Ten heterocyclic aromatic amines (HAA; [2-amino-3-methyl-3H-imidazo[4,5-f]quinoline (1); 2-amino-3,4-dimethyl-3H-imidazo[4,5-f]quinoline (2); 2-amino-3-methyl-3H-imidazo[4,5-f]quinoline (3); 2-amino-3,8-dimethyl-3H-imidazo[4,5-f]quinoline (4); 2-amino-3,4,8-trimethyl-3H-imidazo[4,5-f]quinoline (5); 2-amino-3,7,8-trimethyl-3H-imidazo[4,5-f]quinoline (6); 2amino-3,4,7,8-tetramethyl-3H-imidazo[4,5-f]quinoline (7); 2-amino-1-methyl-6-phenyl-imidazo[4,5-f]quinoline (8); 2-amino-6-methyldipyrido[1,2-α : 3′,2′-d]imidazole (9); 2-aminodipyrido[1,2-α : 3′,2′-d]imidazole (10)]) were analysed in commercially available meat products and process flavours. After sample preparation by Extrelut treatment, subsequent solid phase extraction applying propylsulphonic and C18 silica cartridges, as well as derivatization with 3,5-bis-trifluoromethylbenzyl bromide, HRGC-electron-impact-ionization-MS (HRGC-EIMS) analysis in the selected ion monitoring mode was performed. Isotope dilution analysis with 2amino-8-methyl-3-(trideuteromethyl)-3H-imidazo[4,5- f]quinoxaline and 2-amino-1-(trideuteromethyl)-6-phenyl-imidazo[4,5-b]pyridine was used to quantify 4 and 8; for 1–3, 5–7, 9 and 10, standard addition was employed as the determination method. The detection limit of 1 ng/g evaluated for 3–6 and 9 was sufficient for routine analysis, i.e. to obtain an initial insight into the grade of a potential HAA contamination of food or process flavours. To obtain more detailed information, the previously developed, more sensitive technique of HPLC-electrospray-tandem-MS (HPLC-ESI-MS/MS) has to be used, as shown by the comparison of the data obtained by HRGC-MS and HPLC-ESI-MS/MS analyses.
Read full abstract