Analyze Diet
Journal of AOAC International2012; 95(4); 1016-1022; doi: 10.5740/jaoacint.11-023

Rapid method for the simultaneous determination of six ionophores in feed by liquid chromatography/mass spectrometry.

Abstract: A simple and highly sensitive LC/MS method was developed for the simultaneous determination of six ionophores--lasalocid, monensin, laidlomycin, maduramycin, salinomycin, and narasin--in feed. The procedure involved extraction of 1 g of feed with 4 mL of methanol-water (9 + 1, v/v) by shaking on a platform shaker for 45 min. After centrifugation, the extracts were diluted with methanol-water (75 + 25, v/v) and analyzed without any cleanup. The analysis was performed on a Betasil C18 column (150 x 4.6 mm id, 5 pm particle size) connected to an LC/MS system operated in the atmospheric pressure chemical ionization (APCI) mode. We believe this to be the first method that uses the APCI mode for the analysis of ionophores. The mobile phase consisted of 50 mM ammonium acetate as solvent A and acetonitrile-methanol (7 + 3, v/v) as solvent B in a gradient run. Excellent recoveries of 81-120% were found for all compounds at fortification levels of 1-200 microg/g, with RSD < or =15% (except 17% for maduramycin at 2 and 5 microg/g, and 16% for salinomycin at 1 microg/g). At 0.5 microg/g, recoveries of 87-119% were obtained, with RSD < or =20%. However, recovery of lasalocid was 133% and salinomycin 79% in sow and horse feed, respectively. Average RSD values of lasalocid and salinomycin were 22 and 21%, respectively. Finally, proficiency test samples analyzed with the method demonstrated favorable agreement with the certified values.
Publication Date: 2012-09-14 PubMed ID: 22970566DOI: 10.5740/jaoacint.11-023Google Scholar: Lookup
The Equine Research Bank provides access to a large database of publicly available scientific literature. Inclusion in the Research Bank does not imply endorsement of study methods or findings by Mad Barn.
  • Journal Article
  • Research Support
  • Non-U.S. Gov't

Summary

This research summary has been generated with artificial intelligence and may contain errors and omissions. Refer to the original study to confirm details provided. Submit correction.

This study discusses the development of a simple and sensitive method for detecting and quantifying six different ionophores in animal feed using liquid chromatography/mass spectrometry. The method offers good recovery rates and could help improve quality control in the feed industry.

Objective of the Study

  • The research focused on developing a reliable, sensitive, and straightforward liquid chromatography/mass spectrometry (LC/MS) method for determining six different ionophores – lasalocid, monensin, laidlomycin, maduramycin, salinomycin, and narasin – in animal feed.

Method and Procedure

  • Extraction of the ionophores was achieved by shaking 1 g of the feed with 4 mL of a methanol-water solution (9 + 1, v/v) for 45 minutes. After centrifugation, the diluted extracts were analyzed without any cleanup.
  • The analysis was performed using a Betasil C18 column (150 x 4.6 mm id, 5 pm particle size) on an LC/MS system.
  • To improve the sensitivity of the method and the efficiency of the ionization of the compounds, the LC/MS system was operated in the atmospheric pressure chemical ionization (APCI) mode. It is the first time this mode is used for ionophores analysis.
  • The mobile phase of the liquid chromatography consisted of 50 mM ammonium acetate as solvent A and a mix of acetonitrile-methanol (7 + 3, v/v) as solvent B, used in a gradient run.

Results and Recovery Rates

  • Excellent recovery rates between 81-120% were recorded for all compounds at fortification levels of 1-200 microg/g, with relative standard deviation (RSD) being less than or equal to 15%. Exceptions were maduramycin at 2 and 5 microg/g and salinomycin at 1 microg/g, where RSD was slightly higher.
  • At a lower concentration of 0.5 microg/g, an 87-119% recovery was achieved, with RSD up to 20%.
  • Specifically, lasalocid recovered at a higher rate of 133% in sow feed, while salinomycin’s recovery rate was lower at 79% in horse feed.
  • When analysing proficiency test samples, the method showed a good agreement with the certified values, indicating its reliability and potential for practical use in the feed industry.

Conclusion and Implications

  • This study enhances our capacity to detect and quantify six different ionophores in animal feed quickly and with high sensitivity.
  • The method offers good recovery rates, making it a potentially powerful tool for quality control measures in the feed industry.

Cite This Article

APA
Vudathala D, Murphy L. (2012). Rapid method for the simultaneous determination of six ionophores in feed by liquid chromatography/mass spectrometry. J AOAC Int, 95(4), 1016-1022. https://doi.org/10.5740/jaoacint.11-023

Publication

ISSN: 1060-3271
NlmUniqueID: 9215446
Country: England
Language: English
Volume: 95
Issue: 4
Pages: 1016-1022

Researcher Affiliations

Vudathala, Daljit
  • University of Pennsylvania, School of Veterinary Medicine, Department of Pathobiology, New Bolton Center Toxicology Laboratory, 382 West St Rd, Kennett Square, PA 19348, USA. vudathal@vet.upenn.edu
Murphy, Lisa

    MeSH Terms

    • Acetates / chemistry
    • Animal Feed / analysis
    • Animals
    • Chemistry Techniques, Analytical / methods
    • Chromatography, Liquid / methods
    • Food Analysis / methods
    • Horses
    • Ionophores / analysis
    • Ions
    • Lactones / analysis
    • Lasalocid / analysis
    • Mass Spectrometry / methods
    • Methanol / chemistry
    • Monensin / analogs & derivatives
    • Monensin / analysis
    • Pyrans / analysis
    • Reproducibility of Results
    • Solvents
    • Swine
    • Water / chemistry

    Citations

    This article has been cited 1 times.
    1. Olejnik M, Jedziniak P, Szprengier-Juszkiewicz T. The determination of six ionophore coccidiostats in feed by liquid chromatography with postcolumn derivatisation and spectrofotometric/fluorescence detection. ScientificWorldJournal 2013;2013:763402.
      doi: 10.1155/2013/763402pubmed: 24288505google scholar: lookup