Chinese Journal of Chromatography ›› 2020, Vol. 38 ›› Issue (12): 1413-1422.DOI: 10.3724/SP.J.1123.2020.05002
• Articles • Previous Articles Next Articles
WEI Dan1,*(), GUO Ming2, ZHANG Ju1
Received:
2020-05-15
Online:
2020-12-08
Published:
2020-12-01
Contact:
WEI Dan
Supported by:
CLC Number:
WEI Dan, GUO Ming, ZHANG Ju. Determination of 10 fluoroquinolones residues in aquatic products by accelerated solvent extraction, magnetic solid-phase extraction, and high-performance liquid chromatography-tandem mass spectrometry[J]. Chinese Journal of Chromatography, 2020, 38(12): 1413-1422.
Add to citation manager EndNote|Ris|BibTeX
URL: https://www.chrom-china.com/EN/10.3724/SP.J.1123.2020.05002
Fig. 1 Diagram of accelerated solvent extraction-magnetic solid phase extraction (ASE-MSPE) extraction GO: graphene oxide; nZVI: nanoscale zero valent iron; GO@nZVI: graphene oxide coated nanoscale zero valent iron.
No. | Analyte | Precursor ion (m/z) | Product ions (m/z) | Retention time/min | Fragment voltage/V | Collision energy/V | |
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
Quantitative ion | Qualitative ion | ||||||
1 | difloxacin | 400 | 382 | 299 | 9.146 | 144 | 20 |
2 | sarafloxacin | 386 | 368 | 299 | 9.473 | 144 | 20 |
3 | ofloxacin | 362 | 261 | 318 | 8.182 | 144 | 28 |
4 | enrofloxacin | 360 | 342 | 316 | 8.765 | 144 | 20 |
5 | danofloxacin | 358 | 340 | 283 | 8.907 | 144 | 24 |
6 | lomefloxacin | 352 | 265 | 308 | 9.028 | 172 | 24 |
7 | pefloxacin | 334 | 316 | 290 | 8.227 | 144 | 20 |
8 | ciprofloxacin | 332 | 314 | 231 | 8.759 | 144 | 20 |
9 | enoxacin | 321 | 303 | 303 | 8.554 | 172 | 20 |
10 | norfloxacin | 320 | 302 | 302 | 8.319 | 172 | 20 |
Table 1 MS parameters for the 10 fluoroquinolones
No. | Analyte | Precursor ion (m/z) | Product ions (m/z) | Retention time/min | Fragment voltage/V | Collision energy/V | |
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
Quantitative ion | Qualitative ion | ||||||
1 | difloxacin | 400 | 382 | 299 | 9.146 | 144 | 20 |
2 | sarafloxacin | 386 | 368 | 299 | 9.473 | 144 | 20 |
3 | ofloxacin | 362 | 261 | 318 | 8.182 | 144 | 28 |
4 | enrofloxacin | 360 | 342 | 316 | 8.765 | 144 | 20 |
5 | danofloxacin | 358 | 340 | 283 | 8.907 | 144 | 24 |
6 | lomefloxacin | 352 | 265 | 308 | 9.028 | 172 | 24 |
7 | pefloxacin | 334 | 316 | 290 | 8.227 | 144 | 20 |
8 | ciprofloxacin | 332 | 314 | 231 | 8.759 | 144 | 20 |
9 | enoxacin | 321 | 303 | 303 | 8.554 | 172 | 20 |
10 | norfloxacin | 320 | 302 | 302 | 8.319 | 172 | 20 |
No. | Factor A | Factor B | Factor C | Recovery/% |
---|---|---|---|---|
1 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 72.1 |
2 | 1 | 2 | 2 | 81.9 |
3 | 1 | 3 | 3 | 78.2 |
4 | 2 | 1 | 3 | 82.8 |
5 | 2 | 2 | 1 | 95.2 |
6 | 2 | 3 | 2 | 88.8 |
7 | 3 | 1 | 2 | 87.9 |
8 | 3 | 2 | 3 | 82.8 |
9 | 3 | 3 | 1 | 79.1 |
k1 | 77.4 | 80.9 | 82.1 | |
k2 | 88.9 | 86.6 | 86.2 | |
k3 | 83.2 | 82.0 | 81.3 | |
R | 11.5 | 5.7 | 4.9 |
Table 2 Orthogonal experiment design and the results for ASE parameters
No. | Factor A | Factor B | Factor C | Recovery/% |
---|---|---|---|---|
1 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 72.1 |
2 | 1 | 2 | 2 | 81.9 |
3 | 1 | 3 | 3 | 78.2 |
4 | 2 | 1 | 3 | 82.8 |
5 | 2 | 2 | 1 | 95.2 |
6 | 2 | 3 | 2 | 88.8 |
7 | 3 | 1 | 2 | 87.9 |
8 | 3 | 2 | 3 | 82.8 |
9 | 3 | 3 | 1 | 79.1 |
k1 | 77.4 | 80.9 | 82.1 | |
k2 | 88.9 | 86.6 | 86.2 | |
k3 | 83.2 | 82.0 | 81.3 | |
R | 11.5 | 5.7 | 4.9 |
Fig. 3 (a) Scanning electron microscopy (SEM) images, (b) Fourier transform infrared (FT-IR) spectra and (c) X-rays diffraction (XRD) patterns of GO, nZVI and GO@nZVI
Fig. 4 Effect of (a) GO@nZVI amount, (b) extraction time, (c) type of desorption solvent and (d) desorption time on magnetic solid-phase extraction (MSPE) efficiency (n=3)
Analyte | LOD/ (μg/kg) | LOQ/ (μg/kg) | Spiked/ (μg/kg) | Recovery/ % | RSD/ % | Analyte | LOD/ (μg/kg) | LOQ/ (μg/kg) | Spiked/ (μg/kg) | Recovery/ % | RSD/ % | |
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
Difloxacin | 0.02 | 0.07 | 0.1 | 86.2 | 9.3 | Lomefloxacin | 0.18 | 0.61 | 0.6 | 83.9 | 9.1 | |
0.2 | 90.8 | 8.3 | 1.2 | 96.1 | 9.3 | |||||||
1.0 | 94.8 | 12.2 | 6.0 | 99.2 | 10.2 | |||||||
Sarafloxacin | 0.29 | 0.98 | 1.0 | 81.6 | 10.1 | Pefloxacin | 0.2 | 0.67 | 0.7 | 95.8 | 7.1 | |
2.0 | 90.3 | 9.9 | 1.4 | 99.8 | 6.3 | |||||||
10.0 | 96.5 | 7.9 | 7.0 | 101.1 | 11.0 | |||||||
Ofloxacin | 0.16 | 0.55 | 0.6 | 96.2 | 9.1 | Ciprofloxacin | 0.17 | 0.55 | 0.6 | 82.2 | 9.8 | |
1.2 | 100.8 | 8.3 | 1.2 | 96.8 | 10.3 | |||||||
6.0 | 102.1 | 11.6 | 6.0 | 96.8 | 9.3 | |||||||
Enrofloxacin | 0.11 | 0.35 | 0.4 | 92.2 | 5.9 | Enoxacin | 0.14 | 0.48 | 0.5 | 92.1 | 7.6 | |
0.8 | 99.9 | 6.8 | 1.0 | 89.6 | 11.6 | |||||||
4.0 | 103.9 | 6.6 | 5.0 | 97.3 | 10.5 | |||||||
Danofloxacin | 0.23 | 0.75 | 0.8 | 93.5 | 4.2 | Norfloxacin | 0.13 | 0.43 | 0.4 | 91.6 | 9.6 | |
1.6 | 95.8 | 6.8 | 0.8 | 98.3 | 8.6 | |||||||
8.0 | 105.2 | 13.6 | 4.0 | 105.8 | 10.3 |
Table 3 Limits of detection (LODs), limits of quantitation (LOQs), recoveries and relative standard deviations (RSDs) (n=5) of the 10 fluoroquinolones
Analyte | LOD/ (μg/kg) | LOQ/ (μg/kg) | Spiked/ (μg/kg) | Recovery/ % | RSD/ % | Analyte | LOD/ (μg/kg) | LOQ/ (μg/kg) | Spiked/ (μg/kg) | Recovery/ % | RSD/ % | |
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
Difloxacin | 0.02 | 0.07 | 0.1 | 86.2 | 9.3 | Lomefloxacin | 0.18 | 0.61 | 0.6 | 83.9 | 9.1 | |
0.2 | 90.8 | 8.3 | 1.2 | 96.1 | 9.3 | |||||||
1.0 | 94.8 | 12.2 | 6.0 | 99.2 | 10.2 | |||||||
Sarafloxacin | 0.29 | 0.98 | 1.0 | 81.6 | 10.1 | Pefloxacin | 0.2 | 0.67 | 0.7 | 95.8 | 7.1 | |
2.0 | 90.3 | 9.9 | 1.4 | 99.8 | 6.3 | |||||||
10.0 | 96.5 | 7.9 | 7.0 | 101.1 | 11.0 | |||||||
Ofloxacin | 0.16 | 0.55 | 0.6 | 96.2 | 9.1 | Ciprofloxacin | 0.17 | 0.55 | 0.6 | 82.2 | 9.8 | |
1.2 | 100.8 | 8.3 | 1.2 | 96.8 | 10.3 | |||||||
6.0 | 102.1 | 11.6 | 6.0 | 96.8 | 9.3 | |||||||
Enrofloxacin | 0.11 | 0.35 | 0.4 | 92.2 | 5.9 | Enoxacin | 0.14 | 0.48 | 0.5 | 92.1 | 7.6 | |
0.8 | 99.9 | 6.8 | 1.0 | 89.6 | 11.6 | |||||||
4.0 | 103.9 | 6.6 | 5.0 | 97.3 | 10.5 | |||||||
Danofloxacin | 0.23 | 0.75 | 0.8 | 93.5 | 4.2 | Norfloxacin | 0.13 | 0.43 | 0.4 | 91.6 | 9.6 | |
1.6 | 95.8 | 6.8 | 0.8 | 98.3 | 8.6 | |||||||
8.0 | 105.2 | 13.6 | 4.0 | 105.8 | 10.3 |
Method | Samples | Analytes | Amount of extraction solvent/mL | Sample preparation time/min | LOD/ (μg/kg) | Recovery/ % | Ref. | ||
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
SPE-HPLC-FLD | milk | 9 quinolones | 30 | >80 | 3- | 50 | 70- | 130 | [ |
SPE-HPLC-MS/MS | egg, muscle | 11 quinolones | 25 | >80 | 113- | 234 | 96- | 103 | [ |
QuEChERS-HPLC-MS/MS | organic fertilizers | 10 fluoroquinolones | 25 | 17 | 0.5- | 2.5 | 82.5- | 117.1 | [ |
MSPE-HPLC-FLD | milk | 5 fluoroquinolones | 5.4 | 31 | ≈0.001- | 0.004 | 86.5- | 104.1 | [ |
d-SPE-HPLC-MS/MS | water | 5 quinolones | 3 | 38 | 0.005- | 0.007 | 78.7- | 105.2 | [ |
SPE-HPLC-DAD | chicken manure | 2 fluoroquinolones | 20 | 96.5 | 1.3- | 6.7 | 70- | 116.3 | [ |
LLE-HPLC-FLD | egg | 5 fluoroquinolones | 17 | 32.1 | 0.2- | 4 | 92.2- | 107.1 | [ |
ASE-MSPE-HPLC-MS/MS | aquatic products | 10 fluoroquinolones | ≈15.5 | 32 | 0.02- | 0.29 | 81.6- | 105.8 | this work |
Table 4 Comparison of this method with other methods for the determination of fluoroquinolone residues in references
Method | Samples | Analytes | Amount of extraction solvent/mL | Sample preparation time/min | LOD/ (μg/kg) | Recovery/ % | Ref. | ||
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
SPE-HPLC-FLD | milk | 9 quinolones | 30 | >80 | 3- | 50 | 70- | 130 | [ |
SPE-HPLC-MS/MS | egg, muscle | 11 quinolones | 25 | >80 | 113- | 234 | 96- | 103 | [ |
QuEChERS-HPLC-MS/MS | organic fertilizers | 10 fluoroquinolones | 25 | 17 | 0.5- | 2.5 | 82.5- | 117.1 | [ |
MSPE-HPLC-FLD | milk | 5 fluoroquinolones | 5.4 | 31 | ≈0.001- | 0.004 | 86.5- | 104.1 | [ |
d-SPE-HPLC-MS/MS | water | 5 quinolones | 3 | 38 | 0.005- | 0.007 | 78.7- | 105.2 | [ |
SPE-HPLC-DAD | chicken manure | 2 fluoroquinolones | 20 | 96.5 | 1.3- | 6.7 | 70- | 116.3 | [ |
LLE-HPLC-FLD | egg | 5 fluoroquinolones | 17 | 32.1 | 0.2- | 4 | 92.2- | 107.1 | [ |
ASE-MSPE-HPLC-MS/MS | aquatic products | 10 fluoroquinolones | ≈15.5 | 32 | 0.02- | 0.29 | 81.6- | 105.8 | this work |
|
Viewed | ||||||
Full text |
|
|||||
Abstract |
|
|||||