Next Article in Journal
Key Global Actions for Mycotoxin Management in Wheat and Other Small Grains
Next Article in Special Issue
Validation of New ELISA Technique for Detection of Aflatoxin B1 Contamination in Food Products versus HPLC and VICAM
Previous Article in Journal
Pyrrolizidine Alkaloid-Induced Hepatotoxicity Associated with the Formation of Reactive Metabolite-Derived Pyrrole–Protein Adducts
Previous Article in Special Issue
Cleaving Ergot Alkaloids by Hydrazinolysis—A Promising Approach for a Sum Parameter Screening Method
 
 
Font Type:
Arial Georgia Verdana
Font Size:
Aa Aa Aa
Line Spacing:
Column Width:
Background:
Article

Simultaneous Determination of Ergot Alkaloids in Swine and Dairy Feeds Using Ultra High-Performance Liquid Chromatography-Tandem Mass Spectrometry

by
Saranya Poapolathep
1,
Narumol Klangkaew
1,
Zhaowei Zhang
2,
Mario Giorgi
3,
Antonio Francesco Logrieco
4 and
Amnart Poapolathep
1,5,*
1
Department of Pharmacology, Faculty of Veterinary Medicine, Kasetsart University, Bangkok 10900, Thailand
2
Oil Crops Research Institute of the Chinese Academy of Agricultural Sciences, Wuhan 430062, China
3
Department of Veterinary Science, University of Pisa, 56122 Pisa, Italy
4
Institute of Sciences of Food Production, National Research Council, 70126 Bari, Italy
5
Center of Excellence on Agricultural Biotechnology (AG-BIO/MHESI), Bangkok 10900, Thailand
*
Author to whom correspondence should be addressed.
Toxins 2021, 13(10), 724; https://doi.org/10.3390/toxins13100724
Submission received: 13 September 2021 / Revised: 1 October 2021 / Accepted: 9 October 2021 / Published: 13 October 2021
(This article belongs to the Special Issue Application of Novel Methods for Mycotoxins Analysis)

Abstract

:
Ergot alkaloids (EAs) are mycotoxins mainly produced by the fungus Claviceps purpurea. EAs are known to affect the nervous system and to be vasoconstrictors in humans and animals. This work presents recent advances in swine and dairy feeds regarding 11 major EAs, namely ergometrine, ergosine, ergotamine, ergocornine, ergocryptine, ergocristine, ergosinine, ergotaminine, ergocorninine, ergocryptinine, and ergocristinine. A reliable, sensitive, and accurate multiple mycotoxin method, based on extraction with a Mycosep 150 multifunctional column prior to analysis using UHPLC-MS/MS, was validated using samples of swine feed (100) and dairy feed (100) for the 11 targeted EAs. Based on the obtained validation results, this method showed good performance recovery and inter-day and intra-day precision that are in accordance with standard criteria to ensure reliable occurrence data on EA contaminants. More than 49% of the swine feed samples were contaminated with EAs, especially ergocryptine(-ine) (40%) and ergosine (-ine) and ergotamine (-ine) (37%). However, many of the 11 EAs were not detectable in any swine feed samples. In addition, there were contaminated (positive) dairy feed samples, especially for ergocryptine (-ine) (50%), ergosine (-ine) (48%), ergotamine (-ine), and ergocristine (-ine) (49%). The mycotoxin levels in the feed samples in this study almost complied with the European Union regulations.
Key Contribution: This work describes the determination of major ergot alkaloids and their natural occurrence in swine and dairy feeds using a validated UHPLC-MS/MS with a multifunctional SPE column procedure. Our results demonstrated that the method was successfully performed according to the SANTE/11813/2017 standard. The mycotoxin levels in swine and dairy feed samples almost complied with the EU regulation.

1. Introduction

Mycotoxins are hazardous chemicals produced by Aspergillus, Fusarium Penicillium, and Claviceps genus. Mycotoxins can contaminate foods and feeds and agricultural products [1]. To date, there are more than four hundred mycotoxins with different toxicity, which have been identified in cereals, fruits, vegetables, and other agricultural commodities, resulting in potential adverse effects on human and animal health, and economic losses [2,3,4]. Moreover, mycotoxins are persistent in food and feeds and not completely eliminated during processing operations [3]. Recently, mycotoxins were a major category in border rejection in the European Union (EU) according to the annual report of the Rapid Alert System for Food and Feed (RASFF) [3]. The Food and Agriculture Organization (FAO) suggested one-fourth of global food crops is contaminated by mycotoxins [5]. Because of their pathogenicity and lethality, worldwide authorities including the World Health Organization (WHO) have called to monitor mycotoxins in foodstuff and feeds and set up strict maximum levels and legislation, in order to provide an early warning about mycotoxin contamination and reduce the national and international losses. In addition, the impact of climate change on Calviceps spp. infection of crops could result in a potential to increase the higher food safety risks for humans and animals due to mycotoxin contamination in the end products [6].
Ergot alkaloids (EAs) are toxic secondary metabolites produced by fungi of the Claviceps genus, mainly by the parasitic fungus Claviceps purpurea, which parasitize the seed heads of living plants at the time of flowering [7]. EAs are known to cause adverse health effects in humans and animals and have been found in cereals, cereal products, barley, oats, and both rye- and wheat-containing foods [8,9,10,11]. Outbreaks of ergotism in livestock do still occur, and EAs can induce abortion by its toxicity [12]. Pigs and cattle have shown symptoms after being infected with EAs, causing financial problems to both breeders and the meat industry [12,13]. Animals, including pigs exposed to EAs from grains, can cause liver and intestinal alterations [14]. In Directive 2002/32/EC on undesirable substances in animal feed and its amendment, the maximum content of rye ergot (Claviceps purpurea) in feed containing unground cereals has been established at 1000 mg/kg. EAs have been reported in cereals in European countries, Canada, the United States, and China [15,16,17]. There have also been some reports on the presence of EAs in feed from other countries, with 86–100% of EAs detected in feed samples from Germany [18] and 83% of compound feeds containing EAs with an average concentration of 89 μg/kg and a maximum concentration of 1231 μg/kg in the Netherlands [19]. The main ergot alkaloids produced by Claviceps species are ergometrine, ergotamine, ergosine, ergocristine, ergokryptine, and ergocornine, and the group of agroclavines [20]. Ergotamine and ergosine are heat stable whereas ergocristine, ergokryptine, ergocornine, and ergometrine are decreased by heating [21]. The conversion of ergopeptines to ergopeptinines was accelerated either by acidic or alkaline solutions. However, ergopeptinines can also be transformed to ergopeptines in organic solvents [7,22].
Studies have developed reliable analytical methods of EAs in agricultural commodities [12,15,17,19,22,23,24,25,26], mainly using HPLC-MS/MS. However, the challenge remains in the UHPLC-MS/MS method of optimizing the sample preparation procedure. However, signal suppression and enhancement usually occur due to the interferences in the matrix (matrix effect), leading to unreliable results [25]. To compensate for the matrix effect, some methods developed for the analysis of EAs in agricultural commodities have used a MycoSep® multifunctional column [2].
To the best of the authors’ knowledge, to date, there have been a few reports on contaminations of EAs in any kinds of foodstuffs and feeds in Thailand. The current study investigated the occurrence of 11 EAs in swine and dairy feeds using a validated UHPLC-MS/MS with a multifunctional SPE column procedure. We used an SPE column for sample cleanup. Under optimization, the limit of detection, limit of quantification and linearity were studied. Accuracy and precision were evaluated as well. This work provides a promising manner to monitor EAs in feed samples.

2. Results and Discussion

2.1. Method Validation

The results of the limit of detection, limit of quantification, and linearity are reported in Table 1. From this study, the method produced good linearity.
Over the relevant working range, the calibration curve showed good linearity with the r2 value higher than 0.995. The LOD value was 0.25 ng/g, and the LOQ was 0.5 ng/g (Table 1). The recovery and precision values were 70–120%, and the % relative standard deviation (RSD) values were less than 20% [27] for all 11 ergot alkaloids, as summarized in Table 2 and Table 3 for the swine and dairy feeds, respectively. For identification requirements, the relative ion ratio from sample extracts was lower than 30% for all 11 ergot alkaloids [27].

2.2. Matrix Effect Study

The study used % signal suppression/enhancement (SSE) to evaluate the matrix effects in the two types of feed matrices. If the suppression or enhancement were marginal, the %SSE would be very close to 100%; if there was strong suppression or enhancement, the %SSE would deviate from 100%. In the swine feed samples, the %SSE (94.5–106.7%) was within the acceptable range (80–120%SSE), except for ergometrine, which exhibited strong signal suppression with its %SSE (75.1%) below the acceptable range. In the dairy feed samples, the %SSE for signal suppression for the 11 ergot alkaloids was within the acceptable range 83.8–98.1%, except for ergotamine and ergometrine, which exhibited strong signal suppression (%SSE 79.6% and 44.5%, respectively). The %SSE values of the two types of feed matrices are summarized in Figure 1. For all the results of the matrix effect, the quantification of the 11 ergot alkaloids using matrix-matched calibration is necessary. The extract ion chromatograms (XIC) of spiked 11 EAs in swine and dairy feed samples were illustrated in Figure 2 and Figure 3, respectively.

2.3. Occurrence of EAs in Swine and Dairy Feeds

The method derived from this study was applied to explore the 11 ergot alkaloids in 200 feed samples consisting of swine (n = 100) and dairy feeds (n = 100). In the swine feed samples, more than 49% were contaminated with ergot alkaloids, especially ergocryptine (-ine) (40%), ergosine (-ine), and ergotamine (-ine) (37%). However, more than 50% of total samples were not detectable in 11 ergot alkaloids in the swine feed sample. The dairy feed samples had the same prevalent contaminants as the swine feed samples but with higher positive samples, especially for ergocryptine (-ine) (50%), ergosine (-ine) (48%), ergotamine (-ine), and ergocristine (-ine) (49%), as shown in Table 4 and Table 5. The mycotoxin levels in all feed samples almost complied with the EU regulation (≤1000 mg/kg of 11 ergot alkaloids) [28]. There are several reports on the presence of EAs in the feed from different countries, with 86–100% of listed EAs detected in feed samples from Germany [1] and 83% of compound feeds containing EAs with an average concentration of 89 μg/kg and a maximum concentration of 1231 μg/kg in the Netherlands [19]. The major detected EAs were ergosine, ergotamine, ergocristine, and ergocryptine. Interestingly, Malysheva et al. [13] reported the occurrence of EAs over three years in 1065 cereal samples originating from 13 European countries, with 52% of rye, 27% of wheat, and 44% of total samples containing EAs (ergosine, ergocristine, and ergocryptine) ranging from less than 1 to 12,340 μg/kg. In Spain, the concentrations for individual ergot alkaloids ranged between 5.9 μg/kg for ergosinine to 145.3 μg/kg for ergometrine, while the total ergot alkaloid content ranged from 5.9 to 158.7 μg/kg in swine samples. About 12.7% revealed contamination by at least one ergot alkaloid, and among contaminated swine samples, 65% were contaminated by more than one [22].
The ergot contaminations and patterns were differences due to the geographical region and environmental conditions [10].

3. Conclusions

EAs are hazardous mycotoxins in food and feed samples. Our results showed that the LC-ESI-MS/MS technique was an excellent tool for untargeted determination of 11 EAs in swine and dairy feed samples. The validated LC-MS/MS method using a multifunctional column was successfully performed according to the SANTE/11813/2017 standard. LODs and LOQs were recorded as 0.25 and 0.5 ng/g for EAs. Recoveries were 90.6–120%. When this technique was applied to real feed samples, it showed that 11 EAs were quantifiable in animal feeds. The mycotoxin levels in the swine and dairy samples almost complied with the EU regulations. The presence of ergot sclerotia is regulated to a maximum of 500 mg/kg in unprocessed cereal for humans [29] and 1000 mg/kg in feed materials and compound feed containing unground cereals [30]. However, further studies with a larger sample size are needed to confirm these as acceptable levels. The knowledge of toxigenic Claviceps species for better understanding of the production of EAs and to progress appropriate solutions for disease management should be investigated.

4. Materials and Methods

4.1. Reagents and Materials

The LC-MS/MS grade reagents, consisting of ammonium carbonate and acetonitrile (MeCN), were purchased from Fluka (St. Louis, MO, USA). The Mycosep 150 multifunctional column for extraction clean-up was purchased from Romer Labs (Tulln, Austria). Deionized water was produced using a Milli-Q system (Millipore; Bedford, MA, USA).

4.2. Analytical Standards

The analytical standards of the ergot alkaloids (ergometrine, ergosine, ergotamine, ergocornine, ergocryptine, ergocristine, ergosinine, ergotaminine, ergocorninine, ergocryptinine, and ergocristinine) were purchased from Chiron (Trondheim, Norway).

4.3. Preparation of Standards Solution

The analytical standard ergot alkaloid stock solutions were prepared in acetonitrile to provide a working standard solution of 100 µg/mL concentration for ergometrine, ergosine, ergotamine ergocryptine, ergocristine, and ergocornine and 25 µg/mL for ergosinine, ergotaminine, ergocryptinine, ergocristinine, and ergocorninine. For method validation of the spiking experiments, working standard solutions were freshly prepared at 1.0 µg/mL and were stored in amber vials at −20 °C for one week.

4.4. Sample Collection

A total of 200 feed samples consisting of swine feed (n = 100) and dairy feed (n = 100) were randomly collected from animal farms in different regions of Thailand. All samples were ground in a rotor mill ZM200 (Retsh GmbH, Hann, Germany) into a fine powder (0.50 mm) and stored at −20 °C before analysis.

4.5. Sample Preparation

The sample preparation protocol applied was developed based on Krska et al. [10]. Briefly, 5 g of homogenized feed sample was weighed into a 50 mL polypropylene (PP) centrifugation tube, followed by the addition of 25 mL of acetonitrile–ammonium carbonate buffer (3.03 mM), 84:16 (v/v). The tube was closed and shaken using a laboratory shaker (IKA Labortechnik; Staufen, Germany) for 30 min at 240 rpm. The extract was passed through Whatman No. 4 filter paper, and 4 mL of the extract was transferred to the Mycosep 150 multifunctional column (Romers lab, Tulln, Austria). Then, 1 mL of the purified extract was evaporated to dryness at 40 °C. The residue was reconstituted in 500 μL 50% mobile phase, and the mixture was passed through a 0.22 μm nylon filter before being used in the LC-MS/MS analysis.

4.6. UHPLC-MS/MS Analysis

The 11 target ergot alkaloids were analyzed using the UHPLC-MS/MS method. Chromatographic separation was developed according to Krska et al. [10]. The analysis used a Shimadzu LC-MS 8060 system (Shimadzu, Tokyo, Japan) that was equipped with a Gemini analytical column (150 × 2.0 mm i.d., 5.0 μm particle size; Phenomenex; Torrance, CA, USA) maintained at 30 °C. The mobile phase for analyses used 3.03 mM ammonium carbonate in deionized water (A) and MeCN (B) in ESI (+). The gradient elution was identical initially. The proportion of B was immediately increased from 5% to 17% within 1 min and further linearly increased to 47%, 54%, and 80% after 2, 10, and 15 min, respectively. Subsequently, the proportion of B was decreased to the initial conditions (5%) over 1 min, followed by a hold-time of 5 min, resulting in a total run-time of 21 min. The flow rate was stable at 0.5 mL/min throughout the run; 10 μL of sample extract was injected into the LC-MS/MS system.
The Shimadzu LC-MS 8060 system (Shimadzu, Japan) was equipped with an electrospray (ESI) ion source operated in positive mode. The ion source parameters were a nebulizing gas flow of 3 L/min, a heating gas flow of 10 l/min with an interface temperature: 300 °C, a CDL temperature of 250 °C, a heating block temperature of 400 °C, and a drying gas flow of 10 L/min. The dwell time (ms), Q1 Pre Bias (V), CE (V), and Q3 Pre Bias (V) were optimized during infusion of individual analytes (100 ng/mL) using automatic infusion. The MRM transitions of 11 ergot alkaloid-dependent parameters are summarized in Table 6.

4.7. Method Validation Procedure

The method performance characteristic parameters was determined to assess the efficiency of analytical method from this study by evaluating the linearity, accuracy, precision, LOD, and LOQ for EA contamination in swine and dairy feed samples. The analytes were quantified using a matrix-matched calibration standard with a pre spiking calibration curve for the 11 EAs for levels in the range 0.5–100.0 ng/g. The accuracy and precision (%RSD) were determined within the day by analyzing five replicates at three levels. The inter-day precision was determined at the same level as the within-day precision on three different days (n = 15). LODs and LOQs were calculated by analyzing the spiked samples at low level concentrations. LODs were determined as the lowest concentration of the analyte for which a signal-to-noise (S/N) ratio was 3:1, whereas S/N ratio was 10:1 for LOQs.

4.8. Matrix Effects Study

The matrix effects of the method were evaluated within two types of feed matrices: swine and dairy feed. Matrix-matched calibration curves were prepared at seven levels in the range 0.5–100.0 ng/g (n = 3 per each concentration). The matrix effects expressing the matrix-induced SSE% were defined as percentage ratios of the matrix-matched calibration slope to the solvent calibration slope. Therefore, the matrix-matched calibration curves were used for quantitative analysis.

Author Contributions

Conceptualization, A.P.; investigation, S.P., N.K. and A.P.; methodology, A.P., Z.Z. and M.G.; Resources, M.G., Z.Z. and A.F.L.; Validation, writing-original draft preparation, S.P. and A.P.; Supervision, review and editing, A.P., Z.Z., M.G. and A.F.L.; Project administration and funding acquisition, A.P. All authors have read and agreed to the published version of the manuscript.

Funding

This research is supported by the Center of Excellence on Agricultural Biotechnology, Office of the Permanent Secretary, Ministry of Higher Education, Science, Research and Innovation. (AG-BIO/MHESI).

Institutional Review Board Statement

Not applicable.

Informed Consent Statement

Not applicable.

Conflicts of Interest

The authors declare that there is no conflict of interest.

References

  1. Miró-Abella, E.; Herrero, P.; Canela, N.; Arola, L.; Borrull, F.; Ras, R.; Fontanals, N. Determination of mycotoxins in plant-based beverages using QuEChERS and liquid chromatography–tandem mass spectrometry. Food Chem. 2017, 229, 366–372. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  2. Dzuman, Z.; Zachariasova, M.; Lacina, O.; Veprikova, Z.; Slavikova, P.; Hajslova, J. A rugged high-throughput analytical approach for the determination and quantification of multiple mycotoxins in complex feed matrices. Talanta 2014, 121, 263–272. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  3. Marin, S.; Ramos, A.J.; Cano-Sancho, G.; Sanchis, V. Mycotoxins: Occurrence, toxicology, and exposure assessment. Food Chem. Toxicol. 2013, 60, 218–237. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  4. Aupanun, S.; Poapolathep, S.; Giorgi, M.; Imsilp, K.; Poapolathep, A. An overview of toxicology and toxicokinetics of fusarenon-X, a type B trichothecene mycotoxin. J. Vet. Med. Sci. 2017, 79, 6–13. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed] [Green Version]
  5. World Health Organization (WHO). Worldwide Regulation for Mycotoxins in Food and Feed in 2003. Available online: https//www.fao.org/docrep/007/y5499e/y5499e00.htm (accessed on 8 July 2021).
  6. Moretti, A.; Pascale, M.; Logrieco, A.F. Mycotoxin risks under a climate change scenario in Europe. Trends Food Sci. Tech. 2019, 84, 38–40. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  7. Komarova, E.L.; Tolkachev, O.N. The chemistry of peptide ergot alkaloids. Part I. Classification and chemistry of ergot peptides. Pharm. Chem. J. 2001, 35, 37–45. [Google Scholar]
  8. Malachova, A.; Sulyok, M.; Beltran, E.; Berthiller, F.; Krska, R. Optimization and validation of a quantitative liquid chromatography-tandem mass spectrometric method covering 295 bacterial and fungal metabolites including all regulated mycotoxins in four model food matrices. J. Chromatogr. A 2014, 1362, 145–156. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed] [Green Version]
  9. Urga, K.; Debella, A.; Medihn, Y.W.; Agata, N.; Bayu, A.; Zewdie, W. Laboratory studies on the outbreak of gangrenous ergotism associated with consumption of contaminated barley in Arsi, Ethiopia. Ethiop. J. Health Dev. 2002, 16, 317–323. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  10. Krska, R.; Crews, C. Significance, chemistry and determination of ergot alkaloids: A review. Food Addit. Contam. Part A 2008, 25, 722–731. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  11. Scott, P.M. Ergot alkaloids: Extent of human and animal exposure. World Mycotoxin J. 2009, 2, 141–149. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  12. Craig, A.M.; Klotz, J.L.; Duringer, J.M. Cases of ergotism in livestock and associated ergot alkaloid concentrations in feed. Front. Chem. 2015, 3, 1–6. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  13. Malysheva, S.V.; Larionova, D.A.; Di Mavungu, J.D.; De Saeger, S. Pattern and distribution of ergot alkaloids in cereals and cereal products from European countries. World Mycotoxin J. 2014, 7, 217–230. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  14. Maruo, V.M.; Bracarense, A.P.; Metayer, J.P.; Vilarino, M.; Oswald, I.P.; Pinton, P. Ergot alkaloids at doses close to EU regulatory limits induce alterations of the liver and intestine. Toxins 2018, 10, 183. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed] [Green Version]
  15. Tittlemier, S.A.; Drul, D.; Roscoe, M.; McKendry, T. Occurrence of ergot and ergot alkaloids in Western Canadian wheat and other cereals. J. Agric. Food Chem. 2015, 63, 6644–6650. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  16. Wyka, S.A.; Mondo, S.J.; Liu, M.; Nalam, V.; Broders, K.D. A large accessory genome, high recombination rates, and selection of secondary metabolite genes help maintain global distribution and broad host range of the fungal plant pathogen Claviceps purpurea. bioRxiv 2020. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  17. Guo, Q.; Shao, B.; Du, Z.; Zhang, J. Simultaneous determination of 25 ergot alkaloids in cereal samples by ultra-performance liquid chromatography-tandem mass spectrometry. J. Agric. Food Chem. 2016, 64, 7033–7039. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  18. Ruhland, M.; Tischler, J. Determination of ergot alkaloids in feed by HPLC. Mycotoxin Res. 2008, 24, 73–79. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  19. Mulder, P.P.; Pereboom-de Fauw, D.P.; Hoogenboom, R.L.; de Stoppelaar, J.; de Nijs, M. Tropane and ergot alkaloids in grain-based products for infants and young children in the Netherlands in 2011–2014. Food Addit. Contam. Part B 2015, 8, 284–290. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  20. Kodisch, A.; Oberforster, M.; Raditschnig, A.; Rodermann, B.; Tratwal, A.; Danielewicz, J.; Kobas, M.; Schmiedchen, B.; Eifler, J.; Gordillo, A.; et al. Covariation of ergot severity and alkaloid content measured by HPLC and one Elisa method in inoculated winter rye across three isolates and three European countries. Toxins 2020, 12, 676. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  21. Schummer, C.; Zandonella, I.; van Nieuwenhuyse, A.; Moris, G. Epimerization of ergot alkaloids in feed. Heliyon 2020, 6, e04336. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  22. Arroyo-Manzanares, N.; Rodriguez-Estevez, V.; Garcia-Campana, A.M.; Castellon-Rendon, E.; Gamiz-Gracia, L. Determination of principal ergot alkaloids in swine feeding. J. Sci. Food Agric. 2021, 101, 5214–5224. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  23. Di Mavungu, J.D.; Malysheva, S.A.; Sanders, M.; Larionova, D.; Robbens, J.; Dubruel, P.; van Peteghem, C.; de Saeger, S. Development and validation of a new LC-MS/MS method for the simultaneous determination of six major ergot alkaloids and their corresponding epimers. Application to some food and feed commodities. Food Chem. 2012, 135, 292–303. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  24. Versilovskis, A.; Mulder, P.J.; Pereboom-de Fauw, P.K.H.; de Stoppelaar, J.; de Nijs, M. Simultaneous quantification of ergot and tropane alkaloids in bread in the Netherlands by LC-MS/MS. Food Addit. Contam. Part B 2020, 13, 215–223. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  25. Malysheva, S.V.; di Mavungu, J.D.; Goryacheva, I.Y.; de Saeger, S. A systematic assessment of the variability of matrix effects in LC-MS/MS analysis of ergot alkaloids in cereals and evaluation of method robustness. Anal. Bioanal. Chem. 2013, 405, 5595–5604. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  26. Babic, J.; Tavcar-Kalcher, G.; Celar, F.A.; Kos, K.; Cervek, M.; Jackovac-Strajn, B. Ergot and ergot alkaloids in cereal grains intended for animal feeding collected in Slovenia: Occurrence, pattern and correlations. Toxins 2020, 12, 730. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  27. SANTE, J. European Commission Document No. SANTE/11813/. Guidance Document on Analytical Quality Control and Method Validation Procedures for Pesticides Residues Analysis in Food and Feed. 2017, pp. 3357–3367. Available online: https//ec.europa.eu/food/sites/food/files/plant/docs/pesticides_mrl_guidelines_wrkdoc_2017-11813.pdf (accessed on 9 July 2021).
  28. European Commission. Commission Regulation (EC) 472/2002 of March 12th 2002 amending Regulation (EC) 466/2001 setting maximum levels for certain contaminants if foodstuffs. Off. J. Eur. Communities 2002, L75, 18–20. [Google Scholar]
  29. European Commission. Commission Regulation (EC) No 1881/2006 of 19 December 2006 setting maximum levels for certain contaminants in foodstuffs. Off. J. Eur. Union 2006, L364, 5–24. [Google Scholar]
  30. European Commission. Directive 2002/32/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 7 May 2002 on undesirable substances in animal feed. Off. J. Eur. Communities 2002, L140, 10–21. [Google Scholar]
Figure 1. Signal suppression/enhancement (%SSE) for 11 ergot alkaloids in matrix-matched calibration.
Figure 1. Signal suppression/enhancement (%SSE) for 11 ergot alkaloids in matrix-matched calibration.
Toxins 13 00724 g001
Figure 2. Extracted ion chromatogram (XIC) of spiked 11 ergot alkaloids at 20 ng/g in swine feed samples.
Figure 2. Extracted ion chromatogram (XIC) of spiked 11 ergot alkaloids at 20 ng/g in swine feed samples.
Toxins 13 00724 g002
Figure 3. Extracted ion chromatogram (XIC) of spiked 11 ergot alkaloids at 20 ng/g in dairy feed samples.
Figure 3. Extracted ion chromatogram (XIC) of spiked 11 ergot alkaloids at 20 ng/g in dairy feed samples.
Toxins 13 00724 g003
Table 1. Performance characteristic of the analytical method: linearity ranges, limit of detection (LOD), and limit of quantification (LOQ) of the optimized LC-MS/MS method for simultaneous determination of 11 ergot alkaloids.
Table 1. Performance characteristic of the analytical method: linearity ranges, limit of detection (LOD), and limit of quantification (LOQ) of the optimized LC-MS/MS method for simultaneous determination of 11 ergot alkaloids.
Ergot AlkaloidLOD (ng/g)LOQ (ng/g)Calibration Range (ng/g)
Ergometrine0.250.50.5–100
Ergosine0.250.50.5–100
Ergocornine0.250.50.5–100
Ergocryptine0.250.50.5–100
Ergocristine0.250.50.5–100
Ergotamine0.250.50.5–100
Ergosinine0.250.50.5–100
Ergocorninine0.250.50.5–100
Ergocryptinine0.250.50.5–100
Ergocristinine0.250.50.5–100
Ergotaminine0.250.50.5–100
Table 2. Accuracy and precision study for 11 ergot alkaloids determination in optimal LC-MS/MS conditions for swine feed samples.
Table 2. Accuracy and precision study for 11 ergot alkaloids determination in optimal LC-MS/MS conditions for swine feed samples.
Ergot AlkaloidsSpike Level, (ng/g)Swine Feed
%Recovery, (%)Intra-Day Precision, (%RSD)Inter-Day Precision, (%RSD)
Ergometrine0.5113.12.608.8
10.094.21.337.1
100.096.22.954.7
Ergosine0.5111.75.608.14
10.0115.82.8711.59
100.0109.22.8813.38
Ergocornine0.5105.33.554.80
10.0115.19.3915.69
100.0116.63.608.45
Ergocryptine0.5118.94.217.22
10.0109.011.4411.62
100.0114.42.736.87
Ergocristine0.5107.18.779.34
10.0119.614.0716.63
100.0120.07.458.95
Ergotamine0.5116.92.709.76
10.0117.38.6815.67
100.0117.15.529.90
Ergosinine0.599.12.256.51
10.098.12.295.99
100.097.01.965.09
Ergocorninine0.5101.94.088.48
10.0100.75.745.52
100.0100.03.075.84
Ergocryptinine0.5110.92.845.86
10.0106.74.5210.13
100.0100.23.526.11
Ergocristinine0.5111.33.968.71
10.0101.64.445.33
100.098.81.776.04
Ergotaminine0.5100.53.307.19
10.097.62.888.93
100.097.01.645.69
%RSD = percentage relative standard deviation.
Table 3. Accuracy and precision study for 11 ergot alkaloids determination in optimal LC-MS/MS conditions for dairy feed samples.
Table 3. Accuracy and precision study for 11 ergot alkaloids determination in optimal LC-MS/MS conditions for dairy feed samples.
Ergot AlkaloidSpike Level, (ng/g)Dairy Feed
%Recovery, (%)Intra-Day Precision, (%RSD)Inter-Day Precision, (%RSD)
Ergometrine0.592.12.118.2
10.0101.11.407.2
100.097.44.776.8
Ergosine0.5102.07.106.33
10.0103.02.224.55
100.0101.01.953.08
Ergocornine0.599.62.987.78
10.099.44.185.49
100.092.74.3310.79
Ergocryptine0.5101.92.676.14
10.098.22.975.01
100.091.54.1011.83
Ergocristine0.5102.11.094.09
10.098.15.517.02
100.090.63.2413.29
Ergotamine0.5102.44.137.85
10.0103.05.195.54
100.0101.31.912.18
Ergosinine0.5100.33.493.98
10.0100.01.923.77
100.0101.41.704.47
Ergocorninine0.595.73.219.92
10.097.70.972.32
100.098.12.023.46
Ergocryptinine0.597.12.578.42
10.099.11.132.85
100.0100.41.823.34
Ergocristinine0.5102.74.516.73
10.095.93.842.93
100.098.91.723.55
Ergotaminine0.5101.31.394.39
10.0100.03.135.79
100.0100.32.056.73
%RSD = percentage relative standard deviation.
Table 4. Occurrence of 11 ergot alkaloids in swine feed samples.
Table 4. Occurrence of 11 ergot alkaloids in swine feed samples.
Ergot AlkaloidSwine Feed (n = 100)
Number of Positive SamplesRange (ng/g)Mean (ng/g)
Ergosinine370.53–9.722.06
Ergosine300.40–4.991.57
Ergocorninine260.46–25.254.99
Ergocornine230.29–4.821.83
Ergocryptinine400.25–100.557.64
Ergocryptine170.63–17.224.41
Ergotaminine370.27–13.462.96
Ergotamine330.31–18.53.14
Ergocristinine280.67–77.616.15
Ergocristine280.57–48.009.16
Ergometrine200.52–10.873.06
Table 5. Occurrence of 11 ergot alkaloids in dairy feed samples.
Table 5. Occurrence of 11 ergot alkaloids in dairy feed samples.
Ergot AlkaloidDairy Feed (n = 100)
Number of Positive SamplesRange (ng/g)Mean (ng/g)
Ergosinine480.52–16.612.69
Ergosine360.45–12.172.00
Ergocorninine460.38–43.606.25
Ergocornine350.31–11.472.44
Ergocryptinine500.44–31.578.25
Ergocryptine330.58–13.193.52
Ergotaminine490.46–52.116.04
Ergotamine480.34–43.025.34
Ergocristinine490.62–210.5326.75
Ergocristine470.26–98.1913.05
Ergometrine360.26–31.672.89
Table 6. MS/MS parameters for determination of 11 ergot alkaloids.
Table 6. MS/MS parameters for determination of 11 ergot alkaloids.
Analytem/zDwell Time
(ms)
Q1 Pre Bias
(V)
CE
(V)
Q3 Pre Bias
(V)
Retention
Time (Min)
Ergocorninine562.40 > 223.3070.0−22.0−34.0−15.0
562.40 > 277.3070.0−26.0−29.0−19.09.4
Ergocornine562.35 > 223.3060.0−22.0−37.0−24.0
562.35 > 208.2060.0−22.0−45.0−23.06.15
Ergocryptine576.40 > 223.3060.0−22.0−35.0−25.0
576.40 > 208.3060.0−22.0−49.0−22.06.93
Ergocryptinine576.35 > 223.3080.0−22.0−37.0−16.0
576.35 > 208.2080.0−22.0−52.0−23.010.99
Ergotaminine582.30 > 223.3070.0−22.0−34.0−16.0
582.30 > 277.2570.0−22.0−26.0−20.08.57
Ergotamine582.30 > 223.3060.0−22.0−33.0−16.0
582.30 > 208.2060.0−22.0−44.0−23.05.38
Ergocristine610.40 > 223.3060.0−24.0−36.0−25.0
610.40 > 208.2560.0−24.0−47.0−22.07.29
Ergocristinine610.40 > 223.3060.0−28.0−36.0−16.0
610.40 > 325.3060.0−24.0−28.0−22.011.85
Ergosine548.45 > 223.1060.0−40.0−33.0−16.0
548.45 > 208.2560.0−40.0−40.0−14.05.05
Ergosinine548.35 > 223.3080.0−20.0−32.6−16.0
548.35 > 263.1080.0−20.0−27.8−19.07.6
Ergometrine326.30 > 223.3060.0−24.0−25.0−25.0
326.30 > 208.2060.0−24.0−30.0−22.03.46
Publisher’s Note: MDPI stays neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.

Share and Cite

MDPI and ACS Style

Poapolathep, S.; Klangkaew, N.; Zhang, Z.; Giorgi, M.; Logrieco, A.F.; Poapolathep, A. Simultaneous Determination of Ergot Alkaloids in Swine and Dairy Feeds Using Ultra High-Performance Liquid Chromatography-Tandem Mass Spectrometry. Toxins 2021, 13, 724. https://doi.org/10.3390/toxins13100724

AMA Style

Poapolathep S, Klangkaew N, Zhang Z, Giorgi M, Logrieco AF, Poapolathep A. Simultaneous Determination of Ergot Alkaloids in Swine and Dairy Feeds Using Ultra High-Performance Liquid Chromatography-Tandem Mass Spectrometry. Toxins. 2021; 13(10):724. https://doi.org/10.3390/toxins13100724

Chicago/Turabian Style

Poapolathep, Saranya, Narumol Klangkaew, Zhaowei Zhang, Mario Giorgi, Antonio Francesco Logrieco, and Amnart Poapolathep. 2021. "Simultaneous Determination of Ergot Alkaloids in Swine and Dairy Feeds Using Ultra High-Performance Liquid Chromatography-Tandem Mass Spectrometry" Toxins 13, no. 10: 724. https://doi.org/10.3390/toxins13100724

APA Style

Poapolathep, S., Klangkaew, N., Zhang, Z., Giorgi, M., Logrieco, A. F., & Poapolathep, A. (2021). Simultaneous Determination of Ergot Alkaloids in Swine and Dairy Feeds Using Ultra High-Performance Liquid Chromatography-Tandem Mass Spectrometry. Toxins, 13(10), 724. https://doi.org/10.3390/toxins13100724

Note that from the first issue of 2016, this journal uses article numbers instead of page numbers. See further details here.

Article Metrics

Back to TopTop