| Literature DB >> 32709030 |
Ewelina Patyra1, Krzysztof Kwiatek1, Carolina Nebot2, Rosa Elvira Gavilán2.
Abstract
Antibiotics are active substances frequently used to treat and prevent diseases in animal husbandry, especially in swine and poultry farms. The use of manure as a fertilizer may lead to the dispersion of antibiotic residue into the environment and consequently the development of antibiotic-resistant bacteria. Most pharmaceutical active ingredients are excreted after administration, in some cases up to 90% of the consumed dose can be found in the feces and/or urine as parent compound. Therefore, due to antibiotic metabolism their residues can be easily detected in manure. This article describes a method for simultaneous analysis of ciprofloxacin, chlortetracycline, doxycycline, enrofloxacin, lincomycin, oxytetracycline, tetracycline, tiamulin, trimethoprim and tylosin in feces, liquid manure and digestate. Antibiotics were extracted from the different matrices with McIlvaine-Na2EDTA buffer solution and the extract was purified by the use two techniques: d-SPE and SPE (Strata-X-CW cartridges) and final eluent was analyzed by LC-MS and LC-MS/MS. The European Commission Decision 2002/657/EC was followed to conduct the validation of the method. Recoveries obtained from spiked pig and poultry feces and liquid manures samples ranged from 63% to 93% depending on analytes. The analysis of 70 samples (feces, liquid manure and digestate) revealed that 18 samples were positive for the presence of doxycycline, oxytetracycline, tetracycline, chlortetracycline, enrofloxacin, tiamulin and lincomycin. The results obtained in the presented study demonstrated that animal feces can be used as a non-invasive method detection antibiotic usage in animal production.Entities:
Keywords: LC-MS; LC-MS/MS; SPE; antibacterial substances; d-SPE; feces; non-invasive method; residues
Mesh:
Substances:
Year: 2020 PMID: 32709030 PMCID: PMC7397134 DOI: 10.3390/molecules25143265
Source DB: PubMed Journal: Molecules ISSN: 1420-3049 Impact factor: 4.411
Figure 1LC-MS/MS MRM chromatograms of blank pig feces.
Figure 2LC-MS/MS MRM chromatograms of spiked pig feces sample with all analyzed compounds at first validation level (trimethoprim—25 µg/kg; oxytetracycline, tetracycline, chlortetracycline, doxycycline, tylosin, tiamulin—100 µg/kg; lincomycin—125 µg/kg; enrofloxacin, ciprofloxacin—50 µg/kg).
Figure 3LC-MS (SIM) chromatogram of blank pig feces sample.
Figure 4LC-MS (SIM) chromatogram of pig feces sample spiked with all analyzing antibacterial substances at first validation level (1—lincomycin 125 µg/kg; 2—trimethoprim 25 µg/kg; 3—oxytetracycline 100 µg/kg; 4—ciprofloxacin 50 µg/kg; 5—tetracycline 100 µg/kg; 6—enrofloxacin 50 µg/kg; 7—chlortetracycline 100 µg/kg; 8—doxycycline 100 µg/kg; 9—tylosin 100 µg/kg; 10—tiamulin 100 µg/kg).
Validation parameters of the optimized method.
| Analyte | Linearity | Recovery [%] | Reproducibility [%] | Reproducibility [%] | LOQ [µg/kg] | LOD [µg/kg] | CCα [µg/kg] | CCβ [µg/kg] | ||||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Concentration Levels [µg/kg] | Concentration Level [µg/kg] | Concentration Level [µg/kg] | ||||||||||||
| I | II | III | I | II | III | I | II | III | ||||||
| CIP | 50–1000 µg/kg | 64.4 | 66.1 | 60.3 | 21.0 | 19.8 | 20.0 | 26.9 | 28.8 | 27.1 | 34.9 | 21.2 | 46.0 | 98.2 |
| ENR | 50–1000 µg/kg | 75.1 | 81.0 | 83.9 | 15.5 | 16.2 | 15.2 | 18.1 | 19.0 | 21.0 | 30.8 | 19.5 | 35.2 | 53.3 |
| OXT | 100–1500 µg/kg | 89.1 | 92.2 | 93.5 | 10.0 | 10.7 | 8.8 | 18.4 | 13.7 | 12.4 | 61.0 | 54.3 | 77.9 | 111.7 |
| TC | 100–1500 µg/kg | 82.0 | 81.0 | 86.7 | 16.1 | 17.7 | 13.6 | 19.4 | 20.5 | 15.4 | 73.0 | 60.7 | 86.4 | 161.0 |
| CTC | 100–1500 µg/kg | 84.5 | 80.9 | 82.2 | 11.4 | 11.0 | 8.9 | 15.4 | 13.9 | 18.9 | 78.8 | 64.3 | 76.8 | 120.2 |
| DC | 100–1500 µg/kg | 74.3 | 79.1 | 75.8 | 17.9 | 12.3 | 14.1 | 21.9 | 16.0 | 15.3 | 87.2 | 69.1 | 89.0 | 156.2 |
| TYL | 100–1500 µg/kg | 63.2 | 65.3 | 64.3 | 22.2 | 14.0 | 12.1 | 28.7 | 17.7 | 19.9 | 82.3 | 67.9 | 91.1 | 168.2 |
| TIAM | 100–1500 µg/kg | 88.4 | 88.0 | 91.4 | 11.3 | 10.7 | 12.2 | 13.5 | 15.3 | 12.1 | 45.5 | 39.3 | 53.2 | 78.8 |
| LINCO | 125–625 µg/kg | 75.5 | 72.3 | 81.0 | 11.0 | 10.2 | 9.9 | 14.5 | 13.1 | 13.0 | 92.0 | 76.2 | 101.8 | 133.5 |
| TRIM | 25–500 µg/kg | 90.0 | 100.2 | 93.3 | 9.8 | 7.8 | 5.6 | 6.8 | 7.0 | 8.4 | 15.5 | 10.2 | 23.2 | 38.0 |
The analytes and their concentrations detected in real samples.
| Sample | Analyte [µg/kg] | |||||||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| CIP | ENR | OXC | TC | CTC | DC | TYL | TIAM | LINCO | TRIM | |
| PIG FAECES | ||||||||||
| Samples from Poland | ||||||||||
| S1 | nd | nd | nd | nd | nd | 200 | nd | nd | nd | Nd |
| S2 | nd | nd | nd | nd | nd | 200 | nd | nd | nd | Nd |
| S3 | nd | nd | 1450 | nd | nd | 4141 | nd | nd | nd | Nd |
| S4 | nd | nd | nd | nd | nd | 980 | nd | nd | nd | Nd |
| S5 | nd | nd | nd | nd | nd | 1900 | nd | nd | nd | Nd |
| S6 | nd | nd | nd | nd | nd | 1165 | nd | nd | nd | Nd |
| Samples from Spain | ||||||||||
| S7 | nd | nd | nd | nd | 340 | 1000 | nd | nd | nd | Nd |
| S8 | nd | nd | nd | nd | nd | 34,340 | nd | nd | nd | Nd |
|
| nd | nd | 440 | nd | nd | 175,400 | nd | 520 | nd | Nd |
| S10 | nd | nd | 220 | nd | nd | 125,140 | nd | nd | 290 | Nd |
| S11 | nd | nd | nd | nd | nd | 5540 | nd | nd | nd | Nd |
| S12 | nd | nd | nd | 1710 | 17,700 | nd | nd | nd | nd | Nd |
|
| nd | nd | 410 | nd | nd | 97,900 | nd | nd | nd | Nd |
| S14 | nd | nd | nd | 1320 | nd | 16,540 | nd | nd | nd | Nd |
| S15 | nd | nd | nd | nd | nd | 18,340 | nd | nd | nd | Nd |
| LIQUID MANURE | ||||||||||
| M1 | nd | nd | nd | nd | nd | 5900 | nd | nd | nd | Nd |
| DIGESTATE | ||||||||||
| D1 | nd | nd | nd | nd | nd | nd | nd | 148 | nd | Nd |
| D2 | nd | 50 | nd | nd | nd | nd | nd | nd | nd | Nd |
* Feces samples from animals during treatment; S9—animals treated with doxycycline and tiamulin in water; S13—animals treated with doxycycline.
Gradient program.
| Step | Total Time (min) | Flow Rate (µL/min) | A (%) | B (%) |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| 0 | 0 | 400 | 100 | 0 |
| 1 | 1 | 400 | 100 | 0 |
| 2 | 5 | 400 | 85 | 15 |
| 3 | 15 | 400 | 74 | 26 |
| 4 | 20 | 400 | 64 | 36 |
| 5 | 24 | 400 | 0 | 100 |
| 6 | 25 | 400 | 100 | 0 |
| 7 | 31 | 400 | 100 | 0 |
Precursor and product ions, declustering potential (DP), collision energy (CE), entrance potential (EP), cell exit potential (CXP) and collision cell entrance potential (CEP) optimal conditions employed for MS identification of each compound.
| Analyte | Precursor Ion | Production | DP | EP | CEP | CE | CXP |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Lincomycin 1 | 407.0 | 359.1 | 31 | 7.5 | 18.29 | 17 | 6 |
| Lincomycin 2 | 407.0 | 172.1 | 31 | 7.5 | 18.29 | 25 | 4 |
| Trimethoprim 1 | 291.1 | 230.1 | 31 | 12 | 14.15 | 33 | 8 |
| Trimethoprim 2 | 291.1 | 275.1 | 31 | 12 | 14.15 | 33 | 12 |
| Oxytetracycline 1 | 461.0 | 426.2 | 26 | 10 | 20.22 | 21 | 6 |
| Oxytetracycline2 | 461.0 | 443.2 | 26 | 10 | 20.22 | 21 | 18 |
| Doxycycline 1 | 445.0 | 428.2 | 31 | 10 | 19.65 | 21 | 6 |
| Doxycycline 2 | 445.0 | 201.0 | 31 | 10 | 19.65 | 57 | 4 |
| Tetracycline 1 | 445.0 | 410.0 | 41 | 8 | 19.65 | 25 | 15 |
| Tetracycline 2 | 445.0 | 154.1 | 41 | 8 | 19.65 | 35 | 5 |
| Enrofloxacin 2 | 360.0 | 342.2 | 56 | 10 | 16.61 | 33 | 6 |
| Enrofloxacin 1 | 360.0 | 245.0 | 56 | 10 | 16.61 | 39 | 6 |
| Chlortetracycline 1 | 479.0 | 260.1 | 51 | 9.5 | 20.86 | 73 | 4 |
| Chlortetracycline 2 | 479.0 | 305.1 | 51 | 10 | 20.94 | 39 | 6 |
| Ciprofloxacin 2 | 332.0 | 231.1 | 91 | 8.5 | 15.61 | 41 | 8 |
| Ciprofloxacin 1 | 332.0 | 313.9 | 91 | 8.5 | 15.61 | 35 | 6 |
| Tylosin 1 | 916.2 | 173.9 | 81 | 9 | 36.5 | 49 | 4 |
| Tylosin 2 | 916.2 | 156.0 | 81 | 9 | 36.5 | 51 | 4 |
| Tiamulin 1 | 494.1 | 192.1 | 41 | 8 | 21.41 | 23 | 4 |
| Tiamulin 2 | 494.1 | 119.1 | 41 | 8 | 21.41 | 23 | 4 |
Concentration levels of matrix match calibration curves for all analyzed compounds.
| Concentration Levels [µg/kg] | ||||||||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| CIP | ENR | OXT | TC | CTC | DC | TYL | TIAM | LINCO | TRIM | |
| 1 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 |
| 2 | 50 | 50 | 100 | 100 | 100 | 100 | 100 | 100 | 125 | 25 |
| 3 | 100 | 100 | 200 | 200 | 200 | 200 | 200 | 200 | 250 | 50 |
| 4 | 200 | 200 | 500 | 500 | 500 | 500 | 500 | 500 | 375 | 100 |
| 5 | 500 | 500 | 1000 | 1000 | 1000 | 1000 | 1000 | 1000 | 500 | 250 |
| 6 | 1000 | 1000 | 1500 | 1500 | 1500 | 1500 | 1500 | 1500 | 625 | 500 |
Validation spiking levels.
| Spiking Levels [µg/kg] | ||||||||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| CIP | ENR | OXT | TC | CTC | DC | TYL | TIAM | LINCO | TRIM | |
|
| 50 | 50 | 100 | 100 | 100 | 100 | 100 | 100 | 125 | 25 |
|
| 200 | 200 | 500 | 500 | 500 | 500 | 500 | 500 | 375 | 100 |
|
| 1000 | 1000 | 1500 | 1500 | 1500 | 1500 | 1500 | 1500 | 625 | 500 |