-
Something wrong with this record ?
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,
Language English Country Germany
Document type Journal Article, Validation Study
NLK
ProQuest Central
from 2011-01-01 to 1 year ago
Medline Complete (EBSCOhost)
from 2003-01-01 to 1 year ago
Health & Medicine (ProQuest)
from 2011-01-01 to 1 year ago
- MeSH
- Food Analysis methods MeSH
- Chromatography, Reverse-Phase methods MeSH
- Endocrine Disruptors analysis MeSH
- Solid Phase Extraction methods MeSH
- Limit of Detection MeSH
- Molecular Imprinting methods MeSH
- Mycotoxins analysis MeSH
- Estrogens, Non-Steroidal analysis MeSH
- Beer analysis MeSH
- Chromatography, High Pressure Liquid methods MeSH
- Zearalenone analysis MeSH
- Publication type
- Journal Article MeSH
- Validation Study 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.
References provided by 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