2种方法测定婴幼儿配方食品中8种营养素的比较

Comparison of determination of 8 nutrients in infant formula food by 2 methods

中文关键词:  营养素  婴幼儿配方食品  前处理  火焰原子吸收光谱法  电感耦合等离子体发射光谱法

英文关键词:nutrients  infant formula food  pretreatment  flame atomic absorption spectrometry  inductively coupled plasma-optical emission spectrometry

中文摘要:

      目的 对比火焰原子吸收光谱法(flame atomic absorption spectrometry, FAAS)和电感耦合等离子体发射光谱法(inductively coupled plasma-optical emission spectrometry, ICP-OES)测定婴幼儿配方食品中8种营养素的结果差异。方法 收集市售21种婴幼儿配方食品作为对比样品, 依据相关标准, 选择干法灰化法和微波消解法进行前处理, 分别采用FAAS和ICP-OES法检测样品中铜、锌、铁、钾、钠、钙、镁和锰元素含量, 利用统计软件计算2种方法间的系统偏差和比例偏差。结果 各元素的判定标准(maxref?minref)/maxref>0.2, 分析2种方法是否在统计学意义上一致, 需分析方法间的系统偏差和比例偏差。检测铁元素时, 既不存在系统偏差, 也不存在比例偏差, 2种检测方法没有显著差异, 认为结果具有一致性; 而其他元素, 包括铜、锌、钾、钠、钙、镁和锰元素, 结果差异均达到统计学显著水平。结论 因仪器原理、方法线性范围、样品消解前处理方法等方面的差异, 2种方法在检测铜、锌、钾、钠、钙、镁和锰等7种元素时会得出不一致的检测结果, 建议进一步研究前处理方法对结果的影响, 并深入分析结果差异对标准实际应用的影响, 为检测方法修订和完善提供科学依据。

英文摘要:

      Objective To compare the results of determination of 8 kinds of nutrients in infant formula food by flame atomic absorption spectrometry (FAAS) and inductively coupled plasma optical emission spectrometry (ICP-OES). Methods Total of 21 kinds of infant formula food sold in the market were collected as test samples. According to the relevant standards, FAAS and ICP-OES were used to detect the content of Cu, Zn, Fe, K, Na, Ca, Mg and Mn in the samples digested with dry ashing and microwave digestion, statistical software was applied to examine the systematic deviation and proportional deviation between the 2 methods, and the reasons for the differences were analyzed. Results The criteria of each element was (maxref?minref)/maxref> 0.2, for analyzing whether the 2 methods were consistent in statistical significance, and analyzing the systematic deviation and proportional deviation between the 2 methods. When iron element was detected, there was neither systematic deviation nor proportional deviation, and there was no significant difference between the 2 detection methods. It was considered that the results were consistent, and other elements, including copper, zinc, potassium, sodium, calcium, magnesium and manganese, showed statistically significant differences. Conclusion Due to the differences in instrument principle, linear range and sample digestion pretreatment method, the 2 methods get inconsistent detection results in the detection of seven elements, such as Cu, Zn, K, Na, Ca, Mg and Mn. It is suggested to further study the influence of sample digestion pretreatment on the results and the differences on the actual application of the standard, so as to provide scientific proof for method revision and completion.