4.2 Article

A Comparison of Chromatographic Methods for the Determination of Deoxynivalenol in Wheat

期刊

CHROMATOGRAPHIA
卷 69, 期 11-12, 页码 1457-1462

出版社

SPRINGER HEIDELBERG
DOI: 10.1365/s10337-009-1084-1

关键词

Column liquid chromatography-mass spectrometry; Gas chromatography; Mycotoxins; Trichothecenes

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Liquid chromatography coupled with tandem mass spectrometric detection has gained more importance for mycotoxin determination in recent years. In addition to instrumental improvements, the development of LC-MS-MS has also been a consequence of the availability of stable isotope internal standards, e.g., C-13-labelled mycotoxins. Thus, the LC-ESI-MS-MS method using a C-13(15)-deoxynivalenol internal standard as a state-of-the-art technique was selected as a reference procedure for an in-house method comparison study of the determination of deoxynivalenol (DON) in wheat materials. Alternative methods include LC-diode array detection, which is a frequently used routine procedure for DON-analysis, and gas chromatography after trimethylsilylation. For GC application, an electron capture detector and a negative chemical ionisation mass spectrometry detector were used, which have both been well described in the literature. The method comparison was conducted using t test statistics. Additionally, this study also calculates important method performance characteristics, including accuracy, linearity, limit of detection, limit of quantification, recovery, and variation coefficient. Furthermore, this is the first report of a GC-MS method for the determination of DON using a fully carbon-labelled C-13(15)-DON as an IS. The GC-MS using C-13(15)-DON as an IS has produced comparable results to the C-13-IS-LC-MS-MS reference method with a similar sensitivity. ECD detection was slightly less sensitive, but is also suited for DON analysis in wheat. Due to the high LOQ, the LC-DAD method seems highly applicable to the measurement of highly contaminated samples.

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

4.2
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