Table 4.
Comparison with other studies. Matrices, extraction methods, analytical devices, recovery rates, LODs, and LOQs were compared for the tested drugs.
| No. | Analytes | Matrix | Extraction method | Analytical device | Recovery (RSD) % | LOD (μg/kg) | LOQ (μg/kg) | Reference |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 1 | Chloramphenicol, chloramphenicol 3-O-β-d-glucuronide, florfenicol, florfenicol amine and thiamphenicol | Bovine, equine, and porcine liver | Modified QuEChERS | LC-MS/MS | 50–105 (7.6–45) |
0.03–0.84 | 0.11–2.75 | Fedeniuk et al. (27) |
| 2 | Chloramphenicol, thiamphenicol, florfenicol and florfenicol amine | Poultry, swine, bovine, and fish | LLE | LC-MS/MS | 82–111 (1.1–18.1) |
0.06–252.10 | 0.11–304.20 | Barreto et al. (24) |
| 3 | Chloramphenicol, thiamphenicol, florfenicol, and florfenicol amine | Poultry eggs | LLE | UPLC-MS/MS | 90.31–107.79 (1.42–6.65) |
0.03–0.4 | 0.08–1.2 | Wang et al. (25) |
| 4 | Chloramphenicol, thiamphenicol, florfenicol and florfenicol amine | Chicken muscle | LLE and SPE | LC-MS/MS | 95.1–107.3 (4.4–10.9) |
0.1–1 | 0.3–3 | Zhang et al. (26) |
| 5 | Chloramphenicol, thiamphenicol, and florfenicol | Fish muscle | MSPD | UPLC-MS/MS | 84.2–99.8 (<12) | - | - | Pan et al. (40) |
| 6 | Chloramphenicol, thiamphenicol, and florfenicol | Bovine muscle | tetrahydrofuran (THF)–water | LC-MS/MS | 90–112 (5–15) | - | 0.141–12.9 | Sichilongo et al. (41) |
| 7 | Chloramphenicol, thiamphenicol, florfenicol, and florfenicol amine | Beef, pork, chicken, shrimp, eel, and flatfish | Modified QuEChERS | LC-MS/MS | 64.26–116.51 ( ≤ 18.05) | 0.005–3.1 | 0.02–10.4 | This study |
SPE, solid-phase extraction; MSPD, Matrix Solid-Phase Dispersion Extraction; UPLC-MS/MS, ultra-performance liquid chromatography-tandem mass spectrometry.