4.4 Article

Development of a polyclonal indirect ELISA with sub-ng g(-1) sensitivity for the analysis of clenbuterol in milk, animal feed, and liver samples and a small survey of residues in retail animal products

出版社

TAYLOR & FRANCIS LTD
DOI: 10.1080/02652030902906142

关键词

enzyme-linked immunosorbent assay (ELISA); clenbuterol; beta-agonist; polyclonal antibody; food sample

资金

  1. National Natural Science Foundation of China (NSFC) [20675054]
  2. Promotion Program Foundation of Sichuan University of China [0082204127090]

向作者/读者索取更多资源

An indirect competitive enzyme-linked immunosorbent assay (ELISA) with sub-ng g(-1) sensitivity for clenbuterol was developed. The antisera obtained from four immunized rabbits were characterized in terms of sensitivity and specificity. All four antisera displayed high sensitivity with IC50 and limit of detection (LOD) values lower than 0.9 and 0.03 ng ml(-1), respectively. The most sensitive ELISA was established with IC50 and LOD values of 0.1-0.3 and 0.01-0.02 ng ml(-1), respectively, which are more than ten times lower than those reported in the literature. The cross-reactivity (CR) values of the four antisera with salbutamol, another frequently used beta-agonist of similar molecular structure to clenbuterol, were estimated to be within 25-46%. No binding (CR<0.01%) of nine other drugs which are frequently used in animal feeds was observed. The superior ELISA at optimal assay conditions was used for the analysis of five clenbuterol-fortified samples and the results were confirmed by high-performance liquid chromatography (HPLC). Acceptable recovery rates of 92.2-97.0% and intra-assay coefficients of variation of 1.3-5.3% were obtained. The proposed ELISA was highly correlated with HPLC (R-2 = 0.9893, n = 5). Another sixteen samples were randomly collected from local markets and analysed by ELISA. The highest clenbuterol residues found in milk, feed, swine and chicken livers were 5.33, 64.04, 2.28 and 0.74 ng g(-1), respectively.

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

4.4
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