Comparison of three different lipid removal cleanup techniques prior to the analysis of sulfonamide drug residues in porcine tissues

Abstract

A number of 17 sulfonamides (SNs) determination in porcine tissues using two new materials including Enhanced Matrix Removal for Lipid (EMR‐L) and Oasis PRiME hydrophilic‐lipophilic balance (HLB), and the conventional liquid–liquid extraction with n‐hexane (LLE) sample preparation methods were evaluated and compared. Samples were extracted uniformly with acidified acetonitrile and cleaned up by the three sample preparation methods, and then, analytes were further separated by ultrahigh‐performance liquid chromatography (UHPLC) and detected by a triple quadrupole mass spectrometry (MS/MS) or a quadrupole‐time‐of‐flight tandem mass spectrometry (Q‐TOF/MS). The results showed that the matrix effects from the EMR‐L and HLB were significantly lower than that from LLE, suggesting that these two new materials are superior to n‐hexane in the precipitation of proteins and the adsorption of lipids. Moreover, the recoveries of 17 SNs were quantified by the matrix‐matched calibration curve at spiked level of 5, 10, and 20 μg/kg, and 97.0% of the results satisfied method validation requirements. The samples cleaned up by EMR‐L and HLB achieved the highest average recovery in liver and kidney with high moisture content, and muscle which is high in fat, respectively. In addition, Q‐TOF/MS could play a good role in aided verification based on the result of repeated validation test. In summary, either combination of approaches could be used to achieve monitoring purposes; it is still worthwhile to adopt a specific sample preparation method and MS detector for the quantification in a specific matrix.

Assessment of various veterinary drug residues in animal originated food products

“…Method validation parameters are system suitability % RSD range from 10.90 to 18.58%, specificity average area of blank sample was in range from 24 to 273, LOD was in range from 7.2 to 17.7, LOQ was in range from 21.7 to 53.5, recovery at 50ppb level in range between 87.39 and 101.87%, at 100ppb level range between 87.14 and 101.69%, at 150ppb level range between 97.41 and 106.35% with three batches, DL (CCα) were range from 104.72 to 106.60%, DC (CCβ) ranged between 114.33 and 117.98, and for ruggedness % RSD range between 3.11 and 5.19% [8]. Wang et al [28] evaluated and compared three methods for extraction of Sulfa + in porcine tissues. These three methods are (1) Oasis PRiME hydrophillic-lipophilic balance (HLB), (2) Enhanced Matrix Removal for Lipid (EMR-L), and (3) conventional liquid-liquid extraction with n-hexane (LLE) sample preparation.…”

“…Wang et al . [ 28 ] evaluated and compared three methods for extraction of Sulfa + in porcine tissues. These three methods are (1) Oasis PRiME hydrophillic-lipophilic balance (HLB), (2) Enhanced Matrix Removal for Lipid (EMR-L), and (3) conventional liquid-liquid extraction with n-hexane (LLE) sample preparation.…”

Development of an amplified luminescent proximity homogeneous assay for the detection of sulfonamides in animal‐derived products

“…Several instrumental analysis techniques have been proposed for the determination of SAs residue (Premarathne et al., 2017 ; Wang et al., 2019 ; Xie et al., 2020 ; Yang et al., 2018 ; Zhao et al., 2018 ), including liquid chromatography (LC), liquid chromatography–tandem mass spectrometry (LC‐MS/MS), and ultra‐high‐performance supercritical fluid chromatography (SFC). All these detection techniques have earned robust recognition in SAs and have many advantages, such as large dynamic linear range, low detection limits, and high productivity.…”