Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in

Comparison of LC and UPLC Coupled to MS–MS for the Determination of Sulfonamides in Egg and Honey

  • Full Short Communication
  • Published:
Chromatographia Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

Determination of ten sulfonamides (SAs) in egg and honey has been compared using column liquid chromatography (LC) and ultra-performance liquid chromatography (UPLC) coupled to tandem mass spectrometry (MS–MS). A liquid–liquid extraction with acetonitrile followed by solid-phase extraction on a Strata-X cartridge was developed for sample preparation. The analytical performance of both methods was compared applying the alternative matrix-comprehensive in-house validation approach using specially designed software InterVal™. Using UPLC the separation time was shortened about 30% reducing the run time by 8 min and a better resolution was achieved compared to LC. Due to higher peak efficiency achieved with UPLC, the decision limit values obtained by both techniques were almost equal (6.61–9.43 μg kg−1 and 7.25–11.9 μg kg−1 for UPLC and LC, respectively), despite the fact that in UPLC twice lower sample volumes were injected. Satisfactory and comparable recoveries (80–110%) were obtained by UPLC and LC for all the SAs, except for sulfacetamide by LC and sulfabenzamide by both methods. For a majority of the spiked compounds, UPLC gave significantly better precision.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Log in via an institution

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Institutional subscriptions

Fig. 1
Fig. 2

Similar content being viewed by others

References

  1. Crosby NT (1991) In: Determination of veterinary residues in food. Ellis Horwood, Chichester

    Google Scholar 

  2. Botsoglou NA, Fletouris DJ (2001) In: Drug residues in foods: pharmacology, food safety and analysis. Marcel Dekker, New York

    Google Scholar 

  3. Doerge DR, Decker CJ (1994) Chem Res Toxicol 7:164–169

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  4. Commission of the European Communities, Council Regulation EEC 2377/90, Off. J. L224 (1990) 1

  5. Sheth AB, Sporns P (1990) J Assoc Off Anal Chem 73:871–874

    CAS  Google Scholar 

  6. Neidert E, Baraniak Z, Sauve A (1986) J Assoc Off Anal Chem 69:641–645

    CAS  Google Scholar 

  7. Takatsuki K, Kikuchi T (1990) J Assoc Off Anal Chem 73:886–892

    CAS  Google Scholar 

  8. Kishida K, Furusawa N (2001) J Chromatogr A 973:49–55

    Article  Google Scholar 

  9. Malintan NT, Mohd MA (2006) J Chromatogr A 1127:154–160

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  10. Abian J, Churchwell MI, Korfmacher WA (1993) J Chromatogr 629:267–276

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  11. Haller MY, Müller SR, McArdell CS, Alder AC, Suter MJF (2002) J Chromatogr A 952:111–120

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  12. Bogialli S, Curini R, Di Corcia A, Nazzari M, Polci ML (2003) J Agric Food Chem 51:4225–4232

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  13. Doerge DR, Bajic S, Lowes S (1993) Rapid Commun Mass Spectrom 7:1126–1130

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  14. Van Eeckhout N, Perez JC, Peteghem C (2000) Rapid Commun Mass Spectrom 14:2331–2338

    Article  Google Scholar 

  15. Shao B, Dong D, Wu Y, Hu J, Meng J, Tu X, Hu S (2005) Anal Chim Acta 546:174–181

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  16. Potter RA, Burns BG, Van de Riet JM, North DH, Darvesh R (2007) J AOAC Int 90:343–348

    CAS  Google Scholar 

  17. Heller DN, Ngoh MA, Donoghue D, Podhorniak L, Righter H, Thomas MH (2002) J Chromatogr B 774:39–52

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  18. Verzegnassi L, Savoy-Perroud MC, Stadler RH (2002) J Chromatogr A 977:77–87

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  19. Thompson TS, Noot DK (20005) Anal Chim Acta 551:168–176

    Article  Google Scholar 

  20. Sherma J, Larkin JD, Larkin FH (2005) J AOAC Int 88:63A–67A

    CAS  Google Scholar 

  21. Swartz M (2005) J Liq Chromatogr Relat Technol 28:1253–1263

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  22. Uhlig S, Gowik P, Radeck W (2003) Anal Chim Acta 483:351–362

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  23. Bock C, Stachel C, Gowik P (2007) Anal Chim Acta 586:348–358

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  24. Maudens KE, Zhang GF, Lambert WE (2004) J Chromatogr A 1047:85–92

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  25. Ito Y, Oka H, Ikai Y, Matsumoto H, Miyazaki Y, Nagase H (2000) J Chromatogr A 898:95–102

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  26. Krivohlavek A, Šmit Z, Baštinac M, Žuntar I, Plavšic-Plavšic FP (2005) J Sep Sci 28:1434–1439

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  27. Hela W, Brandtner M, Widek R, Schuh R (2003) Food Chem 83:601–608

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  28. Zotou A, Vasiliadou C (2006) Chromatographia 64:307–311

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  29. Fuh MRS, Chu SY (2003) Anal Chim Acta 499:215–221

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  30. Tarbin JA, Clarke P, Shearer G (1999) J Chromatogr B 729:127–138

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Department of Analytical and Environmental Chemistry, Vilnius University, Naugarduko 24, 03225, Vilnius, Lithuania

    Vytautas Tamošiūnas & Audrius Padarauskas

Authors
  1. Vytautas Tamošiūnas
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Audrius Padarauskas
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Audrius Padarauskas.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Cite this article

Tamošiūnas, V., Padarauskas, A. Comparison of LC and UPLC Coupled to MS–MS for the Determination of Sulfonamides in Egg and Honey. Chroma 67, 783–788 (2008). https://doi.org/10.1365/s10337-008-0579-5

Download citation

  • Received:

  • Revised:

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1365/s10337-008-0579-5

Keywords

Search

Navigation