1989
DOI: 10.1021/jf00085a024
|View full text |Cite
|
Sign up to set email alerts
|

Determination of antibiotic residues in Canadian slaughter animals by thin-layer chromatography-bioautography

Help me understand this report

Search citation statements

Order By: Relevance

Paper Sections

Select...
1
1
1
1

Citation Types

1
6
0

Year Published

1990
1990
2013
2013

Publication Types

Select...
6
2

Relationship

0
8

Authors

Journals

citations
Cited by 29 publications
(7 citation statements)
references
References 6 publications
1
6
0
Order By: Relevance
“…Furthermore, Horie et al [13] recorded 50 ng g -1 as the detection limit for each antibiotic of these macrolides. In addition, the results were approximately in accordance with those of Salisbury et al [18] and Okerman et al [19] who reported detection limits of 1 and 10 ng g -1 for ERY and TYL, respectively, in the spiked meat samples using M. leuteus ATCC 9341 as test organism. This increased sensitivity was due to increasing the sample weight, high recoveries and dissolving the dried extract in a small volume of methanol (100 μL), attributing to increase the concentration of antibiotic in the loaded methanolic extract onto the TLC.…”
Section: Sensitivitysupporting
confidence: 90%
“…Furthermore, Horie et al [13] recorded 50 ng g -1 as the detection limit for each antibiotic of these macrolides. In addition, the results were approximately in accordance with those of Salisbury et al [18] and Okerman et al [19] who reported detection limits of 1 and 10 ng g -1 for ERY and TYL, respectively, in the spiked meat samples using M. leuteus ATCC 9341 as test organism. This increased sensitivity was due to increasing the sample weight, high recoveries and dissolving the dried extract in a small volume of methanol (100 μL), attributing to increase the concentration of antibiotic in the loaded methanolic extract onto the TLC.…”
Section: Sensitivitysupporting
confidence: 90%
“…Similarly, sample #3 was classified as penicillin (+) by the microbial assay, whereas LC/MS n gave a negative result. These discrepancies between the two techniques could be due to a variety of causes, including poor detection of DCCD at lower concentrations, the presence of non‐ β ‐lactam antibiotics, or the presence of natural microbial inhibitors 22–25…”
Section: Resultsmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…Identification of residues was performed using a modified version of the thin-layer chromatography-bioautography of Salisbury et al (1989). To increase the sensitivity of the procedure to virginiamycin, Micrococcus luteus replaced Bacillus subtilis as the test organism.…”
Section: Source Of Variationmentioning
confidence: 99%