Comparison of Porcine Urine and Bile as Matrices to Screen for the Residues of Two Sulfonamides Using a Semi-automated Enzyme Immunoassay

Abstract

Porcine urine enzyme immunoassays for sulfamethazine and sulfadiazine have previously been employed as screening tests to predict the concentrations of the drugs in the corresponding tissues (kidneys). If a urine was found positive (>800 ng ml^-1) the corresponding kidney was then analysed by an enzyme immunoassay and, if found positive, a confirmatory analysis by HPLC was performed. Urine was chosen as the screening matrix since sulfonamides are mainly eliminated through this body fluid. However, after obtaining a number of false positive predictions, an investigation was carried out to assess the possibility of using an alternative body fluid which would act as a superior indicator of the presence of sulfonamides in porcine kidney. An initial study indicated that serum, plasma and bile could all be used as screening matrices. From these, bile was chosen as the preferred sample matrix and an extensive study followed to compare the efficiencies of sulfonamide positive bile and urine at predicting sulphonamide positive kidneys. Bile was found to be 17 times more efficient than urine at predicting a sulfamethazine positive kidney and 11 times more efficient at predicting a sulfadiazine positive kidney. With this enhanced performance of the initial screening test, the need for the costly and time consuming kidney enzyme immunoassay, prior to HPLC analysis, was eliminated.

References

1. P. W. Saschenbrecher and N. A. Fish, Can. J. Comp. Med., 1980, 44, 338.
2. F. Alexander, in Introduction to Veterinary Pharmacology, ed. Alexander, F., Longmans, London, 4th edn., 1976, pp. 268–275.
3. R. F. Bevill, J. Am. Vet. Med. Assoc., 1984, 185, 1124.
4. L. Lynas, D. Currie, W. J. McCaughey, J. D. G. McEvoy and D. G. Kennedy, Food Addit. Contam., in the press.
5. L. Lynas, unpublished work.
6. Anabolic, Anthelmintic and Antimicrobial Agents, Food Surveillance Paper No. 22, HM Stationery Office, London, 1987, pp. 19–20.
7. Agriculture in Northern Ireland, No. 12, Department of Agriculture for Northern Ireland, Belfast, 1992, 6, p. 23.
8. B. P. Ram, P. Singh, L. Martins, T. Brock, N. Sharkov and D. Allison, J. Assoc. Off. Anal. Chem., 1991, 74, 43.
9. D. W. A. Bourne, L. W. Dittert, G. D. Koritz and R. F. Bevill, J. Pharmacokinet. Biopharm., 1978, 6, 123.
10. G. C. Brander and D. M. Pugh, in Veterinary Applied Pharmacology and Therapeutics, ed. Brander, G. C., and Pugh, D. M., Baillière Tindall, London, 2nd end., 1971, pp. 370–371.
11. J. R. Flecker and L. J. Lovett, J. Assoc. Off. Anal. Chem., 1985, 88, 172.
12. W. J. McCaughey, C. T. Elliott and S. R. H. Crooks, Food Addit. Contam., 1990, 7, 259.
13. L. V. Bui, J. Assoc. Off. Anal. Chem., 1993, 76, 967.