Table 2.
Effects of different extraction methods on the recoveries of 25 µg/kg TAP and 50 µg/kg FF and FFA from poultry eggs (%) (n = 6).
| Matrix | Analyte | Extraction Method | |||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Ultrasonic | Vortex Oscillation | Vortex Oscillation + Ultrasonic | ASE | ||
| Hen egg | TAP | 34.4 ± 2.5 | 78.6 ± 2.6 | 88.3 ± 2.2 | 92.8 ± 2.4 |
| FF | 37.1 ± 2.3 | 81.5 ± 3.1 | 92.0 ± 2.7 | 96.0 ± 2.3 | |
| FFA | 54.4 ± 2.2 | 84.0 ± 2.9 | 91.9 ± 2.8 | 93.3 ± 2.0 | |
| Duck eggs | TAP | 30.9 ± 2.0 | 70.0 ± 2.7 | 84.9 ± 2.2 | 90.2 ± 1.9 |
| FF | 33.4 ± 2.5 | 79.5 ± 2.7 | 89.7 ± 2.4 | 92.5 ± 2.1 | |
| FFA | 49.0 ± 2.4 | 74.4 ± 3.2 | 86.0 ± 2.9 | 91.7 ± 2.2 | |
| Goose eggs | TAP | 31.3 ± 2.9 | 71.9 ± 3.0 | 82.7 ± 2.6 | 93.3 ± 1.9 |
| FF | 35.6 ± 2.7 | 72.0 ± 2.6 | 88.4 ± 3.0 | 92.4 ± 2.5 | |
| FFA | 40.5 ± 3.4 | 77.0 ± 2.8 | 85.0 ± 2.4 | 90.4 ± 2.1 | |
| Pigeon eggs | TAP | 34.4 ± 3.0 | 69.9 ± 2.7 | 85.3 ± 2.9 | 86.9 ± 2.2 |
| FF | 34.7 ± 2.6 | 70.0 ± 3.2 | 87.0 ± 2.6 | 89.0 ± 2.4 | |
| FFA | 40.7 ± 2.8 | 72.6 ± 2.9 | 80.3 ± 2.3 | 95.1 ± 1.6 | |
| Quail eggs | TAP | 36.1 ± 2.9 | 72.1 ± 2.8 | 83.5 ± 2.7 | 90.1 ± 2.0 |
| FF | 30.1 ± 3.0 | 73.4 ± 2.3 | 88.5 ± 3.3 | 92.6 ± 2.4 | |
| FFA | 45.5 ± 2.8 | 69.7 ± 3.1 | 83.7 ± 2.5 | 92.7 ± 2.7 | |