Nontargeted Screening and Determination of Sulfonamides: A

Subscriber access provided by University of Newcastle, Australia

Article

Non-targeted Screening and Determination of Sulfonamides: A Dispersive Micro Solid-phase Extraction Approach to the Analysis of Milk and Honey Samples using Liquid Chromatography- High Resolution Mass Spectrometry Shuping Hu, Min Zhao, Yiyuan Xi, Qiqi Mao, Xudong Zhou, Dawei Chen, and Pengcheng Yan J. Agric. Food Chem., Just Accepted Manuscript • DOI: 10.1021/acs.jafc.6b05773 • Publication Date (Web): 17 Feb 2017 Downloaded from http://pubs.acs.org on February 18, 2017

Just Accepted “Just Accepted” manuscripts have been peer-reviewed and accepted for publication. They are posted online prior to technical editing, formatting for publication and author proofing. The American Chemical Society provides “Just Accepted” as a free service to the research community to expedite the dissemination of scientific material as soon as possible after acceptance. “Just Accepted” manuscripts appear in full in PDF format accompanied by an HTML abstract. “Just Accepted” manuscripts have been fully peer reviewed, but should not be considered the official version of record. They are accessible to all readers and citable by the Digital Object Identifier (DOI®). “Just Accepted” is an optional service offered to authors. Therefore, the “Just Accepted” Web site may not include all articles that will be published in the journal. After a manuscript is technically edited and formatted, it will be removed from the “Just Accepted” Web site and published as an ASAP article. Note that technical editing may introduce minor changes to the manuscript text and/or graphics which could affect content, and all legal disclaimers and ethical guidelines that apply to the journal pertain. ACS cannot be held responsible for errors or consequences arising from the use of information contained in these “Just Accepted” manuscripts.

Journal of Agricultural and Food Chemistry is published by the American Chemical Society. 1155 Sixteenth Street N.W., Washington, DC 20036 Published by American Chemical Society. Copyright © American Chemical Society. However, no copyright claim is made to original U.S. Government works, or works produced by employees of any Commonwealth realm Crown government in the course of their duties.

Page 1 of 31

Journal of Agricultural and Food Chemistry

1

Non-targeted Screening and Determination of Sulfonamides: A Dispersive Micro

2

Solid-phase Extraction Approach to the Analysis of Milk and Honey Samples using

3

Liquid Chromatography- High Resolution Mass Spectrometry

4 5

Shuping Hu,† Min Zhao,† Yiyuan Xi,† Qiqi Mao,† Xudong Zhou,† Dawei Chen,*,‡

6

Pengcheng Yan*,†

7

†

Zhejiang 325035, China

8 9 10

School of Pharmaceutical Sciences, Wenzhou Medical University, Wenzhou,

‡

Key Laboratory of Food Safety Risk Assessment, Ministry of Health; China National

Center for Food Safety Risk Assessment, Beijing 100021, China

11 12

*Corresponding Author: (Tel: +86-10-67779768. Fax: +86-10-67790051. E-mail:

13

[email protected].)

1

ACS Paragon Plus Environment


14

Abstract

15

A simple, rapid, sensitive, selective, and environmentally friendly method, based on

16

dispersive micro solid-phase extraction approach (dispersive micro SPE) coupled with

17

liquid chromatography-high resolution mass spectrometry (LC-HRMS) was

18

established for the analysis of sulfonamides in honey and milk. An efficient

19

non-targeted screening strategy was designed to discover and identify known and

20

unknown sulfonamides in honey and milk using full-MS/all ion fragmentation (AIF)

21

mass spectrometry acquisition mode. The experimental parameters and conditions of

22

dispersive micro SPE on extraction efficiency were optimized in detail. Under the

23

optimized conditions, the dispersive micro SPE method showed a low limit of

24

detection (LOD) for the targeted sulfonamides ranging from 0.003-0.2 µg/L in milk

25

and 0.01-1 µg/kg in honey with the recoveries of the analytes between 68.8% and

26

115.8%. Compared with the reported methods, improvements in convenience, low

27

cost, and environmental friendliness were obtained in this study.

28

Keywords: dispersive micro solid-phase extraction (dispersive micro SPE),

29

sulfonamides, honey, milk, high resolution mass spectrometry (HRMS), all ion

30

fragmentation (AIF)

2


Page 2 of 31

Page 3 of 31


31

INTRODUCTION

32

Sulfonamides (Figure 1) are an important group of antibiotics extensively used in

33

human and veterinary medicine due to their high efficiency, inexpensiveness and

34

wide-spectrum antimicrobial activity.1 However, the possible presence of sulfonamide

35

residues in animal foods has become a public health concern, mainly because

36

excessive exposure can increase the risk of drug resistance and cause some side

37

effects.2 To protect human health from this potential risk, the European Union (EU)

38

has set a maximum residue limit (MRL) for sulfonamides at the total level of 100 ng/g

39

in animal foods, such as meat, milk, and eggs.3 Thus, rapid and efficient analytical

40

methods are required for monitoring of sulfonamides at trace-residual level.

41

Among several reported analytical methods,4-15 liquid chromatography-mass

42

spectrometry (LC-MS) is still the most useful detection technique because of its high

43

sensitivity, especially in the analysis of trace sulfonamide residues in milk and honey.

44

However, one of the main limitations to mass spectrometry is the interference of

45

matrix effect, which will affect the trueness and precision of quantitative analysis.16 In

46

order to reduce the occurrence of matrix effect, a more exhaustive sample preparation

47

method is extremely important prior to the analysis by LC-MS. Several sample

48

preparation methods have been described for analysis of sulfonamides in milk and

49

honey, such as solid-phase extraction (SPE),4,6,11-14 stir bar sorptive extraction,7

50

dispersive liquid-liquid microextraction.9 Among all these methods, SPE is the most

51

frequent one used for efficient extraction, however, it requires multiple operation

52

steps and consumes a large amount of organic solvents and sorbents. Fortunately, 3



Page 4 of 31

53

some new pretreatment methods, such as micro solid-phase extraction (micro SPE)

54

and dispersive micro solid-phase extraction (dispersive micro SPE), have been used

55

for residue analysis based on the traditional SPE technique.17–22 For example, Ibarra et

56

al.10 developed a micro SPE and HPLC method using Fe3O4–SiO2–phenyl modified

57

sorbent to determine sulfonamides in milk, but required a relatively long extraction

58

time (15 min) and a large amount of sorbent (100 mg) to achieve the adsorption

59

equilibration.

60

(MIL-101(Cr)@GO) was also used as dispersive micro SPE sorbent for the

61

pretreatment of twelve sulfonamides in milk.15 Although the amount of sorbent was

62

smaller (5 mg), this method required an additional liquid-liquid extraction procedure

63

and a relatively longer extraction time (20 min). Additionally, so far these magnetic

64

materials are not readily available in most laboratories. Therefore, it is very important

65

to find a kind of sorbent which possesses high adsorption capabilities for

66

sulfonamides in a shorter extraction time and also be commercially available. Cation

67

exchange material is assumed to be a promising sorbent for analysis of contaminants

68

in food matrices because it can rapidly adsorb alkaline compounds with high chemical

69

selectivity and has been widely applied in SPE method.23-25

Furthermore,

metal-organic

framework/graphite

oxide

material

70

Among the cation exchange materials, polymer cation exchange (PCX) material

71

can yield superior adsorption efficiency for alkaline compounds than the silica-based

72

cation exchange material because of higher surface area. Unlike other adsorbents

73

applied for dispersive micro SPE (carbon nanotubes, graphene and inorganic

74

nanoparticles),26 the adsorption mechanism of PCX is not based on the principle of 4


Page 5 of 31


75

hydrogen bonds, π-π stacking interactions, electrostatic forces and hydrophobic

76

interactions, but the ability of ion exchange. This mechanism can ensure the same

77

adsorption capacity in organic solvent media, which also extend the application of this

78

material from aqueous samples to other food matrices, such as the animal derived

79

foods. In this work, a simple dispersive micro SPE method with PCX material as

80

sorbent is present for the extraction and determination of 24 sulfonamides in milk and

81

honey aiming at reducing the extraction time. Additionally, the non-targeted screening

82

technique is becoming more and more important with the frequent occurrence of

83

illegal drugs adulterated in food. This study also presents an efficient non-targeted

84

screening strategy to discover and identify known and unknown sulfonamides in milk

85

and honey using high resolution mass spectrometry (HRMS).

86

MATERIALS AND METHODS

87

Chemicals and Materials

88

PCX powder (40-60 µm, average particle size) was purchased from Bonna-Agela

89

Technologies (Tianjin, China). Ultra-pure water (H2O) was purified by a Milli-Q

90

system (Milford, MA). HPLC-grade acetonitrile (MeCN), methanol (MeOH) and

91

other chemical reagents were commercially available. 24 sulfonamides (Figure 1)

92

including sulfaguanidine, 1, sulfanilamide, 2, sulfacetamide, 3, sulfadiazine, 4,

93

sulfisomidine, 5, sulfathiazole, 6, sulfapyridine, 7, sulfamerazine, 8, trimethoprim, 9,

94

sulfamoxole,

95

sulfamethoxypyridazine, 14, sulfamonomethoxine, 15, sulfachlorpyridazine, 16,

96

sulfamethoxazole, 17, sulfadoxine, 18, sulfisoxazole, 19, sulfabenzamide, 20,

10,

sulfamethazine,

11,

sulfamethizole,

5


12,

sulfameter,

13,


97

sulfaclozine, 21, sulfadimethoxine, 22, sulfaphenazole, 23, and sulfaquinoxaline, 24

98

(>96.5% purity) and 14 isotope internal standards (IS) (13C6-2, 13C6-4, 13C6-6, 13C6-7,

99

13

C6-8, D3-9, 13C6-11, D3-14, D4-15, D4-17, D3-18, 13C6-19, 13C6-22, 13C6-24) were all

100

obtained from Dr. Ehrenstorfer (Augsburg, Germany) and Sigma-Aldrich (Shanghai,

101

China). The individual stock solutions of 24 sulfonamides and ISs (1.0 mg/mL) were

102

prepared in MeOH. Mixed working standard solutions (1 mg/L and 10 mg/L) were

103

prepared by diluting the stock solutions with MeOH. All standard solutions were

104

stored at -20 °C and stable for 60 days.

105

Milk samples were purchased from the local markets from Beijing in China and

106

collected from different brands and manufactures, and honey samples were collected

107

from different botanical origins in China through the food safety risk monitoring plan

108

for which the laboratory of China National Center for Food Safety Risk Assessment is

109

responsible.

110

Dispersive Micro SPE for Samples Preparation

111

Dispersive micro SPE procedure was carried out by a 5 mL syringe with a syringe

112

filter. The sample solution was placed in a centrifuge tube with 15 mg PCX which had

113

been dispersed in 2 mL H2O. The solution was vortexed for 30 s and transferred into a

114

5 mL syringe with a syringe filter. Then the solution was passed through the syringe

115

and filter manually and discarded. After decantation of the sample solution, the PCX

116

sorbent was washed with 1 mL H2O again and eluted with 1 mL of 5% ammonium

117

hydroxide in MeCN-H2O (50:50 v/v). The eluate was used for analysis. An overview

118

of sample preparation for the milk and honey is shown in Figure 2.

119

Apparatus Conditions

120

The ultra-high performance liquid chromatography (UHPLC) analysis was carried 6


Page 6 of 31

Page 7 of 31


121

out on a Dionex Ultimate 3000 system (Sunnyvale, California) with a Waters HSS T3

122

(100 mm × 2.1 mm i.d., 1.8 µm) column (Milford, Massachusetts) and a Thermo AQ

123

C18 (150 mm × 2.1 mm i.d., 1.7 µm) column (Bremen, Germany). The column

124

temperature was set at 40 °C. A mixture of H2O (A) and MeOH (B) containing 0.1%

125

formic acid was used as mobile phase. The separation was accomplished by using a

126

gradient elution at 0.3 mL/min (0-2 min 2-20% B, 2-6 min 20-40% B, 6-10 min

127

40-100% B, 10-12 min 100-100% B, 12-13 min 100-2% B, 13-16 min, 2-2% B).

128

The analysis was conducted with a Q-Exactive HRMS (Thermo Scientific, Bremen,

129

Germany) equipped with a heated electrospray ionization (HESI) source. All the data

130

were acquired under the full-MS/all ion fragmentation (AIF) mode using positive

131

electrospray ionization (ESI+). The detailed ion source parameters were published

132

previously.27 Data were processed with XCalibur and ToxID 2.2 software (Thermo

133

Scientific).

134

Method Validation

135

The calibration curve was established by analysis of a series of concentrations of

136

the standard solution, and was plotted by the peak area ratio (y): the standard to

137

respective IS; versus concentration (x) of the analyte. LOD (S/N=3) and LOQ

138

(S/N=10) were calculated by the spiked experiments of the lowest concentration. The

139

method precision (intra-day and inter-day precision) and accuracy (percentage

140

recoveries) were evaluated by five replicate analysis of sulfonamides in spiked milk

141

and honey samples at three different concentrations. Intra-day precision (so called

142

repeatability, in terms of % RSDr) was determined on the same day. For inter-day

143

precision (so called reproducibility, in terms of % RSDR), the spiked samples were

144

analyzed on three consequent days. The extraction recoveries were determined by

145

comparing the measured values with the expected values. The matrix effect was 7



146

estimated by building calibration curves from a matrix solution (milk or honey) and a

147

matrix free solution, and was expressed as the signal suppression or enhancement by

148

the slope ratio of the analytes in matrix and matrix free solution.

149

RESULTS AND DISCUSSION

150

Optimization of UHPLC Conditions

151

In this experiment, two frequently-used types of analytical columns, including AQ

152

C18 and HSS T3 were tested. Both columns are compatible with 100% aqueous mobile

153

phase, and suitable to retain and separate some polar compounds. As shown in Table

154

1, 13/14/15, 16/21, 18/22 and 10/19 are four sets of isomers with the same molecular

155

weight, even with similar fragment ions. Therefore, it is essential for the four sets of

156

isomers to be chromatographically separable. The results showed that 16/21, 18/22

157

and 10/19 had good chromatographic separation in both columns, whereas the T3

158

column had a better separation effect and superior ionization efficiency than the C18

159

column for 13/14/15 (Figures 3A and B). As for the mobile phase, MeCN-H2O and

160

MeOH-H2O with 0.1% formic acid were compared. Figure 3A shows that 13/14 did

161

not achieve complete separation in MeCN-H2O containing 0.1% formic acid. Finally,

162

MeOH-H2O with 0.1% formic acid was selected as the optimum mobile phase (Figure

163

3C), by which an adequately good ionization efficiency of the 24 sulfonamides was

164

obtained with high sensitivity and good separation resolution.

165

Non-targeted Screening of Sulfonamides by Full-MS/AIF Mode

166

Full-MS/AIF acquisition mode was applied for the multi-target and non-targeted

167

screening approach. The AIF mode provides the fragmentation of all the generated

168

precursor ions. Accordingly, the use of full-MS/AIF mode allows to all necessary

169

information about the precursor and fragment ions to be obtained in one run.

170

Although the mixing of product ion spectra could be caused by the absence of 8


Page 8 of 31

Page 9 of 31


171

precursor ion selection in the quadrupole instrument under AIF mode, adequate

172

specificity could still be achieved in the screening of sulfonamides using HRMS

173

analysis.

174

In this work, an efficient non-targeted screening strategy was developed to discover

175

and identify known and unknown sulfonamides in milk and honey by full-MS/AIF.

176

For the known sulfonamides, a sulfonamides database was created with 72

177

sulfonamides including 47 metabolites. Based on the established UHPLC-HRMS

178

method, the samples were analyzed in full-MS/AIF mode. In the sulfonamides

179

database, compound name, elemental composition, polarity, exact mass (m/z),

180

retention time (tR) and characteristic fragment ions were included for each

181

sulfonamide. In particular, MS/MS spectra were obtained by stepped fragmentation at

182

20%, 35%, and 50% of normalized collision energy (NCE) in higher energy

183

collisional dissociation cell for further identification of sulfonamides. Fortunately,

184

several specific fragment ions were observed in the analysis of fragment ions for

185

different kinds of sulfonamides. All the sulfonamides except for TMP had the same

186

fragment ions (m/z 156.01138, 108.04439, and 92.04948) due to the same structural

187

skeleton. For the unknown sulfonamides not found in the database, further compound

188

discovery and structure elucidation were performed under AIF mode using the

189

characteristic fragment ions of sulfonamides.

190

An example of this is presented in Figure 4. Firstly, the extractive characteristic

191

fragment ions chromatograms from the mixed product ion spectra were obtained by

192

AIF mode. Secondly, the retrospective data analysis of so far unknown compounds

193

was performed by full-MS to obtain its corresponding precursor ion, and the possible

194

precursor ion was extracted from the full-MS. In this case, the ion m/z 215.04843 in

195

the chromatogram (Figure 4A) was selected and it was found to have the same tR and 9



196

peak shape as the characteristic fragment ions in Figures 4B-D, indicating that it was

197

the precursor ion of these fragment ions. Finally, the QualBrowser of XCalibur was

198

used to assign molecular formula to each exact mass based on atomic constraints set

199

by the parent sulfonamides and the measured isotopic pattern. The atomic settings

200

were a minimum of 6xC, 9xH, 2xO, 2xN, 1xS, in accordance with the atomic

201

composition of the parent sulfonamide. When the standard deviation was within 5

202

ppm, and the measured isotope pattern fit the atomic composition, the molecular

203

formula was considered plausible. The result shows that the elemental composition of

204

the selected precursor ion m/z 215.04843 [M+H]+ is C8H11O2N2S, indicating a

205

standard deviation of 0.1 ppm. By this non-targeted screening strategy, we can obtain

206

a glimpse of the unknown sulfonamides, including their metabolites, because the

207

standards are relatively scarce in various monitoring laboratories.

208

Optimization for Sample Preparation

209

In this work, PCX material was selected as the sorbent in dispersive micro SPE

210

procedure for the extraction of 24 sulfonamides from milk and honey due to the

211

characteristic that a rapid adsorption equilibration can be achieved in 30 s as shown in

212

our preliminary study. Additionally, the extraction efficiency is also affected by other

213

parameters, including the pH of sample solution, the amount of PCX, the desorption

214

solvent and volume.

215

Sulfonamides, as weakly alkaline substances, are protonated under acid conditions

216

and the rapid adsorption capacities of PCX material for sulfonamides was mainly

217

based on the ion exchange mechanism. Thus, the pH level of sample solution was

218

investigated first. However, our results revealed that there was no obvious difference

219

in the extraction efficiencies of sulfonamides when the pH of sample solution was in

220

the range from 1 to 5 and lack of pH adjustment (pH 6.4). This phenomenon may be 10


Page 10 of 31

Page 11 of 31


221

attributed to the fact that the PCX material possesses considerable strong ion

222

exchange abilities, and the pH of sample solution (pH 6.4) is adequate to keep the

223

sulfonamides positively charged. Moreover, the amounts of PCX ranging from 10-25

224

mg were also carefully studied. It was observed that a maximum extraction efficiency

225

for all 24 sulfonamides was achieved at 15 mg, and there was no significant increase

226

on extraction efficiency when the amount of sorbent was further increased, which

227

meant that 15 mg of PCX was adequate to extract the sulfonamides. A proper

228

desorption solvent is a significant factor in the elution of sulfonamides. In this work,

229

MeCN-H2O (1:1, v/v) with different ratios of ammonium hydroxide (1-10%) was

230

evaluated for the efficiency of releasing the sulfonamides from PCX sorbent.

231

Desorption efficiencies gradually increased as the concentration of ammonium

232

hydroxide was increased from 1-5% and slightly changed when the concentration was

233

up to 10%. Furthermore, the correlation between desorption efficiency and solvent

234

volume ranging from 0.5-2 mL was also studied. As expected, the desorption

235

efficiency increased with the volume of solvent, and reached a maximum equilibrium

236

above 1 mL. Therefore, the optimum volume of desorption solvent was determined as

237

1 mL.

238

Matrix Effects Evaluation

239

After optimization of the dispersive micro SPE procedure, matrix effects for the

240

sulfonamides in milk and honey were studied by comparing the slope ratios of the

241

analytes in matrix and matrix free solution. Generally, matrix effect was considered

242

tolerable if the ratio was between 0.8 and 1.2. As shown in Table 1, weak matrix

243

effects were observed in honey matrices with slope ratios of 0.87-1.14 for all 24

244

sulfonamides. The proposed method yielded weaker matrix effects than those of

245

reported SPE method in honey,8,13 while the sample dilution factors and 11



246

chromatographic conditions were completely different from those reported methods.

247

As for milk matrices, with moderate to high levels of proteins, different matrix effects

248

were observed for the sulfonamides. It can be seen that no apparent matrix effects

249

were observed for the 13 sulfonamides with slope ratios between 0.8 and 1.2, such as

250

5, 8, and so on. However, several sulfonamides exhibited a strong signal suppression

251

effect (0.51-0.74), and a signal enhancement effect (1.23 for 17 and 1.24 for 9) was

252

also observed in milk matrices. In order to reduce the influence of matrix effects, the

253

matrix-matched calibration curve was frequently used in various studies.7,8,11 In this

254

work, an isotopic dilution technique was used for compensating different matrix

255

effects and the loss of recoveries in milk and honey matrices.

256

Analytical Performance

257

The analytical performance of sulfonamides based on the dispersive micro SPE

258

method is listed in Table 1. Method specificity was evaluated by analyzing the blank

259

samples, and no interfering peak was observed at the tR of the analytes. The

260

correlation coefficients (R2 = 0.9979-1.0000) of all 24 sulfonamides in the studied

261

ranges indicated good linearity relationships by the internal standard calibration curve.

262

For all 24 sulfonamides, the LODs were in the range of 0.003-1 µg/L (or µg/kg), and

263

LOQs varied between 0.01 and 3 µg/L (or µg/kg) for the milk and honey. The

264

precision and accuracy were estimated by analyzing the spiked blank samples at three

265

concentration levels. As shown in Table 2, acceptable results were achieved for all 24

266

sulfonamides in two matrices. Mean recoveries for all the sulfonamides fell into the

267

range of 74.3-115.8%, along with RSDr range from 1.3-6.4% and RSDR of less than

268

12.8% in honey. As for milk, the recoveries were exhibited between 68.8 and 112.6%,

269

with RSDr and RSDR range from 1.0-13.2%.

270

Comparison with Previous Analytical Methods 12


Page 12 of 31

Page 13 of 31


271

The proposed dispersive micro SPE-UHPLC-HRMS is a new method for the rapid

272

monitoring of sulfonamides in milk and honey. The SPE method has been extensively

273

used as a pretreatment step.4,6,11-14 However, the dispersive micro SPE method is

274

superior in convenience, low cost, and environmental friendliness. For example, the

275

lower consumption of organic solvent (only 0.5 mL MeCN) and sorbent material (15

276

mg) was achieved in our dispersive micro SPE procedure. Unlike the disposable use

277

of SPE column, the sorbent material could be reused by washing with 5% ammonium

278

hydroxide in MeOH and H2O respectively after dispersive micro SPE procedure,

279

indicating that this sorbent would be a type of green and sustainable material. For

280

comparison, stir bar sorptive extraction7 required a 10 min of extraction time with less

281

organic solvent (90 µL MeOH), but dispersive liquid-liquid microextraction9

282

consumed more organic solvent (1 mL chloroform as extraction solvent and 1.9 mL

283

MeCN as disperser solvent). For dispersive micro SPE or micro SPE method, the

284

Fe3O4–SiO2–phenyl modified sorbent10 and MIL-101(Cr)@GO15 have also been used

285

for the extraction of sulfonamides. Compared with those methods, our method

286

required a shorter extraction time (approximately 30 s) than MIL-101(Cr)@GO

287

method (20 min) and less amount of sorbent material (15 mg) than

288

Fe3O4–SiO2–phenyl modified sorbent method (100 mg). Additionally, combined with

289

HRMS technique, lower detection levels with acceptable or better precision and

290

recovery were obtained in our work, and the total number of detected sulfonamides

291

was 24, including sulfanilamide, 2, which was rarely involved in previous studies.

292

Therefore,

293

environmentally-friendly and rapid analysis of sulfonamides in milk and honey.

294

Application to Real Samples

295

the

proposed

method

enabled

a

relatively

inexpensive,

The proposed method was applied to the determination of sulfonamides in 18 milk 13



296

and 51 honey samples collected from different commercial brands. Firstly, we tried to

297

use non-targeted screening to identify samples that may contain sulfonamides in the

298

absence of authentic standards. Taking milk as an example, three chromatographic

299

peaks were observed by analyzing the characteristic fragment ions of sulfonamides.

300

Then, through further analysis of parent ions, it was found that those three molecular

301

compositions were C10H11O4N2S, C11H10D3O3N4S and C12H12D3O4N4S, respectively.

302

Among them, the first peak is sulfadiazine, 4 (m/z 251.0603), and the other two peaks

303

are isotope internal standard (D3-14, m/z 284.0897; D3-18, m/z 314.1002) spiked in

304

milk. Secondly, we applied existing standards to validate and accurately quantitate

305

sulfonamides. The results showed that sulfadiazine, 4 (0.3-9.7 µg/L for the three

306

detected samples) and sulfamerazine, 8 (4.9-7.4 µg/L for the two detected samples)

307

were commonly detected in the milk samples. However, sulfamoxole, 10 (3.9 µg/kg)

308

was detected only in a honey sample.

309

In conclusion, we developed an efficient non-targeted screening strategy for the

310

discovery and identification of sulfonamides in honey and milk using UHPLC-HRMS.

311

Sulfonamides database searching by full-MS and the identification of characteristic

312

fragment ions by AIF were performed to accomplish the discovery of the known and

313

unknown sulfonamides. Furthermore, a dispersive micro SPE method based on PCX

314

material was used for the sample pretreatment. The proposed dispersive micro SPE

315

method exhibited following advantages: (a) convenient and timesaving because the

316

traditional evaporation and centrifugation steps can be omitted and a very short

317

extraction time (30 s) can be achieved based on the high adsorption capacity and

318

selectivity of PCX sorbent material; (b) low-cost and environmentally-friendly

319

compared to the traditional SPE method due to the requirement of less amount of

320

sorbent and organic solvent; (c) the relatively fewer matrix effects in honey and milk; 14


Page 14 of 31

Page 15 of 31


321

(d) efficient monitoring of trace sulfonamide residues in milk and honey when

322

combined with UHPLC-HRMS analysis. What is more, the ability of ion exchange of

323

PCX material would extend the application of this material to organic solvent media

324

from animal food matrices. The dispersive micro SPE-UHPLC-HRMS method is

325

rapid, efficient, sensitive, low-cost and environmentally friendly, which would be

326

suitable for the risk monitoring of sulfonamides in the field of food safety, and can

327

rapidly identify potential unknown and known sulfonamides in the absence of

328

sulfonamides authentic standards.

329

Abbreviations Used

330

AIF, all ion fragmentation; SPE, solid-phase extraction; HESI, heated electrospray

331

ionization; NCE, normalized collision energy.

332

ASSOCIATED CONTENT

333

Supporting Information

334

This material is available free of charge via the Internet at http://pubs.acs.org.

335

Figure S1 (A) The extraction ions at m/z 156.01138, 108.04439, and 92.04948 by AIF

336

for all 24 sulfonamides; (B) extraction ion at m/z 281.0708 by full scan; (C) the mixed

337

product ion spectrum at the retention time (8.32 min).

338

Figure S2 Effects of: (A) the amount of PCX; (B) the ammonium hydroxide

339

concentration in MeCN; (C) the eluting solution volume on the dispersive micro SPE

340

procedure for the 24 sulfonamides (n = 3).

341

Figure S3 The extraction ions at m/z 156.01138, 108.04439, and 92.04948 by AIF for

342

sulfonamides in milk.

343

Figure S4 Workflow of the non-targeted screening of sulfonamides by

344

UHPLC-HRMS.

345

Table S1 The extraction conditions for optimization of each parameter by analyzing 15



Page 16 of 31

346

spiked samples.

347

Table S2 Information for the internal standards of sulfonamides.

348

Table S3 Comparison of various analytical methods developed for analysis of

349

sulfonamides in milk and honey matrices.

350

Sulfonamides database.

351

AUTHOR INFORMATION

352

Corresponding Authors

353

*(D.

354

[email protected].

355

*(P.

356

[email protected].

357

Funding

358

This research was funded by the National Nature Science of Foundation of China

359

(21607035).

360

Notes

361

The authors declare no competing financial interest.

362

REFERENCES

363

(1) Dmitrienko, S. G.; Kochuk, E. V.; Apyari, V. V.; Tolmacheva, V. V.; Zolotov, Y.

364

A. Recent advances in sample preparation techniques and methods of sulfonamides

365

detection - A review. Anal. Chim. Acta. 2014, 850, 6-25.

366

(2) Shen, Q.; Jin, R.; Xue, J.; Lu, Y.; Dai, Z. Analysis of trace levels of sulfonamides

367

in fish tissue using micro-scale pipette tip-matrix solid-phase dispersion and fast

368

liquid chromatography tandem mass spectrometry. Food Chem. 2016, 194, 508-515.

369

(3) European Union Council Regulation. Directive 675/92/EEC. Official Journal of

370

the European Communities. 1992, L73, 8-36.

Chen)

Yan):

Tel:

Tel:

+86-10-67779768.

+86-577-86699572.

Fax:

Fax:

+86-10-67790051.

E-mail:

+86-577-86689983.

E-mail:

16


Page 17 of 31


371

(4) Dubreil-Cheneau, E.; Pirotais, Y.; Verdon, E.; Hurtaud-Pessel, D. Confirmation of

372

13 sulfonamides in honey by liquid chromatography-tandem mass spectrometry for

373

monitoring plans: Validation according to European Union Decision 2002/657/EC. J.

374

Chromatogr. A. 2014, 1339, 128-136.

375

(5) Catelani, T. A.; Toth, I. V.; Lima, J. L.F.C.; Pezza, L.; Pezza, H. R. A simple and

376

rapid screening method for sulfonamides in honey using a flow injection system

377

coupled to a liquid waveguide capillary cell. Talanta. 2014, 121, 281-287.

378

(6) Economou, A.; Petraki, O.; Tsipi, D.; Botitsi, E. Determination of a liquid

379

chromatography-tandem mass spectrometry method for the determination of

380

sulfonamides, trimethoprim and dapsone in honey and validation according to

381

Commission Decision 2002/657/EC for banned compounds. Talanta. 2012, 97, 32-41.

382

(7) Yu, C.; Hu, B. C18-coated stir bar sorptive extraction combined with high

383

performance liquid chromatography-electrospray tandem mass spectrometry for the

384

analysis of sulfonamides in milk and milk powder. Talanta. 2012, 90, 77-84.

385

(8) Nebot, C.; Regal, P.; Miranda, J. M.; Fente C.; Cepeda, A. Rapid method for

386

quantification of nine sulfonamides in bovine milk using HPLC/MS/MS and without

387

using SPE. Food Chem. 2013, 141, 2294-2299.

388

(9) Arroyo-Manzanares, N.; Gamiz-Gracia, L.; Garcia-Campana, A. M. Alternative

389

sample treatments for the determination of sulfonamides in milk by HPLC with

390

fluorescence detection. Food Chem. 2014, 143, 459-464.

391

(10) Ibarra, I. S.; Miranda, J. M.; Rodriguez, J. A.; Nebot, C.; Cepeda, A. Magnetic

392

solid phase extraction followed by high-performance liquid chromatography for the

393

determination of sulphonamides in milk samples. Food Chem. 2014, 157, 511-517.

394

(11) Meng, Z.; Shi, Z.; Liang S.; Dong, X.; Li, H.; Sun, H. Residues investigation of

395

fluoroquinolones and sulphonamides and their metabolites in bovine milk by 17



and

confirmation

using

ultra-performance

Page 18 of 31

396

quantification

397

chromatography-tandem mass spectrometry. Food Chem. 2015, 174, 597-605.

398

(12) Zhu, W. X.; Yang, J. Z.; Wang, Z. X.; Wang, C. J.; Liu, Y. F.; Zhang, L. Rapid

399

determination of 88 veterinary drug residues in milk using automated TurborFlow

400

online clean-up mode coupled to liquid chromatography-tandem mass spectrometry.

401

Talanta. 2016, 148, 401-411.

402

(13) Hou, X. L.; Chen, G.; Zhu, L.; Yang, T.; Zhao, J.; Wang, L.; Wu, Y. L.

403

Development and validation of an ultra high performance liquid chromatography

404

tandem mass spectrometry method for simultaneous determination of sulfonamides,

405

quinolones and benzimidazoles in bovine milk. J. Chromatogr. B. 2014, 962, 20-29.

406

(14) Gu, X.; Wu, J. P.; Zhang, X.; Li, D. N.; Yan, F.; Zhou, Y. R. Determination of 14

407

sulfonamides residue in milk by on-line solid phase extraction in cation exchange

408

mode/liquid chromatography-tandem mass spectrometry. Chinese J. Anal. Chem.

409

2014, 42, 1759-1766.

410

(15) Jia, X.; Zhao, P.; Ye, X.; Zhang, L.; Wang, T.; Chen, Q.; Hou, X. A novel

411

metal-organic framework composite MIL-101(Cr)@GO as an efficient sorbent in

412

dispersive micro-solid phase extraction coupling with UHPLC-MS/MS for the

413

determination of sulfonamides in milk samples. Talanta. 2016, in press,

414

http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.talanta.2016.08.086.

415

(16) Stahnke, H.; Kittlaus, S.; Kempe, G.; Alder, L. Reduction of matrix effects in

416

liquid chromatography-mass spectrometry by dilution of the sample extracts: How

417

much dilution is needed? Anal. Chem. 2012, 84, 1474-1482.

418

(17) Cao, W.; Hu, S. S.; Ye, L. H.; Cao, J. Dispersive micro-solid-phase extraction

419

using mesoporous hybrid materials for simultaneous determination of semivolatile

420

compounds from plant tea by ultra-high-performance liquid chromatography coupled 18


liquid

Page 19 of 31


421

with quadrupole time-of-flight tandem mass spectrometry. J. Agric. Food Chem. 2014,

422

62, 9683-9689.

423

(18) Huang, Z.; Lee, H. K.. Micro-solid-phase extraction of organochlorine pesticides

424

using porous metal-organic framework MIL-101 as sorbent. J. Chromatogr. A. 2015,

425

1401, 9-16.

426

(19) Salisaeng, P.; Arnnok, P.; Patdhanagul, N.; Burakham, R. Vortex-assisted

427

dispersive micro-solid phase extraction using CTAB-modified zeolite NaY sorbent

428

coupled with HPLC for the determination of carbamate insecticides. J. Agric. Food

429

Chem. 2016, 64, 2145-2152.

430

(20) Zhao, Q.; Wei, F.; Luo, Y. B.; Ding, J.; Xiao, N.; Feng, Y. Q. Rapid magnetic

431

solid-phase extraction based on magnetic multiwalled carbon nanotubes for the

432

determination of polycyclic aromatic hydrocarbons in edible oils. J. Agric. Food

433

Chem. 2011, 59, 12794-12800.

434

(21) Krawczyk, M.; Stanisz, E. Ultrasound-assisted dispersive micro solid-phase

435

extraction with nano-TiO2 as adsorbent for the determination of mercury species.

436

Talanta. 2016, 161, 384-391.

437

(22) Garcia-Valverde, M. T.; Lucena, R.; Cardenas, S.; Valcarcel, M. In-syringe

438

dispersive micro-solid phase extraction using carbon fibres for the determination of

439

chlorophenols in human urine by gas chromatography/mass spectrometry. J.

440

Chromatogr. A. 2016, 1464 42-49.

441

(23) Fang, Z.; He, C.; Li, Y.; Chung, K. H.; Xu, C.; Shi, Q. Fractionation and

442

characterization of dissolved organic matter (DOM) in refinery wastewater by revised

443

phase retention and ion-exchange adsorption solid phase extraction followed by ESI

444

FT-ICR MS. Talanta. 2017, 162, 466-473.

445

(24) Park, Y.; Choe, S.; Lee, H.; Jo, J.; Park, Y.; Kim, E.; Pyo, J.; Jung, J. H. 19



446

Advanced analytical method of nereistoxin using mixed-mode cationic exchange

447

solid-phase extraction and GC/MS. Forensic Sci. Int. 2015, 252, 143-149.

448

(25) Zhao, Z.; Zhang, Y.; Xuan, Y.; Song, W.; Si, W.; Zhao, Z.; Rao, Q.

449

Ion-exchange solid-phase extraction combined with liquid chromatography-tandem

450

mass spectrometry for the determination of veterinary drugs in organic fertilizers. J.

451

Chromatogr. B 2016, 1022, 281-289.

452

(26) Plotka-Wasylka, J.; Szczepanska, N.; de la Guardia, M.; Namiesnik, J.

453

Miniaturized solid-phase extraction technique. TrAC-Trends Anal. Chem. 2015, 73,

454

19-38.

455

(27) Chen, D. W.; Miao, H.; Zou, J. H.; Cao, P.; Ma, N.; Zhao, Y. F.; Wu, Y. N.

456

Novel dispersive micro-solid-phase extraction combined with ultrahigh-performance

457

liquid chromatography-high-resolution mass spectrometry to determine morpholine

458

residues in citrus and apples. J. Agric. Food Chem. 2015, 63, 485-492.

20


Page 20 of 31

Page 21 of 31


459

Figure Captions

460

Figure 1 Structures of the sulfonamides studied: sulfaguanidine, 1, sulfanilamide, 2,

461

sulfacetamide, 3, sulfadiazine, 4, sulfisomidine, 5, sulfathiazole, 6, sulfapyridine, 7,

462

sulfamerazine,

463

sulfamethizole, 12, sulfameter, 13, sulfamethoxypyridazine, 14, sulfamonomethoxine,

464

15, sulfachlorpyridazine, 16, sulfamethoxazole, 17, sulfadoxine, 18, sulfisoxazole, 19,

465

sulfabenzamide, 20, sulfaclozine, 21, sulfadimethoxine, 22, sulfaphenazole, 23, and

466

sulfaquinoxaline, 24.

467

Figure 2 An overview of sample preparation for the milk and honey

468

Figure 3 Chromatograms for sulfameter, 13, sulfamethoxypyridazine, 14, and

469

sulfamonomethoxine, 15 under different chromatographic conditions: (A) T3 column

470

with mobile phase MeCN-H2O with 0.1% formic acid; (B) C18 column with mobile

471

phase MeCN-H2O with 0.1% formic acid; (C) T3 column with mobile phase

472

MeOH-H2O with 0.1% formic acid.

473

Figure 4 Chromatograms for sulfacetamide, 3, under different acquisition modes: (A)

474

extraction ion at m/z 215.0490 by full scan; (B) extraction ion at m/z 156.01138 by

475

AIF; (C) extraction ion at m/z 108.04439 by AIF; (D) extraction ion at m/z 92.04948

476

by AIF.

8,

trimethoprim,

9,

sulfamoxole,

10,

21


sulfamethazine,

11,


Page 22 of 31

Table 1 Calibration Curve Equations, Correlation Coefficients (R2), LODs, LOQs and Matrix Effects for the 24 Sulfonamides Honey

Milk

Analytes

tR (min)

[M+H]+ (m/z)

Linear range (µg/L)

Linearity equation

R2

LOD (µg/kg)

LOQ (µg/kg)

Matrix effects

LOD (µg/L)

LOQ (µg/L)

Matrix effects

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22

2.59 2.89 5.06 6.08 6.16 6.53 6.84 7.28 7.56 7.86 8.18 7.98 7.92 8.32 8.91 8.66 8.76 9.19 9.13 9.60 10.14 10.39

215.0603 173.0385 215.0490 251.0603 279.0916 256.0214 250.0650 265.0759 291.1457 268.0756 279.0916 271.0323 281.0708 281.0708 281.0708 285.0213 254.0599 311.0814 268.0756 277.0647 285.0213 311.0814

0.01-10 0.5-20 0.2-10 0.02-10 0.05-10 0.01-10 0.01-10 0.01-10 0.01-10 0.01-10 0.05-10 0.02-10 0.005-5 0.005-5 0.01-10 0.01-10 0.005-5 0.01-10 0.01-10 0.02-10 0.01-10 0.01-10

Y = -0.0005+0.7438*X Y = -0.0054+0.0170*X Y = -0.0091+0.4118*X Y = -0.0037+0.4926*X Y = -0.0024+0.7124*X Y = -0.0050+0.7814*X Y = -0.0027+0.8378*X Y = -0.0019+0.8396*X Y = -0.0255+4.843*X Y = -0.0021+0.5579*X Y = -0.0086+0.9011*X Y = -0.0011+0.3714*X Y = 0.0014+0.5980*X Y = 0.0013+0.7043*X Y = 0.0007+3.112*X Y = -0.0024+0.2968*X Y = -0.0013+1.329*X Y = -0.0002+0.8679*X Y = -0.0051+0.8952*X Y = -0.0113+1.079*X Y = -0.0052+0.4315*X Y = 0.0022+0.9524*X

0.9989 0.9979 0.9997 0.9997 0.9999 1.0000 0.9999 1.0000 0.9990 0.9999 1.0000 0.9999 0.9999 0.9999 0.9999 0.9999 1.0000 1.0000 1.0000 0.9998 0.9997 0.9999

0.02 1.0 0.3 0.05 0.06 0.02 0.02 0.02 0.02 0.02 0.1 0.05 0.01 0.01 0.02 0.02 0.01 0.02 0.02 0.05 0.02 0.02

0.06 3.0 1.0 0.15 0.3 0.06 0.06 0.06 0.06 0.06 0.3 0.15 0.03 0.03 0.06 0.06 0.03 0.06 0.06 0.15 0.06 0.06

0.89 1.04 0.87 0.91 1.04 1.03 1.03 1.07 1.14 1.10 1.05 1.07 1.05 1.05 1.08 1.07 1.09 1.02 1.01 1.04 1.07 1.06

0.005 0.2 0.1 0.01 0.02 0.01 0.01 0.005 0.005 0.01 0.02 0.01 0.003 0.003 0.01 0.005 0.003 0.01 0.01 0.01 0.01 0.01

0.02 0.5 0.2 0.03 0.06 0.02 0.02 0.02 0.02 0.02 0.06 0.03 0.01 0.01 0.02 0.02 0.01 0.02 0.02 0.03 0.02 0.02

0.61 0.74 0.72 0.74 0.94 0.71 0.74 1.01 1.24 0.98 0.82 0.88 1.09 0.83 0.60 0.83 1.23 0.83 0.73 0.51 1.01 0.92

22


Page 23 of 31


23 24

9.97 10.66

315.0916 301.0759

0.01-10 0.1-10

Y = -0.0040+1.038*X Y = -0.0055+0.2336*X

0.9999 0.9993

23


0.02 0.2

0.06 0.6

1.06 1.09

0.01 0.1

0.02 0.2

0.94 0.96


Page 24 of 31

Table 2 Recovery and Precision Values of 24 Sulfonamides from Different Spiked Levels by the Proposed Method

Analytes 1

2

3

4

5

6

7

Honey (n = 5)

Fortified level (µg/kg)

R (%)

RSDr (%)

0.06 0.3 1.5 3.0 15 75 1.0 5.0 25 0.15 0.75 4.0 0.3 1.5 7.5 0.06 0.3 1.5 0.06 0.3 1.5

74.3 82.7 83.8 78.5 83.1 97.1 82.8 95.2 89.9 103.6 97.2 105.2 88.3 110.4 108.2 77.5 83.9 103.9 101.4 98.5 114.2

5.8 3.1 2.1 8.3 5.9 3.2 5.7 3.6 4.2 6.5 5.7 4.1 2.1 3.1 2.7 5.5 1.9 3.3 2.4 1.8 1.6

Milk (n = 5)

RSDR (%)

Fortified level (µg/L)

R (%)

RSDr (%)

RSDR (%)

10.7 5.2 7.4 11.2 7.3 3.6 7.9 6.3 4.9 6.8 6.3 5.2 6.4 7.0 4.6 5.9 2.5 4.8 4.3 3.7 6.2

0.02 0.1 0.5 0.5 2.5 12.5 0.2 1.0 5.0 0.03 0.15 0.75 0.06 0.3 1.5 0.02 0.1 0.5 0.02 0.1 0.5

84.1 76.3 85.9 68.8 73.2 79.4 86.2 83.8 85.2 93.1 98.6 99.3 74.2 95.2 107.4 78.6 89.2 99.3 93.2 99.8 106.7

4.9 2.8 1.7 6.2 8.0 5.2 4.4 1.2 2.0 6.2 3.7 4.6 3.7 3.1 2.2 5.6 4.2 1.4 2.2 1.2 1.7

6.3 4.7 3.2 13.2 8.4 11.7 5.2 3.0 4.8 7.3 6.2 5.8 4.4 4.0 3.5 7.4 8.3 4.9 4.2 4.9 3.7

24


Page 25 of 31


8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

0.06 0.3 1.5 0.06 0.3 1.5 0.06 0.3 1.5 0.3 1.5 7.5 0.15 0.75 4.0 0.03 0.15 0.75 0.03 0.15 0.75 0.06 0.3 1.5 0.06 0.3

95.1 90.6 107.7 96.3 102.5 105.3 89.3 94.2 99.3 104.2 94.8 98.6 70.6 93.2 96.6 83.8 92.2 107.1 95.2 87.9 106.3 87.5 90.3 88.5 82.0 86.4

5.3 6.4 3.6 4.7 3.6 3.1 2.7 3.4 2.5 2.9 3.6 2.4 7.6 5.8 2.1 2.5 5.2 1.9 4.2 2.8 2.7 6.4 2.1 4.2 3.8 1.7

8.2 7.2 3.8 5.0 4.1 5.0 4.2 3.9 4.7 4.0 4.6 3.2 12.8 7.2 3.1 4.4 5.8 3.2 6.6 3.9 6.3 8.7 3.7 5.6 7.7 4.3

25


0.02 0.1 0.5 0.02 0.1 0.5 0.02 0.1 0.5 0.06 0.3 1.5 0.03 0.15 0.75 0.01 0.05 0.25 0.01 0.05 0.25 0.02 0.1 0.5 0.02 0.1

85.6 86.1 102.0 87.7 99.1 96.6 88.4 93.7 107.3 97.2 102.7 95.9 79.2 94.3 86.9 79.2 84.2 94.8 85.5 93.6 95.3 96.1 88.8 104.6 92.0 83.5

6.6 4.3 1.6 3.6 2.5 1.2 5.2 3.8 2.3 3.7 2.3 1.4 6.4 4.6 3.2 6.6 6.2 3.0 2.3 3.0 1.7 5.2 2.8 2.3 2.7 3.6

7.9 5.7 3.3 6.3 3.3 3.9 9.3 5.2 4.9 5.2 6.3 2.8 7.7 6.9 3.7 10.2 8.5 7.3 4.4 5.8 3.5 8.2 4.2 3.9 5.3 4.8


17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

1.5 0.03 0.15 0.75 0.06 0.3 1.5 0.06 0.3 1.5 0.15 0.75 4.0 0.06 0.3 1.5 0.06 0.3 1.5 0.06 0.3 1.5 0.6 3.0 15

92.7 87.4 94.3 97.2 73.8 79.4 83.4 95.2 93.1 103.6 97.5 104.5 111.5 92.1 89.8 94.7 93.0 86.3 96.4 74.9 83.7 98.3 109.4 115.8 113.2

1.6 4.8 3.9 2.8 2.6 5.7 4.4 5.0 3.6 5.7 3.1 2.4 2.6 1.6 1.5 2.3 6.2 1.3 2.2 4.6 2.9 1.4 6.4 5.6 4.1

3.2 7.8 6.1 3.0 5.9 6.0 5.7 8.9 4.3 7.4 5.5 5.1 3.5 2.2 3.6 4.2 8.2 4.2 3.9 5.0 3.7 3.6 9.2 10.4 8.9

26


0.5 0.01 0.05 0.25 0.02 0.1 0.5 0.02 0.1 0.5 0.03 0.15 0.75 0.02 0.1 0.5 0.02 0.1 0.5 0.02 0.1 0.5 0.2 1.0 5.0

Page 26 of 31

87.3 74.4 79.6 83.2 82.4 74.8 87.9 91.4 104.3 104.9 86.9 98.5 107.6 93.6 92.1 108.4 76.7 93.3 95.9 80.2 87.2 89.3 102.8 97.4 112.6

4.1 2.1 3.4 1.7 3.2 3.1 2.8 3.1 2.5 3.9 2.8 1.0 1.7 2.7 1.1 2.6 5.7 3.6 3.2 2.1 2.6 1.5 5.1 3.7 4.5

6.2 5.4 5.5 2.7 6.3 7.9 5.8 4.8 5.1 6.3 5.2 3.9 4.6 3.7 2.9 4.0 12.1 7.2 5.4 4.3 3.8 2.7 7.7 8.6 6.8

Page 27 of 31


Figure 1

27



Honey (2.0 g)

Milk (1.0 mL)

Dissolved and diluted to 10 mL with H2O

1.0 mL extract using dispersive micro SPE with 15 mg PCX as sorbent

Washed with 1 mL of H2O

Eluted by 1.0 mL 5% ammonium hydroxide in MeCN/H2O (50:50 v/v)

UHPLC-HRMS by Full MS-AIF mode Figure 2

28


Page 28 of 31

Page 29 of 31


80

14

13

100

A

tR: 5.88

tR: 6.07

15

60

tR: 6.73

40

Relative Abundance (%)

20 0 100 80

tR: 8.06 13, 14

B

60 40

15 t : 8.43 R

20 0 100

tR: 7.92 13

C 80

tR: 8.32 14 tR: 8.91 15

60 40 20 0 5.0

5.2

5.4

5.6

5.8

6.0

6.2

6.4

6.6

6.8

7.0

7.2

7.4

7.6

7.8

Time (min) Figure 3

29


8.0

8.2

8.4

8.6

8.8

9.0

9.2

9.4

9.6


Page 30 of 31

100 80

tR: 5.06

A

60 40 20

Relative Abundance

Relative Abundance (%)

0 100 80

B

tR: 5.07

C

tR: 5.07

D

tR: 5.07

60 40 20 0 100 80 60 40 20 0 100 80 60 40 20 0 4.4

4.5

4.6

4.7

4.8

4.9

5.0

5.1

5.2 Time (min)

5.3

Time (min) Figure 4

30


5.4

5.5

5.6

5.7

5.8

5.9

Page 31 of 31


Table of Contents Graphic

31


Nontargeted Screening and Determination of Sulfonamides: A

Recommend Documents