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
Jazyk angličtina Země Německo Médium print-electronic
Typ dokumentu časopisecké články, validační studie
Grantová podpora
No 726316
Grantová Agentura, Univerzita Karlova
15-10781S
Grantová Agentura České Republiky
CZ.02.1.01/0.0/0.0/15_003/0000465
European Regional Development Fund
SVV 260 412
Univerzita Karlova v Praze
PubMed
29455282
DOI
10.1007/s00216-018-0920-2
PII: 10.1007/s00216-018-0920-2
Knihovny.cz E-zdroje
- Klíčová slova
- Molecularly imprinted polymers, Mycotoxin, On-line SPE chromatography, On-line extraction, Solid-phase extraction, Zearalenone,
- 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
- Názvy látek
- endokrinní disruptory MeSH
- mykotoxiny MeSH
- nesteroidní estrogeny MeSH
- zearalenon 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