Cited by 18Analytical chemistry methods developmentMycotoxins in Agriculture and FoodPesticide Residue Analysis and Safety

Combination of solvent extraction with deep eutectic solvent based dispersive liquid–liquid microextraction for the analysis of aflatoxin M1 in cheese samples using response surface methodology optimization

Masrouri, Mobin, Afshar Mogaddam, Mohammad Reza, Farajzadeh, Mir Ali, Nemati, Mahboob, Lotfipour, Farzaneh·2021·Journal of Separation Science

Abstract

A new extraction procedure based on combination of a solvent extraction and deep eutectic solvent based dispersive liquid–liquid microextraction has been introduced for the extraction of aflatoxin M 1 from cheese samples. In this method, acetonitrile, deionized water, and n‐hexane are added onto the sample and vortexed. Owning to different affinities of the substances in cheese toward the mentioned solvents, an efficient and selective extraction of the analyte is done in the acetonitrile phase. After centrifugation, the acetonitrile phase is removed and mixed with a new hydrophobic deep eutectic solvent prepared from N,N‐diethanol ammonium chloride and carvacrol as an extraction solvent. The mixture is injected into deionized water, and a cloudy solution is obtained. Eventually, an aliquot of the organic phase is injected into high‐performance liquid chromatography‐fluorescence detection. After optimizing the effective parameters with the response surface methodology and a quadratic model, limits of detection and quantification were 0.74 and 2.56 ng/kg, respectively. The obtained extraction recovery and enrichment factor were 94% and 94, respectively. Also, intra‐ (n = 6) and interday (n = 4) precisions were less than or equal to 8.6% at a concentration of 5 ng/kg. The suggested method was applied to determine aflatoxin M 1 in different cheese samples.

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1002/jssc.202001183

Cites

33 of 33 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

Recomputing p-values needs the paper’s full text.

Claims the paper makes

This paper’s full text isn’t openly available, so its claims and self-check weren’t run. The registry and citation checks still apply.

Claims other papers make about this one

Each is checked against this paper’s own text: does it say what the citing paper says it does?

Cites

Flagged first, then by citations

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Authors
Masrouri, M., Afshar Mogaddam, M. R., Farajzadeh, M. A., Nemati, M., & Lotfipour, F.
Affiliations
  • Tabriz University of Medical Sciences (IR)
  • Food and Drug Safety Research Center Tabriz University of Medical Sciences Tabriz Iran
  • University of Tabriz (IR)
Corresponding author
Lotfipour, Farzaneh
Venue
Journal of Separation Science
Publisher
Wiley
Published
2021-02-17
Volume
44
Issue
7
Pages
1501-1509
ISSN
  • 1615-9306 (ISSN-L)
  • 1615-9314
OpenAlex
W3121943342
Cited by
18
References
33
Citations by year
2026: 4 · 2025: 2 · 2024: 3 · 2023: 5 · 2021: 4
FWCI
1.50
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
closed
Locations
  • Journal of Separation Science (publishedVersion)
  • PubMed (publishedVersion)
Topics
  • Physical Sciences › Chemistry › Analytical Chemistry › Analytical chemistry methods development
  • Life Sciences › Agricultural and Biological Sciences › Plant Science › Mycotoxins in Agriculture and Food
  • Life Sciences › Agricultural and Biological Sciences › Food Science › Pesticide Residue Analysis and Safety
Keywords
aflatoxin M1, cheese, deep eutectic solvents, dispersive liquid-liquid microextraction, solvent extraction, mycotoxin analysis, carvacrol, ammonium chloride, response surface methodology, food safety
MeSH terms
Cymenes, Ethanol, Ammonium Chloride, Cheese, Solvents, Surface Properties, Aflatoxin M1, Liquid Phase Microextraction

About these checks

Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.

Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.

Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.

What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›

Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review