Application and optimization of microwave-assisted extraction and dispersive liquid–liquid microextraction followed by high-performance liquid chromatography for sensitive determination of polyamines in turkey breast meat samples
Introduction
Dietary polyamines (PA) (putrescine, spermidine, and spermine) are low molecular weight bases with an aliphatic structure, which used to be classified within the group of biogenic amines (BA) (Ladero, Calles-Enríquez, Fernández, & Alvarez, 2010). However, they were considered separately as an individual compounds in 1990s, due to their roles in the growth and function of normal cells as well as their mode of formation (Kalač, 2009). Polyamines are ubiquitous among all different living organisms from bacteria to mammals (Kalač, 2014). They can also be found in different foodstuffs including wine, fruit, vegetables, cheese, different types of meat such as beef and fish in low concentrations (Naila, Flint, Fletcher, Bremer, & Meerdink, 2010). These components have controversial influences on human health as they can be useful for growth and wounds’ healing, while can be harmful as they accelerate the growth of tumors (Dadáková, Pelikánová, & Kalač, 2012). Because there is a controversy over exposure levels of polyamines in human body, it is very important to develop an efficient method for determination of these compounds in different foodstuffs.
Different methods have been used for analyzing BAs and PAs in foods, such as gas chromatography (GC) (Almeida, Fernandes, & Cunha, 2012), thin-layer chromatography (TLC) (Jeya Shakila, Vasundhara, & Kumudavally, 2001), capillary electrophoretic method (CE) (Lange, Thomas, & Wittmann, 2002), ion chromatography–mass spectrometry (IC–MS) (Saccani, Tanzi, Pastore, Cavalli, & Rey, 2005), ultra-performance liquid chromatography (UPLC) (Dadáková, Křížek, & Pelikánová, 2009) and high performance liquid chromatography (HPLC) (Önal, 2007). HPLC requires minimal preparation and it has high selectivity and sensitivity (Huang et al., 2009); therefore this method has been widely used for determination of BAs in different kinds of food (Lavizzari, Teresa Veciana-Nogués, Bover-Cid, Mariné-Font, & Carmen Vidal-Carou, 2006). However, direct determination of PAs (lipophilic compounds), especially in fat and protein-rich food such as meat or meat products is impossible and multi-step sample-preparation procedures are necessary to isolate PAs. (Triki, Jimenez-Colmenero, Herrero, & Ruiz-Capillas, 2012). Owing to this fact, recent trend is to develop efficient, economical, and miniaturized sample preparation techniques (Chaichi et al., 2013, Ghasemzadeh-Mohammadi et al., 2012). Conventional liquid–liquid extraction (LLE) and solid-phase extraction (SPE) are widely used for pre-concentration and clean-up before analysis. These methods have disadvantages such as time consuming and tedious and often need significant amounts of potentially toxic solvents (Almeida et al., 2012).
Recently, a novel sample preparation technique dispersive liquid–liquid microextraction (DLLME) was developed by Assadi and co-workers in 2006 (Rezaee et al., 2006). It is based on a ternary component solvent system like homogeneous liquid–liquid extraction (HLLE) and cloud point extraction (CPE). The advantages of the DLLME technique are fast, high recovery and selectivity, simplicity of operation, good sensitivity and low cost (Kamankesh et al., 2015, Pena-Pereira et al., 2012). The DLLME technique is a powerful method in separation of different analytes in complex matrices. Additionally, it is able to eliminate matrix interference (Ghasemzadeh-Mohammadi et al., 2012, Madani-Tonekaboni et al., 2015, Nojavan et al., 2015). The technique can be applied in most laboratories as well as it is compatible with different analytical methods such as gas chromatography (GC), high-performance liquid chromatography (HPLC), electrothermal atomic absorption spectrometry (Kamankesh et al., 2013, Mohammadi et al., 2013, Ramezani et al., 2014).
In this study, a new analytical method for separation and determination of three polyamines including putrecine, spermidine and spermine using dispersive liquid–liquid microextraction (DLLME) followed by HPLC with UV detector was investigated. A binary system comprises the extracting solvents (1-octanol and acetonitrile) and the sample solution was applied for the sample extraction. The extraction conditions were optimized using RSM based on CCD. The developed method was successfully applied for the accurate determination of traces amount of polyamines in turkey breast meat samples and satisfactory results were obtained.
Section snippets
Reagents, materials and standards
The turkey breast meat samples (white turkey hybrid breeds) were purchased from a local supermarket (Tehran, Iran), and stored at 4°C. Polyamine standards including putrescine dihydrochloride, spermidine trihydrochlride, spermine tetrahydrochloride and derivative reagent dansyl chloride were obtained from Sigma–Aldrich (St. Louis, MO, USA). Acetonitrile, acetone, methanol and HPLC-grade water were purchased from Dae Jung (South Korea). Hydrochloric acid (HCl) (37%, w/w), sodium hydroxide
Results and discussion
Optimal separation and detection of three polyamines, namely putrecine, spermidine and spermine in turkey breast meat samples was obtained by optimizing four important variables (volume of extraction solvent, volume of disperser solvent, amount of salt and sample pH) influencing the DLLME process. Response surface methodology was used for optimization of the extraction efficiency of DLLME method. The selection of a suitable organic solvent is very important for DLLME process. A high
Conclusion
In this study, a new, efficient and reliable method was developed to extract and analyze polyamines in turkey breast meat using MAE–DLLME–HPLC. RSM based on CCD offers the best experimental conditions with the minimum number of experiments was applied to optimize and determine the interaction and quadratic effects of important parameters on the performance of microextraction process. In comparison to other methods, the proposed method has significant advantages including low consumption of
Acknowledgment
The authors would like to thank the National Nutrition and Food Technology Research Institute of Iran for financial support of this work.
References (25)
- et al.
A novel dispersive liquid–liquid microextraction (DLLME) gas chromatography–mass spectrometry (GC–MS) method for the determination of eighteen biogenic amines in beer
Food Control
(2012) - et al.
Optimization and application of headspace liquid-phase microextraction coupled with gas chromatography–mass spectrometry for determination of furanic compounds in coffee using response surface methodology
Microchemical Journal
(2013) - et al.
Determination of biogenic amines in foods using ultra-performance liquid chromatography (UPLC)
Food Chemistry
(2009) - et al.
Contents of biologically active polyamines in duck meat and giblets after slaughter and their changes during meat storage and cooking
Food Research International
(2012) - et al.
Determination of biogenic amines in fresh and processed meat by ion chromatography and integrated pulsed amperometric detection on Au electrode
Food Chemistry
(2007) - et al.
Microwave-assisted extraction and dispersive liquid–liquid microextraction followed by gas chromatography–mass spectrometry for isolation and determination of polycyclic aromatic hydrocarbons in smoked fish
Journal of Chromatography A
(2012) - et al.
Ultrasound-assisted dispersive liquid–liquid microextraction combined with high-performance liquid chromatography–fluorescence detection for sensitive determination of biogenic amines in rice wine samples
Journal of Chromatography A
(2009) - et al.
A comparison of the TLC-densitometry and HPLC method for the determination of biogenic amines in fish and fishery products
Food Chemistry
(2001) Health effects and occurrence of dietary polyamines: A review for the period 2005–mid 2013
Food Chemistry
(2014)- et al.
Rapid determination of polycyclic aromatic hydrocarbons in grilled meat using microwave-assisted extraction and dispersive liquid–liquid microextraction coupled to gas chromatography–mass spectrometry
Meat Science
(2015)
Dispersive liquid–liquid microextraction followed by high-performance liquid chromatography for determination of benzoate and sorbate in yogurt drinks and method optimization by central composite design
Talanta
Comparison of a capillary electrophoresis method with high-performance liquid chromatography for the determination of biogenic amines in various food samples
Journal of Chromatography B
Cited by (40)
Sample preparation strategies for the analysis of contaminants in foods
2023, Innovation of Food Products in Halal Supply Chain WorldwideSample Preparation in Foodomics. Combination of Assisted-Extraction Techniques to the Comprehensive Foodomics
2020, Comprehensive FoodomicsCombined assisted extraction techniques as green sample pre-treatments in food analysis
2019, TrAC - Trends in Analytical ChemistryCitation Excerpt :However, most of MAE applications involve aqueous solutions as extractants [19–29], and the addition of a solvent disperser is therefore needed for completing DLLME. Nitrosamines and polyamines [19–21], as well as polycyclic aromatic hydrocarbons (PAHs) [22–28] and veterinary residues [29] and phenolic compounds [30] have been commonly isolated from foodstuff by applying water/alcohol mixtures using potassium or sodium hydroxide for inducing hydrolyzation and saponification [19,20,22,23,25–27,29]. DLLME is applied after protein precipitation, and acetonitrile [21,26,27,29] and acetone [22–28] are mainly used as disperser solvents (methanol [19] and ethanol [20,30] have been also proposed).
Electrophoretic analysis of polyamines in exhaled breath condensate based on gold-nanoparticles microextraction coupled with field-amplified sample stacking
2019, TalantaCitation Excerpt :As shown in Table 1, Put and Cad showed good linearity over two orders of magnitudes (r > 0.999), and the LOD values could achieve 0.070–0.17 ng mL−1 (S/N = 3). Compared with most of the reported methods [8–13,15–23,25], this developed method could obtain comparable or higher detection sensitivity (LODs: 0.070–0.17 ng mL−1 vs 0.038–1000 ng mL−1) with no need of derivatization. ( The comparison table of analytical methods was listed in Table S2 of Supplementary file)