Simultaneous determination of multi-class veterinary drugs in chicken processed foods and muscle using solid-supported liquid extraction clean-up

Yoshikawa, Souichi; Nagano, Chieko; Kanda, Manabu; Hayashi, Hiroshi; Matsushima, Yoko; Nakajima, Takayuki; Tsuruoka, Yumi; Nagata, Marie; Koike, Hiroshi; Sekimura, Kotaro; Hashimoto, Tsuneo; Takano, Ichiro; Shindo, Tetsuya

doi:10.1016/j.jchromb.2017.04.041

Cited by 28 publications

(16 citation statements)

References 26 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…For multi‐class analysis, ACN has been used to extract some antibiotics from different meat tissues (Saito‐Shida, Sakai, Nemoto, & Akiyama, 2017; Tajabadi, Ghambarian, Yamini, & Yazdanfar, 2016) sometimes combined with water (Casey, Andersen, Williams, Nickel, & Ayres, 2020; Lehotay & Lightfield, 2018; Moretti et al., 2016; Song et al., 2017; Yin et al., 2016; Y. Zhang et al., 2018), EDTA (Dasenaki, Michali, & Thomaidis, 2016; Moretti et al., 2016; Yin et al., 2016; Zhao, Lucas, Long, Richter, & Stevens, 2018; Zheng et al., 2019), aqueous ammonium solutions (Dasenaki et al., 2016; Kang et al., 2017), TCA (Dasenaki et al., 2016; Rizzetti, de Souza, Prestes, Adaime, & Zanella, 2017), formic acid (He, Song, Zhou, & Zhao, 2017; Pugajeva, Ikkere, Judjallo, & Bartkevics, 2019; L. Zhao et al., 2018), dimethyl sulfoxide (Zhao et al., 2018), acetic acid (M. Zhang et al., 2018), or ethyl acetate (Yoshikawa et al., 2017). In addition, other solvents such as MeOH with formic acid (Danezis, Anagnostopoulos, Liapis, & Koupparis, 2016) or EDTA (Arslanbaş, 2018), PBS (Oyedeji, Msagati, Williams, & Benson, 2020) with TCA (Sarker et al., 2018), or McIlvaine buffer (Zhang et al., 2016) have been used.…”

Section: Analytical Methodologies For the Analysis Of The Principal Amentioning

confidence: 99%

“…For multi‐residue determination, LC coupled to MS is the most used technique (Casey et al., 2020; Q. Chen et al., 2019; Danezis et al., 2016; Dasenaki et al., 2016; Desmarchelier et al., 2018; He et al., 2017; Jammoul & Darra, 2019; Kang et al., 2017; Lehotay & Lightfield, 2018; Moretti et al., 2016; Pugajeva et al., 2019; Qin et al., 2017; Rizzeti et al., 2017; Saito‐Shida et al., 2017; Yin et al., 2016; Yoshikawa et al., 2017; Zhang et al., 2016; M. Zhang et al., 2018; Y. Zhang et al., 2018; L. Zhao et al., 2018; Zheng et al., 2019) although LC‐UV (Arslanbaş, 2018; Oyedeji et al., 2020; Song et al., 2017; Tajabadi et al., 2016; G. N. Wang et al., 2017), TLC (Sarker et al., 2018), or commercial biochips (Gaudin, Hedou, Soumet, & Verdon, 2016) have been also employed. A summary of the most common studies is included in Table 8.…”

Section: Analytical Methodologies For the Analysis Of The Principal Amentioning

confidence: 99%

“…For enrichment and purification steps, the use of traditional SPE (Dasenaki et al., 2016; J. He et al., 2017; Oyedeji et al., 2020; Pugajeva et al., 2019; Saito‐Shida et al., 2017; Yoshikawa et al., 2017; Zhang et al., 2016; M. Zhang et al., 2018; Zhao et al., 2018; Zheng et al., 2019), DSPE (Casey et al., 2020; Kang et al., 2017), MSPD (Wang. Zhang, Song, Liu, & Wang, 2017), MISPE (Song et al., 2017), QuEChERS (Chen, Pan, Huang, Han, & Zhou, 2019; Desmarchelier et al., 2018; Jammoul & Darra, 2019; Qin et al., 2017), and hollow fiber–based liquid phase microextraction (Tajabadi et al., 2016) have been described.…”

Section: Analytical Methodologies For the Analysis Of The Principal Amentioning

confidence: 99%

See 2 more Smart Citations

Determination of antibiotics in meat samples using analytical methodologies: A review

Moga

Vergara-Barberán

Lerma‐García

et al. 2021

Comp Rev Food Sci Food Safe

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Antibiotics are widely used to prevent or treat some diseases in human and veterinary medicine and also as animal growth promoters. The presence of these compounds in foods derived from food‐producing animals can be a risk for human health. Consequently, regulatory agencies have set maximum residue limits for antibiotics in food samples. Therefore, the development of novel methodologies for its determination in food samples is required. Specifically, the analysis and quantification of these substances in meat tissues is a challenge for the analytical chemistry research community. This is due to the complexity of the matrix and the low detection limits required by the regulatory agencies. In this sense, a comprehensive review on the development of new sample preparation treatments involving extraction, cleanup, and enrichment steps of antibiotics in meat samples in combination with sensitive and sophisticated determination techniques that have been carry out in the last years is necessary. Therefore, the aim of this work is to summarize the published methodologies for the determination of antibiotics from 2016 until the beginning of the second semester of 2020. The first part of this review includes an introduction about antibiotic families, followed by sample preparation and determination techniques applied to the different families. Finally, a detailed discussion of the current trends and the future possible perspectives in this field are also included.

show abstract

Section: Analytical Methodologies For the Analysis Of The Principal Amentioning

confidence: 99%

Section: Analytical Methodologies For the Analysis Of The Principal Amentioning

confidence: 99%

Section: Analytical Methodologies For the Analysis Of The Principal Amentioning

confidence: 99%

See 1 more Smart Citation

Determination of antibiotics in meat samples using analytical methodologies: A review

Moga

Vergara-Barberán

Lerma‐García

et al. 2021

Comp Rev Food Sci Food Safe

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…[12][13][14] A solid-supported liquid extraction clean-up using a diatomaceous earth minicartridge was applied to co-extract seven veterinary drugs in processed chicken food and muscle. [15] These studies continuously promote the development of veterinary drug residue analysis from a single category to a cross-category high-throughput analysis.…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Optimization of 204 veterinary drug residues method and establishing their mass spectrum library

Fang

et al. 2021

International Journal of Food Properties

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

A multi-class multi-residue analytical method was validated in this paper for simultaneously identifying 204 veterinary drugs in pork by UPLC-QTRAP MS/MS, including sulfonamides, quinolones, β-agonists, and nitroimidazoles. MRM-IDA-EPI mode of QTRAP was used to establish a secondary mass spectrum library of these 204 veterinary drugs, which could enhance the qualitative analysis of suspect substances. The separation of substances was performed on a C18 column, with a gradient elution of 0.1% formic acid solution in water and methanol. Electrospray ionization (ESI), fast polarity switching, and scheduled MRM mode were used to collect the characterization results. Factors that affected the recovery were delicately optimized, such as solvent proportion, formic acid content, and purification method. We finally determined the extracting method with formic acidacetonitrile-water (0.1:90:10, v:v:v) and purifying method with Cleanert LipoNo as a package for dispersive solid-phase extraction. Matrix effects on the quantitative results were also investigated. Some compounds had strong matrix inhibition or enhancement, and the matrix matching external standard method was used to quantify the compounds accurately. The correlation coefficient R 2 was over 0.99 within the calibration linearity range for the detected 204 veterinary drugs. The limit of quantification (LOQ) was 0.5 ~ 5 μg/kg. The recoveries ranged from 61.4% to 118.8% with RSDs of 3.1% to 19.2% (n = 6).

show abstract

“…Despite many previous studies, there are still some claimed shortcomings. For example, LLE requires the use of excessive organic reagents, SPE blocks column easily, and QuEChERS has less selectivity for some substances (Garrido Frenich, Aguileraluiz, Martínez Vidal, & Romerogonzález, 2010;Wang et al, 2011;Yoshikawa et al, 2017). Aiming at these problems, a new product from Agilent Technologies called "Enhanced Matrix Removal for Lipid" (EMR-L) could selectively capture the long hydrocarbon chain of lipids (Han, Matarrita, Sapozhnikova, & Lehotay, 2016).…”

mentioning

confidence: 99%

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

Wang

Fang

et al. 2019

Food Science & Nutrition

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

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.

show abstract

Simultaneous determination of multi-class veterinary drugs in chicken processed foods and muscle using solid-supported liquid extraction clean-up

Cited by 28 publications

References 26 publications

Determination of antibiotics in meat samples using analytical methodologies: A review

Determination of antibiotics in meat samples using analytical methodologies: A review

Optimization of 204 veterinary drug residues method and establishing their mass spectrum library

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

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About