4.6 Article

Solid phase on-situ quadraplex isotope dimethyl labeling for the analysis of biogenic amines in beers by liquid chromatography-high resolution mass spectrometry

期刊

JOURNAL OF CHROMATOGRAPHY A
卷 1613, 期 -, 页码 -

出版社

ELSEVIER
DOI: 10.1016/j.chroma.2019.460712

关键词

Bioamines; Isotope labeling; LC-MS; Solid phase extraction; Quantification; Multiplex labeling

资金

  1. National Natural Sciences Foundation of China [31500080, 21607020, 21876022]
  2. Fundamental Research Funds for the Central Universities [DUT17LK40, DUT16ZD226]

向作者/读者索取更多资源

A simple magnetization method was developed for the preparation of magnetic materials from conventional solid phase packing though coprecipitation and solvothermal approaches. And the prepared magnetic materials were used for magnetic solid phase extraction (MSPE) of biogenic amines (BAs) from beers. Furthermore, to improve the analytical throughput, a solid phase on-situ quadraplex isotope dimethyl labeling method was developed for the quantification of BAs by liquid chromatography-high resolution mass spectrometry (LC-HRMS). Compared to conventional in-solution labeling, the on-situ labeling could simplify the sample preparation procedure and efficiently remove the residuals such as inorganic salts and excessive labeling reagents. The quadraplex labeling, which enabled three real samples and one internal standard sample to be analyzed simultaneously in a single LC-HRMS run. For the tested 8 BAs (cadaverine, phenethylamine, spermine, spermidine, tyramine, histamine, putrescine and tryptamine), LODs of 0.02-0.05 mu g/L and LOQs of 0.05-0.1 mu g/L were achieved at good reproducibility (RSD of 0.5-4.6% and 2.2-7.0% for intra- and inter-day reproducibility, respectively). With this method, six beer samples were analyzed, and these 8 BAs were all detected in the range of low mu g/L to 2.9 mg/L, which were lower than maximal residual level (MRL) required in the regulations of China and EU. (C) 2019 Elsevier B.V. All rights reserved.

作者

我是这篇论文的作者
点击您的名字以认领此论文并将其添加到您的个人资料中。

评论

主要评分

4.6
评分不足

次要评分

新颖性
-
重要性
-
科学严谨性
-
评价这篇论文

推荐

暂无数据
暂无数据