4.4 Article

Stability during cooking of anthelmintic veterinary drug residues in beef

出版社

TAYLOR & FRANCIS LTD
DOI: 10.1080/19440049.2010.542775

关键词

anthelmintics; veterinary drug residues; QuEChERS; stability; cooking; beef; ProSafeBeef

资金

  1. European Commission [FOOD-CT-2006-36241]

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Anthelmintic drugs are widely used for treatment of parasitic worms in livestock, but little is known about the stability of their residues in food under conventional cooking conditions. As part of the European Commission-funded research project ProSafeBeef, cattle were medicated with commercially available anthelmintic preparations, comprising 11 active ingredients (corresponding to 21 marker residues). Incurred meat and liver were cooked by roasting (40 min at 190 degrees C) or shallow frying (muscle 8-12 min, liver 14-19 min) in a domestic kitchen. Raw and cooked tissues and expressed juices were analysed using a novel multi-residue dispersive solid-phase extraction method (QuEChERS) coupled with ultra-performance liquid chromatography-tandem mass spectrometry. After correction for sample weight changes during cooking, no major losses were observed for residues of oxyclozanide, clorsulon, closantel, ivermectin, albendazole, mebendazole or fenbendazole. However, significant losses were observed for nitroxynil (78% in fried muscle, 96% in roast muscle), levamisole (11% in fried muscle, 42% in fried liver), rafoxanide (17% in fried muscle, 18% in roast muscle) and triclabendazole (23% in fried liver, 47% in roast muscle). Migration of residues from muscle into expressed cooking juices varied between drugs, constituting 0% to 17% (levamisole) of total residues remaining after cooking. With the exception of nitroxynil, residues of anthelmintic drugs were generally resistant to degradation during roasting and shallow frying. Conventional cooking cannot, therefore, be considered a safeguard against ingestion of residues of anthelmintic veterinary drugs in beef.

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