Skip to main content

GC/MS detection of central nervous tissues as specified BSE risk material in meat products: validation by an externally controlled blind trial

Analytical and Bioanalytical Chemistry volume 398, pages 2223–2231 (2010)Cite this article

Abstract

The addition of central nervous tissues (CNT), such as brain and spinal cord, in the manufacturing of meat products is either forbidden—if the material falls under the legal definition of specified risk material (SRM)—or must be labelled on the packed product. To foster official food control, several CNT detection methods were developed, but only fatty acid patterns as detected by gas chromatography/mass spectrometry (GC/MS) allow the further characterization of the detected CNT as to both the animal species and—surprisingly—the age of the animal from which the CNT was derived in accordance with the legal definition. Complementing a previous report in this journal by Lücker et al. 2010 (doi:10.1007/s00216-010-3956-5) on CNT quantification by GC/MS, we now report results of the validation of this new analytical approach by an externally controlled blind trial elucidating its potential to identify the species and age of the CNT detected. The 72 samples (24 standards of emulsion-type sausage, each heated in three different batches: 75°C, 30 min; 115°C, 25 min; 133°C, 40 min) containing porcine, ovine or bovine muscle tissue and differing amounts of CNT (bovine or ovine brain: 0, 0.1, 0.5, 1.0, 3.0% m/m) were produced externally and provided blind for analyses to our laboratory. In accordance with the previous study, heating had no detectable effect on the GC/MS analysis. Judged by the present sensitivity of this method (cut-off 0.2% CNT), all of the samples containing 0.5% or more CNT (n = 57, 100%) were identified correctly as CNT-positive. The CNT species was identified correctly in 54 samples (94.7%), with three samples of one specific standard (0.5% ovine CNT) falsely classified as bovine CNT. However, the CNT age of these samples was correctly classified (more than 12 months). Overall, 57 samples (100%) were correctly classified as SRM-positive and 15 samples (100%) as SRM-negative. To the best of our knowledge, this is the first time that a legal demand for the (1) detection of traces of a specific tissue in a food matrix, (2) the identification of its taxonomic origin and (3) the classification of its age has been shown to be analytically possible in totally blind samples. The very positive validation results of this externally controlled blind trial recommend the present GC/MS approach for the detection of CNT in meat products as a reference method. However, our results also demonstrate the need for further studies, in particular to increase sensitivity and to conduct ring trials including more than one laboratory.

This is a preview of subscription content, access via your institution.

Access options

Buy single article

Instant access to the full article PDF.

43,34 €

Price includes VAT (Finland)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Fig. 1
Fig. 2
Fig. 3
Fig. 4

References

  1. EC (2001) Directive (EC) no. 999/2001 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 22 May 2001. Off J Eur Commuinities L 147:1–40

    Google Scholar 

  2. EC (2005) TSE Roadmap, European Commission, COM (2005) 322 final. Brussels (dated 15.07.2005) http://ec.europa.eu/food/food/biosafety/bse/roadmap_en.pdf

  3. Kong Q, Zheng M, Casalone C (2008) J Virol 82:3697–3701

    CAS  Article  Google Scholar 

  4. Béringue V, Herzog L, Reine F, Le Dur A, Casalone C, Vilotte JL, Laude H (2008) Emerg Infect Dis 14:1898–1901

    Article  Google Scholar 

  5. EC (2000) Directive 2000/13/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council. Off J Eur Communities L 109:29–42

    Google Scholar 

  6. Lücker E (2009) In: Toldra F (ed) Safety of meat and processed meat. New York, Springer

    Google Scholar 

  7. Lücker E (2006) Nova Acta Leopoldina NF 94/347:167–181

    Google Scholar 

  8. Lücker E, Eigenbrodt E, Wenisch S (1999) J Food Prot 62:268–276

    Google Scholar 

  9. Lücker E, Eigenbrodt E, Wenisch S (2000) J Food Prot 63:258–263

    Google Scholar 

  10. Schmidt GR, Hossner KL, Yemm RS (1999) J Food Prot 62:394–397

    CAS  Google Scholar 

  11. Niederer M, Bollhalder R (2001) Mitt Lebensm Hyg 92:133–144

    CAS  Google Scholar 

  12. Biedermann W, Lücker E, Hensel A (2002) Berl Münch Tierärztl Wochenschr 115:131–133

    CAS  Google Scholar 

  13. Lücker E, Biedermann W, Lachhab S, Truyen U, Hensel A (2004) Anal Bioanal Chem 380:866–870

    Article  Google Scholar 

  14. Noti A, Biedermann-Brehm S, Biedermann M (2002) Mitt Geb Lebensmittelunters Hyg 93:387–401

    CAS  Google Scholar 

  15. Agazzi ME, Bau A, Barcarolo R, Lücker E, Barrero-Moreno J, Anklam E (2003) Anal Bioanal Chem 376:360–365

    CAS  Google Scholar 

  16. Biedermann W, Lücker E, Pörschmann J, Lachhab S, Truyen U, Hensel A (2004) Anal Bioanal Chem 379:1031–1038

    CAS  Article  Google Scholar 

  17. Lücker E, Biedermann W, Lachhab S, Hensel A (2010) Anal Bioanal Chem. doi:10.1007/s00216-010-3956-5

  18. BVL (2004) Amtliche Sammlung von Untersuchungsverfahren nach § 64 LFBG. Bundesamt für Verbraucherschurtz (BVL). Beuth, Berlin, L-06.00-53

  19. BMVEL (2004) Guidelines meat and meat products. Bundesminsiterium für Verbraucherschutz, Ernährung und Landwirtschaft. Bundesanzeiger, Cologne, Germany

  20. Lücker E, Biedermann W, Lachhab S, Hensel A (2002) Fleischwirtschaft 82:123–128

    Google Scholar 

  21. Pörschmann J, Trommler U, Biedermann W, Truyen U, Lücker E (2006) J Chromatogr A 1127:26–33

    Article  Google Scholar 

  22. Grieβbach M, Hartmann F, Massag N, Baumann D, Krex C, Biedermann W, Truyen U, Lücker E (2008) J Chromatogr A 1179:69–73

    Article  Google Scholar 

  23. Seyboldt C, John A, Müffling VT, Nowak B, Wenzel S (2003) J Food Prot 66:644–651

    CAS  Google Scholar 

  24. Lange B, Alter T, Froeb A, Lücker E (2003) Berl Münch Tierärztl Wochenschr 116:467–473

    CAS  Google Scholar 

  25. Abdulmawjood A, Schoenenbrücher H, Bülte M (2005) J Mol Diagn 7:368–374

    CAS  Google Scholar 

  26. Schönenbrücher H, Abdulmawjood A, Göbel KA, Bülte M (2007) Vet Microbiol 123:336–345

    Article  Google Scholar 

Download references

Acknowledgements

The authors would like to thank Hans Otto Honikel (former long-standing head of the German Federal Meat Research Institute/Federal Research Center of Nutrition and Food, now the Max Rubner Institute, Kulmbach, Safety and Quality of Meat) and his co-workers at the Max Rubner Institute for their excellent performance in the production of the standard material and the external control of the blind trial. Further we would like to thank Renate Kisslinger and Liselotte Pilz for their valuable technical assistance. This work was financially supported by the German Federal Ministry of Food, Agriculture and Consumer Protection (BMELV) through the Federal Office for Agriculture and Food (BLE), grant number 514-33.34/03 HS 011.

Author information

Affiliations

  1. Institut für Lebensmittelhygiene, Universität Leipzig, An den Tierkliniken 1, 04103, Leipzig, Germany

    Ernst Lücker, Wolfgang Biedermann & Sandra Lachhab

  2. Bundesinstitut für Risikobewertung, Postfach 330013, 14191, Berlin, Germany

    Andreas Hensel

Authors
  1. Ernst Lücker
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Wolfgang Biedermann
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  3. Sandra Lachhab
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  4. Andreas Hensel
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Ernst Lücker.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and Permissions

About this article

Cite this article

Lücker, E., Biedermann, W., Lachhab, S. et al. GC/MS detection of central nervous tissues as specified BSE risk material in meat products: validation by an externally controlled blind trial. Anal Bioanal Chem 398, 2223–2231 (2010). https://doi.org/10.1007/s00216-010-4125-6

Download citation

  • Received:

  • Revised:

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s00216-010-4125-6

Keyword

  • Bovine spongiform encephalopathy
  • Central nervous tissue
  • Specified risk material
  • Gas chromatography/mass spectrometry
  • Fatty acids
  • Validation