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
- 325 Downloads
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.
KeywordsMolecularly imprinted polymers On-line extraction On-line SPE chromatography Solid-phase extraction Mycotoxin Zearalenone
This work was supported by the Charles University Grant Agency, project No 726316, and by the project GAČR, no 15-10781S. I. Lhotská gratefully acknowledge the financial support of the project of specific research of Charles University, project no SVV 260 412. This work was also supported by the STARSS project (Reg. No. CZ.02.1.01/0.0/0.0/15_003/0000465) co-funded by the ERDF.
Compliance with ethical standards
Conflict of interest
The authors declare that they have no conflict of interest.
- 6.Wang YC, Deng JL, Xu SW, Peng X, Zuo ZC, Cui HM, et al. Effects of zearalenone on IL-2, IL-6, and IFN-휸 mRNA levels in the splenic lymphocytes of chickens. Sci World J. 2012;2012:1–5.Google Scholar
- 12.Peters J, van Dam R, van Doorn R, Katerere D, Berthiller F, Haasnoot W, et al. Mycotoxin profiling of 1000 beer samples with a special focus on craft beer. PLoS One. 2017; https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0185887.
- 14.European Commission. Regulation no 1126/2007 amending regulation (EC) no 1881/2006 setting maximum levels for certain contaminants in foodstuff as regards Fusarium toxins in maize and maize products. Off J Eur Union. 2007;L255:14–7.Google Scholar
- 19.Xu W, Qing Y, Chen S, Chen J, Qin Z, Qiu JF, et al. Electrochemical indirect competitive immunoassay for ultrasensitive detection of zearalenone based on a glassy carbon electrode modified with carboxylated multi-walled carbon nanotubes and chitosan. Microchim Acta. 2017;184:3339–47.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
- 21.Bozkurt SS, Işık G. Ionic liquid based dispersive liquid–liquid microextraction for preconcentration of zearalenone and its determination in beer and cereal samples by high-performance liquid chromatography with fluorescence detection. J Liq Chromatogr Relat Technol. 2015;38:1601–7.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
- 24.Porto-Figueira P, Camacho I, Câmara JS. Exploring the potentialities of an improved ultrasound-assisted quick, easy, cheap, effective, rugged, and safe-based extraction technique combined with ultrahigh pressure liquid chromatography-fluorescence detection for determination of zearalenone in cereals. J Chromatogr A. 2015;1408:187–96.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
- 33.Zhao KX, Ge BK, Chen XY, Xu H. Determination of 10 mycotoxins in Chinese herbs and Chinese medicines by liquid chromatography-tandem mass spectrometry using on-line immunoaffinity purifying. Chin J Anal Chem. 2011;39:1341–6.Google Scholar
- 34.Laganà I, Bacaloni A, Castellano M, Curini R, De Leva I, Faberi A, et al. Sample preparation for determination of macrocyclic lactone mycotoxins in fish tissue, based on on-line matrix solid-phase dispersion and solid-phase extraction cleanup followed by liquid chromatography/tandem mass spectrometry. J AOAC Int. 2003;86:729–36.PubMedGoogle Scholar
- 38.D’Orazio G, Hernández-Borges J, Herrera-Herrera AV, Fanali S, Rodríguez-Delgado MÁ. Determination of estrogenic compounds in milk and yogurt samples by hollow-fibre liquid-phase microextraction-gas chromatography-triple quadrupole mass spectrometry. Anal Bioanal Chem. 2016;408:7447–59.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
- 39.Wang YK, Zou Q, Sun JH, Wang H, Sun X, Chen ZF, et al. Screening of single-stranded DNA (ssDNA) aptamers against a zearalenone monoclonal antibody and development of a ssDNA-based enzyme-linked oligonucleotide assay for determination of zearalenone in corn. J Agric Food Chem. 2015;63:136–41.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
- 42.González-Sálamo J, Socas-Rodríguez B, Hernández-Borges J, del Mar Afonso M, Rodríguez-Delgado MÁ. Evaluation of two molecularly imprinted polymers for the solid-phase extraction of natural, synthetic and mycoestrogens from environmental water samples before liquid chromatography with mass spectrometry. J Sep Sci. 2015;38:2692–9.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar