Application progress of on-line sample preparation techniques coupled with liquid chromatography-mass spectrometry system in the detection of food hazards

doi:10.3724/SP.J.1123.2023.04026

Abstract

Abstract:

Food safety has received increased attention, and food detection is of great significance. The food matrix is complex, and diverse food hazards have been identified. Thus, the detection methods and sample preparation techniques for food matrices must be continuously optimized and updated. Several steps are usually required when a chromatographic system is used to determine food hazards: sample preparation, that is, the separation of targets from different substrates using a suitable preprocessing method and target-substance separation and purification, which is usually achieved using chromatographic separation. The selection of an appropriate detector for qualitative and quantitative analyses is usually based on the properties of the target compound. The sample preparation procedure is considered the most time-consuming aspect of the entire food-analysis process. It is also prone to analytical errors. Therefore, optimization of the sample preparation process is a key issue in the field of chemical analysis. Researchers have developed a series of new, efficient, and accurate sample preprocessing methods, and an on-line sample-preparation system has been found to be a feasible approach. On-line sample preparation coupled with liquid chromatography-mass spectrometry (LC-MS) presents many advantages. First, manual operation could reduce analytical errors to ensure good accuracy and repeatability. It could also reduce the consumption of chemical reagents and avoid cross-contamination between samples. Furthermore, an on-line sample-preparation system could shorten the sample-preparation time and improve the detection efficiency. On-line sample preparation coupled with LC-MS has been widely applied in the fields of environment, biology, and food. On-line sample preparation systems coupled with LC-MS are divided into two modules: the first modules involves sample preparation and the second module involves the LC system. The first module remove impurities and isolates the target compounds in preparation for their qualitative and quantitative detection. The coupling of these two modules depends mainly on valve switching.
In this paper, we introduce the most frequently used on-line sample-preparation techniques, including on-line solid phase extraction (on-line SPE), in-tube solid phase microextraction (in-tube SPME), and turbulent chromatography (TFC). We then describe the basic principles and coupling equipment of these three on-line analytical technologies in detail. The coupling equipment establishes a physical connection between the two modules. Next, we discuss the properties of different purification fillers in an on-line sample-preparation column. The applications and research progress of on-line systems for pesticide residues, veterinary drug residues, and biotoxins are also discussed. Compared with offline sample preparation, on-line analytical systems present several advantages. On-line analytical systems can not only greatly reduce the analysis time and solvent consumption but also improve the detection sensitivity and accuracy. Such systems can be used to determine food hazards to ensure food safety. Finally, the existing problems and development trends of on-line analytical systems are discussed and prospected. To promote the applications of on-line analytical technology in food-safety detection, we suggest that the following three aspects be considered. First, more on-line purification columns with novel fillers, in addition to C18 or polymer fillers, should be developed. Second, compared with ordinary detectors, high-resolution MS detectors have better precision and accuracy. Coupling on-line analytical technologies with a high-resolution mass spectrometer may be beneficial for the further development of on-line analyses. Third, different food matrices should be compared and evaluated to continuously optimize the detection process and improve the efficiency of on-line analytical systems. As concerns regarding food safety issues have increased, the applications of on-line analytical technologies for food detection can be expected to become increasingly important.

Key words: on-line sample preparation techniques, on-line solid phase extraction (on-line SPE), in-tube solid phase microextraction (in-tube SPME), turbulent flow chromatography (TFC), food hazards, review

CLC Number:

O658

ZHAI Hongwen, MA Hongyu, CAO Meirong, ZHANG Mingxing, MA Junmei, ZHANG Yan, LI Qiang. Application progress of on-line sample preparation techniques coupled with liquid chromatography-mass spectrometry system in the detection of food hazards[J]. Chinese Journal of Chromatography, 2023, 41(12): 1062-1072.

Figures/Tables 7

References

[1]	Pan J J, Zhang C J, Zhang Z M, et al. Anal Chim Acta, 2014, 85: 1
[2]	Kanu A B. J Chromatogr A, 2021, 1654: 462444
[3]	Zou J M, Bo Yao, Yan S W, et al. Environ Pollut, 2022, 303: 119112
[4]	Pan L, Huang J H, Chen J H, et al. Sci Total Environ, 2022, 853: 158545
[5]	Chen M, Koekkoek J, Lamoree M. Environ Int, 2022, 159: 107049
[6]	Barceló D, Hennion M C. Anal Chim Acta, 1995, 318(1): 1
[7]	Wang J M, Chen J H, He X P, et al. Chemosphere, 2021, 262: 128374
[8]	Jin J, Song S J, Peng Z J, et al. Chinese Journal of Analytical Chemistry, 2021, 49(4): 520
[8]	金津, 宋善军, 彭子娟, 等. 分析化学, 2021, 49(4): 520
[9]	Hou S H, Song X, Li L L, et al. J Agric Food Chem, 2021, 69: 4883
[10]	Duy S V, Munoz G, Dinh Q T, et al. Talanta, 2022, 241: 123267
[11]	Song X Q, Turiel E, Yang J, et al. J Chromatogr A, 2022, 1673: 463192
[12]	Zhai H W, Ma H Y, Ma J M, et al. Food Science, 2023, 44(20): 315
[12]	翟洪稳, 马红玉, 马俊美, 等. 食品科学, 2023, 44(20): 315
[13]	Ma J M, Liu D, Zhang L L, et al. Food Science, 2017, 38(20): 300
[13]	马俊美, 刘东, 张雷雷, 等. 食品科学, 2017, 38(20): 300
[14]	Cao M, Li Q, Zhang Y, et al. Bull Environ Contam Toxicol, 2021, 107(2): 248
[15]	Ma J M, Sun L, Liu Z, et al. Meat Research, 2018, 32(5): 19
[15]	马俊美, 孙磊, 刘茁, 等. 肉类研究, 2018, 32(5): 19
[16]	Fan S F, Ma J M, Cao M R, et al. Food Sci Hum Well, 2021, 10(1): 78
[17]	Luo D. [MS Dissertation]. Baoding: Hebei University, 2018
[17]	罗丹.[硕士学位论文]. 保定: 河北大学, 2018
[18]	López-Vázquez J, Pérez-Mayán L, Fernández-Fernández V, et al. J Chromatogr A, 2023, 1687: 463697
[19]	Zhang C J, Li Y H, Yuan H M, et al. J Chromatogr B, 2023, 1222: 123697
[20]	Júnior C M, Sartore D, Lamarca R, et al. J Chromatogr B, 2021, 1180: 122896
[21]	Júnior C A M, Silva B F, Lamarca R S, et al. Anal Bioanal Chem, 2021, 413: 5147
[22]	Chen L X, Yan X Y, Zhou X D, et al. TrAC-Trends Anal Chem, 2023, 160: 116976
[23]	Valsecchi S, Polesello S, Mazzoni M, et al. Trends Environ Anal Chem, 2015, 8: 27
[24]	Senta I, Rodríguez-Mozaz S, Corominas L, et al. Sci Total Environ, 2022, 845: 157309
[25]	Liu L N, Zhang Q H, Yang J J. Journal of Beijing University of Chemical Technology (Natural Science), 2013, 40(4): 6
[25]	刘丽娜, 张庆合, 杨俊佼. 北京化工大学学报: 自然科学版, 2013, 40(4): 6
[26]	Qiao H M. Journal of Materials Science & Engineering, 2016, 34(2): 333
[26]	乔红梅. 材料科学与工程学报, 2016, 34(2): 333
[27]	Wang E L. [MS Dissertation]. Zhenjiang: Jiangsu University, 2013
[27]	王恩兰.[硕士学位论文]. 镇江: 江苏大学, 2013
[28]	Nian Q X, Ai L F, Li D M, et al. Anal Bioanal Chem, 2018, 410: 7239
[29]	Lu X F, Nan Z X, Li X Y, et al. Food Chem, 2023, 410: 135359
[30]	Sun X W, Wang R Y, Li L L, et al. Food Chem, 2021, 362: 130214
[31]	Kataoka H, Ohshima H, Ohkawa T. Talanta Open, 2023, 7: 100177
[32]	Hu W, Zhou W, Wang C L, et al. Anal Chim Acta, 2023, 1240: 340775
[33]	Kataoka H. J Chromatogr A, 2021, 1636: 461787
[34]	Queiroz M E C, Souza I D, Marchioni C. TrAC-Trends Anal Chem, 2019, 111: 261
[35]	Niu Z, Zhang W, Yu C, et al. TrAC-Trends Anal Chem, 2018, 102: 123
[36]	Seidi S, Abolhasani H, Razeghi Y, et al. J Chromatogr A, 2020, 1628: 461486
[37]	Liu P, Zhou J L, An J J, et al. Chinese Journal of Chromatography, 2010, 28(2): 168
[37]	刘朋, 周建良, 安婧婧, 等. 色谱, 2010, 28(2): 168
[38]	Wang B L, Tian J X, Xiang J L, et al. Meat Research, 2018, 32(5): 30
[38]	王炳玲, 田霁昕, 项佳林, 等. 肉类研究, 2018, 32(5): 30
[39]	Lancas F M. Sci Chromatogr, 2014, 6(3): 205
[40]	Couchman L. Biomed Chromatogr, 2012, 26(8): 892
[41]	Huang L F. [MS Dissertation]. Hangzhou: Zhejiang University, 2017
[41]	黄雷芳.[硕士学位论文]. 杭州: 浙江大学, 2017
[42]	Fernández-RAMOS C, Šatínský D, Šmídová B, et al. TrAC-Trends Anal Chem, 2014, 62: 69
[43]	Franco M S, Padovan R N, Fumes B H, et al. Electrophoresis, 2016, 37(13): 1768
[44]	Li T, Wang C, Xu Z, et al. Chemosphere, 2020, 254: 126765
[45]	Zhang X G, Liu D, Liu H R, et al. Chinese Journal of Chromatography, 2017, 35(10): 1055
[45]	张晓光, 刘东, 刘红冉, 等. 色谱, 2017, 35(10): 1055
[46]	Cheng C, Liu L C. Anal Methods-UK, 2014, 6(5): 1581
[47]	Bousova K, Senyuva H, Mittendurf K. J Chromatogr A, 2013, 1274: 19
[48]	Lafontaine C, Yu H, Espourteille F A, et al. Anal Methods-UK, 2012, 4(11): 3536
[49]	García-Gómez D, García-Hernández M, Rodríguez-Gonzal E, et al. Anal Bioanal Chem, 2012, 404(10): 2909
[50]	Zheng M M, Rung G D, Feng Y Q. J Chromatogr A, 2009, 1216(44): 7510
[51]	Gu X, Wu J P, Zhang X, et al. Chinese Journal of Analytical Chemistry, 2014, 42(12): 8
[51]	顾欣, 吴剑平, 张鑫, 等. 分析化学, 2014, 42(12): 8
[52]	Pérez-Mayán L, Ramil M, Cela R, et al. J Food Compos Anal, 2021, 104: 104184
[53]	Zhang H C, Ai L F, Ma Y S, et al. Journal of Instrumental Analysis, 2018, 37(2): 180
[53]	张海超, 艾连峰, 马育松, 等. 分析测试学报, 2018, 37(2): 180
[54]	Zhang H C, Ai L F, Ma Y S, et al. Chinese Journal of Chromatography, 2018, 36(10): 991
[54]	张海超, 艾连峰, 马育松, 等. 色谱, 2018, 36(10): 991
[55]	Chen Y Y, Lü J, Zhang L, et al. Chinese Journal of Chromatography, 2022, 40(12): 1064
[55]	陈永艳, 吕佳, 张岚, 等. 色谱, 2022, 40(12): 1064
[56]	Liu X, Sun X L, Cao J. Chinese Journal of Chromatography, 2021, 39(12): 1324
[56]	刘欣, 孙秀兰, 曹进. 色谱, 2021, 39(12): 1324
[57]	Fang F. Chromatographia, 2019, 82(9): 1321
[58]	Xu X, Zhu B, Liu Z, et al. J Chromatogr B, 2019, 1125: 121709
[59]	Campone L, Piccinelli A L, Celano R, et al. Food Chem, 2018, 244: 128
[60]	Andrade M A, Lancas F M. J Chromatogr A, 2017, 1493: 41
[61]	Nonaka Y, Saito K, Hanioka N, et al. J Chromatogr A, 2009, 1216(20): 4416
[62]	Campone L, Piccinelli A L, Celano R, et al. J Chromatogr A, 2016, 1428: 212
[63]	Pan L, Huang J J, Chen J, et al. Sci Total Environ, 2022, 853: 158545
[64]	Kataoka H, Itano M, Ishizai A, et al. J Chromatogr A, 2009, 1216(18): 3746
[65]	Cuthbertsona A, Bachb C, Richardson S, et al. J Chromatogr A, 2020, 1612: 460642
[66]	Hou S H, Sun X W, Chen L Z, et al. Food Chem, 2020, 321: 126702

Analytes	Matrices	First dimension	Second dimension	On-line analysis system	LODs/ (ng/kg)	LOQs/ (ng/kg)	Recov- eries/%	RSDs/ %	Ref.
10 β-agonists	pork and lamb	MCX column (10 mm×1 mm)	XBridge C18 column (150 mm×4.6 mm, 5 μm)	SPE-UHPLC- MS/MS	4-40	20-200	76.5- 107.7	2.4- 9.5	[15]
18 sulfonamide antibiotics	aquaculture	Oasis^® MCX column (20 mm×2.1 mm, 2.5 μm) and Oasis^® HLB column (20 mm ×2.1 mm, 2.5 μm)	F5 column (150 mm× 3.0 mm, 2.6 μm)	SPE-UHPLC-MS/MS	1.46-15.5	49-51.6	71.5- 102.0	3.47- 14.2	[44]
10 macrolide antibiotics	pork	HLB column (10 mm×1 mm)	XBridge C18 column (100 mm×2.1 mm mm, 2.5 μm)	SPE-UHPLC-MS/MS	50-300	100-1000	69.9- 115.2	0.9- 9.2	[45]
Abamectin and ivermectin	milk	SB-C18 column (30 mm×2.1 mm, 3.5 μm)	SB-C18 column (75 mm×2.1 mm, 3.5 μm)	SPE-UHPLC- MS/MS	0.65-0.67	2.21-2.23	82-88	4.8- 9.7	[46]
36 antibiotics	chicken meat	TurboFlow Cyclone- P (50 mm×0.5 mm, 60 μm)	Betasil phenyl hexyl column (50 mm×2.1 mm, 3 μm)	TFC-HPLC- MS/MS	300-40000	1000-120000	80-120	3-28	[47]
Ractopamine	beef	TurboFlow Cyclone- P (50 mm×0.5 mm, 60 μm)	Accucore C18 column (50 mm×3 mm, 2.6 μm)	TFC-HPLC- MS/MS	-	0.3	85-104	2.6- 14.0	[48]
5 benzimidazoles and 7 metabolites	milk	ADS column (25 mm ×4 mm, 25 μm)	Zorbax Eclipse XDB- C18 column (150 mm ×4.60 mm, 3 μm)	SPE-UHPLC- MS/MS	0.1-0.8	-	88-114	0.8- 9.7	[49]
8 quinolone antibacterials	milk, egg, chicken and fish	PEEK tube (poly (MAA-co-EGDMA), 150 mm×0.50 mm)	C18 column (250 mm ×2.0 mm, 5 μm)	In-tube SPME- LC/ESI-Q- TOF-MS	0.3-1.2 (egg), 0.2-3.0 (milk), 0.2-0.7 (chick- en), 0.2-1.0 (fish)	1.0-4.0 (egg), 0.6-10 (milk), 0.8-2.4 (chick- en), 0.6-3.3 (fish)	80.2- 115.0	1.3- 14.5	[50]

Analytes	Matrices	First dimension	Second dimension	On-line analysis system	LODs/ (ng/kg)	LOQs/ (ng/kg)	Recov- eries/%	RSDs/ %	Ref.
10 β-agonists	pork and lamb	MCX column (10 mm×1 mm)	XBridge C18 column (150 mm×4.6 mm, 5 μm)	SPE-UHPLC- MS/MS	4-40	20-200	76.5- 107.7	2.4- 9.5	[15]
18 sulfonamide antibiotics	aquaculture	Oasis^® MCX column (20 mm×2.1 mm, 2.5 μm) and Oasis^® HLB column (20 mm ×2.1 mm, 2.5 μm)	F5 column (150 mm× 3.0 mm, 2.6 μm)	SPE-UHPLC-MS/MS	1.46-15.5	49-51.6	71.5- 102.0	3.47- 14.2	[44]
10 macrolide antibiotics	pork	HLB column (10 mm×1 mm)	XBridge C18 column (100 mm×2.1 mm mm, 2.5 μm)	SPE-UHPLC-MS/MS	50-300	100-1000	69.9- 115.2	0.9- 9.2	[45]
Abamectin and ivermectin	milk	SB-C18 column (30 mm×2.1 mm, 3.5 μm)	SB-C18 column (75 mm×2.1 mm, 3.5 μm)	SPE-UHPLC- MS/MS	0.65-0.67	2.21-2.23	82-88	4.8- 9.7	[46]
36 antibiotics	chicken meat	TurboFlow Cyclone- P (50 mm×0.5 mm, 60 μm)	Betasil phenyl hexyl column (50 mm×2.1 mm, 3 μm)	TFC-HPLC- MS/MS	300-40000	1000-120000	80-120	3-28	[47]
Ractopamine	beef	TurboFlow Cyclone- P (50 mm×0.5 mm, 60 μm)	Accucore C18 column (50 mm×3 mm, 2.6 μm)	TFC-HPLC- MS/MS	-	0.3	85-104	2.6- 14.0	[48]
5 benzimidazoles and 7 metabolites	milk	ADS column (25 mm ×4 mm, 25 μm)	Zorbax Eclipse XDB- C18 column (150 mm ×4.60 mm, 3 μm)	SPE-UHPLC- MS/MS	0.1-0.8	-	88-114	0.8- 9.7	[49]
8 quinolone antibacterials	milk, egg, chicken and fish	PEEK tube (poly (MAA-co-EGDMA), 150 mm×0.50 mm)	C18 column (250 mm ×2.0 mm, 5 μm)	In-tube SPME- LC/ESI-Q- TOF-MS	0.3-1.2 (egg), 0.2-3.0 (milk), 0.2-0.7 (chick- en), 0.2-1.0 (fish)	1.0-4.0 (egg), 0.6-10 (milk), 0.8-2.4 (chick- en), 0.6-3.3 (fish)	80.2- 115.0	1.3- 14.5	[50]

Analytes	Matrices	First dimension	Second dimension	On-line analysis system	LODs	LOQs	Recov- eries/%	RSDs/ %	Ref.
48 pesticide residues	wine	PS-DVB column (12.5 mm×2.1 mm, 15-20 μm)	Zorbax Eclipse XDB- C18 column (100 mm ×2.1 mm, 3.5 μm)	SPE-HPLC- MS/MS	-	0.02-2.5 μg/L	70-119	-	[52]
212 pesticides	fruits and vegetables	TurboFlow Cyclone-P (50 mm×0.5 mm, 60 μm)	Accucore aQ C18 col- umn (150 mm×2.1 mm, 2. 6 μm)	TFC-LC/ESI- Q-Orbitrap	-	0.5-5 μg/kg	58.3- 129.4	2.8- 16.0	[53]
15 amide herbicides	rice	poly(BMA-co-ED- MA) column (50 mm× 2.1 mm)	Hypersil GOLD col- umn (150 mm×2.1 mm, 5 μm)	TFC-HPLC- MS/MS	0.20-2.0 μg/kg	0.50-5.0 μg/kg	75.5- 121.3	2.89- 12.38	[54]
107 pesticides and metabolites	raw and drinking water	XBridge C18 column (30 mm×2.1 mm, 10 μm)	ACQUITY UHPLC HSS T3 column (100 mm× 2.1 mm, 1.8 μm)	SPE-UHPLC- MS/MS	0.03-1.5 ng/L	0.1-5.0 ng/L	61.2- 119.8	0.3-18.6	[55]
15 pesticide residues	cabbage and cucumber	XL C18 (50 mm×0.5 mm, silica type)	Phenomenex C18 col- umn (100 mm×2.1 mm, 1.7 μm)	TFC-HPLC- MS/MS	0.2-1.0 μg/kg	0.5-2.0 μg/kg	75.3- 103.7	0.3- 9.5	[16]
8 carbamate pesticide residues	tomato, rice, and cabbage	CAPCELL PAK C18 column (50 mm×2 mm, 15 μm)	ACQUITY UHPLC CSH C18 column (100 mm×2.1 mm, 1.7 μm)	SPE-HPLC- MS/MS	0.01-0.3 ng/mL	0.05-1.0 ng/mL	73.76- 112.32	1.28- 13.14	[56]

Analytes	Matrices	First dimension	Second dimension	On-line analysis system	LODs	LOQs	Recov- eries/%	RSDs/ %	Ref.
48 pesticide residues	wine	PS-DVB column (12.5 mm×2.1 mm, 15-20 μm)	Zorbax Eclipse XDB- C18 column (100 mm ×2.1 mm, 3.5 μm)	SPE-HPLC- MS/MS	-	0.02-2.5 μg/L	70-119	-	[52]
212 pesticides	fruits and vegetables	TurboFlow Cyclone-P (50 mm×0.5 mm, 60 μm)	Accucore aQ C18 col- umn (150 mm×2.1 mm, 2. 6 μm)	TFC-LC/ESI- Q-Orbitrap	-	0.5-5 μg/kg	58.3- 129.4	2.8- 16.0	[53]
15 amide herbicides	rice	poly(BMA-co-ED- MA) column (50 mm× 2.1 mm)	Hypersil GOLD col- umn (150 mm×2.1 mm, 5 μm)	TFC-HPLC- MS/MS	0.20-2.0 μg/kg	0.50-5.0 μg/kg	75.5- 121.3	2.89- 12.38	[54]
107 pesticides and metabolites	raw and drinking water	XBridge C18 column (30 mm×2.1 mm, 10 μm)	ACQUITY UHPLC HSS T3 column (100 mm× 2.1 mm, 1.8 μm)	SPE-UHPLC- MS/MS	0.03-1.5 ng/L	0.1-5.0 ng/L	61.2- 119.8	0.3-18.6	[55]
15 pesticide residues	cabbage and cucumber	XL C18 (50 mm×0.5 mm, silica type)	Phenomenex C18 col- umn (100 mm×2.1 mm, 1.7 μm)	TFC-HPLC- MS/MS	0.2-1.0 μg/kg	0.5-2.0 μg/kg	75.3- 103.7	0.3- 9.5	[16]
8 carbamate pesticide residues	tomato, rice, and cabbage	CAPCELL PAK C18 column (50 mm×2 mm, 15 μm)	ACQUITY UHPLC CSH C18 column (100 mm×2.1 mm, 1.7 μm)	SPE-HPLC- MS/MS	0.01-0.3 ng/mL	0.05-1.0 ng/mL	73.76- 112.32	1.28- 13.14	[56]

Analytes	Matrices	First dimension	Second dimension	On-line analysis system	LODs	LOQs	Recov- eries/%	RSDs/ %	Ref.
8 microcystins	fish	XBridge C18 Direct Connect HP column (30 mm×2.1 mm, 10 μm)	Waters Cortecs C18 column (100 mm×2.1 mm, 2.7 μm)	SPE-UHPLC- MS/MS	0.1-0.5 μg/kg	0.3-1.5 μg/kg	70.5- 98.9	1.3- 3.5	[58]
Ochratoxin A	red and white wine	Oasis MAX (20 mm× 2.1 mm, 12 μm)	Chromolith^® FastGra- dient column (50 mm ×2 mm)	SPE-UHPLC- MS/MS	0.012- 0.014 ng/mL	0.041- 0.045 ng/mL	80-88	3-6	[59]
Fumonisins	corn and wheat flour	WAX column (10 mm ×1 mm)	XBridge C18 column (150 mm×4.6 mm, 5 μm)	SPE-HPLC- MS/MS	0.08 μg/kg	0.2 μg/kg	93.9- 117.8	1.8- 9.4	[16]
Ochratoxin A	wine	PEEK tube (150 mm× 0.50 mm, C18)	XB-C18 (100 mm×2.1 mm, 2.6 μm)	In-tube SPME-HPLC- MS/MS	0.02 μg/L	0.05 μg/L	61.4- 72.8	1.15- 6.05	[60]
Aflatoxins (B1, B2, G1, and G2)	nuts, cereals, dried fruits, and spices	PEEK tube (60 cm× 0.32 mm, Supel- Q PLOT)	Zorbax Eclipse XDB- C8 column (150 mm× 4.6 mm, 5 μm)	In-tube SPME-UH- PLC-MS/MS	2.1-2.8 pg/mL	-	80.8- 109.1	1.9- 7.7	[61]
Aflatoxin M1	milk and dairy products	BioBasic C18 (20 mm ×2.0 mm, 5 μm)	Kinetex PFP column (100 mm×2.1 mm, 2.6 μm)	SPE-UHPLC-MS/MS	0.5-0.7 ng/kg	1.5-2.4 ng/kg	86-102	3-8	[62]
13 cyanotoxins	freshwater	ZIC-HILIC column (20 mm×2.1 mm, 5.0 μm)	Poroshell 120 HILIC-Z column (50 mm×2.1 mm, 1.9 μm)	SPE-HPLC- MS/MS	0.7-4.1 ng/L	1.8-8.1 ng/L	-	1.65- 13.02	[63]
Patulin	fruit juice and dried fruit	PEEK tube (60 cm× 0.32 mm, carbox- en 1006 PLOT)	Synergi MAX-RP 80A column (150 mm×4.6 mm, 4 μm)	In-tube SPME-UH- PLC-MS/MS	23.5 pg/mL		92.5- 94.4	0.95- 4.5	[64]