| Literature DB >> 35051061 |
Fawzi Rostane Meklati1,2, Anthi Panara3, Ahmed Hadef4,5, Amel Meribai6, Meriem H Ben-Mahdi2, Marilena E Dasenaki7, Nikolaos S Thomaidis3.
Abstract
Antibiotic residues in milk are a major health threat for the consumer and a hazard to the dairy industry, causing significant economic losses. This study aims to assess the presence of antibiotic residues in raw milk comparatively by a rapid screening test (BetaStar® Combo) and Liquid Chromatography coupled with Tandem Mass Spectrometry (LC-MS/MS). A total of 445 samples were collected from 3 dairy companies of north-central Algeria (Algiers, Blida, Boumerdes), and they were rapidly screened for β-lactams and tetracyclines; 52 samples, comprising 34 positive tanker-truck milk and 18 negative bulk-tank milk were tested by LC-MS/MS, which revealed 90.4% were contaminated (n = 47) and 55.3% exceeded the Maximum Residue Limit (MRL). The β-lactams as parent compounds and their metabolites were the most frequently detected with maximum value for cloxacillin (1231 µg/kg) and penicillin G (2062 µg/kg). Under field condition, the false-positive results, particularly for tetracyclines, seems to be related to milk samples displaying extreme acidity values (≥19°D) or fat-level fluctuations (2.7 g/100 mL and 5.6-6.2 g/100 mL). Despite a relatively low prevalence (7.64%) of residues using the rapid test, the detection by LC-MS/MS of flumequine (52 µg/kg), cefaclor (maximum 220 µg/kg) and metabolites of β-lactams at high levels should lead to reflections on the control of their human and environmental toxicological effects.Entities:
Keywords: LC-MS/MS; MRL; antibiotics; contaminant residues; rapid screening test; raw milk
Year: 2022 PMID: 35051061 PMCID: PMC8781432 DOI: 10.3390/toxics10010019
Source DB: PubMed Journal: Toxics ISSN: 2305-6304
Figure 1Geographic localization of the three investigated dairy companies.
Limits of detection for antimicrobial drugs by BetaStar® Combo and LC-MS/MS.
| Group | Substance | MRL (µg/kg) * | Limit of Detection Beta Star Combo (µg/kg) ** | Limit of Detection LC-MS/MS (µg/kg) |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Penicillins | Penicillin V | – | – | 1 |
| Benzylpenicillin | 4 | 4 | 1 | |
| Ampicillin | 4 | 4 | 1 | |
| Amoxicillin | 4 | 4 | 1 | |
| Oxacillin | 30 | 5 | 1 | |
| Cloxacillin | 30 | 5 | 1 | |
| Dicloxacillin | 30 | 6 | 1.5 | |
| Nafcillin | 30 | 12 | – | |
| Cefalosporines | Ceftiofur | 100 | 90 | 15 |
| Desfuroylceftiofur | 100 | 1000 | – | |
| Cefquinome | 20 | 8 | 3.5 | |
| Cefazolin | 50 | 40 | 2.5 | |
| Cephapirin | 60 | 9 | 5 | |
| Desacetylcephapirin | 60 | 3 | – | |
| Cefacetrile | 125 | 40 | – | |
| Cefoperazone | 50 | 8 | 5 | |
| Cefalexin | 100 | 700 | 2 | |
| Cefalonium | 20 | 5 | 2 | |
| Tetracyclines | Tetracycline | 100 | 100 | 1.7 |
| Oxytetracycline | 100 | 100 | 1.7 | |
| Chlortetracycline | 100 | 35 | 1.7 | |
| Doxycycline | – | 14 | 1.7 |
* European Regulatory Commission 2010/37/EC [32]. ** Reybroeck and Ooghe [23].
Milk samples’ proportions tested positive or negative for antibiotic residues (case number) by BetaStar® Combo.
| Algerian Dairy Company | Company A (Algiers) | Company B (Boumerdes) | Company C (Blida) | Total | |||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Samples screened by BetaStar® Combo | Total | 186 | 140 | 119 | 445 | ||
| Positive | Total | 9 (4.84%) | 6 (4.29%) | 19 (16.0%) | 34 (7.64%) | ||
| to β-lactams (Sum) | 9 (100%) | 6 (100%) | 16 * (84.2%) | 31 * (91.2%) | |||
| Only to β-lactams | 9 (100%) | 6 (100%) | 12 (63.2%) | 27 (79.4%) | |||
| to tetracyclines (Sum) | - | - | 7 * (36.8%) | 7 * (20.6%) | |||
| Only to tetracyclines | - | - | 3 (15.8%) | 3 (8.82%) | |||
| to β-lactams and tetracyclines | - | - | 4 (21.1%) | 4 (11.8%) | |||
| Negative | 177 (95.2%) | 134 (95.7%) | 100 (84.0%) | 411 (92.4%) | |||
| Samples screened by BetaStar® Combo and assessed by LC-MS/MS | Total | 14 | 14 | 24 | 52 | ||
| Positive ** | 9 (64.3%) | 6 (42.9%) | 19 (79.2%) | 34 (65.4%) | |||
| Negative *** | 5 (35.7%) | 8 (57.1%) | 5 (20.8%) | 18 (34.6%) | |||
| Samples screened by LC-MS/MS | Residue presence | Total | 14 (100%) | 12 (85.7%) | 21 (87.5%) | 47 (90.4%) | |
| Positive | 7 (50.0%) | 6 (50.0%) | 13 (61.9%) | 26 (55.3%) | |||
| Negative | 7 (50.0%) | 6 (50.0%) | 8 (38.1%) | 21 (44.7%) | |||
| Residues absence | 0 (0%) | 2 (14.3%) | 3 (12.5%) | 5 (9.62%) | |||
| Total screened | 14 (100%) | 14 (100%) | 24 (100%) | 52 (100%) | |||
* A sample can be positive for both families’ β-lactams and tetracyclines. ** All BetaStar® Combo positive samples were assessed by LC-MS/MS. *** Negative bulk-tank milk samples to BetaStar® Combo were assessed by LC-MS/MS.
Frequency of antimicrobial residues in milk assessed by LC-MS/MS in the studied dairy companies.
| ATB Family | Compounds | Total Compounds in All Samples | MRL µg/kg | Negative | Positive | |||||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| n | % a | % b | Min–Max µg/kg |
| % a | % b |
| %a | % b | |||
| β-lactams | Ampicillin * | 6 | 3.73 | 11.5 | 6.1–309 | 4 | 0 | 0.00 | 0.00 | 6 | 8.82 | 11.5 |
| Cefalexin * | 2 | 1.24 | 3.85 | 1.4–111 | 100 | 1 | 1.11 | 1.92 | 1 | 1.47 | 1.92 | |
| Cefazolin | 1 | 0.62 | 1.92 | 50 | 50 | 1 | 1.11 | 1.92 | 0 | 0.00 | 0.00 | |
| Cefoperazone | 1 | 0.62 | 1.92 | 17 | 50 | 1 | 1.11 | 1.92 | 0 | 0.00 | 0.00 | |
| Cloxacillin (M) * | 26 | 16.2 | 50.0 | 4.9–1505 | - | |||||||
| Cloxacillin (P) * | 16 | 9.94 | 30.8 | 3.9–1231 | 30 | 5 | 5.56 | 9.62 | 11 | 16.2 | 21.2 | |
| Dicloxacillin (M) * | 6 | 3.73 | 11.5 | 1.0–893 | - | |||||||
| Dicloxacillin (P) * | 2 | 1.24 | 3.85 | 1.8–413 | 30 | 1 | 1.11 | 1.92 | 1 | 1.47 | 1.92 | |
| Oxacillin (M) | 3 | 1.86 | 5.77 | 0.49–1.1 | - | |||||||
| Oxacillin (P) * | 2 | 1.24 | 3.85 | 18–36 | 30 | 1 | 1.11 | 1.92 | 1 | 1.47 | 1.92 | |
| Penicillin G (M) * | 17 | 10.6 | 32.7 | 4.0–2115 | - | |||||||
| Penicillin G (P) * | 10 | 6.21 | 19.2 | 28–2062 | 4 | 0 | 0.00 | 0.00 | 10 | 14.7 | 19.2 | |
| Cefaclor ** | 3 | 1.86 | 5.8 | 81–220 | - | |||||||
| Total | 95 | 59.0 | 10 | 11.1 | 30 | 44.1 | ||||||
| Tetracycline | Chlortetracycline | 2 | 1.24 | 3.85 | 7.9–12 | 100 | 2 | 2.22 | 3.85 | 0 | 0.00 | 0.00 |
| Oxytetracycline * | 18 | 11.2 | 34.6 | 5.9–660 | 100 | 16 | 17.8 | 30.8 | 2 | 2.94 | 3.85 | |
| Tetracycline * | 2 | 1.24 | 3.85 | 40–2291 | 100 | 1 | 1.11 | 1.92 | 1 | 1.47 | 1.92 | |
| Total | 22 | 13.7 | 19 | 21.1 | 3 | 4.41 | ||||||
| Fluoroquinolones | Ciprofloxacin | 4 | 2.48 | 7.69 | 3.2–33 | 100 c | 4 | 4.44 | 7.69 | 0 | 0.00 | 0.00 |
| Danofloxacin | 1 | 0.62 | 1.92 | 8.5 | 30 | 1 | 1.11 | 1.92 | 0 | 0.00 | 0.00 | |
| Enrofloxacin | 8 | 4.97 | 15.4 | 1.5–100 | 100 c | 8 | 8.89 | 15.4 | 0 | 0.00 | 0.00 | |
| Flumequine * | 22 | 13.7 | 42.3 | 0.27–52 | 50 | 21 | 23.3 | 40.4 | 1 | 1.47 | 1.92 | |
| Marbofloxacin | 2 | 1.24 | 3.85 | 0.89–51 | 75 | 2 | 2.22 | 3.85 | 0 | 0.00 | 0.00 | |
| Total | 37 | 23.0 | 36 | 40.0 | 1 | 1.47 | ||||||
| Sulfonamide | Sulfachloropyridazine | 1 | 0.62 | 1.92 | 5.70 | 100 d | 1 | 1.11 | 1.92 | 0 | 0.00 | 0.00 |
| Sulfadimethoxine | 1 | 0.62 | 1.92 | 6.90 | 100 d | 1 | 1.11 | 1.92 | 0 | 0.00 | 0.00 | |
| Sulfadimidine | 1 | 0.62 | 1.92 | 58.0 | 25 [ | 0 | 0 | 0 | 1 | 1.11 | 1.92 | |
| Sulfamerazine | 1 | 0.62 | 1.92 | 0.82 | 100 d | 1 | 1.11 | 1.92 | 0 | 0.00 | 0.00 | |
| Sulfapyridine | 1 | 0.62 | 1.92 | 3.60 | 100 d | 1 | 1.11 | 1.92 | 0 | 0.00 | 0.00 | |
| Sulfathiazole | 1 | 0.62 | 1.92 | 5.10 | 100 d | 1 | 1.11 | 1.92 | 0 | 0.00 | 0.00 | |
| Total | 6 | 3.73 | 6 | 6.67 | ||||||||
| Trimethoprim (Diaminopyrimidines) | 1 | 0.62 | 1.92 | 16.0 | 50 | 1 | 1.11 | 1.92 | 0 | 0.00 | 0.00 | |
| Total | 161 | 100 a | 72 | 100 a | 34 | 100 a | ||||||
* Positive compound. ** Parental compound without MRL and not prescribed in dairy cows. n compounds frequency. a Percent per total compound (161) found in all samples (52) assessed by LC-MS/MS. b Percent per total samples (52) assessed by LC-MS/MS. c Sum of enrofloxacin and ciprofloxacin should not exceed 100 µg/kg. d The combined total residues of all compounds within the sulfonamide group should not exceed 100 µg/kg. MRL not established.
Figure 2Rank order of antibiotic groups evaluated by company.
Figure 3Distribution and frequency of antibiotic residues in companies.
Sensitivity and specificity of BetaStar® Combo test regarding LC-MS/MS results in all samples.
| LC-MS/MS Positivity (Total) | Total | Chi-Square Tests Value | Sig. | ||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Negative 1 | Positive 2 | ||||||
| BetaStar® Combo | Negative 1 | within LC-MS/MS | 17 a | 1 b | 18 | 21.75 | 0.000 |
| Positive 2 | within LC-MS/MS | 9 a | 25 b | 34 | |||
| Total | 26 | 26 | 52 | ||||
| Total BetaStar® Combo Sensitivity | 96.2% | ||||||
| Total BetaStar® Combo Specificity | 65.4% | ||||||
| BetaStar® Combo total in Company A | Negative 1 | within LC-MS/MS | 4 a | 1 a | 5 | 2.80 | 0.094 |
| Positive 2 | within LC-MS/MS | 3 a | 6 a | 9 | |||
| Total | 7 | 7 | 14 | ||||
| Total BetaStar® Combo Sensitivity | 85.7% | ||||||
| Total BetaStar® Combo Specificity | 57.1% | ||||||
| BetaStar® Combo total in Company B | Negative 1 | within LC-MS/MS | 8 a | 0 b | 8 | 14.00 | 0.000 |
| Positive 2 | within LC-MS/MS | 0 a | 6 b | 6 | |||
| Total | 8 | 6 | 14 | ||||
| Total BetaStar® Combo Sensitivity | 100% | ||||||
| Total BetaStar® Combo Specificity | 100% | ||||||
| BetaStar® Combo total in Company C | Negative 1 | within LC-MS/MS | 5 a | 0 b | 5 | 7.46 | 0.006 |
| Positive 2 | within LC-MS/MS | 6 a | 13 b | 19 | |||
| Total | 11 | 13 | 24 | ||||
| Total BetaStar® Combo Sensitivity | 100% | ||||||
| Total BetaStar® Combo Specificity | 45.5% | ||||||
Each subscript letter denotes a subset of LC-MS/MS positivity categories whose column proportions do not differ significantly from each other at the 0.05 level using “z” test. 1 Negative to overall ATB family. 2 Positive to at least one ATB family.
Figure 4Receiver operating characteristic curve (ROC) curve obtained for the accuracy of BetaStar® combo compared to LC-MS/MS for both antibiotic families (a) and separately, for β-lactams (b) and tetracyclines (c).
Analysis of FL and titratable acidity variances across companies.
| Parameters | FL (g/100 mL) | Titratable Acidity (°D) | ||||||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Companies | Company A | Company B | Company C | Total | Company A | Company B | Company C | Total | ||
| N of samples | 14 | 14 | 24 | 52 | 14 | 14 | 24 | 52 | ||
| Mean | 3.41 b | 3.15 a,b | 3.71 a,b | 3.48 | 15.1 a,b | 16.4 a,b | 18.9 a,b | 17.2 | ||
| Std. Deviation | 0.38 | 0.17 | 0.73 | 0.59 | 1.04 | 1.22 | 1.27 | 2.04 | ||
| 95% CI for Mean | LowerBound | 3.20 | 3.05 | 3.40 | 3.32 | 14.5 | 15.7 | 18.4 | 16.7 | |
| UpperBound | 3.63 | 3.25 | 4.02 | 3.64 | 15.7 | 17.1 | 19.5 | 17.8 | ||
| Minimum | 3.00 | 2.80 | 2.70 | 2.70 | 13.00 | 15.0 | 17.0 | 13.0 | ||
| Maximum | 4.20 | 3.50 | 6.20 | 6.20 | 16.50 | 18.0 | 23.0 | 23.0 | ||
| Reference range 1: | 3.5–4 | 3.5–4 | 3.5–4 | 3.5–4 | 14–18 | 14–18 | 14–18 | 14–18 | ||
| Sig. of Tukey’s HSD test | Company A | 0.41 | 0.25 | 0.01 * | 0.00 * | |||||
| Company B | 0.41 | 0.01 * | 0.01 * | 0.00 * | ||||||
| Company C | 0.25 | 0.01 * | 0.00 * | 0.00 * | ||||||
* The mean difference between companies is significant at the 0.05 level using Tukey’s HSD test for multiples comparison. a significant difference of the mean with minimum reference value (p < 0.05). b significant difference of the mean with maximum reference value (p < 0.05). 1 Renhe et al. [68].