Screening for chloramphenicol residues in the tissues and fluids of treated cattle by the four plate test, Charm II radioimmunoassay and Ridascreen CAP-Glucuronid enzyme immunoassay†

Abstract

The administration of chloramphenicol (CAP) is banned in food animals in the European Union (EU). It is, therefore, important to have adequate screening methods to determine if residues of CAP and its major metabolite, chloramphenicol-glucuronide (CAP-Gluc), are present in samples taken for monitoring purposes. Six castrated male cattle were treated with a single intramuscular injection of 10 mg kg^–1 CAP. Animals were sampled once daily for urine and were slaughtered at 3 and 6 d post-injection. Samples of bile, kidney, liver and diaphragmatic muscle were removed at slaughter. All matrices were analysed using the four plate test (FPT) bioassay, the Charm II radioimmunoassay and a Ridascreen CAP-Glucuronid competitive enzyme immunoassay (EIA). The FPT detected CAP residues in urine samples taken up to 2 d post-treatment. The Charm assay detected CAP in the urine for up to 4 d post-treatment. The EIA detected CAP throughout the 6 d sampling period. Samples of bile were positive by both the EIA and the Charm assay at day 3 and day 6. No zones of inhibition were obtained using the FPT in bile or diaphragm either with or without sample pre-treatment with β-glucuronidase. However, the kidney and the liver from one animal killed at day 6 gave larger zones of inhibition after treatment with β-glucuronidase, indicating the presence of CAP. The kidneys of all treated animals slaughtered at day 3 were positive by both the EIA and the Charm assay but none of the kidneys at day 6 tested positive by either method. Owing to technical difficulties, the Charm assay was not suitable for the analysis of liver. The EIA failed to detect CAP in the liver of any treated animal. It is concluded that urine appears to be the best matrix for screening purposes. The sensitivity of the FPT is inadequate for the determination of CAP residues where minimal withdrawal periods have been observed. The Charm assay and the EIA were suitable for the detection of both CAP and CAP-Gluc in tissues and body fluids for longer periods post-administration. The EIA was more sensitive for the determination of low concentrations of CAP and its metabolite.

References

1. E. H. Allen, J. Assoc. Off. Anal. Chem., 1985, 68, 990.
2. Official Journal of the European Communities, Commission Regulation (EC) No. 1430/94, No. L 156/6.
3. R. Bogaerts and F. Wolf, Fleischwirtschaft, 1980, 60, 672.
4. J. F. M. Nouws and G. Ziv, Tijdschr. Diergeneesk., 1978, 103, 725.
5. R. Bogaerts, D. De Vos and J. M. Degroodt, Fleischwirtschaft, 1984, 64, 185.
6. J. De Louvois, A. Mulhall and R. Hurley, J. Clin. Pathol., 1980, 33, 575.
7. K. Koenen-Dierick, I. Okerman, L. De Zutter, J. M. Degroodt, J. Van Hoof and S. Srebrnik, Food Addit. Contam., 1995, 12, 77.
8. H. J. Keukens, M. M. L. Aerts, W. A. Traag, J. F. M. Nouws, W. G. De Ruig, W. M. J. Beek and J. M. P. Den Hartog, J. Assoc. Off. Anal. Chem., 1992, 75, 245.
9. C. Van De Water, N. Haagsma, P. J. S. van Kooten and W. Z. van Eden, Z. Lebensm. Unters. Forsch., 1987, 185, 202.
10. C. Van De Water and N. Haagsma, J. Assoc. Off. Anal. Chem., 1990, 73, 534.
11. A. R. Lynne and A. F. Lott, Antibiotics and Antibiosis in Agriculture, Butterworths, London, 1985, pp. 413–422.
12. R. Smither and D. R. Vaughan, J. Appl. Bacteriol., 1978, 33, 421.
13. D. Currie, L. Lynas, D. G. Kennedy and W. J. McCaughey, Food Addit. Contam., 1998, 15, 651.
14. Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations, Food and Nutrition Paper 41/6, February 1994.
15. H. Korkeala and O. Maki-Petays, Acta Vet. Scand., 1984, 25, 352.
16. S. Fabiansson, T. Nilsson and J. Backstrom, J. Sci. Food Agric., 1976, 27, 1156.
17. G. O. Korsrud, J. M. Naylor, J. D. MacNeil and W. D. G. Yates, Can. J. Vet. Res., 1987, 51, 316.
18. G. O. Korsrud, J. M. Naylor, C. D. Salisbury and J. D. MacNeil, J. Agric. Food Chem., 1987, 35, 556.