Simultaneous determination of the residues of anesthetics and sedatives in fish using LC-QLIT-MS/MS combined with DSPE

• Published in: Food chemistry 2023-03, Vol.403, p.134407, Article 134407
• Main Authors: Huang, Qin, Zhou, Hua, Wu, Xianglun, Song, Chenli, Zheng, Jiangang, Lei, Meikang, Mu, Pengqian, Wu, Pinggu
• Format: Article
• Language: English
• Subjects: Anesthetic; Anesthetics; Animals; Chromatography, High Pressure Liquid - methods; Chromatography, Liquid - methods; Dispersive solid phase extraction (DSPE); Fish; Fishes; Hypnotics and Sedatives; Liquid chromatography tandem mass spectrometry (LC–MS/MS); Sedatives; Solid Phase Extraction - methods; Tandem Mass Spectrometry - methods
• ISSN: 0308-8146; 1873-7072
• DOI: 10.1016/j.foodchem.2022.134407

[Display omitted] •Simultaneous determination of anesthetics and sedatives in fish was established.•Graphitized MWCNTs based DSPE clean-up were adopted for effective purification.•LC-QLIT-MS/MS method provides credible identification for 9 targets.•Method is easy to implement enabling anesthetics and sedatives analysis in fish.•Eugenol was detected in several fishes (concentrations: 3.8 μg/kg–21.4 μg/kg). Liquid chromatography coupled with quadrupole linear ion trap tandem mass spectrometry (LC-QLIT-MS/MS) technology operated in electrospray ionization (ESI) was developed for tracing anesthetic (AETs) and sedatives (SDTs) in fish. Sampling procedure was achieved by using acetonitrile extraction followed by dispersive solid phase extraction (DSPE) clean-up. Under the optimized laboratory conditions, reliable qualitative confirmation was obtained through the multiple reaction monitoring-information dependent acquisition-enhanced product ion (MRM-IDA-EPI) mode. Results indicated a favorable linear in the concentration range of 1–100 μg∙kg−1 (0.1–10 μg∙kg−1 for MS-222), with regression coefficient not less than 0.9997. The detection limit ranges from 0.03 to 0.4 μg∙kg−1 (S/N = 3). The validated method was applied to determine AETs and SDTs in fish with satidfied recoveries of 86.3 %–111.7 % and the relative standard deviations (RSD) of 1.9 %–8.9 % (n = 6). Practical samples analysis indicated that the proposed method is simple, rapid, sensitive and accurate for identification of AETs and SDTs.