2种方法检测食品模拟物中矿物油含量的比较研究

Comparison of 2 kinds of different methods for determination of mineral oil hydrocarbons in foods simulants

中文关键词:  矿物油  食品接触材料  食品模拟物  离线固相萃取-气相色谱-氢火焰离子化检测器法  高效液相色谱-气相色谱-氢火焰离子化检测器在线联用法

英文关键词:mineral oil hydrocarbons  food contact materials  food simulants  off-line solid phase extraction-gas chromatography-flame ionization detector  on-line high performance liquid chromatography-gas chromatography -flame ionization detector

中文摘要:

      目的 考察离线固相萃取-气相色谱-氢火焰离子化检测器法(off-line solid phase extraction-gas chromatography-flame ionization detector, off-line SPE-GC-FID)与高效液相色谱-气相色谱-氢火焰离子化检测器在线联用法(on-line high performance liquid chromatography-gas chromatography-flame ionization detector, on-line HPLC-GC-FID)测定食品模拟物中矿物油含量的异同。方法 分别以4种食品模拟物为样品, 从前处理程序、仪器方法、方法学考察与样品测定等几个方面对两种检测方法进行了比较。结果 off-line SPE-GC-FID和on-line HPLC-GC-FID这2种方法的挥发损失均能满足实验需求, off-line SPE-GC-FID的定量限为水基模拟物1.25 mg/L, 油基模拟物5.00 mg/L, on-line HPLC-GC-FID的定量限为水基模拟物0.10 mg/L, 油基模拟物 0.40 mg/L, 回收率和相对标准偏差均可以满足矿物油检测要求; 两种方法分析不同食品模拟物中的饱和烃矿物油和芳香烃矿物油没有显著性差异。结论 Off-line SPE-GC-FID和on-line HPLC-GC-FID测定食品模拟物中的矿物油含量不存在显著性差异, 二者均可应用于食品模拟物中的矿物油含量检测, 其中on-line HPLC-GC-FID灵敏度更高, 适合低含量矿物油污染物的分析。

英文摘要:

      Objective To investigate the similarities and difference of determination of mineral oil hydrocarbons content in food simulants by off-line solid phase extraction-gas chromatography-flame ionization detector (off-line SPE-GC-FID) and on-line high performance liquid chromatography-gas chromatography-flame ionization detector (on-line HPLC-GC-FID). Methods Four kinds of food simulants were used as samples, and the 2 kinds of methods were compared in the aspects of pretreatment procedure, instrument method, methodology investigation and sample determination. Results The volatilization loss of off-line SPE-GC-FID and on-line HPLC-GC-FID could meet the experimental requirements. The limits of quantitation (LOQs) of off-line SPE-GC-FID were 1.25 mg/L for water-based simulant and 5.00 mg/L for oil-based simulant, and the LOQs of on-line HPLC-GC-FID was 0.10 mg/L for water-based simulant and 0.40 mg/L for oil-based simulant, respectively. There were no significant differences between 2 kinds of methods in the determination results of mineral oil saturated hydrocarbons and mineral oil aromatic hydrocarbons in different food simulants, and the recoveries and relative standard deviation values could meet the mineral oil hydrocarbons detection requirements. Conclusion There is no significant difference between the off-line SPE-GC-FID and on-line HPLC-GC-FID in the determination of mineral oil hydrocarbons content in food simulant migration solution. Both of them can be used for daily monitoring of mineral oil hydrocarbons content in food simulants, but on-line HPLC-GC-FID has higher sensitivity and is suitable for the analysis of low content pollutants.