摘要
对检测水产品中呋喃唑酮代谢物（AOZ）和氯霉素（CAP）药物残留的两种方法——化学发光免疫分析（CLEIA）和酶联免疫分析（ELISA）法进行了比较研究。结果表明：两种药物残留检测中,CLEIA分析方法的线性范围和检出限均优于ELISA法,且两种免疫分析法的添加回收率均具有很好的相关性;用CLEIA法检测AOZ的检出限为0.01μg/kg,线性范围为0.01~2.56μg/kg,检测CAP的检出限为0.016μg/kg,线性范围为0.025~6.400μg/kg;用ELISA法检测AOZ的检出限为0.1μg/kg,线性范围为0.10~1.62μg/kg,检测CAP的检出限为0.05μg/kg,线性范围为0.05~4.05μg/kg;用CLEIA法检测CAP的批内变异系数（RSD）为5.5%~11.3%,批间RSD为12.3%~20.9%,检测AOZ的批内RSD为6.6%~11.1%,批间RSD为15.6%~18.3%。研究表明,用CLEIA法检测水产品药物残留较ELISA法检出限低、线性范围宽,虽然检出CAP和AOZ的变异系数均高于ELISA法,但仍符合《兽药残留酶联免疫试剂（盒）备案参考评判标准》的规定。
Detection of furazolidone metabolite （ AOZ ） and chloramphenicol （ CAP ） residues in fish and fishery products was comparatively studied by chemiluminescence enzyme-linked immunoassay （ CLEIA ） and traditional colorimetric enzyme-linked immunosorbent assay （ ELISA） . The results showed that CLEIA had better linear range and detection limit than ELISA, and a close correlation of recovery rate was shown in the two methods. In CLISA, the detection limit was about 0. 01 μg/kg for AOZ, and about 0. 016 μg/kg for CAP and the linear range was from 0. 01 to 2. 56μg/kg for AOZ, and from 0. 025μg/kg to 6. 400μg/kg for CAP. In ELISA, however, the detection limit was 0 . 1 μg/kg for AOZ and about 0 . 05 μg/kg for CAP and the linear range was from 0 . 1 to 1 . 62 μg/kg for AOZ and from 0. 05 to 4. 05 μg/kg for CAP. The satisfactory precisions of the assay were found in CLEIA, with variation coefficient of 5. 5%-11. 3% in the intra-assay and 12. 3%-20. 9% in the inter-assay for CAP, and with variation coefficient of 6. 6-11. 1% in the intra-assay and 15. 6%-18. 3% in the inter-assay for AOZ, within the record reference evaluation standard of ELISA residues of veterinary drugs （ kit） .
出处
《大连海洋大学学报》
CAS
CSCD
北大核心
2014年第5期486-491,共6页
Journal of Dalian Ocean University
基金
辽宁省农业攻关计划项目(2011215004)
国家自然科学基金资助项目(30471323)
关键词
化学发光免疫分析
酶联免疫分析
氯霉素
呋喃唑酮代谢物
chemiluminescence immunoassay
enzyme-linked immunosorbent assay
chloramphenicol
furazolidone metabolite
