Table 3.
Comparison of the proposed QD-silver LFIA, ELISA and HPLC‒MS/MS in analysis of chicken samples spiked/naturally contaminated by SPC.
| Type of sample | SPC concentration (μg/kg) | QD-silver LFIA |
ELISA |
HPLC‒MS/MS |
||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Visual detectiona | Meanb (μg/kg) |
Recovery (%) | Mean (μg/kg) | Recovery (%) | Mean (μg/kg) | Recovery (%) | ||
| Spiked sample 1 | 0 | − | 0 | NAc | 0 | NA | 0 | NA |
| Spiked sample 2 | 50 | + | 48.8 | 97.6 | 49.2 | 98.4 | 50.5 | 101 |
| Spiked sample 3 | 100 | + | 94.0 | 94.0 | 96.5 | 96.5 | 103.0 | 103 |
| Natural sample | 22.5 | + | 21.5 | 95.6 | 22.0 | 97.8 | 22.5 | 100 |
a
Visual assessment of the test line; (−) negative result (defined as the color intensity of T line is equal to that of zero signal); (+) positive result (defined as the color intensity of T line is weaker than that of zero signal);
b
Quantitative assessment by using a four-parameter equation from fluorometric mode
c
Not available