Anticoincidence INAA capabilities for analysis of FDA Total Diet Study seafoods



Anticoincidence instrumental neutron activation analysis was used to analyze three portions each of five fresh-weight FDA Total Diet Study seafoods from 3 Market Basket collections for fiscal years 2006–2008. Portions were treated with l-cysteine solutions to enhance retention of Hg during irradiation then dried at room temperature over magnesium perchlorate. Results or limits of detection were obtained for 33 elements. In general, results agreed with those available from FDA’s Kansas city field laboratory (KAN-DO). Of three shrimp composites analyzed, one showed mass fractions of Ag, Fe, rare earths, U, Th, and Mo significantly higher (up to a factor of 10) than the other two shrimp composites. The same shrimp composite showed a lower Hg result (about 50 % after accounting for any irradiation loss) compared to the KAN-DO value. This may represent a drying loss. There were other indications of Hg loss during the drying process. SRM 1947 Lake Michigan Fish Tissue, run as a control, yielded an INAA Hg mass fraction 20 % lower (corrected for irradiation losses) than the certified value, similar to the difference between the INAA (0.171 mg/kg Hg) and KAN-DO (0.211 mg/kg Hg) results for a TDS canned tuna composite. Because previous studies showed that l-cysteine effectively sequesters inorganic Hg, these discrepancies likely represent methyl mercury loss. INAA results for As, Fe, Rb, and Se were in good agreement with SRM 1947 certified values.


Anticoincidence INAA Total Diet Study Seafoods Ag Sediment content 



The author is indebted to the NCNR Reactor Operations staff and KAN-DO analysts.


  1. 1.
    Currie LA (1968) Anal Chem 40(1):586–593CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. 2.
    Landsberger S, Biegalski SR, O’Kelly DJ, Basunia MS (2005) J Radioanal Chem 263(3):817–821CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. 3.
    Anderson DL, Cunningham WC (2008) J Radioanal Chem 276(1):23–28CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. 4.
    Anderson DL (2009) J Radioanal Chem 282(1):75–79CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. 5.
    Total Diet Study (2010) U. S. Food and Drug Administration, Rockville. Accessed 19 Dec 2011
  6. 6.
    Anderson DL (2009) J Radioanal Chem 282(1):11–14CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. 7.
    Lindstrom RM, Zeisler R, Mackey EA, Popelka-Filcoff RS, Williams RE (2008) J Radioanal Nucl Chem 278(1):665–669CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. 8.
    Thompson M, Wood R (1993) J AOAC Int 76:926–940Google Scholar
  9. 9.
    Keith LH, Crummett W, Degan WJ, Libby RA, Taylor JK, Wentler G (1983) Anal Chem 55:2210–2218CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. 10.
    Blaauw M (1996) The k0-Consistent IRI Gamma-Ray Catalogue for INAA, Interfacultair Reactor Insituut van de Technische Universiteit Delft, the NetherlandsGoogle Scholar
  11. 11.
    Landsberger S (1989) Chem Geol 77:65–70CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. 12.
    Zumholz K (2005) Doctoral Dissertation, Christian-Albrechts-Universität zu Kiel, GermanyGoogle Scholar
  13. 13.
    Bettinelli M, Spezia S, Minoia C (2004) Rapid Commun Mass Spectrom 18(4):465–468CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. 14.
    WHO Guidelines for Drinking-water Quality (2004) World Health Organization, Geneva. Accessed Jan 30 2012
  15. 15.
    Connel DB, Sanders JG, Riedel GF, Abbe GR (1991) Environ Sci Technol 25:921–924CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. 16.
    EPA Integrated Risk Information System (1989) U. S. Environmental Protection Agency, Washington. Accessed Jan 30 2012

Copyright information

© Akadémiai Kiadó, Budapest, Hungary 2012

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Division of Bioanalytical Chemistry, Office of Regulatory Science, Center for Food Safety and Applied NutritionU. S. Food and Drug AdministrationCollege ParkUSA

Personalised recommendations