The Great Resignation began sweeping through U.S. workplaces in 2021, resulting in nearly 48 million workers quitting their jobs, according to an April 2022 article in Mashable. Surveys of workers revealed that their top reasons for leaving were better pay, improved benefits, a new career direction, or a better working environment. Nearly 30% of the U.S. workforce was impacted, and the trend continues into 2022 with no clear indication of when, or how, it might ease, according to 2022 research from Statista.

In addition, challenges involving supply chains, transportation, and price pressures are forcing food manufacturers to develop creative solutions that not only serve their immediate production needs but enable greater resiliency in the face of future challenges.

Food safety testing has often followed a predictable pattern: Regulatory, industry, and trade drivers may influence where and how testing takes place, but food manufacturers have long been proactive in developing strategic and tactical approaches to ensuring that food and beverages are nutritious and safe to consume. A closer look at the role that food safety holds across the food manufacturing life cycle can help identify areas in which small changes can significantly improve operational efficiency and worker satisfaction while maintaining the highest product quality and safety standards.

When a worker shortage and employee retention are hurting production as they are today, food processors may want to take a harder look at food safety testing technologies and methods that are easier on the bottom line and safer and easier for new workers to use.

Identifying Mycotoxin ­Contamination

Table 1. Mycotoxins commonly detected in food and agricultural products.

Produced by naturally occurring soil-borne molds, mycotoxins are highly toxic metabolites found in most field, orchard, and vine-grown crops (see Table 1). Heat stable and persistent, mycotoxins remain on crops after they’ve been harvested, stored, and processed. In fact, the United Nations Food and Agriculture Organization (FAO) has estimated that 25% of the world’s food crops are contaminated with mycotoxins. Recent studies suggest that contamination is more complex and involves the presence of multiple mycotoxins in a single raw material.

Aflatoxins are among the most widely known and highly regulated mycotoxins. Produced by Aspergillus flavus and A. parasiticus molds, aflatoxin B1 is classified as a Group I carcinogen by the International Agency for Research on Cancer (IARC). Additional mycotoxins of food safety importance include fumonisin, ochratoxin A, patulin, ergot alkaloids, alternaria, deoxynivalenol (DON), nivalenol, zearalenone, and the combination of T-2 and HT-2. Each mycotoxin, or family of toxins, carries a unique toxicity profile, and regulatory guidelines are reflective of the intended use for the product. For example, the EU regulatory limit for aflatoxin M1 in milk products is 0.05 parts per billion (ppb); however, milk used to manufacture infant formula must follow a much stricter limit of 0.025 ppb.

The type or level of mycotoxin contamination varies with each crop season; therefore, having a process in place for screening can help identify high-risk raw materials, suppliers, and geographic regions. Severe weather patterns, warm and humid storage conditions, or even late crop planting may contribute to the severity of mycotoxin contamination.

Once a mold begins producing toxin, the contamination may remain highly ­localized to a very small area within a crop field or in a “hot spot” inside a storage bin. A single grain or nut kernel may constitute 100% of the aflatoxin contamination in each lot or shipment, for example, indicating the need for thorough inspection and careful sampling, especially at harvest.

Table 2. Lateral flow strip tests have come a long way and are highly sensitive, as these data from a 10-minute multi-toxin test procedure show.

In regions where environmental conditions (such as high heat or humidity) are favorable to mold growth, vigilance is key. Routine “upstream” monitoring is common, helping quality managers to identify and reject unsafe raw materials before they are allowed on site for storage or processing. Once mycotoxins enter the processing stream, the risks of cross contamination or further toxin production by the resident mold are always present. Food recalls or litigation due to mycotoxin contamination can be costly; the average recall costs the food industry between $5 and $10 million/incident, including insurance claims, legal representation, brand, and immediate and long-term business losses. The upstream detection of mycotoxins in raw materials also enables food manufacturers to find alternative markets for an ingredient that may not be suitable for their application but may be just fine for animal feed formulation.

Advancing Mycotoxin Testing Technologies

The Food Safety Modernization Act (FSMA) generated an upsurge in the use of rapid testing technologies. FSMA’s focus on ­prevention has enabled more food companies to better understand where mycotoxins come from and to manage the mycotoxin contamination of raw materials before they reach the processing facility. Early detection, combined with the unique challenges of our shifting workforce, creates the need for technologies that are simple enough to be used by staff with or without technical training or expertise. Adopting simpler test procedures that don’t require organic solvents and that are helped by automated data management are key factors that improve productivity, worker satisfaction, and safety, while giving the food manufacturer a leg up in meeting their own sustainability objectives.

Traditional mycotoxin testing methods are showing their age for a number of basic reasons. Some call for organic solvents, such as methanol, to extract toxins for analysis, which is what makes water-based test methods very attractive. Other methods, like ELISA, rely on employees handling the actual toxins and hand pipetting prior to sample analysis, risking exposure. Proper storage and disposal of unused testing supplies is also a consideration.

Fewer steps reduce error, bringing greater accuracy and better overall performance to screening tests.

As we know, not all mycotoxin testing takes place in the field. Sometimes it’s necessary to send samples for confirmatory testing to an analytical laboratory where trained lab technicians test for mycotoxins on analytical instrumentation including high performance liquid chromatography (HPLC), ultraperformance liquid chromatography (UPLC) and liquid chromatography-mass spectrometry/mass spectrometry (LC-MS/MS). These techniques can be automated to detect and quantify as many as one hundred mycotoxins in a single run. Effective onboarding and retention of new laboratory staff members may require investing in up-to-date instruments or methods, exploring service plans, or upgrading data handling software. Investments like these create an environment where employees are encouraged to learn, grow, work, and hopefully build a career.

Building for the future is always a good plan. There is an incredible opportunity amid the Great Resignation to pause and take a closer look at the technologies we use for food safety testing, and how they impact the employee experience. When our teams and the testing technologies they depend on work well together, food safety testing can deliver the most value.

Jackson is VICAM market development manager for Waters Corporation. Reach her at patricia_jackson@waters.com.

The post How to Simplify Mycotoxin Testing in the Food Industry appeared first on Food Quality & Safety.

Accurately detecting pesticides in food is critical to your laboratory’s success and the safety of consumers. At the same time, analyzing pesticides in food is no easy task. There are multiple pesticide residues belonging to multiple classes. This e-book showcases a combination of LC-MS/MS and GC-MS/MS to deliver fast quantitative analysis of 1000+ pesticides in food. With these systems, you get the high sensitivity you need to generate high-quality data for complex samples, quickly and without compromising data quality.

Click here to read the details.

The post Fast, Quantitative Analysis of 1000+ Pesticides Using MRM Mass Spectrometry appeared first on Food Quality & Safety.

LC/MS/MS have become valuable tools in the analysis of mycotoxins. The use of internal standards (inset) is a method for overcoming inherent limitations.

The analysis of mycotoxins has become a global issue, and most countries have already set up regulatory limits or guideline levels for the tolerance of such contaminants in agricultural commodities and products. Approximately 300 to 400 substances are recognized as mycotoxins, comprising a broad variety of chemical structures produced by various mold species on many commodities and processed food and feed.

Globalization of the agricultural product trade has contributed significantly to the discussion about potential hazards and increased awareness of mycotoxins, at the same time as knowledge of safety in food and feed production has risen due to the simple fact that methods for testing residues and undesirable substances have become noticeably more sophisticated and available at all points of the supply chain.

Requirements of Modern Mycotoxin Analysis

The most important target analytes are aflatoxins, trichothecenes, zearalenone and its derivatives, fumonisins, ochratoxins, ergot alkaloids, and patulin.1 Various mycotoxins may occur simultaneously, depending on environmental and substrate conditions. Considering this coincident production, humans and animals are likely exposed to mixtures rather than to individual compounds. Recently, the natural occurrence of masked mycotoxins, in which the toxin is conjugated, has been reported, requiring even more selective and sensitive detection principles.^1,2,3

So far, most analytical methods deal with single mycotoxins or mycotoxin classes, including a limited number of chemically related target analytes. But as additive and synergistic effects have been observed concerning the health hazards posed by mycotoxins, the need for multi-toxin methods for the simultaneous screening of different classes of mycotoxins has risen.

High-performance liquid chromatography and gas chromatography have traditionally been the favored choices for the analyst when sensitive, reliable results with minimum variability are required. The major disadvantage of mycotoxin analysis using GC is the necessity of derivatization, which can be time-consuming and prone to error; as a result, GC methods are used less frequently.

HPLC can be coupled with a variety of detectors, including spectrophotometric detectors (UV-Vis, diode array), refractometers, fluorescence detectors, electrochemical detectors, radioactivity detectors, and mass spectrometers. The coupling of liquid chromatography and mass spectrometry, which eliminates the need for pre- or post-column sample derivatization, provides great potential for the analysis of mycotoxins. No other technique in the area of instrumental analysis of environmental toxins has developed so rapidly during the past 10 years.

Analysis is performed on LC/MS/MS equipment at Romer Labs in Union, Mo.

By compensating for variations in sample preparation and cleanup, internal standards can help achieve high analytical accuracy and precision.

Liquid Chromatography/Mass Spectrometry

Liquid chromatography/mass spectrometry technology enables efficient spectrometric assays in routine laboratory settings with high sample throughput. This technique, which in many cases utilizes multi-mass spectrometer detectors, can be used for the measurement of a wide range of potential analytes, faces no limitations by molecular mass, offers a very straightforward sample preparation, does not require chemical derivatization, and requires only limited maintenance due to rugged instrumentation. The method has become very popular in mycotoxin analysis, particularly when LC is coupled to tandem mass spectrometry.

Recently, an LC/MS/MS method for the determination and validation of 39 mycotoxins in wheat and maize was published. The analytes determined were A- and B-type trichothecenes and their metabolites; zearalenone and derivatives; fumonisins; enniatins; ergot alkaloids; orchratoxins; aflatoxin; and moniliformin.¹

The development of LC/MS methods for mycotoxin determination is impeded to some extent by the chemical diversity of the analytes and the compromises that have to be made on the conditions of sample preparation.¹ Considering the wide range of polarities of the analytes, the seemingly highly selective MS/MS detection could lead to the misperception that matrix interferences could be eliminated effectively and quantitative results be obtained without any cleanup and with very little chromatographic separation. Unfortunately, co-eluting matrix components influence the ionization efficiency of the analyte positively or negatively, impairing the repeatability and accuracy of the analytical method.¹

Consequently, few approaches describe the successful injection of crude extracts, and the majority of publications describe a sample cleanup prior to liquid chromatography with solid-phase extraction as the most efficient procedure; in particular, the use of Mycosep columns proved straightforward and efficient. ^4,5,6,7,8,9

Stable Isotope Dilution Assay

To overcome matrix effects and related quantification problems, external matrix calibration for each commodity tested has so far been recommended. This process is extremely time consuming and impractical under routine conditions, in which a variety of matrices are present every day. An alternative approach, the use of stable isotope-labeled internal standards, has recently been introduced.¹⁰

These substances are not present in real-world samples but have properties identical to the analytes. Internal standards are substances that are highly similar to the analytical target substances: Their molecular structure should be as close as possible to the target analyte, while the molecular weight is different. Within the analytical process, internal standards are added to both the calibration solutions and analytical samples. By comparing the peak area ratio of an internal standard and the analyte, the concentration of the analyte can be determined.

Ideal internal standards are isotope-marked molecules of a respective target analyte, which are usually prepared using organic synthesis by exchanging some of the hydrogen atoms with deuterium or exchanging carbon-12 with carbon-13 atoms. Physicochemical properties of such substances, especially ionization potential, are very similar to or nearly the same as their naturally occurring target analytes, but because of their higher molecular weight (due to the incorporated isotopes), distinction between the internal standard and target analyte is possible.

Variations during sample preparation and cleanup, as well as during ionization, are compensated for so that methods with especially high analytical accuracy and precision can be developed. Optimally, these isotope-labeled analogues must have a large enough mass difference to nullify the effect of naturally abundant heavy isotopes in the analyte. This mass difference will generally depend on the molecular weight of the analyte itself; in the case of molecules with a molecular weight range of 200 to 500, a minimum of three extra mass units might be required.

Isotope-labeled standards supplied by Biopure are fully labeled, providing an optimum mass unit difference between the labeled standard and target analyte. For example, the [13C15]-DON standard, which is available as a liquid calibrant (25mgl-1), was thoroughly characterized by Häubl and colleagues with regard to purity and isotope distribution and substitution, the latter being close to 99%.9 Fortification experiments with maize confirmed the excellent suitability of [13C15]-DON as an internal standard, indicating a correlation coefficient of 0.9977 and a recovery rate of 101% +/- 2.4%. When the same analyses were run without considering the internal standard, the correlation coefficient was 0.9974 and the recovery rate was 76% +/- 1.9%, underlining the successful compensation for losses due to sample preparation and ion suppression effects by the isotope-labeled internal standards.^10,11

Conclusions

Direct coupling of a liquid phase separation technique such as liquid chromatography and mass spectrometry has been recognized as a powerful tool for analysis of highly complex mixtures. The main advantages include low detection limits, the ability to generate structural information, the requirement of minimal sample treatment, and the possibility to cover a wide range of analytes with different polarities.

Depending on the applied interface technique, a wide range of organic compounds can be detected and flows up to 1.5 ml/min can be handled.12 Despite their high sensitivity and selectivity, LC/MS/MS instruments are limited to some extent due to matrix-induced differences in ionization efficiencies and signal intensities between calibrants and analytes; ion suppression/enhancement due to matrix compounds entering the mass spectrometer together with the analytes also limit ruggedness and accuracy and pose a potential source of systematic errors.

Stable isotope-labeled internal standards have been proven to overcome these problems and compensate for fluctuations in sample preparation, such as extraction and cleanup. Numerous LC/MS/MS methods for detecting mycotoxins have been developed and published in recent years; however, only a few so far have been based on stable isotope-labeled analytes, mainly due to their limited availability and quality. Only recently have calibrants of thoroughly [13C]-labeled mycotoxins been introduced, thus opening a broad field of applications and improvement in mycotoxin analysis. The challenge for the industry is to accelerate the development of unified multi-toxin methods suitable for many types of analyte/matrix combinations.

Dr. Eva-Maria Binder is chief scientific officer at the Erber Group. She can be reached at eva.binder@erber-group.net.

References

1. Sulyok M, Berthiller F, Krska R, Schuhmacher R. Development and validation of a liquid chromatography/tandem mass spectrometric method for the determination of 39 mycotoxins in wheat and maize. Rapid Commun Mass Spectrom. 2006;20(18):2649-2659.
2. Berthiller F, Dall’Asta C, Schuhmacher R, Lemmens M, Adam G, Krska R. Masked mycotoxins: determination of a deoxynivalenol glucoside in artificially and naturally contaminated wheat by liquid chromatography-tandem mass spectrometry. J Agric Food Chem. 2005;53(9):3421-3425.
3. Schneweis I, Meyer K, Engelhardt G, Bauer J. Occurrence of zearalenone-4-β-D-glucopyranoside in wheat. J Agric Food Chem. 2002;50(6):1736-1738.
4. Biancardi A, Gasparini M, Dall’Asta C, Marchelli R. A rapid multiresidual determination of type A and type B trichothecenes in wheat flour by HPLC-ESI-MS. Food Addit Contam. 2005;22(3):251-258.
5. Berthiller F, Schuhmacher R, Buttinger G, Krska R. Rapid simultaneous determination of major type A- and B-trichothecenes as well as zearalenone in maize by high performance liquid chromatography-tandem mass spectrometry. J Chromatogr A. 2005;1062(2):209-216.
6. Biselli S, Hummert C. Development of a multicomponent method for Fusarium toxins using LC-MS/MS and its application during a survey for the content of T-2 toxin and deoxynivalenol in various feed and food samples. Food Addit Contam. 2005;22(8):752-760.
7. Tanaka H, Takino M, Sugita-Konishi Y, Tanaka T. Development of a liquid chromatography/time-of-flight mass spectrometric method for the simultaneous determination of trichothecenes, zearalenone and aflatoxins in foodstuffs. Rapid Commun Mass Spectrom. 2006;20(9):1422-1428.
8. Milanez TV, Valente-Soares LM. Gas chromatography: mass spectrometry determination of trichothecene mycotoxins in commercial corn harvested in the state of São Paulo, Brazil. J Braz Chem Soc. 2006;17(2):412-416.
9. Klötzel M, Gutsche B, Lauber U, Humpf HU. Determination of 12 type A and B trichothecenes in cereals by liquid chromatography-electrospray ionization tandem mass spectrometry. J Agric Food Chem. 2005;53(23):8904-8910.
10. Häubl G, Berthiller F, Krska R, Schuhmacher R. Suitability of a 13C isotope labeled internal standard for the determination of the mycotoxin deoxynivalenol by LC-MS/MS without clean up. Anal Bioanal Chem. 2006;384(3):692-696.
11. Häubl G, Berthiller F, Rechthaler J, et al. Characterization and application of isotope-substituted (13C15)-deoxynivalenol (DON) as an internal standard for the determination of DON. Food Addit Contam. 2006;23(11):1187-1193.
12. Sakairi M, Kato Y. Multi-atmospheric pressure ionization interface for liquid chromatography-mass spectrometry. J Chromatogry A. 1998;794(1-2):391-406.

The post New Reference Method for Mycotoxin Analysis appeared first on Food Quality & Safety.

Throughout history, people have used honey to sweeten and add flavor. Although its sweetness is similar to that of granulated sugar, honey has a distinctive flavor that is largely determined by the flower type from which the nectar is gathered.

According to the Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations (FAO), current world honey production is estimated at 1.3 million tons annually.1 The majority of honey produced each year is designated as table honey and intended for direct consumption. The remainder is used as an ingredient in a wide range of products. The food industry uses honey extensively to sweeten and flavor baked goods, cereals, sauces, and beverages. It is also used as a coloring and an emollient in cosmetics such as soap, shampoos, and lotions, as well as in the pharmaceutical industry, primarily to flavor cough remedies and throat lozenges and to soothe and coat the throat.

In total, about 300,000 tons of honey is traded internationally each year. The European Union, the United States, and Japan, which all depend heavily on imported honey to meet consumer demand, together account for 70% of all imports. Given the global patterns that exist in the movement of honey between consuming and producing countries, there is a great international need for analysis to prevent honey that has been contaminated by pesticides, insecticides, or antibiotics from reaching the market.

Environmental contaminants and antibiotics are the most common residues found in honey. For instance, nectar and pollen collected from pesticide-treated flowers can result in contaminated honey. Persistent residues from the antibiotics used to control bacterial diseases in bees can also be a contaminant. Because of extensive honey exporting and importing, analyzing for these contaminants is challenging. One country may approve certain pesticides or antibiotics, while another may ban them. Approved compounds may have varying restrictions on permissible exposure levels.

The Challenge

Increasing concern over the presence of antibiotic and pesticide residues in honey and the related potential health threats to humans has led food quality control laboratories to develop fast and efficient detection methods. The complex honey matrix and the large number and variety of potential contaminants mean that analysis is extremely challenging.

Fundamentally, honey is a highly concentrated solution of two invert sugars, dextrose and levulose, in water with small amounts of numerous complex sugars. In addition to these sugars, which are responsible for the principal physical characteristics and behavior of honey, it also contains aromatic volatile oils, which give it flavor, along with minerals, various enzymes, vitamins, and pigments. These minor constituents, largely responsible for the differences among individual honey types, contribute to the complexity of the honey matrix.

The basic analytical requirements for food analysis are high-resolution, high-throughput, high-sensitivity detection and the quantitation of contaminants at or below the maximum residue limit (MRL) of the compound in a given food matrix.2 Professionals in the food safety and quality control fields recognize liquid chromatography-tandem mass spectrometry (LC-MS/MS) as the central analytical technology. LC-MS/MS provides high-speed, high-resolution, and high-sensitivity separation and quantitation of various chemical compounds. An LC-MS/MS-based technique is also useful as a simultaneous screening method for the multiple classes of contaminants at trace levels in honey.

Honey analysis, like every food analysis, starts with sample preparation. Sample preparation is widely accepted as one of the most critical steps of the LC-MS/MS analysis. The increased demand from food analysis laboratories for higher throughput, higher accuracy, and lower matrix interference has made sample preparation the bottleneck step in the analysis.

Conventional sample preparation for LC-MS/MS analysis of honey is time and labor intensive and often involves pH modification, hydrolysis, liquid-liquid extraction (LLE), solid phase extraction (SPE), solvent evaporation, and pre-concentration steps to isolate and enrich target analytes from the honey matrix. When manually undertaken, these offline techniques are often costly and can result in low sample throughput.

One Solution

Food quality control laboratories are challenged by their need for multi-component quantitation, their desire for limited or no sample preparation, and their requirement to make quality control screening cost effective. New automated, online sample extraction techniques, such as Thermo Scientific TurboFlow technology coupled with LC-MS/MS, can reduce sample preparation and eliminate the disadvantages of conventional techniques.

This new technology allows for direct injection of the honey samples into the MS/MS system, which eliminates time-consuming and costly steps, simplifying the sample preparation process and increasing sample throughput. The technology reduces sample preparation time from hours to minutes and significantly decreases analytical costs. This patented technique also enables automatic removal of proteins and larger molecules from the complex honey mixture. When combined with a triple-stage quadrupole mass spectrometer, efficient quantitative results are possible with reduced levels of ion suppression and chemical noise compared to traditional techniques.

click for large version

Representative selected reaction monitoring chromatogram (20 µg/kg) showing the selected ion transitions and retention times for the studied analyte.

Automated online sample extraction technology is based on turbulent flow chromatography, an innovative approach to sample preparation based on chromatographic principles. This process combines principles of diffusion, chemistry, and size exclusion to eliminate matrix interferences while capturing analytes of interest. When the mobile phase flows through the turbulent flow column, high linear velocities are created that are 100 times greater than those typically seen in high-pressure LC columns. This high linear mobile phase velocity and the large interstitial spaces between the column particles create turbulence within the column, which quickly flushes the large sample compounds through the column to waste before they have an opportunity to diffuse into the particle pores, while smaller molecular weight molecules are able to diffuse into the particle pores.

Chemistry also separates analytes from other sample molecules. Those sample molecules that have an affinity to the chemistry inside the pores bind to the column particles’ internal surface. The small sample molecules that have a lower binding affinity quickly diffuse out of the pores and are flushed to waste. A mobile phase change then elutes the small molecules that were bound by the turbulent flow column to the mass spectrometer or to a second analytical column for further separation.

Applications in Screening

A broad, generic, automated LC-MS/MS method has been developed for screening multi-class antibiotics in honey using dual online turbulent flow extraction columns with different chemistries.3 Ten representative antibiotics used in honey, belonging to four different structural classes, were selected: sulfonamides, tetracyclines, aminoglycosides, and macrolides. Sample preparation time was minimal, requiring only the addition of a buffer to reduce sample viscosity. The total LC-MS/MS method run time was less than 18 minutes. This design facilitates the separation and quantification of all of the representative compounds in the complex honey matrix in a single analysis.

click for large version

Chromatography comparison of CAP selected reaction monitoring m/z 257 transition (upper traces) and CAP-d5 (lower traces) in pre-blank honey matrix (panel A), at lower limit of quantitation of 0.047 µg/kg (panel B).

For the quantitation of 12 fluoroquinolones and four quinolones in honey, a sensitive and reproducible LC-MS/MS method has been developed.4 An online extraction method using turbulent flow chromatography was employed instead of a traditional SPE method. The sample preparation time decreased from five hours to 40 minutes. The limits of quantitation (LOQ) for the majority of analytes were one µg/kg (parts per billion) with no matrix interference. This online extraction, coupled with a triple-stage quadrupole mass spectrometer, is an excellent total solution for the quantification of a large number of compounds in honey.

A quick, automated sample preparation using the LC-MS/MS method was also developed for the screening of chloramphenicol in honey.5 The only pretreatment required was dilution with water to reduce sample viscosity. The method is sensitive enough to detect 0.023 µg/kg and quantify 0.047 µg/kg of chloramphenicol in honey, significantly lower than the minimum required performance limit of 0.3 µg/kg set by the European Union. Compared to offline detection such as SPE, QuEChERS (quick, easy, cheap, effective, and safe), and LLE, sample preparation with the TurboFlow method was between seven and 24 times faster. The LC-MS method run time was equal to or as much as four times faster than offline detection. Finally, the limit of detection (LOD) was between 5.7 and 20 times lower, and the lower limit of quantitation was between 3.7 and 27 times lower.

click for large version

Chromatogram of five fluoroquinolone antibiotic standards at five parts per billion using online clean-up of the Aria TLX-1 system. The system provided a sensitive and reliable analytical method of detecting a full range of antibiotics.

Case Study

The Korea Beekeeping Association (KBA) needed to find an analytical solution that could detect multi-component antibiotics simultaneously and at low levels in honey analysis. They determined that an LC-MS/MS method using a Thermo Scientific Aria system powered by TurboFlow technology was superior to offline sample preparation techniques for antibiotic residue analysis in honey.

The large number and variety of potential contaminants in honey presented a challenge to the KBA. The online sample extraction method on the Aria TLX-1 system provided both increased analysis throughput and higher reproducibility. The system virtually eliminated pre-injection sample preparation, saving labor costs as well as increasing productivity. In addition, matrix effects, which are typically a challenge in LC-MS/MS analysis, decreased. The performance of the method was excellent. The LOD of one ng/mL achieved are well below the maximum residue limits of the antibiotics tested. ■

Ghosh is strategic marketing manager, Food Safety Solutions, Thermo Fisher Scientific. For more information, call (800) 246-4550, e-mail turboflow@thermo.com, or go to www.thermo.com/turboflow.

References

1. Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations. FAO Web site. Available at: www.fao.org. Accessed January 26, 2010.
2. 2. Soler C, Mañes J, Picó Y. The role of the liquid chromatography-mass spectrometry in pesticide residue determination in food. Crit Rev Anal Chem. 2008;38(2):93-117.
3. 3. Lafontaine C, Shi Y, Espourteille FA. Multi-class antibiotic screening of honey using online extraction with LC-MS/MS. Thermo Scientific Application Note 464. Available at: www.thermo.com/eThermo/CMA/PDFs/Articles/articlesFile_51570.pdf. Accessed January 26, 2010.
4. 4. Hammel Y-A, Schoutsen F, Martins CPB. Analysis of (fluoro)quinolones in honey with online sample extraction and LC-MS/MS. Thermo Fisher Scientific Application Note 465. Available at: www.thermo.com/eThermo/CMA/PDFs/Articles/articlesFile_51980.pdf. Accessed January 26, 2010.
5. 5. Lafontaine C, Shi Y, Espourteille F. Measurement of chloramphenicol in honey using automated sample preparation with LC-MS/MS. Thermo Scientific Application Note 473. Available at: www.thermo.com/eThermo/CMA/PDFs/Articles/articlesFile_52958.pdf. Accessed January 26, 2010.

The post Sweet Science appeared first on Food Quality & Safety.