DOI: 10.17344/acsi.2016.2451 Acta Chim. Slov. 2016, 63, 747-756 747 Scientific paper Comparison of ELISA, HPLC-FLD and HPLC-MS/MS Methods for Determination of Aflatoxin M1 in Natural Contaminated Milk Samples Jovana Kos,1* Elizabet Jani} Hajnal,1 Igor Jaji},2 Sa{a Krstovi},2 Jasna Mastilovi},1 Bojana [ari}1 and Pavle Jovanov1 1 Institute of Food Technology, University of Novi Sad, Bulevar cara Lazara 1, 21000 Novi Sad, Serbia 2 Faculty of Agriculture, University of Novi Sad, Trg Dositelja Obradovica 8, 21000 Novi Sad, Serbia * Corresponding author: E-mail: jovana.kos@fins.uns.ac.rs Tel: + 381 21 485 3837; Fax: +381 21 450 725 Received: 21-03-2016 Abstract Presence of aflatoxin Ml (AFM1) in milk should be continuously controlled in order to protect the population from risks associated with its proven toxicity and carcinogenicity. During recent years, there has been an increase in demand for development of sensitive, accurate, simple and fast method which is reliable for detection of AFM1 at low concentrations found in milk samples. For that purpose, enzyme linked immunosorbent asssay (ELISA), high performance liquid chromatography with fluorescence detector (HPLC-FLD) and high performance liquid chromatography-tandem mass spectrometry (HPLC-MS/MS) were optimized and validated in order to apply them for AFM1 analysis in naturally contaminated milk samples, and to assess the closeness of agreement between results of three different methods. The obtained validation parameters indicate that all three methods are suitable for determination of AFM1 in milk samples. The statistical analysis of variance between the methods and the obtained correlation coefficients indicate that there is a strong correlation between methods. All three methods are satisfactory in meeting the requirements for official control purposes. To the best of author's knowledge, this study represents the first report of an investigation and comparison of ELISA, HPLC-FLD and HPLC-MS/MS methods for determination of AFM1 in naturally contaminated milk samples. Keywords: Milk, aflatoxin Ml, ELISA, HPLC-FLD, HPLC-MS/MS 1. Introduction Aflatoxins (AFs) are one of the main groups of myco-toxins due to their toxicity and prevalence in food and feed. Among eighteen identified AFs,1 aflatoxin Ml (AFM1) has demonstrated the greatest potential for presence in the human diet since it is commonly found as contaminant of milk, which is consumed daily. Furthermore, due to high intake of milk, infants and children are the population most susceptible to the effects of AFM1.2 AFM1 is the 4-hy-droxy derivative of AFB1, formed in liver and excreted into the milk in the mammary glands of lactating animals that have been fed with AFB1 contaminated diet.3,4 Since AFs mainly occur in tropical and subtropical regions where temperature and humidity are favorable for the growth of Aspergillus species and production of the toxins,5 the greatest numbers of published studies regarding AFs occurrence are from Mediterranean and Middle East regions.6 Even though environmental conditions in Serbia in previous decade were not favorable for Aspergillus growth and AFs production,7,8 changes in weather conditions in Serbia during year 2012 had a great influence on the occurrence of AFs in maize9,10 and AFM1 in milk samples.11 Determined concentrations of AFM1 in milk samples was very high and risk assessment analysis showed that all age categories, especially children, are exposed with high risk related to presence of AFM1 in milk. Presence of aflatoxins in the food chain had led to the "af-latoxins crisis" in the country. During that year, there has been an increase in demand for finding of simple, accurate and fast method which is reliable for detection of AFM1 at concentrations found in milk samples. Kos et al.: Comparison of ELISA, HPLC-FLD and HPLC-MS/MS 748 Acta Chim. Slov. 2016, 63, 747-756 Considering that AFM1 was included in the first group of compounds by carcinogenicity12 and milk and its derivates are consumed daily, most countries have set maximum level (ML) of AFM1 in milk. ML of AFM1 in milk varies from 0.05 pg/kg in European Union13 to 0.5 pg/kg established in United States.14 Regulation for ML of AFM1 in milk in Serbia15 was recently harmonized with European Union (EU) Regulation and adapted.13 However, the presence of AFM1 in milk during January and February 2013 resulted in Regulation changes. During March 2013, Serbian Government changed previous ML of AFM1 from 0.05 pg/kg to 0.5 pg/kg.16 Since AFM1 has proven toxic effects at very low concentrations there is a need for sensitive, reliable and accurate analytical method for its determination.17 A number of analytical methods for the determination of AFM1 are available in the literature. Numerous studies in the recent years highlighted enzyme linked immunosorbent assay (ELISA) as the most frequently used technique for that purpose, followed by high performance liquid chromatography with fluorescence detector (HPLC-FLD) and liquid chromatography-tandem mass spectrometry (HPLC-MS/MS).18,19 Thin layer chromatography is almost abandoned as a technique since it is reliable for detection of AFM1 only for concentration above or around 0.05 pg/kg.20 Further, recent studies have resulted in publication of a several biosensor-based methods for AFM1 determination in milk samples.21, 22 ELISA is defined as routine screening method which may be performed with a great number of commercially available test kits (Neogen Veratox®, Lansing, USA; Tecna S. r. l., Trieste, Italy; Ridascreen, R-Biopharm, Darmstad, Germany; Immunolab GmbH, Kassel, Germany; etc.). The major advantages of ELISA method are minimal sample clean-up and preparation, simple measurement procedure and low cost. However, the major disadvantage of ELISA method is possible cross-reactivity to similar compounds. Therefore, to avoid risk of obtaining false-positive results, confirmation by liquid chromatography based procedure is required.23,24 On the other hand, HPLC-FLD and HPLC-MS/MS methods for analysis of AFM1 need a clean-up process, usually using immunoaffinity columns (IAC) before detection. This step is mainly multistage, expensive and time-consuming. Furthermore, both techniques have to be operated by highly trained analysts and require the use of expensive analytical instruments.25 In general, HPLC-FLD and HPLC-MS/MS represent the most widespread analytical techniques for quantitative purpose and also offer significant advantages over other techniques since they provide good sensitivity and detection of trace level of to- xins. 26-29 Furthermore, selection of an appropriate sample preparation and pre-concentration method are crucial steps for the isolation of AFM1 from the sample and qua- litative and quantitative determination. In addition, the emphasis in the field of sample preparation during the last few decades has been focused on the minimization of solvent use, procedure steps, sample size and time of analysis.30 Whichever sample preparation procedure and technique for the determination of AFM1 are selected, the whole procedure must be validated according to European Decision24 and Technical Report CEN/TR 16059:2010 from European Committee for Standardiza- 31 tion. Despite the continuous development in the field of the mycotoxins analysis it should be noted that one of the main encountered problems is a heterogeneous distribution of mycotoxins in the sample. It is well known that total error of the mycotoxin test procedure represents the sum of sampling, sample preparation and analytical errors.32 For that purpose, European Regula-tion33 have defined protocols for sampling with the aim to provide representative sample for analysis. Those protocols are mainly confirmed for solid samples, especially cereals and nuts. However, to our knowledge, distribution of mycotoxins within the liquid samples was rarely investigated. Furthermore, there is a lack of data regarding comparison of the performance of ELISA, HPLC-FLD and HPLC-MS/MS methods for AFM1 determination. For that purpose, the aim of this study was to validate and check performance of three different methods and to apply them for AFM1 analysis in naturally contaminated milk samples. 2. Experimental 2. 1. Samples The heat-treated skimmed (milk fat content 0.5%) and semi-skimmed (milk fat content from 0.8% to 1.2%) milk samples were analyzed in this study. Samples were collected from supermarkets in Novi Sad (Republic of Serbia) during the same day in July 2013. The examined samples were produced by two out of six largest dairy producers in Serbia. Immediately after collection, the samples were transported to the laboratory. Before analysis, the whole amount of samples in original packing material was mixed on horizontal shaker (Benchmark Scientific, Orbi Shaker, Edison, USA) in order to ensure homogeneity of the samples. After opening, the milk samples were analyzed using ELISA method and prepared for HPLC/FLD and LC-MS/MS analysis. The prepared samples were then analyzed during the same day on previously development and validated HPLC/FLD and LC-MS/MS methods. Out of thirty milk samples analyzed using ELISA technique, fifteen were selected for further analysis, with the aim to cover three different ranges of AFM1 concentrations: < 0.1 pg/kg, 0.1-0.4 pg/kg and > 0.4 pg/kg. Kos et al.: Comparison of ELISA, HPLC-FLD and HPLC-MS/MS ... Acta Chim. Slov. 2016, 63, 747-756 749 2. 2. Chemicals and Reagents Determination of AFM1 by ELISA has been done using Test kit I'screen AFLAM1 (Tecna S. r. l., Trieste, Italy). For HPLC analysis, acetonitrile, methanol and n-hexane (all HPLC grade, purity > 99.9%) were purchased from Merck (Darmstadt, Germany). Trifluoroacetic acid (TFA, purity > 99.5%) and formic acid (purity > 99.9%) were obtained from Thermo Fisher Scientific (Cheshire, United Kingdom) and from Carlo Erba (Milan, Italy), respectively. Methanol (LC-MS grade) obtained from J. T. Baker (Deventer, The Netherlands) and ammonium format (elu-ent additive for LC-MS, purity >99.0%) from Fluka Analytical (Sigma-Aldrich, Steinheim, USA) were used for HPLC-MS/MS analysis. Ultra-pure water was produced by Milli-Q purification system (Milli-Q from Millipore, USA). AFM1 standard with certificated concentration of 10 pg/mL was purchased from Sigma Aldrich (Prague, Czech Republic). Standard solutions were prepared in acetonitrile and stored at -10 °C. Those solutions were used for solvent based calibration (for HPLC-FLD and HPLC-MS/MS), matrix-matched calibration (for HPLC-MS/MS) and for fortification of blank milk samples (for ELISA, HPLC-FLD, HPLC-MS/MS). Standards for HPLC-MS/MS matrix-matched calibration (MMC) were prepared by adding appropriate volumes of working standard solution to blank milk samples at the final reconstitution step, over the range from the limit of quantification (LOQ) to 100 ng/mL. The standard solutions were stored under refrigerated conditions (4 °C). Partially defatted raw lyophilized milk was used as certified reference material (CRM) (MI1142-1/CM, Progetto Trieste, Test Veritas, Padova, Italy). 2. 3. Sample Preparation and Determination of AFM1 by ELISA Method Milk samples were prepared according to the test kit manufacturer's instructions. Samples were centrifuged at 3000 g for 10 min (Tehtnica, Slovenia). Since all analyzed milk samples in this study were passed through homoge-nization process during production in dairies, centrifuga-tion did not influence separation of phases. 100 pL of the milk was used for the analysis. Determination of AFM1 was done by ELISA method using I 'screen AFLAM1 test kit (Tecna S. r. l., Trieste, Italy). Analyses were performed according to the test kits instructions. Procedure is based on binding of free AFM1 from samples and standard solutions to the anti-AFM1 antibodies during first incubation. Any unbound substance is removed in a washing step. A second incubation is performed with an aflatoxin-HRP conjugate, which covers all the remaining free binding sites of the antibody. The bound enzyme activity is determined by adding a fixed amount of a chromogenic substrate. The enzyme converts the colorless chromogen into a blue product during the third incubation. The addition of the stop reagent leads to a color change from blue to yellow. The absorbance is measured by a microplate reader (Thermolabsystem, Thermo, Finland) at 450 nm. The color development is inversely proportional to the AFM1 concentration in the sample. Concentration of AFM1 was calculated from calibration curve which was obtained using 7 standards with the following concentrations: 0, 5, 10, 25, 50, 100 and 250 ng/L. Samples with AFM1 concentration greater than 250 ng/L were diluted with sample diluent solution from the test kit and analyzed again. 2. 4. Sample Preparation for HPLC and HPLC-MS/MS Fifty mL of warm milk (30-35 °C) was filtered through a Whatman No. 4 filter paper (Whatman International Ltd., Maidstone, UK) and applied to the AflaStar™ Ml R-Immunoaffinity Columns (IAC) (Romer Labs Inc., Union, MO, USA). Flow rate of the milk was approximately 1-3 mL/min. After the milk completely passed, IAC was rinsed with 20 mL of ultra-pure water. The AFM1 was eluted with 2 mL of methanol. Eluate was collected and evaporated to dryness under gentle stream of nitrogen. Since AFM1 in milk samples occurs in low concentrations, post derivatization step for enhancing its fluorescence on HPLC-FLD is required.34 This was achieved by adding 100 pL of TFA and 200 pL n-hexane to the residue from the evaporated methanol eluate or to the AFM1 working standards, vortexing for 30 s (BOECO, Germany), and keeping in the dark for 10 min at 40 °C. After evaporation, 400 pL of wather:ace-tonitrile (75:25, v/v) mixture was added to the vials and vortexed for 30 s. For HPLC-MS/MS analysis the residue was reconstituted with 400 pL of initial mobile phase. 2. 4. 1. Determination of AFM1 by HPLC The HPLC instrument used for determination was an Agilent 1200 (Agilent Technologies Inc., USA) system equipped with fluorescence detector (FLD), Chemstation Software (Agilent Technologies), binary pump, vacuum degasser, auto sampler and Agilent column (Eclipse XDB-C18, 1.8 pm, 4.6 x 50 mm). The mobile phase consisted of an isocratic mixture of water/acetonitrile (75:25, v/v) and flow rate was 0.25 mL/min. Fifteen microliters of standards and samples were injected onto the HPLC column. The fluorescence detector was set to excitation and emission wavelengths of 360 and 423 nm, respectively. The retention time of AFM1 was 3.8 min. Typical chro-matograms of AFM1 standard and naturally contaminated milk sample are shown in Figure 1. Kos et al.: Comparison of ELISA, HPLC-FLD and HPLC-MS/MS ... 750 Acta Chim. Slov. 2016, 63, 747-756 Time (min) Figure 1. HPLC-FLD chromatograms of AFM1 standard (100 ng/mL) and naturally contaminated milk sample no. 14 2. 4. 2. Determination of AFM1 by HPLC-MS/MS For HPLC-MS/MS analysis, the same HPLC system was coupled to the mass spectrometer Agilent 6410 Triple Quad LC/MS (Agilent Technologies Inc., USA). Mass spectrometer was operated with a multimode interface in positive ion mode. MassHunter workstation software version B.03.01 (Agilent Technologies Inc., USA) was used for the control of equipment, data acquisition and analysis. The following ionization conditions were used: drying gas (nitrogen) temperature 325 °C and flow rate 5 L/min, vaporizer 200 °C, nebulizer pressure 50 psi and capillary voltage 2500 V. Fragmentor voltages and collision energies were optimized during infusion of the pure standard, in the multiple reaction monitoring (MRM) mode to find precursor ion and two most intensive product ions for quantitation and qualitation. The utilized MRM transitions (precursor ion m/z ^ quantifier and qualifier m/z) were 329.1^273.1 and 329.1^259.1 (fragmentor 150 V, collision energy 20 eV) for AFM1. The mobile phase consisted of eluent A containing methanol/formic acid (99:1, v/v) and eluent B consisting of ultra pure water/formic acid (99:1, v/v). Both eluents contained 5 mM ammonium formate. The linear gradient Figure 2. Extracted MRM quantifying ion (273.1) chromatograms of AFM1 standard (100 ng/mL) and naturally contaminated milk sample no. 14 Kos et al.: Comparison of ELISA, HPLC-FLD and HPLC-MS/MS ... Acta Chim. Slov. 2016, 63, 747-756 751 program was applied from the beginning until 3.5 min with a decrease of B from 70% to 20%. Further, increase of B up to 70% was achieved in following 6 min with holdup time of 2 min. The retention time of AFM1 was 4.85 min. Typical chromatograms of AFM1 standard and naturally contaminated milk sample are shown in Figure 2. Matrix effects were compensated by the use of matrix-matched calibration (MMC). MMC standards were prepared by adding appropriate volumes of AFM1 standard solution to blank milk samples at the final reconstitution step. 2. 5. Validation Procedure The analytical quality of the applied analytical procedures was assured by the analysis of certified reference material (CRM) as well as spiked uncontaminated milk samples. Partially defatted raw lyophilized milk with certified AFM1 content of 0.053 pg/kg was used as CRM (MI1142-1/CM, Progetto Trieste, Test Veritas, Padova, Italy). Uncontaminated milk samples were spiked with an appropriate amount of AFM1 standards in triplicates at three concentration levels (0.05 pg/kg, 0.5 pg/kg, 1.0 pg/kg). Those samples were left overnight in the refrigerator prior to analysis. The validation parameters for the applied ELISA, HPLC-FLD and HPLC-MS/MS methods were determined, calculated and expressed according to Commission Decision procedure for screening and confirmatory methods,24 as well as to Technical Report CEN/TR 16059:2010 from European Committee for Standardization.31 The proposed analytical procedures were validated with the respect to limit of detection (LOD), limit of quantification (LOQ), recovery, repeatability and reproducibi-lity. Linearity was evaluated for HPLC-FLD and HPLC-MS/MS analytical procedures. Furthermore, specificity and selectivity of the HPLC-MS/MS method were characterized after analysis of matrix-matched samples. Performance characteristics of the procedures were evaluated using CRM and spiked blank milk samples. 2. 6. Statistical Analysis Statistical analysis of variance was carried out by Duncan's multiple comparison tests using STATISTICA software version 12.35 P values < 0.05 were regarded as significant. 3. Results and Discussion It is evident from the Table 1 that the determined LOD and LOQ values for applied methods were significantly lower than ML established by European Union13 (0.05 pg/kg) which indicates that proposed methods were suitable for determination of AFM1 at very low concentration. Furthermore, LOQs for all three procedures were less than the proposed LOQ (0.02 pg/kg) for AFM1 according Technical Report CEN/TR 16059:2010.31 According to 2002/657/EC24 trueness of the methods were expressed after analysis of CRM. Although it is acceptable that true-ness of measurements is assessed through recovery of additions of known amounts of the analyte to the unknown samples it should be pointed that the added analyte is not chemically bound in the real matrix and that therefore results obtained by this approach have lesser validity than those achieved through the use of CRM. As can be seen from the Table 1, the obtained recovery values were in accordance with recovery range (60-120%) given in Commission Decision33 as well as in CEN/TR 16059:201031 (50-120%) report. Further, relative standard deviations calculated under repeatability conditions (RSDr) using CRM analysis are shown in Table 1 and those values were in accordance with the mentioned criteria. Relative standard deviations under reproducibility conditions (RSDR) were not determined after CRM analysis due to the small amount of available CRM. The accuracy and precision of the methods were evaluated after analysis of spiked blank milk samples. The mean recovery (Rec %) and RSD values were determined at three concentration levels. The recovery values confirmed that the optimal recovery was obtained for all methods. Furthermore, it can be noted that ELISA method gave higher recovery values in comparison to HPLC-FLD and HPLC-MS/MS. This is in accordance with several previous studies which confirmed that ELISA gave recovery values closer to 100% in comparison to chromatographic methods.36-38 Precision, expressed under repeatability and reproducibility conditions gave RSDr values within the range of 6.43-8.36%, 9.53-11.3% and 11.5-9.12.8% and RSDr values of 10.9-17.8%, 18.2-23.4% and 20.8-26.7% for ELISA, HPLC-FLD and HPLC-MS/MS method, respectively. The obtained values fulfilled the mentioned criteria of RSDr<30% and RSDr<60% (for concentration < 1 pg/kg) and indicated a good precision of the methods. Table 1. Analytical parameters for the determination of AFM1 obtained with different techniques Rec RSDr RSDr Technique LOD LOQ CL (|g/kg) CL (|g/kg) CL (|g/kg) (|g/kg) (|g/kg) CRM 0.05 0.5 1.0 CRM 0.05 0.5 1.0 0.05 0.5 1.0 ELISA 0.003 0.008 107.6 94.3 958 966 354 836 7.15 643 178 142 10.9 HPLC/FLD 0.001 0.004 81.51 84.5 81.1 86.4 5.88 11.3 10.8 9.53 23.4 18.2 19.1 HPLC-MS/MS 0.001 0.004 71.92 74.4 72.5 80.3 8.22 12.8 11.6 11.5 26.7 21.3 20.8 Kos et al.: Comparison of ELISA, HPLC-FLD and HPLC-MS/MS ... 752 Acta Chim. Slov. 2016, 63, 747-756 Quantification of AFM1 by ELISA method was achieved using logarithmic dependence. This dependence showed good correlation (0.9908) between absorbance and AFM1 concentration. Under the optimal experimental conditions, the linearity of HPLC-FLD and HPLC-MS/MS methods was calculated from standard calibration curves (SC) in two concentration ranges: 0.5-20 ng/mL and 20-100 ng/mL. For the both methods squared correlation coefficients (R2) were higher than 0.99, which indicated good linear correlations between AFM1 detector response and its concentration.39 Furthermore, quantification of AFM1 by HPLC-MS/MS method requires existence of one more calibration, matrix-matched calibration (MMC). Matrix effects were calculated as signal suppression/ enhancement (SSE), i.e. slope ratio for MMC and SC, which equals 90% and 95% for 0.5-20 ng/mL and 20-100 ng/mL ranges, respectively (Table 2). Arroyo-Manzanares et al.40 reported that values of matrix effect close to 100% indicate that there is no significant matrix effect, while values >100% and <100% indicate signal enhancement and signal suppression, respectively. Furthermore, the obtained matrix effects are in the range of ±20% which was considered as tolerable41 and the AFM1 was quantified using matrix-matched calibration. Since the evaluated method performance met the requirements,31'33 those three methods were applied for analysis of naturally contaminated milk samples. At the beginning, thirty milk samples were analyzed using ELISA method and fifteen of these samples were chosen with the aim to cover three different ranges of AFM1 contamination. It should be noted that all presented results in Table 3 were corrected for recovery. Regarding the results from Table 3, it can be seen that ELISA method did not give false positive results since presence of AFM1 determined using ELISA method were confirmed with HPLC-FLD and HPLC-MS/MS methods. Furthermore, ELISA gave slightly higher values of AFM1 concentration in comparison to HPLC-FLD and HPLC-MS/MS which is in accordance with some previously reported studies.42,43 The statistical analysis of variance between methods showed that significant differences were noted for the results of samples 6, 10 and 15. The obtained concentrations Table 2. Characteristics of the calibration curves Technique Concentration range (ng/mL) Solvent based calibration Dependence R2 Matrix-matched calibration Dependence R2 SSE ELISA 0.005-0.25 y = - 0.421ln(x) + 2.5236 0.9908 - - - HPLC/FLD 0.5-20 y = 1.6038x - 0.1332 0.9998 - - - 20-100 y = 1.7443x + 4.0847 0.9964 - - - HPLC-MS/MS 0.5-20 y = 44.762x + 11.883 0.9910 y = 40.441x + 11.301 0.9993 90.35 20-100 y = 33.623x + 199.07 0.9982 y = 32.048 + 120.39 0.9938 94.54 Table 3. Content of AFM1 determined by ELISA, HPLC and LC-MS/MS techniques Range Technique of concentration Sample ELISA HPLC-FLD HPLC-MS/MS (^g/kg) number MV±STD (^g/kg) MV±STD (^g/kg) MV±STD (^g/kg) 1 0.043 ± 0.001a 0.021 ± 0.017a 0.035 ± 0.013a 2 0.036 ± 0.001a 0.025 ± 0.015a 0.029 ± 0.007a < 0.1 3 0.050 ± 0.001a 0.033 ± 0.009a 0.034 ± 0.010a 4 0.086 ± 0.009a 0.074 ± 0.011a 0.069 ± 0.020a 5 0.047 ± 0.001a 0.036 ± 0.013a 0.046 ± 0.017a 6 0.254 ± 0.007b 0.122 ± 0.028a 0.117 ± 0.053a 7 0.231 ± 0.032a 0.178 ± 0.020a 0.180 ± 0.044a 0.1-0.4 8 0.189 ± 0.013a 0.163 ± 0.022a 0.193 ± 0.020a 9 0.105 ± 0.001a 0.075 ± 0.047 a 0.085 ± 0.007a 10 0.253 ± 0.012b 0.115 ± 0.042a 0.112 ± 0.041a > 0.4 11 0.534 ± 0.070 a 0.421 ± 0.008a 0.524 ± 0.033a 12 0.528 ± 0.157a 0.356 ± 0.015a 0.445 ± 0.056a 13 0.792 ± 0.203a 0.670 ± 0.075a 0.778 ± 0.035a 14 0.440 ± 0.016a 0.352 ± 0.065a 0.326 ± 0.064a 15 1.096 ± 0.226ab 0.760 ± 0.09a 1.501 ± 0.165b Different letters (a, b) in the same row indicate significant differences (p < 0.05) between results according to the Duncan's multiple range test MV±STD (ng/kg): Mean value ± Standard deviation Kos et al.: Comparison of ELISA, HPLC-FLD and HPLC-MS/MS ... Acta Chim. Slov. 2016, 63, 747-756 753 Table 4. Correlation coefficients and correlation equations between the applied methods Range of concentration ELISA/ ELISA/ HPLC-FLD/ (^g/kg) HPLC-FLD HPLC-MS/MS HPLC-MS/MS < 0.1 r 0.9748 0.9456 0.9561 correlation eq. y = 1.062x-0.0182 y = 0.7760x + 0.0015 y = 0.7201x + 0.0152 0.1-0.4 r correlation eq. 0.4938 y = 0.3258x-0.0635 0.2778 y = 0.2090x + 0.0943 0.9572 y = 1.0911 x-0.0052 > 0.4 r 0.9623 0.9851 0.9142 correlation eq. y = 0.6822x-0.0493 y = 1.7267x-0.456 y = 2.2602x-0.422 Whole r 0.9857 0.9651 0.9465 range correlation eq. y = 0.7468x-0.0065 y = 1.2293x-0.0857 y = 1.5912x-0.0626 r: correlation coefficient for samples 6 and 10 using ELISA method were significantly different in comparison to concentrations obtained using HPLC-FLD and HPLC-MS/MS methods. Further, HPLC-MS/MS analysis for sample 15 gave significantly different result in comparison with other two methods. However, despite those differences, statistical analysis indicates a good correlation between methods since in only 4 out of 45 (15 samples analyzed using 3 different methods) the obtained results were statistically different. In order to confirm good correlation between the applied methods, simple linear regression analyses between the results of ELISA, HPLC-FLD and HPLC-MS/MS were investigated and presented in Table 4. Correlations between methods were estimated in terms of correlation coefficients (r) for different ranges of concentrations. In the view of correlation coefficients between methods observed for different range of contamination it can be noted that those values were in the range from 0.2778 to 0.9748. The weak correlations, characterized with r<0.5, were observed between results of ELISA in comparison to HPLC-FLD and HPLC-MS/MS methods for the contamination range from 0.1 to 0.4 ^g/kg. Furthermore, the obtained correlations coefficients higher than 0.9 for the whole range of quantification indicate that strong correlation exist between methods.39 The highest correlation (r = 0.9857) for the whole range of quantification was observed between the results of ELISA and HPLC-FLD methods followed with correlation (r = 0.9651) between results of ELISA and HPLC-MS/MS. Although HPLC-FLD and HPLC-MS/MS analysis included the same sample preparation procedure (IAC) the slightly lower correlation (r = 0.9465) was observed between the obtained results. This fact could be explained by the possible losses of analyte during the multistage sample preparation such as applied IAC clean up procedure.44 For that purpose Hongyo et. al,45 suggested using the same eluted extract to increase the correlation between methods. However, Beaver et al.46 claimed that the same elu-ted extract allows measuring only the effect of detection variances. Therefore different eluted extracts from the same milk sample obtained after IAC clean up procedure, were used for the further analysis on HPLC-FLD and HPLC-MS/MS in this study. Hongyo et al.45 reported that correlation coefficient between ELISA and others methods depends on specificity and reproducibility of the used monoclonal antibody. Further, Nilufer and Boyacioglu47 indicated that food matrix also may have great influence on correlation between methods. Muhlemann et al.48 confirmed this observation with obtained good correlation coefficients between methods for aflatoxins determination in peanut and oilseeds samples, and low correlation coefficients for cereals and grains. The obtained correlations for the whole range of quantification (>0.9) in this study could indicate relatively homogeneous distribution of AFM1 in the examined milk samples although it is well known that mycotoxins are unevenly distributed in the sample. As we have previously noted, many studies confirmed heterogeneous distribution of mycotoxins mainly for solid samples49,50 while researches for distribution of mycotoxins in liquid samples are still missing. Furthermore, the obtained results in this study could not be completely compared to the literature data since, to our knowledge, none of the previously reported studies have focused on the comparison of ELISA, HPLC-FLD and HPLC-MS/MS techniques for AFM1 determination in naturally contaminated milk samples. Just a few studies compared results for AFM1 determination obtained by two different methods, mainly ELISA and some chromatographic method. However, our study besides investigation of three different methods contained the most detailed information in terms of method validation procedures. Comparison of results for AFM1 determination in milk and milk products using ELISA and HPLC methods were reported in two papers.42,43. Colak et al. reported good correlation between ELISA and HPLC-FLD method for AFM1 determination in three types of naturally contaminated Turkish cheeses. Rodriguez Velasco et al. confirmed that AFM1 concentrations determined using ELISA procedure were higher than concentrations determined us- Kos et al.: Comparison of ELISA, HPLC-FLD and HPLC-MS/MS ... 754 Acta Chim. Slov. 2016, 63, 747-756 ing HPLC-FLD. Furthermore, HPLC-FLD analysis showed that two out of five contaminated milk samples according ELISA were false-positives. However, an earlier investigation showed that51 AFM1 concentration using ELISA were lower than those determined by HPLC. In a recently published study,52 authors compared results for AFM1 analysis using ELISA and HPLC-MS/MS methods in 250 milk samples. Samples were collected during a period of five months. Regression analysis of obtained results showed high level of agreement (R2 = 0.920, r = 0.959). Although this study included high number of samples the data regarding type of milk samples (provenience, raw or heat treated, content of fat) were not shown. Furthermore, the data about range of AFM1 concentrations is missing. In agreement with our results, Stefanovic et al.52 reported that obtained recovery for ELISA of 110% is higher than recovery obtained by HPLC-MS/MS (between 65-81%). 4. Conclusion This work describes the comparison of ELISA, HPLC/FLD and HPLC-MS/MS methods for determination of AFM1 in milk samples. Evaluated methods performances indicate that ELISA, HPLC-FLD and HPLC-MS/MS methods were suitable for AFM1 analysis. Furthermore, the obtained correlations coefficients for the whole range of quantification were higher than 0.9 which indicate that strong correlation exist between methods. Therefore, the obtained results for real samples verified that all three methods can be used for that purpose. Which methods will be selected depends mostly on the availability of the equipment and on the number of samples. ELISA offers many advantages including shorter analysis time, absence of complicated sample preparation steps and simplicity of the analytical procedure in comparison to time-consuming and expensive chromatographic techniques. However, a suspected or non-compliant result (>0.050 pg/kg) must be confirmed by a confirmatory method. Due to the serious health risks associated to AFM1, the obtained results may contribute to knowledge increase in the field of analytical methods for its determination. 5. Acknowledgments This study was supported by the Ministry of education and science of the Republic of Serbia, Project No. III 46001. 6. References 1. L. Decastelli, J. Lai, M. Gramaglia, A. Monaco, C. Nachtmann, F. Oldano, M. Ruffier, A. Sezian, C. Bandirola, Food Control, 2007, 18, 1263-1266. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.foodcont.2006.08.006 2. P. Erkekoglu, G. Sahin, T. Baydar, FABAD J. of Pharm. Sci. 2008, 33, 51-66. 3. A. A. Fallah, T. Jafari, A. Fallah, M. Rahnama, Food Chem. Toxicol. 2009, 47, 1872-1875. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/jfct.2009.04.042 4. A. Gurbay, S. A. Sabuncuoglu, G. Girgin, G. Sahin, S. Yigit, M. Yurdakok, G. Tekinalp, Food Chem. Toxicol. 2010, 48, 314-319. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/jfct.2009.10.016 5. I. Y. Rustom, Food Chem. 1997, 59, 57-67. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/S0308-8146(96)00096-9 6. European Food Safety Authority, The EFSA Journal, 2010, 212, 1-64. 7. J. J. Matic, J. S. Mastilovic, I. S. Cabarkapa, A. I. Mandic, Zb. Matice srp. prir. nauke, 2009, 117, 79-86. 8. J. Matic, A. Mandic, J. Levic, G. Zdjelar, I. Vasiljevic, B. Ko-kic, in: Proceedings, Institute for Food Technology (Eds.), Occurrence of mycotoxins and genetically modified organisms (GMO) in feed and food containing corn and soybean: 2nd Workshop Feed-to-Food FP7 REGPOT-3, XIV International Symposium feed technology, Novi Sad, Serbia, 19-21 October, 2010, pp. 288-294. 9. J. Kos, J. Mastilovic, E. Janic Hajnal, B. Saric, Food Control, 2013, 34, 31-34. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/jfoodcont.2013.04.004 10. T. Maslac, U.S. department of agriculture grain and feed annual, Annual report on wheat, corn and barley for Serbia, (USDA) 2011. 11. J. Kos, J. Levic, O. Duragic, B. Kokic, I. Miladinovic, Food Control, 2014, 38, 41-46. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/jfoodcont.2013.09.060 12. IARC Monograph on the evaluation of carcinogenic risk to humans, World Health Organization, International Agency for Research on Cancer, Lyon, France, 2002, Vol. 82 171-275. http://monographs.iarc.fr/ENG/Monographs/ vol82/mono82.pdf 13. European Commission, Commission Decision 1881, Official Journal, 2006, 364, 5-18. 14. Guidance for industry: Action levels for poisonous or deleterious substances in human food and animal feed, U.S. Food and Drug Administration (FDA). 15. Serbian Regulation, Official Bulletin of the Republic of Serbia, 2011, 28/11, 1-16. 16. Serbian Regulation, Official Bulletin of the Republic of Serbia, 2013, 20/13, 1. 17. N. W. Turner, S. Subrahmanyam, S. A. Piletsky, Anal. Chim. Acta, 2009, 632, 168-180. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016Zj.aca.2008.11.010 18. G. S. Shepherd, F. Berthiller, P. A. Burdaspal, C. Crews, M. A. Jonker, R. Krska, S. MacDonald, R. J. Malone, C. Mara-gos, M. Sabino, M. Solfrizzo, H. P. Van Egmond, T. B. Whi-taker, World Mycotoxin J. 2012, 5, 3-30. 19. G. S. Shephard, F. Berthiller, P. A. Burdaspal, C. Crews, M. A. Jonker, R. Krska, S. MacDonald, R. J. Malone, C. Mara-gos, M. Sabino, M. Solfrizzo, H. P. Van Egmond, T. B. Whi-taker, World Mycotoxin J. 2013, 6, 3-30. Kos et al.: Comparison of ELISA, HPLC-FLD and HPLC-MS/MS ... Acta Chim. Slov. 2016, 63, 747-756 755 20. L. Lin, J. Zhang, P. Wang, Y. Wang, J. Chen, J. Chromatogr. A, 1998, 815, 3-20. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/S0021-9673(98)00204-0 21. E. Dinckaya, Ö. Kinik, M. K. Sezgintürk, £. Altug, A. Akko-ca, Biosens. Bioelectron. 2011, 26, 3806-3811. http://dx.doi.Org/10.1016/j.bios.2011.02.038 22. G. Bacher, S. Pal, L. Kanungo, S. Bhand, Sensor. Actuat. B -Chem. 2012, 168, 223-230. 23. E. Anklam, J. Stroka, A. Boenke, Food Control, 2002, 13, 173-183. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/S0956-7135(01)00098-6 24. European Commission, Commission Decision 657, Official Journal, 2002, 221, 8-36. 25. H. Wang, X. J. Zhou, Y. Q. Liu, H. M. Yang, Q. L. Guo, J. Agr. Food Chem. 2011, 59, 3532-3538. http://dx.doi.org/10.1021/jf2006062 26. A. C. Manetta, L. Di Giuseppe, M. Giammarco, I. Fusaro, A. Simonella, A. Gramenzi, A. Formigoni, J. Chromatogr. A, 2005, 1083, 219-222. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016Zj.chroma.2005.06.039 27. C. Cavaliere, P. Foglia, E. Pastorini, R. Samperi, A. Lagana, J. Chromatogr. A, 2006, 1101, 69-78. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.chroma.2005.09.060 28. J. E. Lee, B. M. Kwak, J. H. Ahn, T. H. Jeon, Food Control, 2009, 20, 136-138. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.foodcont.2008.03.002 29. J. Wang, Mass. Spectrum. Rev. 2009, 28, 50-92. 30. I. Kralj Cigic, H. Prosen, Int. J. Mol. Sci. 2009, 10, 62-115. http://dx.doi.org/10.3390/ijms10010062 31. Technical Report CEN/TR 16059:2010, Food analysis-Performance criteria for single laboratory validated methods of analysis for the determination of mycotoxins, European Committee for Standardization, Menagmente Centre, Brussels. 32. T. B. Whitaker, Food. Addit. Contam. A, 2006, 23, 50-61. http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/02652030500241587 33. European Commission, Commission Decision 401, Official Journal, 2006, 70, 12-34. 34. C. Y. Chen, W. J. Li, K. Y. Peng, J. Agr. Food Chem. 2005, 53, 8474-8480. http://dx.doi.org/10.1021/jf052142o 35. StatSoft, Inc., 2300 East 14th Street, Tulsa, Oklahoma, USA, http://www.statsoft.com/ 36. I. A. Samdal, J. A. Aasen, L. R. Briggs, E. Dahl, C. O. Miles, Toxicon, 2005, 46, 7-15. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.toxicon.2005.02.003 37. Z. Zheng, J. Hanneken, D. Houchins, R. S. King, P. Lee, J. L. Richard, Mycopathologia, 2005, 159, 265-272. http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/s11046-004-8663-3 38. J. M. Faupel-Badger, B. J. Fuhrman, X. Xu, R. T. Falk, L. K. Keefer, T. D. Veenstra, R. N. Hoover, R. G. Ziegler, Cancer. Epidem. Biomar. 2010, 19, 292-300. http://dx.doi.org/10.1158/1055-9965.EPI-09-0643 39. P. Das, D. Bhattacharyya, S. K. Bandyopadhyay, T. H. Kim, IJSIA, 2009, 3, 129-148. 40. N. Arroyo-Manzanares, A. M. García-Campaña, L. Gámiz-Gracia, J. Chromatogr. A, 2013, 1282, 11-19. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.chroma.2013.01.072 41. A. G. Frenich, R. Romero-González, M. L. Gómez-Pérez, J. L. M. Vidal, J. Chromatogr. A, 2011, 1218, 4349-4356. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.chroma.2011.05.005 42. M. L. Rodriguez Velasco, M. M. Calonge Delso, D. Ordonez Escudero, Food. Addit. Contam. A, 2003, 20, 276-280. 43. H. Colak, H. Hampikyan, B. Ulusoy, O. Ergun, Eur. Food. Res. Technol. 2006, 223, 719-723. http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/s00217-006-0258-4 44. M. Castegnaro, M. Tozlovanu, C. Wild, A. Molinié, A. Sylla, A. Pfohl-Leszkowicz, Mol. Nutr. Food. Res. ,2006, 50, 480-487. http://dx.doi.org/10.1002/mnfr.200500264 45. K. Hongyo, Y. Itoh, E. Hifumi, A. Takeyasu, T. Uda, J. AOAC Int. 1992, 75, 307-312. 46. R. W. Beaver, D. M. Wilson, M. W. Trucksess, J. Assoc. Of-fic. Anal. Chem. 1989, 73, 579-581. 47. D. Nilüfer, D. Boyacioglu, J. Agr. Food. Chem. 2002, 50, 3375-3379. http://dx.doi.org/10.1021/jf020005a 48. M. Mühlemann, J. Lüthy, P. Hübner, Mitt. Geb. Lebensmittelunters Hyg. 1997, 88, 474-496. 49. R. Krska, A. Molinelli, Anal. Bioanal. Chem. 2007, 387, 145-148. http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/s00216-006-0797-3 50. H. P. Van Egmond, R. C. Schothorst, M. A. Jonker, Anal. Bioanal. Chem.,2007, 389, 147-157. http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/s00216-007-1317-9 51. E. K. Kim, D. H. Shon, D. Ryu, J. W. Park, H. J. Hwang, Y. B. Kim, Food. Addit. Contam. A, 2000, 17, 59-64. http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/026520300283595 52. S. Stefanovic, D. Spiric, R. Petronijevic, J. N. Trailovic, D. Milicevic, D. Nikolic, S. Jankovic, Proc. Food Sci, 2015, 5, 270-273. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016Zj.profoo.2015.09.077 Kos et al.: Comparison of ELISA, HPLC-FLD and HPLC-MS/MS ... 756 Acta Chim. Slov. 2016, 63, 747-756 Povzetek Prisotnost aflatoksina M1 (AFM1) v mleku je potrebno stalno nadzorovati z namenom zaščite prebivalstva pred tveganji zaradi njegove potrjene strupenosti in karcinogenosti. V zadnjih letih se je pojavila večja potreba po razvoju občutljive, točne, preproste in hitre metode, ki bi zanesljivo zaznavala AFM1 v nizkih koncentracijah, prisotnih v vzorcih mleka. S tem namenom smo optimizirali in validirali metode z encimskim imunotestom (ELISA), visokoločljivostno tekočinsko kromatografijo s fluorescenčnim detektorjem (HPLC-FLD) in visokoločljivostno tekočinsko kromatografijo s tandemsko masno spektrometrijo (HPLC-MS/MS), da bi jih uporabili za analizo AFM1 v naravno onesnaženih vzorcih mleka, pa tudi da bi ovrednotili ujemanje med rezultati treh različnih metod. Pridobljeni validacijski parametri nakazujejo, da so vse tri metode primerne za določanje AFM1 v vzorcih mleka. Statistična analiza variance med metodami in pridobljeni korelacijski koeficienti nakazujejo izrazito korelacijo med metodami. Vse tri metode zadovoljivo ustrezajo zahtevam, določenim za potrebe uradnega nadzora. Kolikor je avtorjem znano, ta študija predstavlja prvo poročilo o raziskavi in primerjavi ELISA, HPLC-FLD in HPLC-MS/MS metod za določanje AFM1 v naravno onesnaženih vzorcih mleka. Kos et al.: Comparison of ELISA, HPLC-FLD and HPLC-MS/MS ...