An inter-laboratory validation of a multiplex dipstick assay for four classes of antibiotics in honey
- 334 Downloads
In this paper, we report the inter-laboratory validation (ILV) of a recently developed indirect competitive multiplex dipstick (Bee4sensor®) which is capable of the simultaneous detection of residues of some of the most frequently detected antibiotic residues in honey: sulfonamides, tylosin, fluoroquinolones and chloramphenicol. The multi-sensor dipstick can be interpreted via visual observation or by an instrumental measurement of four test lines. Statistical analysis of the ILV data demonstrated that the multi-sensor can reliably detect the presence of sulfathiazole at 25 μg kg−1 and tylosin at 10 μg kg−1, which fully meet the ‘recommended concentrations’ of the EU. Ciprofloxacin and chloramphenicol can be detected at 25 and 5 μg kg−1 in honey, respectively. Whilst the concentration for chloramphenicol is above the EU minimum required performance limit of 0.3 μg kg−1, this part of the multiplex test may still be of use to both the industry and enforcement authorities, to provide an early warning of contaminated honey. The estimated false-negative and false-positive rates for this easy-to-use and robust assay were less than 5 %.
KeywordsHoney Antibiotics Screening method Bioassay Drug monitoring Food/beverages
The Conffidence project is funded by the European Commission, call identifier FP7-KBBE-2007-1, grant agreement number 211326. The authors wish to thank the surveillance, LC-MS/MS teams and Michael Knaggs at Fera for analysing the test materials for residues of antibiotics and homogeneity. The authors thank the company Unisensor s.a. for supplying the test kits, instrumentation and their continuous support. The authors like to acknowledge the following laboratories for participating in this study: Fera (UK), CER (Belgium), Rikilt (The Netherlands), ILVO (The Netherlands), ANSES (France), Michaud (France) and one other.
- 1.Codex (2010) Discussion paper on veterinary drugs in honey production ftp://ftp.fao.org/codex/meetings/CCRVDF/ccrvdf19/rv19_10e.pdf. Accessed 3 Jan 2013
- 2.US Food and Drug Administration database. http://www.accessdata.fda.gov/scripts/animaldrugsatfda/details.cfm?dn=013-076. Accessed 3 Jan 2013
- 3.RASFF portal. https://webgate.ec.europa.eu/rasff-window/portal/#. Accessed 3 Jan 2013
- 4.European Commission (2003) Commission Decision 2003/181/EC of 13 March 2003 amending Decision 2002/657/EC as regards the setting of minimum required performance limits (MRPLs) for certain residues in food of animal origin. L71. 17–18Google Scholar
- 5.CRL guidance paper (2007) http://www.rivm.nl/bibliotheek/digitaaldepot/crlguidance2007.pdf. Accessed 3 Jan 2013
- 6.Community reference laboratories (2010). Guidelines for the validation of screening methods for residues of veterinary medicines (initial validation and transfer). http://ec.europa.eu/food/food/chemicalsafety/residues/Guideline_Validation_Screening_en.pdf. Accessed 3 Jan 2013
- 9.Conffidence (2010) Conffidence project website. http://www.conffidence.eu/img/enewsletter/enews_WP2b_antibiotics_newsletter_Nov_2010.pdf. Accessed 3 Jan 2013
- 10.Unisensor (2012) Bee4sensor® webpage. http://www.unisensor.be/en/catalog/antibiotics-28/bee4sensor-45.php. Accessed 3 Jan 2013
- 11.European Commission (2002) Commission decision of 12 August 2002 implementing Council Directive 96/23/EC concerning the performance of analytical methods and the interpretation of results. L221. 8–36Google Scholar
- 12.Brown LD, Cail TT, DasGupta A (2001) Interval estimation for a binomial proportion. Stat Sci 16(2):101–133Google Scholar
- 14.Feinberg MJ (2007) Validation of analytical methods based on accuracy profiles. Chromatogr A 1158(1–2):174–183Google Scholar