3种熏烤鸡肉制品中杂环胺含量的检测与比较

目的 以3种熏烤鸡肉制品(鸡胗、鸡翅、鸡爪)为研究对象, 通过高效液相色谱测定其中5种杂环胺类物质(heterocyclic aromatic amines, HAAs), 即2-氨基-3-甲基咪唑并[4,5-f]喹啉(2-Amino-3- methylimidazo(4,5-f)quinoline, IQ)、2-氨基-1-甲基-6-苯基-咪唑并[4,5-b]吡啶(2-Amino-1-methyl- 6-phenylimidazo(4,5-b)pyridine, PhIP)、9H-吡啶并[4,3-b]吲哚(9H-pyrido[4,3-b]indole, Norharman)、1-甲基-9H-吡啶并[4,3-b]吲哚(1-methyl-9H-pyrido[4,3-b]indol, Harman)、2-氨基-9H-吡啶并[2,3-b]吲哚(2-amine-9H-pyrido[2,3-b]indol, AaC)的含量并进行比较。方法 采用二元流动相乙腈/醋酸-醋酸铵(pH=3.4)进行梯度洗脱, 其中乙腈/醋酸-醋酸铵随时间配比为: 0 min: 10%/90%; 10 min: 20%/80%; 25 min: 50%/50%; 35 min: 10%/90%。紫外检测波长263 nm; 荧光激发波长/发射波长随时间改变为0 min: 300/440 nm; 17 min: 315/390 nm; 21 min: 335/410 nm。结果 在3种鸡肉熏烤制品中提取的5种杂环胺类物质中, PhIP的含量最高, 且在鸡胗中最为显著, 高达152.38 ng/g, 工业化生产的鸡胗中PhIP含量仅为4.23 ng/g; 各产品中Harman的含量最低, 且在鸡爪产品及工业化生产的鸡翅产品中未检出; 熏烤的鸡肉制品中提取的IQ、PhIP、Norharman、Harman、AaC的含量均高于工业化产品。结论 工业化生产的鸡胗、鸡翅、鸡爪中的5种HAAs的含量均低于3家传统熏烤产品的含量, 传统熏烤条件下鸡肉制品的食用安全系数相对较低, 工业化产品的安全性相对较高。

Detection and comparison of heterocyclic amines in 3 kinds of chicken in smoked and roasted products

Objective With 3 kinds of chicken smoked meat products (chicken gizzard, chicken wing, chicken feet) as the research object, to detected and compare the content of 5 kinds of heterocyclic aromatic amines (HAAs), including 2-Amino-3-methylimidazo(4,5-f)quinoline (IQ), 2-Amino-1-methyl-6-phenylimidazo(4,5-b)pyridine (PhIP), 9H-pyrido[4,3-b]indole (Norharman), 1-methyl-9H-pyrido[4,3-b]indol (Harman) and 2-amine-9H-pyrido [2,3-b]indol (AaC). Methods Binary mobile phase acetonitrile/acetic acid-ammonium acetate (pH=3.4) was used for gradient elution, and wherein the ratio of acetonitrile/acetic acid-ammonium acetate over time was: 0 min: 10%/90%; 10 min: 20%/80 %; 25 min: 50%/50%; 35 min: 10%/90%. The UV detection wavelength was 263 nm; the fluorescence excitation wavelength/emission wavelength changes with time was: 0 min: 300/440 nm; 17 min: 315/390 nm; 21 min: 335/410 nm. Results Among the 5 kinds of heterocyclic amines extracted from 3 kinds of chicken smoked products, the content of PhIP was the highest, and it was the most significant in chicken gizzards, up to 152.38 ng/g, and the PhIP content in industrialized chicken gizzards was only 4.23 ng/g. The Harman content of each product was the lowest, and was not detected in chicken feet products and industrially produced chicken wing products. The content of IQ, PhIP, Norharman, Harman and AaC extracted from smoked chicken products were higher than that of industrial products. Conclusion The content of 5 kinds of HAAs in industrialized chicken gizzards, chicken wings and chicken feet is lower than that of 3 traditional smoked products. The food safety factor of chicken products under the traditional smoking conditions is relatively low, and the safety of industrial products is relatively high.