Chinese Journal of Chromatography ›› 2020, Vol. 38 ›› Issue (7): 791-797.DOI: 10.3724/SP.J.1123.2019.11028
Previous Articles Next Articles
SU Shufang1, SUN Lizhen1, XUE Xia1, GONG Pixue1, WEI Lili1, LI Xinling1, ZHU Jianhua1, LIU Yanming1,*(), ZHANG Feng2,*()
Received:
2019-11-28
Online:
2020-07-08
Published:
2020-12-10
Contact:
LIU Yanming,ZHANG Feng
Supported by:
SU Shufang, SUN Lizhen, XUE Xia, GONG Pixue, WEI Lili, LI Xinling, ZHU Jianhua, LIU Yanming, ZHANG Feng. Determination of diazepam in aquatic products by ultra performance liquid chromatography-tandem mass spectrometry with pass-through solid phase extraction[J]. Chinese Journal of Chromatography, 2020, 38(7): 791-797.
Add to citation manager EndNote|Ris|BibTeX
URL: https://www.chrom-china.com/EN/10.3724/SP.J.1123.2019.11028
Analyte | Precursor ion (m/z) | Daughter ion (m/z) | Declustering potential/V | Collision energy/eV |
*Quantitative ion. | ||||
Diazepam | 285.2 | 154.0 | 100 | 37 |
193.0* | 100 | 38 |
Table 1 Precursor ion, daughter ion and other MS parameters of diazepam
Analyte | Precursor ion (m/z) | Daughter ion (m/z) | Declustering potential/V | Collision energy/eV |
*Quantitative ion. | ||||
Diazepam | 285.2 | 154.0 | 100 | 37 |
193.0* | 100 | 38 |
Pretreatment method | Recoveries/% (RSDs/%) | |||
Yellow croaker | Carp | Crucian | Shrimp | |
Enzymolysis | 82.1 (6.9) | 79.5 (9.2) | 80.6 (7.5) | 92.5 (5.7) |
Non enzymolysis | 103.0 (5.4) | 109.0 (4.3) | 94.5 (8.3) | 101.0 (2.9) |
Table 2 Recoveries of diazepam using different extraction methods (n=6)
Pretreatment method | Recoveries/% (RSDs/%) | |||
Yellow croaker | Carp | Crucian | Shrimp | |
Enzymolysis | 82.1 (6.9) | 79.5 (9.2) | 80.6 (7.5) | 92.5 (5.7) |
Non enzymolysis | 103.0 (5.4) | 109.0 (4.3) | 94.5 (8.3) | 101.0 (2.9) |
Fig. 3 Effect of different extraction solvents on the recoveries of diazepam Solvent 1: acetonitrile; solvent 2: acetonitrile (containing 1% (v/v) acetic acid); solvent 3: acetonitrile (containing 1% (v/v) ammonium hydroxide); solvent 4: ethyl acetate.
Purification method | Matrix effects/% | ||||
Yellow croaker | Carp | Crucian | Shrimp 1 | Shrimp 2 | |
Prime HLB | 6.7 | 3.9 | 7.6 | 10.1 | 5.5 |
QuEChERS | 11.8 | 13.5 | 9.9 | 16.3 | 15.0 |
Non purification | 55.2 | 58.9 | 37.6 | 68.0 | 56.2 |
Table 3 Matrix effects of diazepam using different purification methods
Purification method | Matrix effects/% | ||||
Yellow croaker | Carp | Crucian | Shrimp 1 | Shrimp 2 | |
Prime HLB | 6.7 | 3.9 | 7.6 | 10.1 | 5.5 |
QuEChERS | 11.8 | 13.5 | 9.9 | 16.3 | 15.0 |
Non purification | 55.2 | 58.9 | 37.6 | 68.0 | 56.2 |
Matrix | Linear equation | r2 | LOD/(μg/kg) | LOQ/(μg/kg) |
Y: peak area; X: mass concentration, ng/mL. | ||||
Yellow | Y=1.826×105X+1.463×104 | 0.9992 | 0.5 | 1.5 |
croaker | ||||
Shrimp | Y=2.021×105X+5.873×103 | 0.9970 | 0.5 | 1.5 |
Table 4 Linear equations, correlation coefficients (r2), LODs and LOQs of diazepam
Matrix | Linear equation | r2 | LOD/(μg/kg) | LOQ/(μg/kg) |
Y: peak area; X: mass concentration, ng/mL. | ||||
Yellow | Y=1.826×105X+1.463×104 | 0.9992 | 0.5 | 1.5 |
croaker | ||||
Shrimp | Y=2.021×105X+5.873×103 | 0.9970 | 0.5 | 1.5 |
Matrix | Spiked level/(μg/kg) | Average recovery/% | Intra-day RSD/% | Inter-day RSD/% |
Yellow croaker | 1.5 | 95.4 | 7.0 | 5.9 |
3.0 | 93.5 | 4.8 | 3.3 | |
15.0 | 101.1 | 5.2 | 5.1 | |
Shrimp | 1.5 | 88.2 | 2.3 | 7.7 |
3.0 | 95.6 | 3.8 | 5.2 | |
15.0 | 97.3 | 6.4 | 5.0 |
Table 5 Recoveries and precisions of diazepam in aquatic products (n=6)
Matrix | Spiked level/(μg/kg) | Average recovery/% | Intra-day RSD/% | Inter-day RSD/% |
Yellow croaker | 1.5 | 95.4 | 7.0 | 5.9 |
3.0 | 93.5 | 4.8 | 3.3 | |
15.0 | 101.1 | 5.2 | 5.1 | |
Shrimp | 1.5 | 88.2 | 2.3 | 7.7 |
3.0 | 95.6 | 3.8 | 5.2 | |
15.0 | 97.3 | 6.4 | 5.0 |
|
Viewed | ||||||
Full text |
|
|||||
Abstract |
|
|||||