Chromatographia

, Volume 29, Issue 9–10, pp 435–440

Evaluation of the ability of different concentrations of aqueous acetone, aqueous methanol and aqueous acetone: Methanol (1∶1) to extract aflatoxin from naturally contaminated maize

  • N. Bradburn
  • R. D. Coker
  • K. Jewers
  • K. I. Tomlins
Originals

Summary

A conventional TLC tank was compared with a specially designed continuous linear development chamber for the ether development phase of the quantitation of aflatoxins by bi-directional High Performance Thin Layer Chromatography (HPTLC). No significant difference was detected in the precision of the method. However, the continuous linear development chamber afforded greater accuracy in aflatoxin determination and required only half the development time and a small fraction of the solvent used in the conventional TLC tank. The ability of different concentrations of aqueous acetone, aqueous methanol and aqueous acetone: methanol (1∶1) to extract aflatoxin from naturally contaminated maize was assessed. With each system, the amount of aflatoxin extracted increased as the ratio of organic solvent: water progressed from 50∶50 to 80∶20 and then decreased or remained constant when the composition of the extraction solvent was altered to 90∶10. 80% aqueous acetone was found to extract 27% more aflatoxin than the corresponding aqueous methanol with the mixed solvent system extracting an intermediate amount of toxin. Clean-up of 80% aqueous acetone extracts of maize by elution through phenol (PH) bonded-phase cartridges resulted in poor aflatoxin retention when the proportion of acetone in 5 ml aliquots of extract was greater than 70%. This could be increased to 100% retention by the addition of an equal quantity of methanol prior to dilution with 1% aqueous acetic acid and elution through the cartridge.

Key Words

Thin-layer chromatography Bi-directional development Aflatoxin Maize Extraction Solvents 

Preview

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

References

  1. [1]
    H. P. Van Egmond, Food Additives and Contaminants,6 139 (1989).Google Scholar
  2. [2]
    R. D. Coker, K. Jewers, K. I. Tomlins, G. Blunden, Chromatographia,25, 875 (1988).Google Scholar
  3. [3]
    K. I. Tomlins, K. Jewers, R. D. Coker, M. J. Nagler, Chromatographia,27, 49 (1989).Google Scholar
  4. [4]
    K. I. Tomlins, K. Jewers, R. D. Coker, Chromatographia,27, 67 (1989).Google Scholar
  5. [5]
    L. Stoloff, in “Off. Meth. of Anal. of the Assoc. of Off. Anal. Chem., 14th Ed.”S. Williams ed., Assoc. Off. Anal. Chem. Inc., Arlington, Virginia, USA, 1984, p. 477.Google Scholar
  6. [6]
    G. T. Wernimont, in: “Use of Statistics of Develop and Evaluate Analytical Methods”,W. Spendley, ed., Assoc. Off. Anal. Chem., Arlington, Virginia, USA (1985).Google Scholar
  7. [7]
    J. C. Miller, J. N. Miller, in “Statistics for Analytical Chemistry”, Ellis Horwood Ltd., Chichester (1984).Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Friedr. Vieweg & Sohn Verlagsgesellschaft mbH 1990

Authors and Affiliations

  • N. Bradburn
    • 1
  • R. D. Coker
    • 1
  • K. Jewers
    • 1
  • K. I. Tomlins
    • 1
  1. 1.Overseas Development Natural Resources InstituteChathamUK

Personalised recommendations