3.8 Article

Comparison of extraction and clean-up procedures for analysis of zearalenone in corn, rice and wheat grains by high-performance liquid chromatography with photodiode array and fluorescence detection

期刊

FOOD ADDITIVES AND CONTAMINANTS
卷 19, 期 3, 页码 272-281

出版社

TAYLOR & FRANCIS LTD
DOI: 10.1080/02652030110081173

关键词

Fusarium; mycotoxins; zearalenone; liquid chromatography; fluorescence detection; cereal grains

向作者/读者索取更多资源

The aim of this work was the optimization of some procedures usually used in the analysis of zearalenone (ZEA) in corn and other cereals by high-performance liquid chromatography (HPLC) with photodiode array and/or fluorescence detection. The comparison of five extraction solvents is presented. Three solid-phase extraction cartridges (C-18, silica, Florisil) and immuno-affinity columns were also compared to obtain the best recovery of the mycotoxin with the minimal presence of co-extractives in the chromatograms. Mixtures of methanol-1% aqueous NaCl (80: 20 or 60: 40 v/v) were the best extraction solvents. Florisil provided higher recovery of ZEA than C-18, and silica proved unsuitable. The immuno-affinity column was very efficient in cleaning the extracts, but its sample capacity was lower than that of SPE columns due to saturation. The mobile phase (methanol-water 80: 20 v/v) gave a low retention time for ZEA (similar to 5 min), high sensitivity and acceptable separation between this mycotoxin and alpha-zearalenol. The optimized protocol is straightforward, provides high ZEA recoveries in spiked corn (mean 102.4%), has an acceptable sensitivity and has a lack of interference with fluorescence detection (detection limit 4 ng ZEA g(-1) corn). The photodiode array detector was useful, except at very low ZEA levels, to confirm the identity of the mycotoxin. The method was applied to search for ZEA accumulation in corn, wheat and rice grains inoculated with selected strains of Fusarium graminearum, F. oxysporum and F. culmorum.

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

3.8
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