Table 4.

Summary of the main analytical methods used to detect ethyl carbamate in food and beverages.^a

Analytical Method	Advantages	Limitations	Limits of quantification (µg/L) for various matrices	References
GC-MS (official AOAC method)	• There is precedent in literature. • No analyte derivatization is necessary. • Method robustness.	• Extraction can be lengthy and use large amounts of solvents.	50, distilled spirits; 40, fortified wine; 10, table wine; 15, soy sauce	Canas et al. (1994)
GC-MS (with improved cleanup)	• Less solvent usage compared to the official AOAC method. • Increased analyte sensitivity.	• Modifications to the official AOAC method may need to undergo validation.	10, distilled spirits; 4.5, fortified wine; 1.2, table wine; 6, soy sauce	Leça et al. (2014); Mirzoian & Mabud (2006); Nóbrega et al. (2015); Wu, Zhang et al. (2014)
LC-FLD	• Low cost. • Detector is commonly found in analytical laboratories.	• Often requires derivatization to enhance analyte signal. • The presence of interfering compounds can result in overstated analyte concentrations.	16, distilled spirits; 5, fortified wine; 5, table wine; 13, soy sauce	Herbert et al. (2002); Zhang, Liu et al. (2014); Zhou, Liu et al. (2017)
LC-MS	• Capable of collecting information on non-volatile compounds. • Typically involves little sample preparation.	• Requires extensive operator training. • Generally more expensive system compared to LC-FLD and GC-MS.	2.1, distilled spirits; 0.5, fortified wine; 1.0, table wine; 0.1, soy sauce	Alberts et al. (2011); Leça et al. (2018); Park et al. (2007)

^aAbbreviations used: GC-MS, gas chromatography-mass spectrometry; LC-MS, liquid chromatography-mass spectrometry; LC-FLD, liquid chromatography-fluorescence detection.