• EI
  • Scopus
  • 食品科学与工程领域高质量科技期刊分级目录第一方阵T1
  • DOAJ
  • EBSCO
  • 北大核心期刊
  • 中国核心学术期刊RCCSE
  • JST China
  • FSTA
  • 中国精品科技期刊
  • 中国农业核心期刊
  • CA
  • WJCI
  • 中国科技核心期刊CSTPCD
  • 中国生物医学SinoMed
中国精品科技期刊2020
曹梦思, 张立实, 王君, 阮丽萍, 王格平, 郑超, 严卫星. 两种方法检测食用油脂中的多环芳烃[J]. 食品工业科技, 2015, (08): 82-87. DOI: 10.13386/j.issn1002-0306.2015.08.008
引用本文: 曹梦思, 张立实, 王君, 阮丽萍, 王格平, 郑超, 严卫星. 两种方法检测食用油脂中的多环芳烃[J]. 食品工业科技, 2015, (08): 82-87. DOI: 10.13386/j.issn1002-0306.2015.08.008
CAO Meng-si, ZHANG Li-shi, WANG Jun, RUAN Li-ping, WANG Ge-ping, ZHENG Chao, YAN Wei-xing. The determination of polycyclic aromatic hydrocarbons in edible fats and oils with two methods[J]. Science and Technology of Food Industry, 2015, (08): 82-87. DOI: 10.13386/j.issn1002-0306.2015.08.008
Citation: CAO Meng-si, ZHANG Li-shi, WANG Jun, RUAN Li-ping, WANG Ge-ping, ZHENG Chao, YAN Wei-xing. The determination of polycyclic aromatic hydrocarbons in edible fats and oils with two methods[J]. Science and Technology of Food Industry, 2015, (08): 82-87. DOI: 10.13386/j.issn1002-0306.2015.08.008

两种方法检测食用油脂中的多环芳烃

The determination of polycyclic aromatic hydrocarbons in edible fats and oils with two methods

  • 摘要: 分别建立同位素内标定量-QuEChERS净化-气相色谱-三重四级杆串联质谱法(方法一)和GPC自动净化-高效液相色谱-荧光检测法(方法二)两种方法,为检测食用油脂中欧盟优先控制的16种多环芳烃(EU15+1PAHs)提供了快速有效的方法。分别对104份食用油脂样品进行分析比较,对比两方法检测结果。结果表明:两方法均满足国内外对食品中PAHs检测的要求,方法一、方法二精密度实验RSD值分别小于5.4%、6.81%,平均加标回收率除个别外,分别在71.3%111.6%、93.1%119%范围内,RSD值分别小于5.0%、5.5%;标准曲线线性方程相关系数分别大于0.998、0.990,方法一定量限范围为0.230.50μg/kg,方法二定量限为0.9μg/kg、检出限为0.3μg/kg;英国食品化学分析实验室能力验证(FAPAS)盲样测定结果均达到规定检测结果;两方法对104份油样的两组检测结果无统计学差异,整体分析和分不同油种比较结果基本一致。结论:建立了针对食用油中EU15+1PAHs的分析方法,两方法均满足相应检测要求,且具有良好的准确性和实用性。 

     

    Abstract: The purpose was to detect EU 15 +1PAHs in edible fats and oils by establishing two motheds that were the isotope internal standard quantified-Qu ECh ERS-gas chromatography-tandem mass spectrometry and the GPC-high performance liquid chromatography-fluorescence detection. 104 edible oils and fats samples was detected. Then the results of the two motheds were compared. Results:both methods met the detection requirements. The RSD of precision were less than 5.4%(Method One) and 6.81%(Method Two) and the average recoveries of spiked samples were in the range of 71.3% ~111.6%(Method One) and 93.1% ~119%(Method Two). The correlation coefficiency of standard curves were over 0.998(Method One) and 0.990(Method One). The quantitation limit of the two motheds were 0.23 ~0.50μg/kg and 0.9μg/kg respectively. The blind determination results for the samples from the Food Analysis Performance Assessment Scheme(FAPAS) were satisfactory. The results of two methods for 104 samples had no differences by statistical evaluation. Conclusion:both methods meet the testing requirements for the determination of EU 15+1PAHs in edible fats and oils.

     

/

返回文章
返回