Determination of thiamphenicol, florfenicol and florfenicol amine residues in poultry meat and pork via ASE-UPLC-FLD

Wang, Guotian; Wang, Bo; Zhao, Xia; Xie, Xiulan; Xie, Kaizhou; Wang, Xutang; Zhang, Genxi; Tao, Zhang; Liu, Zongping; Dai, Guojun

doi:10.1016/j.jfca.2019.05.004

Cited by 22 publications

(14 citation statements)

References 35 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…The high affinity of nanoMIPs and the lack of a requirement for cold chain logistics make them an attractive alternative to traditional antibodies used in ELISA.with florfenicol (FF) being the main antibiotic used (52%), followed by oxytetracycline, flumequine and oxolinic acid (44%, 1% and 1%, respectively) [5,6]. FF, a fluorinated derivative of thiamphenicol, is a new generation of fenicol drugs [7]. Apart from in the aquaculture industry, FF is widely used as chloramphenicol alternative to prevent and treat bacterial diseases in pigs [8], bovine [9], poultry [10] and animal edible tissues [11].…”

mentioning

confidence: 99%

Florfenicol Binding to Molecularly Imprinted Polymer Nanoparticles in Model and Real Samples

et al. 2020

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

A simple and straightforward technique for coating microplate wells with molecularly imprinted polymer nanoparticles (nanoMIPs) to develop assays similar to the enzyme-linked immunosorbent (ELISA) assay to determine and quantify florfenicol (FF) in real food samples such as liquid milk and salmon muscle is presented here. The nanoMIPs were synthesized by a solid-phase approach with an immobilized FF (template) and characterized using dynamic light scattering, a SPR-2 biosensor system and transmission electron microscopy. Immobilization of nanoMIPs was conducted by preparing a homogenous solution of FF-nanoMIPs in water mixed with polyvinyl alcohol (PVA) 0.2% (w/v) in each well of a microplate. The detection of florfenicol was achieved in competitive binding experiments with a horseradish peroxidase−florfenicol (FF-HRP) conjugate. The assay made it possible to measure FF in buffer and in real samples (liquid milk and salmon muscle) within the range of 60−80 and 90-100 ng/mL, respectively. The immobilized nanoMIPs were stored for six weeks at room temperature and at 5 • C. The results indicate good signal recovery for all FF concentrations in spiked milk samples, without any detrimental effects to their binding properties. The high affinity of nanoMIPs and the lack of a requirement for cold chain logistics make them an attractive alternative to traditional antibodies used in ELISA.with florfenicol (FF) being the main antibiotic used (52%), followed by oxytetracycline, flumequine and oxolinic acid (44%, 1% and 1%, respectively) [5,6]. FF, a fluorinated derivative of thiamphenicol, is a new generation of fenicol drugs [7]. Apart from in the aquaculture industry, FF is widely used as chloramphenicol alternative to prevent and treat bacterial diseases in pigs [8], bovine [9], poultry [10] and animal edible tissues [11]. Several countries adopted maximum permissible residue limits (MRLs) of antibiotics in foods of animal origin, such as meat, milk and eggs [12]. In Chile, the maximum permissible residue limit of FF in muscle and skin of salmon is 1000 µg/kg [13]. At present, no MRL has been set for FF in milk. It is however of vital importance to develop a reliable method for FF analysis in milk products to avoid potential harmful effects to consumers [14]. Therefore, there is a demand for relevant sensitive, selective, fast and inexpensive analytical protocols from legislation, health authorities and companies operating in the food market [15]. Various analytical techniques have been reported for the analysis of FF, including high performance liquid chromatography, gas chromatography, liquid chromatography-Tandem mass spectrometry [16], gas chromatography-Mass spectrometry [17], and enzyme-linked immunosorbent assay (ELISA) [18]. The manufacture of molecular imprinting polymers (MIP) can be very valuable for those selective and sensitive methods that are needed. Molecular impression is a technique for producing in a polymer matrix selective binding sites that recognize a particular molecule. These polymers are very sta...

show abstract

mentioning

confidence: 99%

Florfenicol Binding to Molecularly Imprinted Polymer Nanoparticles in Model and Real Samples

et al. 2020

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…Regarding APs determination, LC‐MS/MS has been extensively used (V. Amelin Korotkov, 2017; Anderson et al., 2016; Barreto et al., 2016; Imran et al., 2018; Jian et al., 2019; Kemokgatla, 2017; Kikuchi et al., 2017; Saito‐Shida et al., 2019; Y. Wang et al., 2017; Z. Zhang et al., 2017); however, other techniques such as LC‐UV (Fahim et al., 2018; Nasim et al., 2016; Rahimi et al., 2017; Rezaee & Khalilian, 2018; Zhou et al., 2020) and LC‐FLD (Wang et al., 2019) have been also described. Table 5 shows a summary of the most representative methods for APs extraction and determination in meats from animal origin.…”

Section: Analytical Methodologies For the Analysis Of The Principal Amentioning

confidence: 99%

“…Yu et al, 2019), dual-template molecularly imprinted polymer-stir bar sorptive extraction (DMI-SBSE; K. , DLLME (Moghadam et al, 2018) and hollow fiber-supported liquid membrane (Gaolape, 2017) have been used as purification and enrichment step before their quantification in meat samples. For this purpose, the use of LC with UV (Aziz Abdel et al, 2017;Moghadam et al, 2018;Sun et al, 2016;Wang et al, 2018;, FLD (Bozkurt et al, 2016;Peris-Vicente et al, 2017, 2019Terrado-Campos et al, 2017) or LC coupled to MS/MS detection (Barreto et al, 2017;Chung et al, 2018;Gaolape, 2017;Hyung et al, 2017;Lu et al, 2019;Pugajeva et al, 2018;Wen et al, 2020; H. Yu et al, 2019) have been described. However, others F I G U R E 5 Schematic fabrication process of Fe 3 O 4 @COF(TpBD)@Au-MPS and the MSPE procedure for the determination of FQs (reproduced with permission from Wen et al, 2020) Abbreviations: BD, benzidine; COF, covalent organic framework; FQs, fluoroquinolones; MPS, 3-mercaptopropanesulfonate; MSPE, magnetic solid phase extraction; NPs, nanoparticles; Tp, 1,3,5-triformylphloroglucinol methods based on UV-Vis (Rasheed et al, 2017), biochips (Ha et al, 2016) and fluorescence detection (Chaowana & Bunkoed, 2019;Pagani & Ibañez, 2019) have been also employed.…”

Section: Quinolonesmentioning

confidence: 99%

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

“…As a derivative of CAP, TAP replaces the para -nitro group of CAP with a methanesulfonyl group and is less toxic than CAP but can inhibit the production of red blood cells, white blood cells, and platelets [ 7 , 8 ]. FF is synthesised from TAP by replacing the 3-hydroxy group with fluorine; it is an animal-specific amphenicol and has higher antibacterial activity than CAP and TAP but has embryo toxicity [ 9 , 10 ]. FF is metabolized to florfenicol amine (FFA) via bioconversion pathways in treated animals ( Figure 1 ) [ 11 ].…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Simultaneous Determination of Amphenicols and Metabolites in Animal-Derived Foods Using Ultrahigh-Performance Liquid Chromatography-Tandem Mass Spectrometry

Shen

Cao

et al. 2021

International Journal of Analytical Chemistry

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Amphenicols are widely used to prevent and treat animal diseases. However, amphenicol residues accumulate in livestock and poultry and harm consumers. We hypothesized that one can combine solid-phase extraction (SPE) with ultrahigh-performance liquid chromatography-tandem mass spectrometry (UHPLC-MS/MS) to simultaneously determine amphenicols and metabolites in pork, beef, lamb, chicken, and their products and meet government regulations for maximum residue limits. We extracted crude samples with ethyl acetate and ammonia water (98:2, v/v), purified the samples with a CNW Si SPE column, defatted the samples with acetonitrile-saturated n-hexane, and then determined the resulting analytes by UHPLC-MS/MS. The limit of detection of the analytes in livestock and poultry meat was 0.03–1.50 μg/kg, and the limit of quantification was 0.05–5.00 μg/kg. Measured chloramphenicol, thiamphenicol, and florfenicol concentrations were linear over the range 0.50–50 μg/kg; and the florfenicol amine concentration was linear over the range 5.00–200 μg/kg (all with correlation coefficients >0.9990). The recovery of the spiked samples was between 72% and 120%. The intraday relative standard deviation (RSD) ranged from 1% to 9%, and the interday RSD ranged from 1% to 12%. Based on the above results, the current method is sensitive, accurate, and reproducible with the detection limits being well below the maximum residue limits as per Chinese standard GB 31650-2019, and thus, our research hypothesis could be confirmed.

show abstract

Determination of thiamphenicol, florfenicol and florfenicol amine residues in poultry meat and pork via ASE-UPLC-FLD

Cited by 22 publications

References 35 publications

Florfenicol Binding to Molecularly Imprinted Polymer Nanoparticles in Model and Real Samples

Florfenicol Binding to Molecularly Imprinted Polymer Nanoparticles in Model and Real Samples

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

Simultaneous Determination of Amphenicols and Metabolites in Animal-Derived Foods Using Ultrahigh-Performance Liquid Chromatography-Tandem Mass Spectrometry

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About