請用此 Handle URI 來引用此文件:
http://tdr.lib.ntu.edu.tw/jspui/handle/123456789/84298
完整後設資料紀錄
DC 欄位 | 值 | 語言 |
---|---|---|
dc.contributor.advisor | 陳家揚(Chia-Yang Chen) | |
dc.contributor.advisor | 陳家揚(Chia-Yang Chen | dbms@ntu.edu.tw | ), | |
dc.contributor.author | Jeremy Sea Meng Ang | en |
dc.contributor.author | 洪仕銘 | zh_TW |
dc.date.accessioned | 2023-03-19T22:08:02Z | - |
dc.date.copyright | 2022-10-17 | |
dc.date.issued | 2022 | |
dc.date.submitted | 2022-09-27 | |
dc.identifier.citation | 1. Farré, M., D. Barceló, and D. Barceló, Analysis of emerging contaminants in food. TrAC Trends in Analytical Chemistry, 2013. 43: p. 240-253. 2. Rather, I.A., et al., The Sources of Chemical Contaminants in Food and Their Health Implications. Frontiers in pharmacology, 2017. 8: p. 830-830. 3. Lin, W.-L., Suspect screening of organic contaminants in food using ultra-high performance liquid chromatography/quadrupole time-of-flight mass spectrometry, in Institute of Food Safety and Health. 2020, National Taiwan University. p. 100. 4. Careri, M., F. Bianchi, and C. Corradini, Recent advances in the application of mass spectrometry in food-related analysis. Journal of Chromatography A, 2002. 970(1-2): p. 3-64. 5. Stachniuk, A. and E. Fornal, Liquid chromatography-mass spectrometry in the analysis of pesticide residues in food. Food Analytical Methods, 2016. 9(6): p. 1654-1665. 6. Diallo, T., et al., Development and validation according to the SANTE guidelines of a QuEChERS-UHPLC-QTOF-MS method for the screening of 204 pesticides in bivalves. Food Chemistry, 2022. 386: p. 132871. 7. Liu, S.-Y., Screening and quantitation of environmental pollutants in serum using ultra–performance liquid chromatography/tandem mass spectrometry, in Institute of Environmental and Occupational Health Sciences. 2021, National Taiwan University. p. 1-98. 8. Au, A., Chapter two - metabolomics and lipidomics of ischemic stroke, in Advances in Clinical Chemistry, G.S. Makowski, Editor. 2018, Elsevier. p. 31-69. 9. Lozano, A., et al., Liquid chromatography–mass spectrometry analysis of pesticide residues and their metabolites in food samples, in Mass Spectrometry for the Analysis of Pesticide Residues and Their Metabolites. 2015. p. 187-205. 10. Ferrer, I. and E.M. Thurman, Application of LC–MS/MS and LC–TOF-MS for the identification of pesticide residues and their metabolites in environmental samples, in Mass Spectrometry for the Analysis of Pesticide Residues and Their Metabolites. 2015. p. 207-229. 11. Lucini, L., et al., QqQ and Q-TOF liquid chromatography mass spectrometry direct aqueous analysis of herbicides and their metabolites in water. International Journal of Mass Spectrometry, 2015. 392: p. 16-22. 12. Grimalt, S., et al., Quantification, confirmation and screening capability of UHPLC coupled to triple quadrupole and hybrid quadrupole time-of-flight mass spectrometry in pesticide residue analysis. Journal of Mass Spectrometry, 2010. 45(4): p. 421-436. 13. Bobeldijk, I., et al., Screening and identification of unknown contaminants in water with liquid chromatography and quadrupole-orthogonal acceleration-time-of-flight tandem mass spectrometry. Journal of Chromatography A, 2001. 929(1): p. 63-74. 14. Kaufmann, A., Chapter 4 - high mass resolution versus MS/MS, in Comprehensive Analytical Chemistry, A.R. Fernandez-Alba, Editor. 2012, Elsevier. p. 169-215. 15. Allen, D.R. and B.C. McWhinney, Quadrupole time-of-flight mass spectrometry: A paradigm shift in toxicology screening applications. The Clinical biochemist. Reviews, 2019. 40(3): p. 135-146. 16. Rathod, R.H., et al., Ultra-high performance liquid chromatography-MS/MS (UHPLC-MS/MS) in practice: analysis of drugs and pharmaceutical formulations. Future Journal of Pharmaceutical Sciences, 2019. 5(1): p. 6. 17. de la Guardia, M. and S. Armenta, Chapter 7 - Downsizing the methods, in Comprehensive Analytical Chemistry, M.D.L. Guardia and S. Armenta, Editors. 2011, Elsevier. p. 157-184. 18. McShane, A.J., et al., Chapter 5 - An overview of quantitative proteomic approaches, in Comprehensive Analytical Chemistry, C. Simó, A. Cifuentes, and V. García-Cañas, Editors. 2014, Elsevier. p. 111-135. 19. Batool, A. and F. Menaa, Chapter 13 - Concentration and purification of seaweed components by chromatography methods, in Sustainable Seaweed Technologies, M.D. Torres, S. Kraan, and H. Dominguez, Editors. 2020, Elsevier. p. 315-370. 20. Hird, S., et al., Liquid chromatography-mass spectrometry for the determination of chemical contaminants in food. TrAC Trends in Analytical Chemistry, 2014. 59. 21. Díaz, R., et al., Target and non-target screening strategies for organic contaminants, residues and illicit substances in food, environmental and human biological samples by UHPLC-QTOF-MS. Analytical Methods, 2012. 4(1): p. 196-209. 22. El-Deen, A.K. and K. Shimizu, Suspect and non-target screening workflow for studying the occurrence, fate, and environmental risk of contaminants in wastewater using data-independent acquisition. J Chromatogr A, 2022. 1667: p. 462905. 23. Ccanccapa-Cartagena, A., et al., Suspect, non-target and target screening of emerging pollutants using data independent acquisition: Assessment of a Mediterranean River basin. Science of The Total Environment, 2019. 687: p. 355-368. 24. US FDA, Code of federal regulations title 21 part 178. Indirect food additives: adjuvants, production aids, and sanitizers, 1977. 25. National Health Research Institutes, National food consumption database for Taiwan, NFCDT. 2017. 26. Pihlström, T., et al., Guidance document on analytical quality control and validation procedures for pesticide residues analysis in food and feed. SANCO/12571, 2013. 27. Flurer, R.A., Determination of dioctylsulfosuccinate in select seafoods using a quechers extraction with liquid chromatography-triple quadrupole mass spectrometry. 2010. 28. Chuang, W.-C., et al., Development of the analytical methods for amitraz and amitraz metabolite residues in animal products, a collaborative study. Taiwan Pesticide Science, 2020(9): p. 77-98. 29. Benkenstein, A., et al., Improvement of ethoxyquin yields and recoveries from pears through the addition of ascorbic acid. 2017. 30. Iyengar, R., C.W. Bohmont, and A.J. McEvily, 4-hexylresorcinol and prevention of shrimp blackspot: residual analyses. Journal of Food Composition and Analysis, 1991. 4(2): p. 148-157. 31. Food, T. and Drug Administration, Guidelines for the validation of analytical methods for testing chemical residues in food. 2021. 32. McMartin, D.W., et al., Evaluation of liquid chromatography–negative ion electrospray mass spectrometry for the determination of selected resin acids in river water. Journal of Chromatography A, 2002. 952(1): p. 289-293. 33. Resin and fatty acids in water – PBM. Organics 2021 [cited 2022 July 15]; Available from: https://www2.gov.bc.ca/assets/gov/environment/research-monitoring-and-reporting/monitoring/emre/methods/resin_and_fatty_acids_in_water_-_pbm.pdf. 34. Ministry of Health and Welfare. Standards for pesticide residue limits in foods. Laws & Regulaltions Database of The Republic of China (Taiwan) 2022 2022]; June 30]. Available from: https://law.moj.gov.tw/ENG/LawClass/LawAll.aspx?pcode=L0040083. 35. Ministry of Health and Welfare. Standards for pesticide residue limits in animal products. Laws & Regulaltions Database of The Republic of China (Taiwan) 2022 [cited 2022 June 30]; Available from: https://law.moj.gov.tw/ENG/LawClass/LawAll.aspx?pcode=L0040078. 36. European Food Safety Authority, P. Medina-Pastor, and G. Triacchini, The 2018 European Union report on pesticide residues in food. EFSA Journal, 2020. 18(4): p. e06057. 37. Choubbane, H., et al., Pesticides in fruits and vegetables from the Souss Massa region, Morocco. Food Additives & Contaminants: Part B, 2022. 15(2): p. 79-88. 38. Guo, X., et al., Residue dynamics and risk assessment of pyraclostrobin in rice, plants, hulls, field soil, and paddy water. Human and Ecological Risk Assessment: An International Journal, 2017. 23(1): p. 67-81. 39. Phopin, K., et al., Boiling, Blanching, and Stir-Frying Markedly Reduce Pesticide Residues in Vegetables. Foods (Basel, Switzerland), 2022. 11(10): p. 1463. 40. Kumar, R. and B. Singh, Persistence and metabolism of fipronil in rice (Oryza sativa Linnaeus) field. Bulletin of Environmental Contamination and Toxicology, 2013. 90(4): p. 482-488. 41. Mandal, K. and B. Singh, Persistence and metabolism of fipronil in sugarcane leaves and juice. Bulletin of Environmental Contamination and Toxicology, 2014. 92(2): p. 220-224. 42. Carrasco Cabrera, L. and P. Medina Pastor, The 2019 European Union report on pesticide residues in food. EFSA Journal, 2021. 19(4): p. e06491. 43. Lin, S., et al., Dissipation and residue of fosthiazate in tomato and cherry tomato and a risk assessment of dietary intake. Environmental Science and Pollution Research, 2022. 29(6): p. 9248-9256. 44. Wu, J., K. Wang, and H. Zhang, Residues and dissipation dynamics of fosthiazate in tomato and soil. Bulletin of Environmental Contamination and Toxicology, 2012. 89(3): p. 664-668. 45. Kurai, T. Japan 241st food safety group. FAS/USDA. Available at https://www.fas.usda.gov/data/japan-japan-241st-food-safety-group 2021 [cited 2022 July 15]. 46. Liu, W., et al., Bioactive anthraquinones found in plant foods interact with human serum albumin and inhibit the formation of advanced glycation endproducts. Journal of Food Bioactives, 2018. 4: p. 130-138. 47. Wang, X., et al., 9,10-Anthraquinone deposit in tea plantation might be one of the reasons for contamination in tea. Food Chemistry, 2018. 244: p. 254-259. 48. IARC Working Group on the Evaluation of Carcinogenic Risks to Humans, Some chemicals present in industrial and consumer products, food and drinking-water. IARC monographs on the evaluation of carcinogenic risks to humans, 2013. 101: p. 9. 49. Nagafuchi, O., K. Murakami, and M. Ukita, Evaluation of the clastogenicity of isoprothiolane and pyroquilon using the mouse micronuclei test. Toxicological & Environmental Chemistry, 2004. 86(2): p. 101-104. 50. Srivastava, D., et al., Current status of conventional and molecular interventions for blast resistance in rice. Rice Science, 2017. 24(6): p. 299-321. 51. Chen, G., et al., Dissipation rates, residue distribution and dietary risk assessment of isoprothiolane and tebuconazole in paddy field using UPLC-MS/MS. International Journal of Environmental Analytical Chemistry, 2020: p. 1-13. 52. Chau, N.D.G., et al., Multi-residue analytical method for trace detection of new-generation pesticides in vegetables using gas chromatography–tandem mass spectrometry. Journal of Environmental Science and Health, Part B, 2020. 55(5): p. 417-428. 53. Howard, P.H. and D.C.G. Muir, Identifying new persistent and bioaccumulative organics among chemicals in commerce II: pharmaceuticals. Environmental Science & Technology, 2011. 45(16): p. 6938-6946. 54. Casano, A., Endocrine disruptive effects of the progestin norethindrone in the marine mussel (Mytilus galloprovincialis). 2013. 55. EFSA Panel on Additives, P.o.S.u.i.A.F., et al., Safety and efficacy of a feed additive consisting of ethoxyquin (6-ethoxy-1,2-dihydro-2,2,4-trimethylquinoline) for all animal species (FEFANA asbl). EFSA Journal, 2022. 20(3): p. e07166. 56. Choi, Y.H., et al., Residue analysis and risk assessment of ethoxyquin and ethoxyquin dimer in farmed fish. Korean Journal of Food Science and Technology, 2021. 53(3): p. 239-244. 57. US FDA, Code of federal regulations title 21 part 172. Food additives permitted for direct addition to food for human consumption, section, 1977. 172. 58. Davinelli, S., M.E. Nielsen, and G. Scapagnini, Astaxanthin in Skin Health, Repair, and Disease: A Comprehensive Review. Nutrients, 2018. 10(4). 59. Dallegrave, A., et al., Residue of insecticides in foodstuff and dietary exposure assessment of Brazilian citizens. Food and Chemical Toxicology, 2018. 115: p. 329-335. 60. Orlando, E. and L. Ellestad, Sources, concentrations, and exposure effects of environmental gestagens on fish and other aquatic wildlife with an emphasis on reproduction. General and Comparative Endocrinology, 2014. 203. 61. Castle, L., et al., Migration studies from paper and board food packaging materials. 1. Compositional analysis. Food Addit Contam, 1997. 14(1): p. 35-44. 62. Ozaki, A., T. Ooshima, and Y. Mori, Migration of dehydroabietic and abietic acids from paper and paperboard food packaging into food-simulating solvents and Tenax TA. Food Additives & Contaminants, 2006. 23(8): p. 854-860. 63. Jakobsen, J. and T. Christensen, Natural vitamin D in food: to what degree does 25-hydroxyvitamin D contribute to the vitamin D activity in food? JBMR Plus, 2021. 5(1): p. e10453. 64. Dunlop, E., et al., Vitamin D composition of Australian foods. Food Chemistry, 2021. 358: p. 129836. 65. Marklund, A., B. Andersson, and P. Haglund, Organophosphorus flame retardants and plasticizers in air from various indoor environments. Journal of Environmental Monitoring, 2005. 7(8): p. 814-819. 66. Marklund, A., B. Andersson, and P. Haglund, Organophosphorus flame retardants and plasticizers in swedish sewage treatment plants. Environmental Science & Technology, 2005. 39(19): p. 7423-7429. 67. Ding, J., et al., Residuals of organophosphate esters in foodstuffs and implication for human exposure. Environmental Pollution, 2018. 233: p. 986-991. 68. Petersen, J.H. and T. Breindahl, Plasticizers in total diet samples, baby food and infant formulae. Food Addit Contam, 2000. 17(2): p. 133-41. | |
dc.identifier.uri | http://tdr.lib.ntu.edu.tw/jspui/handle/123456789/84298 | - |
dc.description.abstract | 人類可能藉由食物的攝取暴露於各種食物生產過程中的污染物,例如殺蟲劑與工業污染物,進而產生危害。因此,為了確保消費者的安全,全面的食物安全檢測極為重要。非標的性分析和標的性定量分析的整合被描述為一種可以快速篩檢和定量食品中出現的環境污染物。 先前的研究以超高效能液相層析搭配四極桿-飛行時間串聯式質譜儀(UHPLC-QTOF-MS) 進行對食物中化學污染物殘留之篩查。該研究也針對篩查出之化學物質,以其各種資料做為參考依據,建置了優先化學品清單。先前的研究僅限於非標的性分析;因此,本研究旨在延續之前的研究,使用了極致液相層析/串聯式質譜儀(UPLC-QqQ-MS) 定量先前研究已優先化之物質,以確定食物中關注化學物質的濃度。先前已優先化之物質包括11種農藥,10種人類與動物用藥,4種食物添加劑,3種蒽醌類物質,2種有機磷系阻燃劑,1種黴菌毒素,1種塑化劑及1種工業化學物,共33種化學物質。 本研究個別從台北市區、彰化縣大二林地區及連江縣南竿鎮採集了23項食材(7種蔬菜、7種海鮮、3種肉類、豬肝、蛋、奶、米、麵粉、黃豆)。三地區個別採集一次,採集了共127個樣本進行食物中化學污染物殘留之定量分析。為了與先前非標的性分析研究之定性結果做比較,彰化縣與連江縣之食物樣本的採樣管道皆與之前相同,並在此基礎上增加了台北市之採樣。採買時間分別為2022年2月至2022年3月。 為了達到與先前研究的一致性,本研究應用了先前優化之樣本萃取及淨化方法。食物樣本以QuEChERS方法萃取,PRiME HLB cartridge淨化後,使用了Waters I-Class PLUS極致液相層析(ultra-performance liquid chromatography, UPLC)搭配Waters Xevo TQ-XS串聯式質譜儀,以 ESI+ 與 ESI- 游離對該33個優先化合物進行定量分析。其UPLC 和 MS 參數經過優化後,使用了 Waters CORTECS (30 × 2.1 mm, 1.6 μm)層析液相管柱,有機動相為甲醇,水性動相為5-mM醋酸銨溶液 (pH 6.44),梯度流析流速0.4 mL/min。檢量線的線性範圍為 0.1 至 500 ng/mL。 本研究也針對先前研究之 QuEChERS 方法進行方法確效,27中待測物在食物中的基質效應大致為60–140%,萃取效率為40–70%。大部分物質之同日和異日回收率在80–120%,且變異係數 (CV%)低於20%。對於真實樣本分析為藉由通過與標準品比對在食物中測的化學物質之2個離子對 (2個產物離子) 和層析波峰的滯留時間來確認,且滯留時間的漂移容忍度為 0.1分鐘。 實際樣本分析結果顯示,農藥是殘留於蔬菜中的主要環境污染物,但殘留濃度普遍低於2 ng/g。在蔬菜中檢測到含量最高的農藥是賓克隆(在白菜中殘留量為 367 ng/g)。工業化學物、飼料添加劑和人類與動物用藥是海鮮產品中的主要污染物。 此研究也32 個海鮮樣本中7個樣本中檢測出松香酸(檢測濃度為 23.0 - 88.8 ng/g)。 除此之外,在40%的鮭魚樣品中檢測到衣索金,平均濃度為 14.8 ng/g。 對於穀物和塊根作物樣本,此研究分別在 17 個樣本中的 5 個樣本和 8 個樣品中檢測出蒽醌類物質和有機磷系阻燃劑。 工業化學品,例如松香酸和己二酸二(2-乙基己基) (DEHA) 酯遍存在於畜禽產品中。 6個豬肝樣本中的5個樣本被檢測出松香酸,平均濃度為 410 ng/g,31個的畜禽產品樣本中的23個被檢測出 DEHA,濃度範圍為0.42 到 38.7 ng/g。 本研究結果發現大部分食物樣本含有被先前研究排序優先之化學物,證明了非標的性篩查在食物中應用的可行性。此外,大部分農藥殘留皆符合最大殘留容許量標準 (MRL),表明了日常生活食物中的污染物暴露風險較低。綜合上述結果證明了非標的性篩查與標的性定量分析的整合適用於分析食物中多重污染物殘留。 | zh_TW |
dc.description.abstract | Humans may be exposed to different contaminants, including pesticides and industrial chemicals, through food consumption due to contamination in various stages of food production. As a result, a comprehensive protocol for monitoring chemical substances in food is required to ensure consumer safety. The combination of non-target screening and target analysis was described as a strategic approach that consists of identifying and quantifying emerging environmental pollutants in food. The workflow of suspect screening of organic contaminants in food using ultra-high performance liquid chromatography/quadrupole time-of-flight mass spectrometry (UHPLC-QTOF-MS) was developed in the previous study. The chemicals identified by the suspect screening were ranked and prioritized by taking empirical data and external information of the chemicals into consideration. The scope of the previous study was limited to non-target analysis. Therefore, this study aimed to continue from previous work by quantifying the previous prioritized chemicals using ultra-performance liquid chromatography/tandem mass spectrometry (UPLC-QqQ-MS) in food. The 33 previous prioritized chemicals included 11 pesticides, 10 human and veterinary medicines, four food additives, three fungal anthraquinones, two organophosphate flame retardants, one mycotoxin, one plasticizer, and one industrial chemical. A total of three batches of food samples (127 samples) were collected in Taipei, Changhua, and Matsu from February 2022 to March 2022. Twenty-three types of food were obtained in the above three areas, including seven vegetables, seven seafood, three types of meat, pork liver, egg, milk, rice, flour, and soybean. Sampling sites and vendors were the same as in the previous study of qualification analysis (Changhua County, Lienchiang County), with the addition of Taipei City in this study. The sample preparation method optimized in the previous study was applied in this study to quantify the 33 prioritized compounds. The homogenized samples were extracted with QuEChERS and cleaned up with PRiME HLB, then according to the results of previous results, 33 compounds were selected for further targeted quantitative analysis. The analytes were measured using Waters UPLC I-Class PLUS coupled with a Waters Xevo TQ-XS tandem mass spectrometer (UPLC-MS/MS) at positive electrospray ionization (ESI+) and negative electrospray ionization (ESI-). UPLC and MS parameters were fully optimized and Waters CORTECS C18 column (30 × 2.1, 1.6 μm) with mobile phases of (A) 5-mM ammonium acetate(aq) (pH 6.44) and (B) methanol were used at a flow rate of 0.4 mL/min. The linear ranges of calibration curves were from 0.1 to 500 ng/mL, with the correlation of determination (r2) greater than 0.990. The optimized QuEChERS methods were validated for matrix effects, extraction efficiencies, intra-day, inter-day accuracy and precision. The general matrix effects and extraction efficiencies of the 27 analytes ranged from 60 to 140% and 40 to 70%, respectively. Most analytes have recoveries of inter- and intra-day of 80-120% and coefficient of variation (CV%) below 20%. For real sample analysis, the identity of the analytes was confirmed by two MS/MS transitions (2 product ions of precursor ion), and the difference of retention time between the detected analytes and standard substances must not exceed the tolerance limit of 0.1 min. For real sample analysis, pesticides were the major types of environmental pollutants detected in vegetables, and the concentrations were generally lower than 2 ng/g. The highest level of pesticides detected in vegetables was pencycuron (367 ng/g in bokchoy). Industrial chemicals, feed additives, and human and veterinary drugs were the main pollutants in seafood products. Abietic acid was detected in 7 out of 32 seafood samples (ranged from 23.0 to 88.8 ng/g), and ethoxyquin was detected in 40% of salmon samples with an average concentration of 14.8 ng/g. For grains and root crops, fungal anthraquinones and OPFRS were detected in 5 samples out of 17 samples and 8 samples out of 17 samples, respectively. Industrial chemicals, abietic acid, and DEHA were prevalent in livestock and poultry products. 5 out of 6 pork liver samples have detected abietic acid with an average concentration of 410 ng/g, and 23 out of 31 of all livestock and poultry products have detected DEHA, ranged from 0.42 to 38.7 ng/g. All samples have been discovered with substantial concentrations of contaminants, and compounds flagged as prioritized chemicals previously were generally found to have residue in food samples in this study. This result indicates that suspect screening is a feasible approach to facilitate the detection of organic contaminants in food by reducing the time and money spent on identifying all potential organic contaminants in food. Furthermore, most of the pesticide residuals in food commodities in this study complied with the MRL requirements, suggesting that the exposure risks of these contaminants were low in our daily life. All the above findings proved that the combination of suspect screening and target quantification analysis was fit to evaluate a variety of organic compounds in food samples. | en |
dc.description.provenance | Made available in DSpace on 2023-03-19T22:08:02Z (GMT). No. of bitstreams: 1 U0001-2509202222465200.pdf: 6685307 bytes, checksum: 357752a186253876e458ae3069c037b5 (MD5) Previous issue date: 2022 | en |
dc.description.tableofcontents | 口試委員會審定書 i 誌謝 ii 中文摘要 iii Abstract v Contents ix List of Figures xii List of Tables xiii Chapter 1 Introduction 1 1.1 Background 1 1.2 Previous work done 1 1.3 UPLC– QqQ‐MS and UHPLC– QTOF‐MS 2 1.4 Non-targeted screening, suspect screening, and target analysis 4 1.5 Previous prioritized chemicals 6 1.6 Objectives 6 Chapter 2. Material and Methods 8 2.1 Reagents and materials 8 2.2 Sample collection and storage 11 2.2.1 Food sampling area 11 2.2.2 Sample collection and storage 12 2.3 Sample preparation 13 2.4 Instrument analysis 15 2.4.1 Mass spectrometry 15 2.4.2 Chromatography 16 2.5 Method validation 17 2.5.1 Matrix effect and extraction efficiency 17 2.5.2 Accuracy and precision 19 2.6 Identification, quantitation and data analysis 19 2.7 Quality assurance and quality control 22 Chapter 3. Results and Discussions 25 3.1 Confirmation of the identity of detected chemicals 25 3.2 Method optimization 25 3.2.1 Selection of ionization mode, columns and mobile phases 25 3.3 Method validation 27 3.3.1 Matrix effect and extraction efficiency 27 3.3.2 Accuracy and precision 29 3.4 Real samples analysis 30 3.4.1 Quantification of pollutants in priority chemicals list for vegetable groups 31 3.4.2 Quantification of pollutants in priority chemicals list for grains and root crops 35 3.4.3 Quantification of pollutants in priority chemicals list for seafood 37 3.4.4 Quantification of pollutants in priority chemicals list for poultry and livestock 41 3.5 Limitation 43 Chapter 4. Conclusions 45 References 47 Figures 58 Tables 82 | |
dc.language.iso | en | |
dc.title | 以極致液相層析/串聯式質譜術定量食品中之有機污染物 | zh_TW |
dc.title | Quantification of Organic Contaminants in Food Using Ultra-Performance Liquid Chromatography/Tandem Mass Spectrometry | en |
dc.type | Thesis | |
dc.date.schoolyear | 110-2 | |
dc.description.degree | 碩士 | |
dc.contributor.author-orcid | 0000-0002-3414-4374 | |
dc.contributor.oralexamcommittee | 陳珮珊(Pai-Shan Chen),陳宏彰(Hong-Jhang Chen),原田浩二(Kouji Harada) | |
dc.subject.keyword | 有機污染物,食品,PRiME HLB,極致液相層析/串聯式質譜儀,定量分析, | zh_TW |
dc.subject.keyword | Organic contaminants,food,PRiME HLB,UPLC-QqQ-MS,target analysis,quantification, | en |
dc.relation.page | 138 | |
dc.identifier.doi | 10.6342/NTU202204024 | |
dc.rights.note | 同意授權(限校園內公開) | |
dc.date.accepted | 2022-09-27 | |
dc.contributor.author-college | 公共衛生學院 | zh_TW |
dc.contributor.author-dept | 食品安全與健康研究所 | zh_TW |
dc.date.embargo-lift | 2027-09-25 | - |
顯示於系所單位: | 食品安全與健康研究所 |
文件中的檔案:
檔案 | 大小 | 格式 | |
---|---|---|---|
U0001-2509202222465200.pdf 目前未授權公開取用 | 6.53 MB | Adobe PDF | 檢視/開啟 |
系統中的文件,除了特別指名其著作權條款之外,均受到著作權保護,並且保留所有的權利。