Skip to main content
Log in

Advantages of LC–MS–MS compared to LC–MS for the determination of nitrofuran residues in honey

  • Original Paper
  • Published:
Analytical and Bioanalytical Chemistry Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

In the framework of developing analyses for exogenous contaminants in food matrices such as honey, we have compared data obtained by high-performance liquid chromatography coupled with mass spectrometry (LC–MS) to those provided by high-performance liquid chromatography and tandem mass spectrometry (LC–MS–MS). Initial results obtained with LC–MS showed that the technique lacked selectivity, which is why the method was validated by LC–MS–MS. This method involves a solid-phase extraction (SPE) of nitrofuran metabolites and nitrofuran parent drugs, a derivatization by 2-nitrobenzaldehyde for 17 h, and finally a clean-up by SPE. The data obtained show that the limits of detection varied between 0.2 and 0.6 μg kg−1 for the metabolites and between 1 and 2 μg kg−1 for nitrofuran parent drugs. The method was applied to different flower honeys. The results showed that nitrofurans (used as antibiotics) are consistently present in this matrix, the predominant compound being furazolidone.

Working bees

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Fig. 1
Fig. 2
Fig. 3
Fig. 4

Similar content being viewed by others

References

  1. Khong SP (2004) J Agric Food Chem 52:5309−5315

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  2. Jenkins KM, Young MS (2005) The applications book. Waters, MA, pp 19–20

  3. EC (1990) Off J Eur Commun L224:1–6

    Google Scholar 

  4. Hoogenboom LAP (1991) Food Chem Toxic 29:321–328

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  5. Draisci R (1997) J Chromatogr A 777:201–211

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  6. Galeano Díaz T (1997) J Chromatogr A 764:243–248

    Article  Google Scholar 

  7. Hoogenboom LAP (1992) Food Addit Contam 9: 623–630

    CAS  Google Scholar 

  8. Horne E, Cadogan A, O’Keeffe M, Hoogenboom LAP (1996) Analyst 121:1463–1468

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  9. McCracken RJ, Glenn Kennedy D (1997) J Chromatogr B 691:87–94

    CAS  Google Scholar 

  10. Hormazábal V, Tone N (2004) J Liq Chromatogr RT 27:2759–2770

    Google Scholar 

  11. Leitner A, Zöllner P, Lindner W (2001) J Chromatogr A 939:49–58

    Google Scholar 

  12. Edder P, Vargas S, Ortelli D, Corvi C (2003) Clin Chem Lab Med 41:1608–1614

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  13. Pereira AS, Pampana LC, Donato JL, De Nucci G (2004) Anal Chim Acta 514:9–13

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  14. Cooper KM, Glenn Kennedy D (2005) Analyst 130:466–468

    Google Scholar 

  15. Feinberg M (2001) Tech Ing Anal Caractér P224:1–23

    Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

Authors

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Marie-Florence Grenier-Loustalot.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Cite this article

Tribalat, L., Paisse, O., Dessalces, G. et al. Advantages of LC–MS–MS compared to LC–MS for the determination of nitrofuran residues in honey. Anal Bioanal Chem 386, 2161–2168 (2006). https://doi.org/10.1007/s00216-006-0878-3

Download citation

  • Received:

  • Revised:

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s00216-006-0878-3

Keywords

Navigation