Printer Friendly

Residues of veterinary drugs in milk in Brazil/Residuos de medicamentos veterinarios em leite no Brasil.

INTRODUCTION

Enhancing productivity in animal husbandry often involves the use of physiologically, pharmacologically and toxicologically important substances. Today hundreds of substances are widely used as active principles in health products developed for the treatment of food producing animals. Therefore, many animals are exposed to chemicals that may leave residues in food (VRAGOVIC et al., 2011). Veterinary drags are commonly used in dairy cattle management for disease therapy, especially in mastitis treatment, and parasite control. Improper administration by fanners and veterinarians without observing the withdrawal time for treated animals can result in residues in milk and milk products and can contribute to the development of anti-microbial resistance and the spread of resistant bacteria and determinants, including those with serious health concerns (FAO/WHO, 1993; JONES, 1999).

Human exposure and unintentional consumption of residues of drugs in milk can lead to several side effects, representing a considerable concern since there is a risk to consumer health. The main risks are exemplified by allergic reactions, regularly associated with [beta]-lactams antibiotics; genotoxic and carcinogenic responses, often related to chloramphenicol, sulfamethazine, nitrofurans, malachite greenand gentian violet; and the development of antibiotic resistant strains of bacteria, with possible transference of resistance to other susceptible microorganisms (COSTA, 2002; FAO/WHO, 2015). The presence of even traces of drug residues in raw milk may have not only toxicological but also technical issues since it can prevent the fermentation processes used in the manufacture of dairy products. By causing partial inhibition of lactic bacteria, this can affect the sensorial quality of milk products and these contaminants have been a matter widely considered by the dairy industry (TRONCO, 2003).

Due to the harmful effects that residues of veterinary drags in food can cause in humans, there is a need for countries to establish surveillance systems. In Brazil, veterinary drag residue monitoring is enforced according to requirements set down in Resolution MERCOSUL/GMC/RES no.54/00, which was internalized by Resolution-RDC no.53/2012 (MISTERIO DA SAUDE, 2012). In line with these requirements, the Brazilian Health Regulatory Agency (ANVISA), the government agency responsible for managing the information from official monitoring tests of milk marketed in Brazil, launched the Program for Analysis of Residues of Veterinary Drags in Foods of Animal Origin (Parnvet). The aim of the program is to evaluate residues of veterinary drags milk as it is one of the most consumed foods of animal origin, having an important role in vulnerable population groups, such as infants and elderly people (ANVISA, 2009). Previous results of Parnvet were reported by PACHECO-SILVA et al. (2014) and the reports are available on ANVISA website.

This paper presented the official occurrence of residues of veterinary drags in milk in the 2009-2011 period all over the country. This information is essential in order to broaden the discussion about that relevant issue and to recommend preventive measures in the whole productive chain, being subsidized by good practices of veterinary drags in food producing animals. Results will contribute to the analysis of Brazilian progress in residues control during these years, improving analysis risk, in order to provide reliable data for the government, scientific community and industry.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

This study was conducted by the Brazilian Health Regulatory Agency in cooperation with State Health Bodies and Brazilian Public Health Laboratories. In 2009-2011 periods, 961 milk samples were evaluated from several trademarks, selected randomly and collected in retail, encompassing all five regions of the country. Milk samples were collected in its original packaging by local sanitary surveillance agents. The largest number of analyzes was Ultra High Temperature (UHT) milk n=470/49%; followed by powdered milk n=275/29%; and pasteurized milk n=216/22%. Sampling plan took into consideration the average food consumption data per capita in Brazil, which presented UHT milk as the most consumed milk, and it is in accordance with Codex Alimentarius concerning the number of samples required to detect at least one non-compliant result with pre-defined probabilities in a population having known noncompliance prevalence. Non-compliant prevalence estimated was 1% (FAO/WHO, 2009; IBGE, 2011).

In general, the substances chosen to be monitored in the program were those that can leave residues in food, causing trade issues and which may pose a potential risk to human health. Monitoring a large number of milk samples for the presence of residues usually requires low cost screening methods. Thereby, samples were analyzed by screening method, using SNAP[R] p-lactam ST (IDEXX Laboratories Inc., Westbrook, ME). A positive screening result meant that the sample was subjected to confirmatory analysis. Tetracyclines, doxycycline, chloramphenicol, quinolones, aminoglycosides, sulfonamides and avermectins were analyzed directly by confirmatory tests. Prior to analysis of the samples all analytical methods used had to be validated according to the Commission Decision 2002/657/CE procedures (EUROPEAN COMISSION, 2002). Screening and confirmatory methods for each analyze, methods performances and the maximum residue limit (MRL) used and its reference, are shown in table 1.

For the results interpretation, the MRLs of veterinary drugs used as reference were those that Brazil has harmonized in the framework of MERCOSUR by Resolution GMC no.54/2000. For those veterinary drugs which MRLs have not been established in MERCOSUR, the limits recommended by Codex Alimentari us were considered, and, in the absence, those established by the European Union (EU). For those substances, which no MRLs have been established, no residue level should be detected. MRLs are stated in table 1. To sum up, results were considered unsatisfactory when it was higher than the MRL or when it was higher than the LOD for those substances which no MRLs have been established or no residue is allowed.

RESULTS AND DISCUSSION

A total of 961 milk samples were evaluated, however only 690 samples were previously tested by screening methods, using SNAP[R] (3-lactam ST (IDEXX Laboratories Inc., Westbrook, ME). Almost all samples presented negative screening results, but 3 milk samples (rate 0.3%), 1 UHT milk and 2 pasteurized milk, yielded a positive screening result for residues of p-lactams. These samples were further evaluated in confirmatory test, resulting in levels below the LOD.

Similar study in Brazil reported 722 milk analyses in 2002/2003 with 8 positive samples (rate 1.1%) for [beta]-lactams screening test, but the results were not confirmed in confirmatory tests (PACHECO-SILVA et al., 2014). False-positive responses may happen and are usually a result of interaction with certain substances used for milk preservation or for sanitation of milking machinery. Despite the possibility of occurrence of false-positive, investigation of the utility of IDEXX Snap test devices (IDEXX Laboratories Inc., Westbrook, ME) as tools for detecting antibiotic residues in powdered milk products showed that samples yielded definitive results consistent with expectations, and there were no instances of false-positive or false-negative readings (KNEEBONE et al., 2010).

The residues of veterinary drug analyzed by confirmatory methods in milk samples are summarized in table 2. In general, the levels were lower than the maximum limits proposed, despite the quantification of low levels of residues and the detection of drugs that were not supposed to be found in milk.

Concerning residues of antibiotics in milk samples; although below the MRL established, there is a considerable use of quinolones and tetracyclines in dairy cows as shown below. In this study the quinolones residues in milk, evaluated by Pamvet in Brazil, were officially investigated for the first time. A total of 170 (17%) milk samples yielded positive results (concentrations higher than LOQ) for enrofloxacin; 238 (25%) for ciprofloxacin and 134 (15%) for norfloxacin. Relating to tetracyclines, the residues of chlortetracycline were detected in 93 (12%) milk samples, oxytetracycline in 231 (31%) and tetracycline in 104 (14%). Doxycycline was detected in 70 (9%), even though this substance is not intended to be used in animals from which milk is produced for human consumption and no residues should be reported (EUROPEAN COMISSION, 2010). Previous studies ratified the laige use of tetracyclines and quinolones, being, respectively, the third and sixth group of antimicrobials with the highest number of citations, mainly regarding oxytetracycline, applied in metritis treatment, retained placenta, respiratory diseases and hull infectious diseases (PONTES NETTO et al., 2005). The presence of tetracyclines residues was equally reported in about 10% of powdered milk analyzed in 2006/2007 in Brazil (PACHECO-SILVA et al., 2014). PRADO et al. (2015) also demonstrated the occurrence of tetracyclines, including doxycycline, in 3% of pasteurized milk and estimated the daily intake in 0.05 [micro]g [kg.sup.-1] in Brazil. According to the literature, this study is the first to officially evaluate and report the quinolones contamination in milk marketed in Brazil.

The WHO Advisory Group on Integrated Surveillance of Antimicrobial Resistance classifies quinolones into highest-priority critically important antimicrobials. Quinolones are known to select for quinolone-resistant Salmonella and Escherichia coli in animals. At the same time, quinolones are one of few available therapies for serious infections. Given the high incidence of human disease due to Salmonella and E. coli, the absolute number of serious cases is substantial. Similarly, tetracyclines is classified into highly important antimicrobials that should be administered in accordance with prudent use principles, as there is considerable concern regarding the resistance mechanisms against some bacteria and limited therapy for infections (WHO, 2013). Besides the issue about human health great concern in trade market may happen when there are no residues limits established for these substances. Although norfloxacin was present in milk samples in this study, no MRL has been established, consequently, no residue level should be detected. Difficulties in setting limits based on available data have been a challenge for countries, especially to older compounds. Once there is no MRL for a substance, no residue should be present in foodstuff, its use and control became more difficult to manage. In the twenty-third session, the Codex Committee emphasized the challenges in finding ways to address the data needs to bring veterinary drugs to risk assessment or in finding ways to address the "risk" for pharmaceutical products already approved by national authorities, establishing MRL (CODEX ALIMENTARIUS, 2016).

Lower levels of neomycin (85/8.5%), sulfonamides (11/1.8%) and gentamicin (5/0.5%) were detected. Gentamicin residues were evaluated for the first time in the program, as well. No residues of streptomycin and P-lactams were confirmed in milk samples. Previously, analysis of neomycin and P-lactams performed in Pamvet yielded positive results in less than 5% of the milk samples (PACHECO-SILVA et al., 2014). Although [beta]-lactams and aminoglycosides, including neomycin, gentamicin and streptomycin, have a great use for the treatment of Gram-negative bacteria in mastitis, low residues levels might appear in the edible animal products due to extra-label use of veterinary drugs or noncompliance withdrawal periods (PONTES NETTO et al., 2005).

Comparing these results with other regulatory surveys, the findings of United States (US) also revealed a small number of overall confirmed positive drug residues, which means that concentration was above the tolerance or safe level or if the drug did not have a tolerance in milk and was above the confirmation of identity. Percent of positive samples, considering all drugs, in the targeted dairy farm population (farms with a previous tissue residue violation) was 1.15% while that in the non-targeted sampled dairy farm population (randomly selected dairy farms) was 0.42%. Similarly, residues of drugs that are not approved for use in lactating dairy cattle were detected, which may also suggest the extra label use in US (FDA, 2015).

In addition, the products evaluated are highly diluted and; although no product does not remain hazardous concentrations, somewhere in the production chain these levels may have been high. Brazil banned the use of [beta]-lactams, tetracyclines, amphenicols, quinolones and sulfonamides as growth promoter, enhancing additives or as feed preservatives in 1998 by Ordinance no. 193, updated by Nonnative Instruction no.26/2009.

In the present study, there were no unsatisfactory samples considering chloramphenicol concentration in milk. The absence of residue in the samples indicated that the producers are complying with the good veterinary practice. Chloramphenicol (CAP) is a broad-spectrum antibiotic previously used in veterinary medicine because of its broad range of activity and its low cost. Its use was forbidden in many countries, including Brazil, due to the toxicological effects reported in humans, such as aplastic anemia and carcinogenicity, although present in low levels of concentration. Thus, great attention is paid for residues detection of CAP in milk and milk products. Despite the prohibition, residues have been detected in previous studies in Brazil, indicating its sporadic illegal use or enviromnental contamination, confinning the need for continuous monitoring programs to protect human health (OLIVEIRA et al., 2007; PACHECO-SILVA et al., 2014).

Regarding avennectins, levels of the analytes in milk samples were also lower than MRL. Nevertheless, the results indicate that there is a substantial use of ivennectin in dairy cows, since 295 (46%) milk samples had some level of residues detected/quantified; although below the MRL. The presence of doramectin was detected in 6 UHT milk samples and the occunence of abamectin in 10 (1.6%) milk samples. Abamectin residues should not be reported in milk, as this substance is not intended to be used in animals from which milk is produced for human consumption (FAO/WHO, 2015). However, results from previous official veterinary drug monitoring programs showed that avennectins, mainly ivennectin, were the main compounds reported in milk samples and abamectin residues were reported in 2.80% and 7.25% of the UHT and powdered milk, respectively (PACHECO-SILVA et al., 2014). Administration of these drugs during the lactation period is not recommended, but their use seems to be common in some regions of Brazil. Without regard to this concern, abamectin is also used as a pesticide, and it can occur at low levels in milk of animals that consume plants treated with the active principle. In Brazil, abamectin lias authorized use, among other vegetables, in citrus and cotton crops, which can transfer residues to milk due to the ingestion of citrus pulp and cottonseed used in animal feed (ANVISA, 2006). Therefore, the real source of milk contamination should be investigated in order to prevent abamectin residues in milk.

CONCLUSION

Residues of veterinary drugs in milk analyzed in Brazil did not exceeded MRL in any of the samples studied. Thus, this concern seems not to be a risk to human health and should not be considered an alanning situation. However, the detection and quantification of critically/highly important antimicrobials in milk samples should be highlighted and call attention to investigation whether the use is in accordance with prudent use principles, as there is considerable concern regarding the resistance mechanisms against some bacteria and limited therapy for infections. Furthermore, the absence of MRL established for norfloxacin prevents suitable interpretation of the findings and makes tough the control of these chemical residues in food.

Even though samples do not remain hazardous concentrations, the presence of low levels of residues of veterinary drugs may be linked to extra-label use or noncompliance withdrawal periods. Additionally, the products evaluated are highly diluted and somewhere in the production chain these levels may have been high. Concerning substances having other approved uses, as pesticides for instance, the real source of milk contamination should be studied in order to improve the dairy management and prevent residues in milk.

The results also suggested that the good veterinary practices are not being followed by all producers, since residues of unauthorized drugs have been detected. The illegal use, extra-label use, noncompliance withdrawal periods or the environmental contamination support the need for investigation and continuous monitoring programs to protect human health.

http://dx.doi.org/ 10.1590/0103-8478cr20170215

Received 03.28.17

Approved 05.05.17

Returned by the author 06.08.17

CR-2017-0215.R2

ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS

This work is supported by Brazilian Health Regulatory Agency.

REFERENCES

ANVISA. Relatorio 2006-2007 Monitoramento de residuos em leite exposto ao consumo (5o e 6o anos de atividades), jun. 2009. Available from: <http://portal.anvisa.gov.br/alimentos/publicacoes>. Accessed: Nov. 30, 2016.

CODEX ALIMENTARIUS. Report of the twenty-third session of the Codex Committee on Residues of Veterinary Drugs In foods--REP17/RVDF. United States of America: Codex Alimentarias Commission, 2016. 39p.

COSTA, E.O. Uso de antimicrobianos na mastite. In: SPINOSA, H.S. et al. Farmacologia aplicada a medicina veterinaria. Rio de Janeiro: Guanabara Koogan, 2002. p.442-455.

EUROPEAN COMISSION. Commission Decision 2002/657/EC of 14 august 2002 on implementing council directive 96/23/EC concerning the performance of analytical methods and the interpretation of results 2002/657/EC. Official Journal of European Union. L221. 8e36.2002.

EUROPEAN COMISSION. Council Regulation 37/2010/EU of 22 December 2009 on pharmacologically active substances and their classification regarding maximum residue limits in foodstuffs of animal origin. Official Journal of European Union, L15, 72p. 2010.

FAO/WHO. Codex Alimentarias Commission. Glossary of terms and definitions (Residues of Veterinary Drugs in Foods). Switzerland: CAC/MISC 5-1993. 3p.

FAO/WHO. Codex Alimentarias Commission. Guidelines for the design and implementation of national regulatory food Safety assurance program associated with the use of veterinary drugs in Food producing animals. Italy: CAC/GL 71-2009. 42p.

FAO/WHO. Codex Alimentarias Commission. Maximum residue limits (MRLs) and risk management recommendations (RMRs) for residues of veterinary drugs in foods. Switzerland: CAC/MRL 2-2015. 41p.

FDA (FOOD AND DRUG ADMINISTRATION) Department of Health and Human Services. Milk drug residue sampling survey. United States of America, 2015. 25p.

IBGE (INSTITUTO BRASILEIRO DE GEOGRAFIA E ESTATISTICA). Pesquisa de Orcamentos Familiares 20082009: Analise do Consumo Alimentar Pessoal no Brasil. Rio de Janeiro: IBGE. 2011. 150p.

JONES, G.M. On-farm tests for drug residues in milk. Petersburg: Virginia State LTniversity, 1999. 6p.

KNEEBONE, J. et al. Short communication: rapid antibiotic screening tests detect antibiotic residues in powdered milk products. Journal of Dairy Science, v.93, n9, p.3961-3964, 2010.

MINISTERIO DA SAUDE. Agencia Nacional de Vigilancia Sanitaria. Resolucao RDC no. 53, de 02 de outubro de 2012. Dispoe sobre o Regulamento Tecnico MERCOSLTL Metodologias Analiticas, Ingestao Diaria Admissivel e Limites Maximos de Residuos para Medicamentos Veterinarios em Alimentos de Origem Animal. Diario Oficial [da] Uniao, Brasilia. D.F, p. 47-48. Oct. 03. 2012. Secao 1.

OLIVEIRA, R.C. de et al. Occurrence of chloramphenicol in pasteurized milk commercialized in the state of Parana. Acta Scientiaram. Health Science, v.29, n.l, p.911-914, 2007.

PACHECO-SILVA, E. et al. Veterinary drug residues in milk and eggs. Quimica Nova, v.37, n.l, p.111-122, 2014.

PRADO, C.K. et al. Oxytetracycline, tetracycline, chlortetracycline and doxycycline in pasteurized cow's milk commercialized in Brazil. Food Additives & Contaminants: Part B Surveillance, v.8, n.2, p.81-4, 2015.

PONTES NETTO, D. et al. Survey on the main veterinary medicines use in dairy cattle in the state of Parana - Brazil. Acta Scientiaram. Animal Science, v.27, n.l, p. 145-151, 2005.

TRONCO, V.M. Manual para inspecao da qualidade do leite. 2.ed. Santa Maria: UFSM. 2003. 208p.

VRAGOVIC, N. et al. Risk assessment of streptomycin and tetracycline residues in meat and milk on Croatian market. Food and Chemical Toxicology, v.49. p.352-355. 2011.

WHO. Critically important antimicrobials for human medicine. 4.rev. Switzerland: WHO Library Cataloguing-in-Publication Data. 2013. 31p.

Stefani Faro de Novaes (1) * Ligia Lindner Schreiner (1) Isabella Pereira e Silva (1) Robson Maia Franco (2)

(1) Gerencia Geral de Alimentos, Agencia Nacional de Vigilancia Sanitaria (ANVISA), 71070-674, Brasilia, DF, Brasil. E -mail: stefam.novaesManvisagov.br.

* Corresponding author.

(2) Departamento de Tecnologia de Alimentos, Faculdade de Veterinaria, Universidade Federal Fluminense (UFF), Niteroi, RJ, Brasil.
Table 1--Screening and confirmatory methods (limit of detection, LOD;
limit of quantification, LOQ) of the substances studied in milk
analysis performed by the Program for Analysis of Residues of
Veterinary Drugs in Foods of Animal Origin and MRL.

Substances                         Screening

P-lactams                           SNAP[R]
  Amoxicillin                    [beta]-lactam

  Ampicillin             LOD: [less than or equal to]
                              4[micro]g [L.sup.-1]
  Benzyl penicillin

  Cloxacillin

  Dicloxacillin

  Nafciline

  Oxacillin

  Cefapirin

  Cefazolin

  Cefoperazone

  Cefquinome

  Cephalexin

  Cephalon

Tetracyclines                          -
  Chlortetracycline                    -

  Oxytetracycline                      -

  Tetracycline                         -

  Doxycycline                          -

Amphenicol                             -
  Chloramphenicol                      -

Aminoglycosides                        -
  Neomycin                             -
  Gentamicin                           -
  Dihydrostreptomycin/                 -
    Streptomycin
Quinolones                             -
  Enrofloxacin                         -
  Ciprofloxacin                        -
  Norfloxacin                          -

Sulfonamides                           -
  Sulfathiazole                        -
  Sulfamethazine                       -
  Sulfadimethoxine                     -

Avermectins                            -
  Abamectin                            -

  Doramectin                           -

  Ivermectin                           -

Substances                            Confirmatory

P-lactams                                 LC-MS
  Amoxicillin              LOD: 1.2[micro]g [L.sup.-1]; LOQ:
                                 3.9[micro]g [L.sup.-1]
  Ampicillin                 LOD: 0.02[micro]g [L.sup.-1];
                               LOQ: 0.1[micro]g [L.sup.-1]
  Benzyl penicillin           LOD: 0.3[micro]g [L.sup.-1];
                               LOQ: 0.8[micro]g [L.sup.-1]
  Cloxacillin                LOD: 0.05[micro]g [L.sup.-1];
                               LOQ: 0.2[micro]g [L.sup.-1]
  Dicloxacillin              LOD: 0.05[micro]g [L.sup.-1];
                               LOQ: 0.2[micro]g [L.sup.-1]
  Nafciline                   LOD: 0.5[micro]g [L.sup.-1];
                               LOQ: 1.6[micro]g [L.sup.-1]
  Oxacillin                  LOD: 0.03[micro]g [L.sup.-1];
                               LOQ: 0.1[micro]g [L.sup.-1]
  Cefapirin                   LOD: 0.6[micro]g [L.sup.-1];
                               LOQ: 1.9[micro]g [L.sup.-1]
  Cefazolin                   LOD: 0.1[micro]g [L.sup.-1];
                               LOQ: 0.5[micro]g [L.sup.-1]
  Cefoperazone                LOD: 0.1[micro]g [L.sup.-1];
                               LOQ: 0.3[micro]g [L.sup.-1]
  Cefquinome                  LOD: 1.6[micro]g [L.sup.-1];
                               LOQ: 5.4[micro]g [L.sup.-1]
  Cephalexin                  LOD: 0.1[micro]g [L.sup.-1];
                               LOQ: 0.3[micro]g [L.sup.-1]
  Cephalon                    LOD: 0.2[micro]g [L.sup.-1];
                              LOQ: 0.5 [micro]g/[L.sup.-1]
Tetracyclines                          HPLC-UV/Vis
  Chlortetracycline           LOD: 0.4[micro]g [L.sup.-1];
                               LOQ: 1.5[micro]g [L.sup.-1]
  Oxytetracycline             LOD: 0.4[micro]g [L.sup.-1];
                               LOQ: 1.5[micro]g [L.sup.-1]
  Tetracycline                LOD: 0.4[micro]g [L.sup.-1];
                               LOQ: 1.5[micro]g [L.sup.-1]
  Doxycycline                 LOD: 0.4[micro]g [L.sup.-1];
                               LOQ: 1.5[micro]g [L.sup.-1]
Amphenicol                                LC-MS
  Chloramphenicol             LOD: 0.3[micro]g [L.sup.-1];
                               LOQ: 0.8[micro]g [L.sup.-1]

Aminoglycosides                      QqQ(LIT) LC-MS
  Neomycin                 LOD:7.5; LOQ:25[micro]g [L.sup.-1]
  Gentamicin               LOD:8.1; LOQ:27[micro]g [L.sup.-1]
  Dihydrostreptomycin/     LOD:7.5; LOQ:25[micro]g [L.sup.-1]
    Streptomycin
Quinolones                           QqQ(LIT) LC-MS
  Enrofloxacin             LOD:1.5; LOQ:5.0[micro]g [L.sup.-1]
  Ciprofloxacin           LOD: 0.4; LOQ:1.5[micro]g [L.sup.-1]
  Norfloxacin             LOD: 0.4; LOQ:1.5[micro]g [L.sup.-1]

Sulfonamides             HPLC-FL (LOD; LOQ [micro]g [L.sup.-1])
  Sulfathiazole              0.08 * 0.37 **; 0.10 *, 0.33 **
  Sulfamethazine             0.12 *, 0.48 **; 0.24 *,1.24 **
  Sulfadimethoxine           0.30 *, 1.1 **; 0.36 *, 1.6 **

Avermectins                              HPLC-FL
  Abamectin                   LOD: 0.6[micro]g [L.sup.-1];
                               LOQ: 1.0[micro]g [L.sup.-1]
  Doramectin                  LOD: 0.6[micro]g [L.sup.-1];
                               LOQ: 1.0[micro]g [L.sup.-1]
  Ivermectin                  LOD: 0.6[micro]g [L.sup.-1];
                               LOQ: 1.0[micro]g [L.sup.-1]

Substances                          MRL               Reference

P-lactams                            -                    -
  Amoxicillin               4[micro]g [L.sup.-1]        Codex

  Ampicillin                4[micro]g [L.sup.-1]         EU

  Benzyl penicillin         4[micro]g [L.sup.-1]      MERCOSUR

  Cloxacillin              30[micro]g [L.sup.-1]         EU

  Dicloxacillin            30[micro]g [L.sup.-1]         EU

  Nafciline                30[micro]g [L.sup.-1]         EU

  Oxacillin                60[micro]g [L.sup.-1]         EU

  Cefapirin                50[micro]g [L.sup.-1]         EU

  Cefazolin                50[micro]g [L.sup.-1]         EU

  Cefoperazone             20[micro]g [L.sup.-1]         EU

  Cefquinome               100[micro]g [L.sup.-1]        EU

  Cephalexin               20[micro]g [L.sup.-1]         EU

  Cephalon                           -                   EU

Tetracyclines            100[micro]g [L.sup.-1] (a)   MERCOSUR
  Chlortetracycline

  Oxytetracycline

  Tetracycline

  Doxycycline                        +                   EU

Amphenicol                           -                    -
  Chloramphenicol                    ++               MERCOSUR

Aminoglycosides                                           -
  Neomycin                 500[micro]g [L.sup.-1]     MERCOSUR
  Gentamicin               200[micro]g [L.sup.-1]       Codex
  Dihydrostreptomycin/   200[micro]g [L.sup.-1] (b)   MERCOSUR
    Streptomycin
Quinolones                           -                    -
  Enrofloxacin           200[micro]g [L.sup.-1] (c)      EU
  Ciprofloxacin                      -                    -
  Norfloxacin                        NE                   -

Sulfonamides             100[micro]g [L.sup.-1] (d)   MERCOSUR
  Sulfathiazole                      -                    -
  Sulfamethazine                     -                    -
  Sulfadimethoxine                   -                    -

Avermectins                          -                    -
  Abamectin                          +                  Codex

  Doramectin               15[micro]g [L.sup.-1]        Codex

  Ivermectin               10[micro]g [L.sup.-1]        Codex

Liquid chromatography mass spectrometry (LC-MS); Triple quadrupole
linear ion trap mass spectrometer (QqQ(LIT) LC-MS); Highperformance
liquid chromatography with ultraviolet-visible detection (HPLC-UV
-Vis); High-performance liquid chromatography with fluorescence
detection (HPLC-FL); Not established (NE). * Powdered milk; ** UHT and
pasteurized milk. + This substance is not intended to be used in
animals from which milk is produced for human consumption. ++ This
substance is not authorized for use in food producing animals. (a) MRL
refers to the sum of chlortetracycline, oxytetracycline and
tetracycline. (b) MRL refers to the sum of dihydrostreptomycin and
streptomycin. (c) MRL refers to the sum of enrofloxacin and
ciprofloxacin. (d) MRL refers to the sum of sulfathiazole,
sulfamethazine and sulfadimethoxine.

Table 2--Residues of veterinary drug in milk samples analyzed by the
Program for Analysis of Residues of Veterinary Drugs in Foods of
Animal Origin in the 2009-2011 period in Brazil.

                                       UHT milk

Analyte              e    <LOD   LOD<X<LOQ   LOQ<X<MRL   > MRL

Chlortetracycline   386   352        1          33        --
Oxytetracycline     386   329       48           9        --
Tetracycline        386   358        8          20        --
Doxycycline         386   360       24           2        --
Chloramphenicol     386   386       --          --        --
Neomycin            470   453       17          --        --
Gentamicin          470   466        4          --        --
Streptomycin        470   470       --          --        --
Enrofloxacin        470   407       52          11        --
Ciprofloxacin       470   389       49          32        --
Norfloxacin         470   428       27          15        NE
Sulfathiazole       321   320       --           1        --
Sulfamethazine      321   316       --           5        --
Sulfadimethoxine    321   317       --           4        --
Abamectin           336   331        5          --        --
Doramectin          336   330        3           3        --
Ivermectin          336   236       80          20        --

                                   Pasteurized milk

Analyte              e    < LOD   LOD<X<LOQ   LOQ<X<MRL   > MRL

Chlortetracycline   158    157       --           1        --
Oxytetracycline     158    116       35           7        --
Tetracycline        158    145        5           8        --
Doxycycline         158    158       --          --        --
Chloramphenicol     158    158       --          --        --
Neomycin            216    196       19           1        --
Gentamicin          216    215       --           1        --
Streptomycin        216    216       --          --        --
Enrofloxacin        216    201       14           1        --
Ciprofloxacin       216    180       28           8        --
Norfloxacin         216    212        3           1        NE
Sulfathiazole       121    121       --          --        --
Sulfamethazine      121    121       --          --        --
Sulfadimethoxine    121    121       --          --        --
Abamectin           120    116        4          --        --
Doramectin          120    120       --          --        --
Ivermectin          120    106       11           3        --

                                        Powdered milk

Analyte              e     < LOD     LOD<X<LOQ   LOQ<X<MRL   > MRL

Chlortetracycline   199     141         --          58        --
Oxytetracycline     199      67         45          87        --
Tetracycline        199     136         15          48        --
Doxycycline         199     155         30          14        --
Chloramphenicol     199      --         --          --        --
Neomycin            275     227         47           1        --
Gentamicin          275     275         --          --        --
Streptomycin        275     275         --          --        --
Enrofloxacin        275     183         55          37        --
Ciprofloxacin       275     154         56          65        --
Norfloxacin         275     187         42          46        NE
Sulfathiazole       153     153         --          --        --
Sulfamethazine      153     152         --           1        --
Sulfadimethoxine    153     153         --          --        --
Abamectin           178     177          1          --        --
Doramectin          178     178         --          --        --
Ivermectin          179     112         51          16        --

Limit of detection (LOD); Limit of quantification (LOQ); Maximum
Residue Limits (MRL); Number of samples (n); Not established (NE).
COPYRIGHT 2017 Universidade Federal de Santa Maria
No portion of this article can be reproduced without the express written permission from the copyright holder.
Copyright 2017 Gale, Cengage Learning. All rights reserved.

Article Details
Printer friendly Cite/link Email Feedback
Title Annotation:MICROBIOLOGY
Author:de Novaes, Stefani Faro; Schreiner, Ligia Lindner; e. Silva, Isabella Pereira; Franco, Robson Maia
Publication:Ciencia Rural
Article Type:Ensayo
Date:Aug 1, 2017
Words:4414
Previous Article:Molecular demonstration of intermittent shedding of Leptospira in cattle and sheep and its implications on control/Demonstracao molecular da...
Next Article:Deterioration and fermentability of energy cane juice/Deterioracao e fermentabilidade do caldo de cana energia.
Topics:

Terms of use | Privacy policy | Copyright © 2021 Farlex, Inc. | Feedback | For webmasters |