Different Approaches for Digestion, Performance Assessment and Measurement Uncertainty for the Analysis of Cadmium and Lead in Feeds
- 110 Downloads
Certain feedingstuffs are sources of contamination for animals with cadmium (Cd) and lead (Pb). Different approaches for sample digestion, performance assessment, and measurement uncertainty for the analysis of Pb and Cd by flame atomic absorption spectrometry were compared. Full method validation, including matrix effect and analytical limits, were assessed. Despite having a lower performance compared to the microwave digestion, dry ashing was a viable alternative for sample digestion, leading to lower operating costs. Interlaboratory validation proved to be a cheaper alternative, instead of the long traditional in-house approach. The method was suitable for routine analysis of several feed samples. There was a greater amount of quantifiable results for Pb, ranging from traces up to high concentrations (7430 ± 930 mg kg-1). Cd was also quantified in some samples, ranging from 0.11 ± 0.01 to 8.71 ± 0.90 mg kg−1. The higher concentrations of both metals were found in mineral mixtures and fish meal.
KeywordsDry digestion Microwave digestion Proficiency testing Top-down approach Traditional approach
We acknowledge Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations and the Austrian Agency for Health and Food Safety for authorizing the use of the FAO-IAG Ringtests data. ICP-MS analyses were carried out at Universidade Federal de Santa Catarina. We would like to acknowledge Vera Lucia Azzolin Frescura Bascuñan for this facility. We are also grateful to Fundação de Amparo à Pesquisa e Inovação de Santa Catarina (FAPESC) for funding this research with fellowships (Grant No. 1683).
Compliance with Ethical Standards
Conflict of Interest
Luciano Molognoni declares that he has no conflict of interest. Jaqueline Zarpelon declares that she has no conflict of interest. Leandro Antunes de Sá Ploêncio declares that he has no conflict of interest. Jacson Nascimento dos Santos declares that he has no conflict of interest. Heitor Daguer declares that he has no conflict of interest.
This article does not contain any studies with human participants or animals performed by any of the authors.
- Adeloju SB (1989) Comparison of some wet digestion and dry ashing methods for voltammetric trace element analysis. Analyst 455–461Google Scholar
- Associação Brasileira de Normas Técnicas 2005. ABNT NBR ISO/IEC 17025: 2005. Requisitos gerais para a competência de laboratórios de ensaio e calibraçãoGoogle Scholar
- Brasil, Ministério da Agricultura, Pecuária e Abastecimento (MAPA) 2011. Guia de validação e controle da qualidade analítica: Fármacos em produtos para alimentação animal e medicamentos veterinários, Secretaria de defesa agropecuária. MAPA/ACS, BrasíliaGoogle Scholar
- Codex Alimentarius Commission 2011. CAC/GL 54–2004. Guidelines on measurement uncertainty, rev. 1, RomeGoogle Scholar
- EFSA (2004) Opinion of the scientific panel on contaminants in the food chain on a request from the commission related to Cd as undesirable substance in animal feed. The EFSA Journal 72:1–24Google Scholar
- EFSA (2009) Scientific opinion of the panel on contaminants in the food chain on a request from the European Commission on Cd in food. The EFSA Journal 980:1–139Google Scholar
- Eurolab (2007). Technical Report No. 1/2007. Measurement uncertainty revisited: alternative approaches to uncertainty evaluationGoogle Scholar
- European Commission 2002a. Directive 2002/32/EC. Undesirable substances in animal feed. Directive of the European Parliament and of the Council of 7 May 2002 on 2002/32Google Scholar
- European Commission 2002b. Commission decision 2002/657/EC of 12 August 2002. Implementing council directive 96/23/EC concerning performance of analytical methods and the interpretation of results. Off J Eur Communities. L 2221/8Google Scholar
- Gonçalves MLSS (1983) Métodos Instrumentais para Análise de Soluções—Análise Quantitativa. Fundação Calouste-Gulbenkian, LisboaGoogle Scholar
- ISO/IEC Guide 98-3:2008 2008, Uncertainty of measurement—part 3: guide to the expression of uncertainty in measurement (GUM:1995), International Organization for Standardization, Geneve, SwitzerlandGoogle Scholar
- Lecomte F, Hubert C, Demarche S, De Bleye C, Dispas A, Jost M, Frankenne F, Ceccato A, Rozet E, Hubert P (2012) Comparison of the quantitative performances and measurement uncertainty estimates obtained during method validation versus routine applications of a novel hydrophilic interaction chromatography method for the determination of cidofovir in human plasma. J Pharm Biomed Anal 57:153–165CrossRefGoogle Scholar
- MacCarthy HT, Ellis PC (1990) Comparison of microwave digestion with conventional wet ashing and dry ashing digestion for analysis of Pb, Cd, chromium, copper, and zinc in shellfish by flame atomic absorption spectroscopy. Journal-Association of Official Analytical Chemists 74:566–569Google Scholar
- MacDonald M, Mannion C, Rafter PA (2009) Confirmatory method for the simultaneous extraction, separation, identification and quantification of tetracycline, sulphonamide, trimethoprim and dapsone residues in muscle by ultra-high performance liquid chromatography–tandem mass spectrometry according to commission decision 2002/657/EC. J Chromatogr A 1216:8110–8116CrossRefGoogle Scholar
- Magnusson B, Näykki T, Hovind H, Krysell M (2004) Handbook for calculation of measurement uncertainty in environmental laboratories. Nordtest Report TR, 537Google Scholar
- Medina-Pastor P, Valverde A, Pihlström T, Masselter S, Gamon M, Mezcua M, Rodriguez-Torreblanca C, Fernández-Alba AR (2011) Comparative study of the main top-down approaches for the estimation of measurement uncertainty in multiresidue analysis of pesticides in fruits and vegetables. J Agric Food Chem 59:7609–7619CrossRefGoogle Scholar
- WHO Library Cataloguing in Publication Data 2010. Evaluation of certain food additives and contaminants: seventy-third report of the Joint FAO/WHO Committee on food additives. 73rd: Geneva, Switzerland. IV.SeriesGoogle Scholar