Analytical and Bioanalytical Chemistry

, Volume 407, Issue 15, pp 4459–4472 | Cite as

Development of a rapid multiplexed assay for the direct screening of antimicrobial residues in raw milk

  • Terry F. McGrath
  • Laura McClintock
  • John S. Dunn
  • Gregory M. Husar
  • Michael J. Lochhead
  • Ronald W. Sarver
  • Frank E. Klein
  • Jennifer A. Rice
  • Katrina Campbell
  • Christopher T. Elliott
Research Paper
Part of the following topical collections:
  1. Hormone and Veterinary Drug Residue Analysis

Abstract

Antimicrobial residues found to be present in milk can have both health and economic impacts. For these reasons, the widespread routine testing of milk is required. Due to delays with sample handling and test scheduling, laboratory-based tests are not always suited for making decisions about raw material intake and product release, especially when samples require shipping to a central testing facility. Therefore, rapid on-site screening tests that can produce results within a matter of minutes are required to facilitate rapid intake and product release processes. Such tests must be simple for use by non-technical staff. There is increasing momentum towards the development and implementation of multiplexing tests that can detect a range of important antimicrobial residues simultaneously. A simple in situ multiplexed planar waveguide device that can simultaneously detect chloramphenicol, streptomycin and desfuroylceftiofur in raw dairy milk, without sample preparation, has been developed. Samples are simply mixed with antibody prior to an aliquot being passed through the detection cartridge for 5 min before reading on a field-deployable portable instrument. Multiplexed calibration curves were produced in both buffer and raw milk. Buffer curves, for chloramphenicol, streptomycin and desfuroylceftiofur, showed linear ranges (inhibitory concentration (IC)20–IC80) of 0.1–0.9, 3–129 and 12–26 ng/ml, whilst linear range in milk was 0.13–0.74, 11–376 and 2–12 ng/ml, respectively, thus meeting European legislated concentration requirements for both chloramphenicol and streptomycin, in milk, without the need for any sample preparation. Desfuroylceftiofur-contaminated samples require only simple sample dilution to bring positive samples within the range of quantification. Assay repeatability and reproducibility were lower than 12 coefficient of variation (%CV), whilst blank raw milk samples (n = 9) showed repeatability ranging between 4.2 and 8.1 %CV when measured on all three calibration curves.

Graphical Abstract

MBio SnapEsi reader and cartridge

Keywords

Rapid multiplexed screening Veterinary drug residue milk No sample preparation Planar waveguide On-site screening 

References

  1. 1.
    Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (2014) Antibiotic use in food-producing animals—tracking and reducing the public health impact. Available via http://www.cdc.gov/narms/animals.html. Accessed 16/01 2015
  2. 2.
    McGrath TF, Elliott CT, Fodey TL (2012) Biosensors for the analysis of microbiological and chemical contaminants in food. Anal Bioanal Chem 403:75–92CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. 3.
    Cerniglia C, Kotarski S (1999) Evaluation of veterinary drug residues in food for their potential to affect human intestinal microflora. Regul Toxicol Pharmacol 29:238–261CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. 4.
    Kaklamanos G, Vincent U, von Holst C (2013) Multi-residue method for the detection of veterinary drugs in distillers grains by liquid chromatography-Orbitrap high resolution mass spectrometry. J Chromatogr A 1322:38–48CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. 5.
    FDA Grade “A” Pasteurized Milk Ordinance (Includes provisions from the Grade “A” Condensed and Dry Milk Products and Condensed and Dry Whey—Supplement I to the Grade “A” PMO) 2009 Revision U.S. Department of Health and Human Services. Public Health Service. Food and Drug Administration. Available via http://www.fda.gov/downloads/Food/GuidanceRegulation/UCM209789.pdf. Accessed 09/29 2014
  6. 6.
    G. M. Jones (2009) On-farm tests for drug residues in milk communications and marketing. College of Agriculture and Life Sciences, Virginia Polytechnic Institute and State University. Available via http://pubs.ext.vt.edu/404/404-401/404-401_pdf.pdf. Accessed 09/29 2014
  7. 7.
    Commission Regulation (EU) No 37/2010 of 22 December 2009 on pharmacologically active substances and their classification regarding maximum residue limits in foodstuffs of animal origin (text with EEA relevance) (OJ L 15, 20.1.2010, p. 1), consolidated version 2014-08-19Google Scholar
  8. 8.
    Commission Decision 2002/657/EC of 12 August 2002 implementing Council Directive 96/23/EC concerning the performance of analytical methods and the interpretation of results (notified under document number C(2002) 3044) (Text with EEA relevance) (OJ L 221, 17.8.2002, p. 8) consolidated version 2004-01-10Google Scholar
  9. 9.
    European Commission. Commission Staff Working Document on the Implementation of National Residue Monitoring Plans in the Member States in 2012 (Council Directive 96/23/EC). Available via http://ec.europa.eu/food/food/chemicalsafety/residues/docs/workdoc_2012_en.pdf. Accessed 10/13 2014
  10. 10.
    Charm Sciences Inc (2014) Charm II. Available via http://www.charm.com/en/products/charm-ii.html. Accessed 09/30 2014
  11. 11.
    IDEXX Laboratories Inc (2014) Dairy testing. Available via http://www.idexx.co.uk/dairy/dairy-testing.html. Accessed 09/30 2014
  12. 12.
    Charm Sciences Inc (2014) Charm ROSA milk tests. Available via http://www.charm.com/en/products/rosa-milk.html. Accessed 09/30 2014
  13. 13.
    Neogen Corporation Food Safety Dairy Analysis Test Kits. Available via http://www.neogen.com/FoodSafety/FS_DA_Index.html. Accessed 09/30 2014
  14. 14.
    DSM (2014) Milk tests. Available via http://www.dsm.com/markets/foodandbeverages/en_US/products/tests/delvotest.html#. Accessed 09/30 2014
  15. 15.
    Unisensor (2012) Unisensor home page. Available via http://www.unisensor.be/. Accessed 01/13 2015
  16. 16.
    Bohm DA, Stachel CS, Gowik P (2009) Multi-method for the determination of antibiotics of different substance groups in milk and validation in accordance with Commission Decision 2002/657/EC. J Chromatogr A 1216:8217–8223CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. 17.
    Deng X, Yang H, Li J et al (2011) Multiclass residues screening of 105 veterinary drugs in meat, milk, and egg using ultra high performance liquid chromatography tandem quadrupole time-of-flight mass spectrometry. J Liq Chromatogr Rel Technol 34:2286–2303CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. 18.
    Freitas A, Barbosa J, Ramos F (2013) Development and validation of a multi-residue and multiclass ultra-high-pressure liquid chromatography-tandem mass spectrometry screening of antibiotics in milk. Int Dairy J 33:38–43CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. 19.
    Hou X, Chen G, Zhu L et al (2014) Development and validation of an ultra high performance liquid chromatography tandem mass spectrometry method for simultaneous determination of sulfonamides, quinolones and benzimidazoles in bovine milk. J Chromatogr B 962:20–29CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. 20.
    Toaldo IM, Gamba GZ, Picinin LA et al (2012) Multiclass analysis of antibacterial residues in milk using RP-liquid chromatography with photodiode array and fluorescence detection and tandem mass spectrometer confirmation. Talanta 99:616–624CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. 21.
    Raz SR, Bremer MGEG, Haasnoot W et al (2009) Label-free and multiplex detection of antibiotic residues in milk using imaging surface plasmon resonance-based immunosensor. Anal Chem 81:7743–7749CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. 22.
    Douglas D, Banaszewski K, Juskelis R et al (2012) Validation of a rapid lateral flow test for the simultaneous determination of beta-lactam drugs and flunixin in raw milk. J Food Prot 75:1270–1277CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. 23.
    Zhi A, Li B, Liu Q et al (2010) Development of a lateral-flow immunochromatographic test device for the rapid detection of difloxacin residues. Food Agric Immunol 21:335–345CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. 24.
    Meneely JP, Campbell K, Greef C et al (2013) Development and validation of an ultrasensitive fluorescence planar waveguide biosensor for the detection of paralytic shellfish toxins in marine algae. Biosens Bioelectron 41:691–697CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. 25.
    Devlin S, Meneely JP, Greer B et al (2013) Next generation planar waveguide detection of microcystins in freshwater and cyanobacterial extracts, utilising a novel lysis method for portable sample preparation and analysis. Anal Chim Acta 769:108–113CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. 26.
    Lochhead MJ, Todorof K, Delaney M et al (2011) Rapid multiplexed immunoassay for simultaneous serodiagnosis of HIV-1 and coinfections. J Clin Microbiol 49:3584–3590CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. 27.
    Burkin M, Galvidis I (2013) Immunochemical detection of apramycin as a contaminant in tissues of edible animals. Food Control 34:408–413CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. 28.
    McNamee SE, Elliott CT, Delahaut P et al (2013) Multiplex biotoxin surface plasmon resonance method for marine biotoxins in algal and seawater samples. Environ Sci Pollut Res 20:6794–6807CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. 29.
    Vdovenko MM, Lu C, Yu F et al (2014) Development of ultrasensitive direct chemiluminescent enzyme immunoassay for determination of aflatoxin M1 in milk. Food Chem 158:310–314CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. 30.
    Reimer G, Gee S, Hammock B (1998) Comparison of a time-resolved fluorescence immunoassay and an enzyme-linked immunosorbent assay for the analysis of atrazine in water. J Agric Food Chem 46:3353–3358CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  31. 31.
    McGrath TF, Campbell K, Fodey TL et al (2013) An evaluation of the capability of a biolayer interferometry biosensor to detect low-molecular-weight food contaminants. Anal Bioanal Chem 405:2535–2544CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer-Verlag Berlin Heidelberg 2015

Authors and Affiliations

  • Terry F. McGrath
    • 1
  • Laura McClintock
    • 1
  • John S. Dunn
    • 2
  • Gregory M. Husar
    • 2
  • Michael J. Lochhead
    • 2
  • Ronald W. Sarver
    • 3
  • Frank E. Klein
    • 3
  • Jennifer A. Rice
    • 3
  • Katrina Campbell
    • 1
  • Christopher T. Elliott
    • 1
  1. 1.Institute for Global Food Security, School of Biological SciencesQueen’s UniversityBelfastUK
  2. 2.MBio Diagnostics IncBoulderUSA
  3. 3.Neogen CorporationLansingUSA

Personalised recommendations