Adapting Immunoassays to the Analysis of Food Samples

Determination of Potato Glycoalkaloids Using a Liposome Immunomigration, Liquid-Phase Competition Immunoassay

“…Furthermore, this aqueous acid solvent is relatively inexpensive and less toxic than the organic solvents. No attempts were made to study the liposome stability in the acidified solvent systems without first neutralizing them since physiological conditions are needed to optimize the antigen-antibody recognition process (Jourdan et al, 1996).…”

Quantitative analysis of fungicide azoxystrobin in agricultural samples with rapid, simple and reliable monoclonal immunoassay

“…Concretely, the analytical methods are capable of rapid and simple detection of a trace of chemical hazard(s) in a sample composed of complex matrices, and furthermore, they can simultaneously handle many samples (Jourdan, Scutellaro, Hayes, & Herzog, 1996;Meulenberg, Mulder, & Stoks, 1995;Nunes, Toscano, & Barceló, 1998). ELISA methods have been recognised as an effective analytical technique for detection of pesticides that they might remain at trace level in food samples including agricultural products, environmental samples such as water and soil, or biological samples, and to date many ELISA methods for detection of various pesticides have been developed (Jourdan et al, 1996;Meulenberg et al, 1995;Nunes et al, 1998;Shan, Lipton, Gee, & Hammock, 2002). ELISA methods are possible to eliminate troublesome sample pre-treatment procedures such as clean-up and concentration which are essential to pesticide residue analyses with chromatographic techniques due to their specificity (selectivity), and consequently, the methods can reach (1) reduction of analytical running time and (2) simplification of analytical operation.…”

Review on Current Analytical Methods with Chromatographic and Nonchromatographic Techniques for New Generation Insecticide Neonicotinoids

“…Theoretically, it responds sensitively only to the trace pesticide in matrices. In fact, however, ELISA is susceptible to the matrix effect described in Section 2.2, and it is important to evaluate the matrix effect for individual measurement samples (Jourdan et al, 1996;Nunes et al, 1998;Skerritt & Rani, 1996). While the matrix effect can be avoided or reduced by SPE, etc., such measures would eliminate advantages of ELISA shown above.…”