Comparison of GC-MS and HPLC for overcoming matrix interferences in the analysis of PAHs in smoked food

Abstract

SummarySeveral separation and detection methods for polycyclic aromatic hydrocarbons (PAHs) in smoked chicken by GC and H_PLC were compared. With HPLC and a gradient solvent system, all 16 PAHs could be simultaneously separated and detected by fluorescence with seven settings of programmable wavelength (excitation/ emission). The presence of impurities in smoked chicken could interfere with the subsequent identification and quantification of PAHs by HPLC. With GC and a temperature programming method, all 16 PAHs could be separated and the PAHs in the chicken sample could be detected with an ion-trap mass spectrometer even in the presence of fat-or PAH-like impurities. Nine PAHs were identified by the former method while fourteen PAHs were identified by the latter method. The retention times by HPLC were shorter than those by GC, also, the former had better separation for most PAHs than the latter.

The Occurrence of 16 EPA PAHs in Food – A Review

“…The 16 EPA PAHs can be simultaneously separated by HPLC using gradient elution and detected by FLD with seven settings of programmable wavelengths. The retention times by HPLC were shorter than those by GC ( 113 , 114 ).…”

Effects of grilling and roasting on the levels of polycyclic aromatic hydrocarbons in beef and pork

“…The 100% acetonitrile was maintained for 15 min at a flow rate of 1.0 mL/min. The excitation and emission wavelengths were 254 nm/390 nm for Chry, 260 nm/ 420 nm for Chry, B(b)F, B(k)F, B(a)P, DB(ah)A and B(ghi)Per and 293 nm/498 nm for IP (Chiu, Lin, & Chen, 1997;Perfetti, Nyman, Fisher, Joe, & Diachenko, 1992). The PAHs in meat products were identified by comparing their retention times with those of the standard PAHs.…”

Polycyclic aromatic hydrocarbons (PAHs) in meat products and estimated PAH intake by children and the general population in Estonia

“…Benzo(a)pyrene (BaP) is the most widely known and studied of the PAHs due to its importance as one of the most potent animal carcinogenic PAH, its relatively easy analysis and presence in wide variety of food items. BaP seems to be a good marker for other PAHs in food items, the correlation coefficient between the total PAH and the BaP concentration has been detected to be 0.87 and between the carcinogenic PAHs and BaP 0.98 (Kazerouni et al 2001 (Kazerouni et al 2001, Moret andConte 2000), high performance liquid chromatography (Chen et al 1996, Chiu et al 1997, Rojo Camargo and Toledo 2003, de Boer and Law 2003, gas chromatography with mass-selective detector (Mottier et al 2000, Yurchenko and Mölder 2005, Jira 2004 (Dennis et al 1983, de Vos et al1990, Tao et al 2006. Grilled or barbequed meat caused a significant proportion (21%) of the average total daily BaP intake in USA according to the data obtained by Kazerouni et al (2001).…”