-
Je něco špatně v tomto záznamu ?
Molecularly imprinted vs. reversed-phase extraction for the determination of zearalenone: a method development and critical comparison of sample clean-up efficiency achieved in an on-line coupled SPE chromatography system
I. Lhotská, B. Gajdošová, P. Solich, D. Šatínský,
Jazyk angličtina Země Německo
Typ dokumentu časopisecké články, validační studie
NLK
ProQuest Central
od 2011-01-01 do Před 1 rokem
Medline Complete (EBSCOhost)
od 2003-01-01 do Před 1 rokem
Health & Medicine (ProQuest)
od 2011-01-01 do Před 1 rokem
- MeSH
- analýza potravin metody MeSH
- chromatografie s reverzní fází metody MeSH
- endokrinní disruptory analýza MeSH
- extrakce na pevné fázi metody MeSH
- limita detekce MeSH
- molekulový imprinting metody MeSH
- mykotoxiny analýza MeSH
- nesteroidní estrogeny analýza MeSH
- pivo analýza MeSH
- vysokoúčinná kapalinová chromatografie metody MeSH
- zearalenon analýza MeSH
- Publikační typ
- časopisecké články MeSH
- validační studie MeSH
Sample preparation prior to chromatographic separation plays an important role in the analytical process. To avoid time-consuming and manual handling sample-prep, automated on-line techniques such as on-line SPE-HPLC are therefore preferred. In this study, two different on-line extraction approaches for mycotoxin/endocrine disruptor zearalenone (ZEA) determination using either molecularly imprinted polymer (MIP) with selective cavities and binding sites for extraction or a reversed-phase sorbent C18 providing non-selective interactions have been developed, validated, and compared. The validation characteristics were compared and the two methods were evaluated as being almost equal in terms of linearity, repeatability, precision, and recovery. Recoveries were in the range of 99.0-100.1% and limits of detection were found the same for both methods (1.5 μg L-1). Method precision calculated for spiked beer samples was better for C18 sorbent (2.5 vs. 5.4% RSD). No significant differences in the selectivity of either extraction method were observed. The possible reasons and further details associated with this finding are discussed. Finally, both validated methods were applied for the determination of ZEA contamination in beer samples. Due to ZEA's native fluorescence, chromatographic separation with fluorimetric detection (λex = 270 nm and λem, = 458 nm) was selected. Graphical abstract Determination of zearalenone in beer using an on-line extraction chromatography system.
Citace poskytuje Crossref.org
- 000
- 00000naa a2200000 a 4500
- 001
- bmc18024355
- 003
- CZ-PrNML
- 005
- 20180710095132.0
- 007
- ta
- 008
- 180709s2018 gw f 000 0|eng||
- 009
- AR
- 024 7_
- $a 10.1007/s00216-018-0920-2 $2 doi
- 035 __
- $a (PubMed)29455282
- 040 __
- $a ABA008 $b cze $d ABA008 $e AACR2
- 041 0_
- $a eng
- 044 __
- $a gw
- 100 1_
- $a Lhotská, Ivona $u The Department of Analytical Chemistry, Faculty of Pharmacy, Charles University, Heyrovského 1203, 500 05, Hradec Králové, Czech Republic.
- 245 10
- $a Molecularly imprinted vs. reversed-phase extraction for the determination of zearalenone: a method development and critical comparison of sample clean-up efficiency achieved in an on-line coupled SPE chromatography system / $c I. Lhotská, B. Gajdošová, P. Solich, D. Šatínský,
- 520 9_
- $a Sample preparation prior to chromatographic separation plays an important role in the analytical process. To avoid time-consuming and manual handling sample-prep, automated on-line techniques such as on-line SPE-HPLC are therefore preferred. In this study, two different on-line extraction approaches for mycotoxin/endocrine disruptor zearalenone (ZEA) determination using either molecularly imprinted polymer (MIP) with selective cavities and binding sites for extraction or a reversed-phase sorbent C18 providing non-selective interactions have been developed, validated, and compared. The validation characteristics were compared and the two methods were evaluated as being almost equal in terms of linearity, repeatability, precision, and recovery. Recoveries were in the range of 99.0-100.1% and limits of detection were found the same for both methods (1.5 μg L-1). Method precision calculated for spiked beer samples was better for C18 sorbent (2.5 vs. 5.4% RSD). No significant differences in the selectivity of either extraction method were observed. The possible reasons and further details associated with this finding are discussed. Finally, both validated methods were applied for the determination of ZEA contamination in beer samples. Due to ZEA's native fluorescence, chromatographic separation with fluorimetric detection (λex = 270 nm and λem, = 458 nm) was selected. Graphical abstract Determination of zearalenone in beer using an on-line extraction chromatography system.
- 650 _2
- $a pivo $x analýza $7 D001515
- 650 _2
- $a vysokoúčinná kapalinová chromatografie $x metody $7 D002851
- 650 _2
- $a chromatografie s reverzní fází $x metody $7 D056148
- 650 _2
- $a endokrinní disruptory $x analýza $7 D052244
- 650 _2
- $a nesteroidní estrogeny $x analýza $7 D004968
- 650 _2
- $a analýza potravin $x metody $7 D005504
- 650 _2
- $a limita detekce $7 D057230
- 650 _2
- $a molekulový imprinting $x metody $7 D054802
- 650 _2
- $a mykotoxiny $x analýza $7 D009183
- 650 _2
- $a extrakce na pevné fázi $x metody $7 D052616
- 650 _2
- $a zearalenon $x analýza $7 D015025
- 655 _2
- $a časopisecké články $7 D016428
- 655 _2
- $a validační studie $7 D023361
- 700 1_
- $a Gajdošová, Barbora $u The Department of Analytical Chemistry, Faculty of Pharmacy, Charles University, Heyrovského 1203, 500 05, Hradec Králové, Czech Republic.
- 700 1_
- $a Solich, Petr $u The Department of Analytical Chemistry, Faculty of Pharmacy, Charles University, Heyrovského 1203, 500 05, Hradec Králové, Czech Republic.
- 700 1_
- $a Šatínský, Dalibor $u The Department of Analytical Chemistry, Faculty of Pharmacy, Charles University, Heyrovského 1203, 500 05, Hradec Králové, Czech Republic. satinsky@faf.cuni.cz.
- 773 0_
- $w MED00006638 $t Analytical and bioanalytical chemistry $x 1618-2650 $g Roč. 410, č. 14 (2018), s. 3265-3273
- 856 41
- $u https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/29455282 $y Pubmed
- 910 __
- $a ABA008 $b sig $c sign $y a $z 0
- 990 __
- $a 20180709 $b ABA008
- 991 __
- $a 20180710095422 $b ABA008
- 999 __
- $a ok $b bmc $g 1316486 $s 1021276
- BAS __
- $a 3
- BAS __
- $a PreBMC
- BMC __
- $a 2018 $b 410 $c 14 $d 3265-3273 $e 20180217 $i 1618-2650 $m Analytical and bioanalytical chemistry $n Anal Bioanal Chem $x MED00006638
- LZP __
- $a Pubmed-20180709