| Literature DB >> 35627000 |
Oana Mărgărita Ghimpețeanu1, Elena Narcisa Pogurschi2, Dana Cătălina Popa2, Nela Dragomir2, Tomița Drăgotoiu2, Oana Diana Mihai1, Carmen Daniela Petcu1.
Abstract
The usage of antibiotics has been, and remains, a topic of utmost importance; on the one hand, for animal breeders, and on the other hand, for food safety. Although many countries have established strict rules for using antibiotics in animal husbandry for the food industry, their misuse and irregularities in compliance with withdrawal periods are still identified. In addition to animal-origin foods that may cause antibiotic residue problems, more and more non-animal-origin foods with this type of non-compliance are identified. In this context, we aim to summarize the available information regarding the presence of antibiotic residues in food products, obtained in various parts of the world, as well as the impact of consumption of food with antibiotic residues on consumer health. We also aim to present the methods of analysis that are currently used to determine antibiotic residues in food, as well as methods that are characterized by the speed of obtaining results or by the possibility of identifying very small amounts of residues.Entities:
Keywords: antibiotic residues; antimicrobial resistance; food safety; public health
Year: 2022 PMID: 35627000 PMCID: PMC9142037 DOI: 10.3390/foods11101430
Source DB: PubMed Journal: Foods ISSN: 2304-8158
Bibliometric analysis according with “Web of Science” database.
| Field of Research | Number of Scientific Publications |
|---|---|
| Antibiotic residues in food | 67 |
| Antibiotic residues in feed | 17 |
| Antibiotic residues in animal origin food | 12 |
| Antibiotic residues in non-animal origin food | 6 |
| Antibiotic residues in meat | 54 |
| Antibiotic residues in meat products | 4 |
| Antibiotic residues in fish | 12 |
| Antibiotic residues in milk | 292 |
| Antibiotic residues in eggs | 21 |
| Antibiotic residues in honey | 45 |
Presence of varying concentrations of antibiotic residues in the different animal-derived products in some developing countries. Reprinted from [37].
| Antibiotic | Concentration | Sample | Country | Literature |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Oxytetracycline | Chicken | Tanzania | Kimeria et al. [ | |
| 2604.1 ± 703.7 µg/kg | Muscle | |||
| 3434.4 ± 604.4 µg/kg | Liver | |||
| 3533.1 ± 803.6 µg/kg | Kidney | |||
| Beef | Nigeria | Olufemi and Agboola [ | ||
| 51.8 ± 90.53 µg/kg | Muscle | |||
| 372.7 ± 366.8 µg/kg | Kidney | |||
| 1197.7 ± 718.9 µg/kg | Liver | |||
| Cattle | Ethiopia | Bedada et al. [ | ||
| 15.92 to 108.34 µg/kg | Muscle | |||
| 9.02 to 112.53 µg/kg | Kidney | |||
| Enrofloxacin | 0.73 and 2.57 µg/kg | Chicken tissues | Iran | Tavakoli et al. [ |
| Chloramphenicol | 1.34 and 13.9 µg/kg | |||
| Penicillin | 0.87 and 1.3 µg/kg | Calves muscles | ||
| Oxytetracycline | 3.5 and 4.61 µg/kg | |||
| Quinolones | 30.81 ± 0.45 µg/kg | Chicken | Turkey | Er et al. [ |
| 6.64 ± 1.11 µg/kg | Beef | |||
| Tetracyclines | Chicken | Egypt | Salama et al. [ | |
| 124 to 5812 µg/kg | Breast | |||
| 107–6010 µg/kg | Thigh | |||
| 103 to 8148 µg/kg | Livers | |||
| Chicken | Cameroon | Guetiya-Wadoum et al. [ | ||
| 150 ± 30 µg/g | Liver | |||
| 62.4 ± 15.3 µg/g | Muscle | |||
| Beef | Kenya | Muriuki et al. [ | ||
| 50 to 845µg/kg | Kidney | |||
| 50 to 573 µg/kg | Liver | |||
| 23–560 µg/kg | Muscle | |||
| Amoxicillin | 9.8 to 56.16 µg/mL | Milk | Bangladesh | Chowdhury et al. [ |
| 10.46 to 48.8 µg/g | Eggs | |||
| Sulfonamides | 16.28 µg/kg | Raw milk | China | Zheng et al. [ |
| Quinolones | 23.25 µg/kg | |||
| Oxytetracycline | 199.6 ± 46 ng/g | Beef | Zambia | Nchima et al. [ |
| Sulphamethazine | 86.5 ± 8.7 ng/g | |||
| Penicillin G | 15.22 ± 0.61 µg/L | Fresh milk | Nigeria | Olatoye et al. [ |
| 7.60 ± 0.60 µg/L | Cheese (wara) | |||
| 8.24 ± 0.50 µg/L | Fermented milk (nono) | |||
| Sulphonamides | Chicken | Malaysia | Cheong et al. [ | |
| 0.08–0.193 µg/g | Liver | |||
| 0.006–0.062 µg/g | Breast | |||
| Tetracycline | >0.1 µg/mL | Raw milk | India | Kumari Anjana et al. [ |
| Oxytetracycline | ||||
| Sulfadimidine | ||||
| Sulfamethoxazole |
Advantages and disadvantages of different analysis methods.
| Analytical Method | Advantages | Disadvantages |
|---|---|---|
| Screening analysis methods | easy to operate | mainly qualitative methods |
| low price | any result obtained by a screening method must be confirmed by a confirmation method | |
| (a) Microbial inhibition test (microtest) | specificity–if the test sample has an antibiotic, it will not allow the development of specific colonies, thus opening a halo area around the sample to be analyzed | expensive test that involves specific endowments specific to a food microbiology laboratory as well as specialized personnel |
| obtaining of results only after an average of 18 h of incubation | ||
| (b) Delvotest | classic test for determining antibiotics in milk | more expensive than conventional tests |
| very sensitive to β-lactam antibiotics | detects only substances that react immunologically with the receptor | |
| (c) Enzyme-linked immunosorbent assay (ELISA) | sensitivity of this method is sometimes superior to confirmatory methods | fairly high percentage of false positive results due to cross-reactions |
| used for the multi-residue determination of antibiotics in different foods | low reproducibility | |
| fast, sensitive and easy to implement test | ||
| (d) Radioimmunotest (RIA) | high selectivity | high concentrations of other molecules with antibody affinity could inactivate it |
| high sensitivity | ||
| (e) Chemiluminescence immunoassay (CLIA) | easy, fast, sensitive and selective test | measurement problems due to the compounds used, such as acridinium derivatives and the immediate emission of light |
| (f) Colloidal gold immunochromatographic assay (CGIA) | rapid determination of chloramphenicol | high price |
| simultaneous determination of quinolones, tetracycline and sulfonamide in milk; 36 different antibiotics in less than 10 min | ||
| (g) Fluorescence polarization assay (FPIA) | easy-to-implement screening method that allows the simultaneous detection of various antibiotics in a short period of time | requires a sample preparation step to extract the antibiotic from the sample |
| a filtering step to obtain a colorless sample that does not affect the reading of the sample relative to the fluorescence points | ||
| (h) Lateral flow immunoassay (LFIA) | ease of use | many false positive or false negative results, |
| increased shelf life—up to 2 years at room temperature | low reproducibility | |
| Confirmatory analysis methods | higher specificity than screening methods | use of expensive equipment |
| allows the simultaneous determination of many classes of antibiotics | super qualified personnel | |
| (a) Liquid chromatography coupled with mass spectrometry (LC/MS/MS) | Determination of 7 classes of antibiotics, 30 antibiotics in less than 8 min | high price |
| method of analysis must meet the performance criteria of European Commission Decision No. 2002/657 | ||
| (b) Gas chromatography coupled with mass spectrometry (GC/MS/MS) | standardized methods or provided by European reference laboratories | applications are much lower because the derivatization stage is cumbersome and affects the long-term life of the equipment, so the applications are restricted to 1–2 classes of antibiotics that can be determined simultaneously |
Figure 1Comparison listing of CIAs by WHO (2019), OIE (2018), and AMEG—EMA (2019) for the major classes of antibiotics adapted from [134].
Figure 2Discovery of antibiotics adapted from [25].
Maximum residues limits of antibiotic in products of animal origin marketed in the European Community [135].
| Active Substance | Animal Species | Target Tissue | MRL |
|---|---|---|---|
| Amoxicillin | All food-producing species | Muscle | 50 μg/kg |
| Ampicilin | All food-producing species | Muscle | 50 μg/kg |
| Avilamycin | Porcine, poultry, rabbit | Muscle | 50 μg/kg |
| Bacitracin | Bovine | Milk | 100μg/kg |
| Benzylpenicillin | All food-producing species | Muscle | 50 μg/kg |
| Cefacetrile | Bovine | Milk | 125 μg/kg |
| Cefapirin | Bovine | Muscle | 50 μg/kg |
| Cefazolin | Bovine, ovine, caprine | Milk | 50 μg/kg |
| Chlortetracycline | All food- | Muscle | 100 μg/kg |
| Clavulanic acid | Bovine, porcine | Muscle | 100 μg/kg |
| Cloxacillin | All food-producing species | Muscle | 300 μg/kg |
| Colistin | All food-producing species | Muscle | 150 μg/kg |
| Cloxacillin | All food-producing species | Muscle | 300 μg/kg |
| Dicloxacillin | All food-producing species | Muscle | 300 μg/kg |
| Doxycycline | Bovine | Muscle | 100 μg/kg |
| Muscle | 100 μg/kg | ||
| Enrofloxacin | Bovine, ovine | Muscle | 100 μg/kg |
| Enrofloxacin | Porcine, rabbit | Muscle | 100 μg/kg |
| Poultry | Muscle | 100 μg/kg | |
| All other food-producing species | Muscle | 100 μg/kg | |
| Erythromycin A | All other food-producing species | Muscle | 200 μg/kg |
| Gentamicin | Bovine, porcine | Muscle | 50 μg/kg |
| Kanamycin A | All food-producing species except fin fish | Muscle | 100 μg/kg |
| Lincomycin | All food-producing species | Muscle | 100 μg/kg |
| Marbofloxacin | Bovine, porcine | Muscle | 150 μg/kg |
| Neomycin B | All food-producing species | Muscle | 500 μg/kg |
| Oxacillin | All food-producing species | Muscle | 300 μg/kg |
| Oxytetracycline | All food-producing species | Muscle | 100 μg/kg |
| Streptomycin | All ruminants, porcine, rabbit | Muscle | 500 μg/kg |
| Sulfonamides | All food-producing species | Muscle | 100 μg/kg |
| Tylosin A | All food-producing species | Muscle | 100 μg/kg |
Figure 3Effects of antibiotics use on human health.
Possible effects due to antibiotics in human.
| Group of | Main Effects | Clinical Signs |
|---|---|---|
| Sulphonamides | Skin reactions | Mild rash to severe toxidermia are |
| Hypersensitivity mentioned averse reactions | Contact sensitization confirmed for | |
| Blood dyscrasias | Hemolytic anemia, neutropenia, | |
| Carcinogenicity | Sulfamethazine dose-dependent | |
| Penicillins | Hypersensitivity | Association with IgE-mediated |
| Anaphylaxis | Human reaction based on penicilloyated (amoxicilloyated) | |
| Influence of | Sufficient evidence that consumption | |
| Tetracyclines | Possible | MRLs set based on the microbiological ADI. In the period of EMA assessment, it was concluded that there is no induction of resistant enterobacteria at the dose 2 mg per person per day—on the other hand, in an in vitro study to assess the impact of tetracycline on the human intestinal microbiome, there was screened the variability of the presence of tet genes after exposure of low concentrations 0.15, 1.5, 15 and 150 μg/mL of tetracycline, after 24 h |
Mechanism of action and resistance mechanism of antibiotics in human. Adapted from [141]. (after Iwu et al., 2020).
| Antibiotics Class | Example (s) | The Mechanism(s) of Action | Resistance Mechanism(s) |
|---|---|---|---|
| β-lactams | Cephalosporins, Penicillins, Cefotaxime, Monobactams, Carbapenems | Cell wall biosynthesis inhibition | Cleavage by β-lactamases, ESBLs, Carbapenemases, Cefotaximases, and altered Penicillin-binding proteins |
| Aminoglycosides | Gentamicin, streptomycin | Protein synthesis inhibition | Ribosomal mutations, enzymatic modification, 16S rRNA methylation, and efflux pumps |
| Phenicols | Chloramphenicol | Inhibition of protein synthesis | Mutation of the 50S ribosomal subunit, reduced membrane permeability, and elaboration of chloramphenicol acetyltransferase |
| Macrolides | Erythromycin, azithromycin | Alteration of protein synthesis | Ribosomal methylation |
| Tetracyclines | Minocycline, tigecycline | Alteration of translation | Mainly efflux |
| Rifamycins | Rifampin | Alteration of transcription | Altered β-subunit of RNA polymerase |
| Glycopeptides | Vancomycin, teicoplanin | Alteration of cell wall biosynthesis | Altered cell walls, efflux |
| Quinolones | Ciprofloxacin | Alteration of DNA synthesis | Efflux, modification, target mutations |
| Streptogramins | Synercid, streptogramin B | Alteration of cell wall biosynthesis | Enzymatic cleavage, modification, efflux |
| Oxazolidinones | Linezolid | Alteration of formation of 70S ribosomal complex | Mutations in 23S rRNA genes followed by gene conversion |
| Lipopeptides | Daptomycin | Depolarization of cell membrane | Modification of cell wall and cell membrane |