoring of NPDSH while the transition ion at m/z 183 was selected for NPHBH. The method has been validated according to the EU criteria of Commission Decision 2002/657/EC at 0.5, 1.0 and 1.5 mu g kg(-1) in muscle and liver tissue. A decision limit (CC alpha) was obtained of 0.04 and 0.025 mu g kg(-1) in muscle and liver, respectively. Similarly a detection capability (CC beta) was obtained of 0.10 and 0.05 mu g kg(-1) in muscle and liver, respectively. The introduction of HBH as an internal standard did not lead to a significant improvement of the quantitative performance of the method. In fact for liver better performance characteristics were obtained when the IS was not taken into account. Nevertheless, as a qualitative marker for recovery, HBH could still be very useful in the analysis of unknown samples.

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