4.7 Review

Development and validation of a method for the determination of sulfonamides in animal feed by modified QuEChERS and LC-MS/MS analysis

期刊

FOOD CONTROL
卷 28, 期 1, 页码 192-198

出版社

ELSEVIER SCI LTD
DOI: 10.1016/j.foodcont.2012.04.026

关键词

Animal feed; Sulfonamides; QuEChERS; HPLC-MS/MS

资金

  1. Conselho Nacional de Desenvolvimento Cientifico e Tecnologico (gs1) (CNPq)
  2. Fundacao de Amparo a Pesquisa do Estado de Minas Gerais (gs2) (FAPEMIG)
  3. Ministerio da Agricultura, Pecuaria e Abastecimento (gs3) (MAPA) - Brazil

向作者/读者索取更多资源

A multiresidue method for the quantification of 13 sulfonamides in animal feed is described. It involves the application of a modified QuEChERS procedure followed by HPLC-MS/MS (high performance liquid chromatography coupled to tandem mass spectrometry) analysis. The best conditions for the extraction solution and PSA (primary secondary amine) mass were determined. After optimization, the method was validated according to the European Commission Decision 2002/657/EC. The validation levels employed were 25, 50 and 75 mu g kg(-1). Acceptable values were obtained for the following parameters: linearity (0.9864 < r(2) < 0.9993), decision limit (50.4 mu g kg(-1) < CC alpha < 55.8 mu g kg(-1)), detection capability (50.7 mu g kg(-1) < CC beta < 55.8 mu g kg(-1)), limit of quantification (0.9 mu g kg(-1) < LOQ < 7.1 mu g kg(-1)), accuracy (86.0 < recovery rates < 106.8), precision [(3.6 < repeatability < 19.5), (5.5 < intermediate precision < 21.6)], measurement uncertainty (MU) (4.1 < MU < 32.6) and selectivity. These findings met the Codex requirements, which allow for the routine use of the method by the laboratories linked to the Ministry of Agriculture, Livestock and Food Supply of Brazil. Finally, the method was applied to real samples and only one of them showed positive for sulfamethazine, however, with a concentration below the LOQ of the method. (c) 2012 Elsevier Ltd. 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