| Literature DB >> 28867795 |
Mingfei Pan1, Shijie Li2, Junping Wang3, Wei Sheng4, Shuo Wang5.
Abstract
This study describes the development of a reproducible and label-free surface plasmon resonance (SPR) immunosensor and its application in the detection of harmful enrofloxacin (ENRO) in animal-derived foods. The experimental parameters for the immunosensor construction and regeneration, including the pH value (4.5), concentration for coating ENRO-ovalbumin conjugate (ENRO-OVA) (100 μg·mL-1), concentration of anti-ENRO antibody (80 nM) and regeneration solution (0.1 mol·L-1 HCl) were evaluated in detail. With the optimized parameters, the proposed SPR immunosensor obtained a good linear response to ENRO with high sensitivity (IC50: 3.8 ng·mL-1) and low detection limit (IC15: 1.2 ng·mL-1). The proposed SPR immunosensor was further validated to have favorable performances for ENRO residue detection in typical animal-derived foods after a simple matrix pretreatment procedure, as well as acceptable accuracy (recovery: 84.3-96.6%), precision (relative standard deviation (n = 3): 1.8-4.6%), and sensitivity (IC15 ≤ 8.4 ng·mL-1). Each SPR chip for analysis can be reused at least 100 times with good stability and the analysis cycle containing the steps of sample uploading/chip regeneration/baseline recovery can be completed within 6 min (one cycle) and auto-operated by a predetermined program. These results demonstrated that the proposed SPR immunosensor provided an effective strategy for accurate, sensitive, and rapid detection for ENRO residue, which has great potential for routine analysis of large numbers of samples for measuring different types of compounds.Entities:
Keywords: animal-derived food samples; enrofloxacin; immunosensor; surface plasmon resonance
Mesh:
Substances:
Year: 2017 PMID: 28867795 PMCID: PMC5621032 DOI: 10.3390/s17091984
Source DB: PubMed Journal: Sensors (Basel) ISSN: 1424-8220 Impact factor: 3.576
Figure 1Schematic diagram of the SPR immunosensor for ENRO detection.
Figure 2The chemical structure of target analyte ENRO and its analogues NOR, CIPRO, SPA and GAT.
Figure 3Results of the ENRO-OVA conjugate immobilized on the SPR chip in 10 mM acetate buffer solution at different pH values.
Figure 4The immobilization of ENRO-OVA conjugate on the SPR chip surface. PART A: EDC/NHS activation process, PART B: ENRO-OVA immobilization (two binding pulses), PART C: Ethanolamine blocking process.
Figure 5SPR response from the binding of the ligands with anti-ENRO Ab at different concentrations.
Figure 6Comparison of baseline and relative response using different regeneration reagents: (A) 0.05 mol·L−1 NaOH; (B) 0.5% SDS; (C) 0.1 mol·L−1 HCl; (D) 0.01 mol·L−1 Gly-HCl (pH 1.5).
Figure 7(A) SPR response from ENRO working solutions at different concentrations; (B) Inhibition curve of ENRO in PBS (pH 7.4) using the developed SPR immunosensor.
Figure 8Calibration curves of chosen matrix samples using the developed SPR immunosensor.
Recoveries for ENRO in spiked food samples analyzed by the developed SPR immunosensor and the commercial ELISA kit.
| Sample | Spiked Levels (ng·mL−1 or ng·g−1) | SPR Immunosensor | Commercial ELISA Kit | ||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Recovery (%) | RSD (%, n = 5) | Recovery (%) | RSD (%, n = 3) | ||
| Pure milk | 10.0 | 88.7 | 3.0 | 113.7 | 8.7 |
| 25.0 | 92.4 | 2.5 | 90.1 | 6.1 | |
| 50.0 | 96.3 | 3.9 | 118.8 | 10.1 | |
| Chicken muscle | 10.0 | 84.3 | 1.8 | 80.3 | 2.3 |
| 25.0 | 91.2 | 2.8 | 88.8 | 4.1 | |
| 50.0 | 92.7 | 4.6 | 78.1 | 4.4 | |
| Beef | 10.0 | 87.8 | 3.8 | 89.3 | 2.8 |
| 25.0 | 93.3 | 4.5 | 104.6 | 5.2 | |
| 50.0 | 95.6 | 2.8 | 91.3 | 5.5 | |
| Pork | 10.0 | 92.5 | 3.9 | 103.9 | 8.8 |
| 25.0 | 95.3 | 3.6 | 96.8 | 5.9 | |
| 50.0 | 96.2 | 2.6 | 90.9 | 5.2 | |
| Fish | 10.0 | 89.3 | 3.3 | 101.7 | 2.3 |
| 25.0 | 94.6 | 3.9 | 88.7 | 5.1 | |
| 50.0 | 96.6 | 3.6 | 100.2 | 6.8 | |
Comparison of different methods for ENRO determination in various samples
| Methods | Sensitivity | LOD | Required Time | Reuse Cycles | Samples | References |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Direct ELISA | 20.0 ng·g−1 | 1.3 ng·g−1 | >4.5 h | Once | feed | [ |
| Quantum dot-based fluoroimmunoassay | 1–100 ng·mL−1 | 2.5 ng·mL−1 | >30 min | Once | Chicken muscle | [ |
| Surface-enhanced Raman spectroscopy | - | 10 ng·mL−1 | 40 min | Once | Chicken muscle | [ |
| Microarray analyses | - | 5 ng·kg−1 | >1 h | - | Beef, pork and chicken | [ |
| Immunoassay strip | 0.038–22.75 ng·mL−1 | 0.935 ng·mL−1
| 5 min | Once | Chicken muscle | [ |
| Impedimetric immunosensors | 1–1000 ng·mL−1 | 1.0 ng·mL−1 | - | - | Blood | [ |
| Electrochemiscal immunobiosensor | 0.01–10 ng·mL−1 | 10 pg·mL−1 | 10–15 min | - | Milk, stream water | [ |
| Portable SPR sensor | 26.4 ± 7.2 μg·L−1 | 2.0 ± 0.2 μg·L−1 | <30 min | Once | Milk | [ |
| SPR immunosensor | 3.8 ng·mL−1 | 1.2 ng·mL−1 | About 6 min | At least 100 times | Pure milk, egg, chicken muscle, beef and fish | This research |