Food Chemistry 361 (2021) 130044

Contents lists available at ScienceDirect

Food Chemistry
journal homepage: www.elsevier.com/locate/foodchem

Analytical Methods

Determination of 8 biogenic amines in aquatic products and their derived

products by high-performance liquid chromatography-tandem mass
spectrometry without derivatization
Xuan Zhang a, 1, Changling Fang a, 1, Dongmei Huang a, Guangxin Yang a, Yunyu Tang a,
Yongfu Shi a, Cong Kong a, Pei Cao b, *, Youqiong Cai a
a
Key Laboratory of East China Sea Fishery Resources Exploitation, Ministry of Agriculture and Rural Affairs, East China Sea Fisheries Research Institute, Chinese
Academy of Fishery Sciences, Shanghai 200090, China
b
NHC Key Laboratory of Food Safety Risk Assessment, Food Safety Research Unit (2019RU014) of Chinese Academy of Medical Science, China National Center for
Food Safety Risk Assessment, Beijing 100021, China

A R T I C L E I N F O A B S T R A C T

Keywords: A method for the determination of 8 biogenic amines in aquatic products and their derived products was
High-performance liquid chromatography- established by HPLC-MS/MS without derivatization. The samples were extracted by 5% perchloric acid solution.
tandem mass spectrometry N-hexane was used to clean the extract. The analytes were separated by a column of ACQUITY UPLC HSS T3
Biogenic amines
(100 mm × 2.1 mm, 1.8 µm), and gradient eluted with a mixed solution of (0.5% formic acid) and acetonitrile.
Aquatic products
Good linearity was obtained with correlation coefficients (R2) >0.99. This method achieved higher sensitivity
(from 0.1 mg/kg for tyramine, 2-phenylethylamine and tryptamine to 1.0 mg/kg for spermidine, spermine,
cadaverin, histamine and putrescine). The average recoveries were demonstrated in the range of 70.9%–113.1%,
with relative standard deviations (RSDs) from 0.33% to 10.81%. This method was suitable for the detection of
BAs in aquatic products and their products.

1. Introduction in various biological tissues, which are very important for the physio­
logical functions of protein synthesis, intestinal immunity, radical
Biogenic amines (BAs) are small molecular organic compounds with scavenging activity (Banks, & Adams, 2012). However, a high concen­
biological activity formed from free amino acids by decarboxylase tration of BAs in food may cause a toxic reaction to humans, such as
catalyzed reaction in food (Liang, Li, Shi, Wang, & Xiong, 2019; Zhao headache, hypertension, fever, rash, vomiting, etc., which may play a
et al., 2021; Wang, Yamaki, Kawai, & Yamazaki, 2020). According to the role in the formation of nitrosamines (Al Bulushi, Poole, Deeth, & Dykes,
literatures, the frequently found BAs in food were spermidine (SPD), 2009; del Rio et al., 2019; Anal et al., 2020). Thus, determination of BAs
spermine (SPM), cadaverine (CAD), histamine (HIS), putrescine (PUT), content in food is vital for food safety. Many countries set limited con­
tyramine (TYR), 2-phenylethylamine (2-PHE), tryptamine (TRY) etc. centrations on BAs in food in order to protect public health. For example,
(Shalaby, 1996; Gu et al., 2018; Zhao et al., 2021). BAs extensively exist the US Food and Drug Administration (FDA) sets a guidance level of HIS

Abbreviations: HPLC-MS/MS, high-performance liquid chromatography-tandem mass spectrometry; SPD, spermidine; SPM, spermine; CAD, cadaverine; HIS,
histamine; PUT, putrescine; TYR, tyramine; 2-PHE, 2-phenylethylamine; TRY, tryptamine; R2, coefficient of determination; RSD, relative standard deviation; BA,
biogenic amine; FDA, Food and Drug Administration; EU, European Union; EFSA, European Food Safety Agency; WHO/FAO, World Health Organization/Food and
Agriculture Organization of the United Nat; JECFA, Joint FAO/WHO Expert Committee on Food Additives; ARfD, Acute Reference Dose; CE, capillary electrophoresis;
TLC, thin layer chromatography; GC–MS, gas chromatography-mass spectrometry; HPLC, high performance liquid chromatography; UPLC, ultra high performance
liquid chromatography; MRM, multiple reaction monitoring; LOD, limit of detection; LOQ, limit of quantification; HClO, perchloric acid; TCA, trichloroacetic acid;
NaOH, sodium hydroxide; MCX, oasis mixed cation exchange; SPE, solid-phase extraction; PTFE, polytetrafluoroethylene; LLE, liquid-liquid extraction; LPME, liquid-
phase microextraction; HS-SPME, head-space solid-phase microextraction; NYL, nylon membrane filters; PES, polyethersulfone membrane filters.
* Corresponding authors at: Key Laboratory of East China Sea Fishery Resources Exploitation, Ministry of Agriculture and Rural Affairs, East China Sea Fisheries
Research Institute, Chinese Academy of Fishery Sciences, Shanghai 200090, China.
E-mail addresses: apple_caopei@126.com (P. Cao), caiyouqiong@163.com (Y. Cai).
1
Xuan Zhang and Changling Fang contributed equally to this study.

https://doi.org/10.1016/j.foodchem.2021.130044
Received 9 February 2021; Received in revised form 9 April 2021; Accepted 5 May 2021
Available online 11 May 2021
0308-8146/© 2021 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.
X. Zhang et al. Food Chemistry 361 (2021) 130044

to 50 mg/kg in aquatic products, and of TYR and 2-PHE to 100–800 mg/ the increasingly prominent monitoring and supervision of food safety
kg and 30 mg/kg, respectively (FDA, 1995). Furthermore, 50 mg/kg or risks.
more HIS indicates decomposition in fish no matter decomposition
detected by organoleptic examination, and most of the BAs have stable 2. Material and methods
chemical properties and resistance to heat and acid (FDA, 1998). The
European Union (EU) sets an acceptable HIS level at 100 mg/kg in 2.1. Materials and standards
certain species of fish (European Community, 2005). The Chinese gov­
ernment set the HIS limit at 400 mg/kg in marine fishes (such as BAs, i.e. spermidine trihydrochloride (C7H19N3⋅3HCl, CAS No.
mackerel, tuna, mackerel, etc.), 200 mg/kg in other marine fishes (GB 334–50-9, >99%), spermine trahydrochloride (C10H26N4⋅4HCl, CAS No.
2733-2015), 1000 mg/kg in canned products of mackerel and mackerel 306–67-2, >98%), cadaverine (C5H14N2, CAS No. 462–94-2, >98%),
(GB 7098-2015). According to DB31/2004-2012 issued by Shanghai histamine dihydrochloride (C5H9N3⋅2HCl, CAS No. 56–92-8, >99%),
FDA, the HIS limit is established at 100 mg/kg (DB 31/2004-2012). putrescine dihydrochloride (C4H12N2⋅2HCl, CAS No. 333–93-7, >99%),
European Food Safety Agency (EFSA), World Health Organization/ tyramine hydrochloride (C8H11NO⋅HCl, CAS No. 60–19-5, >98%), 2-
Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nat (WHO/FAO), phenylethylamine (C8H11N, CAS No. 64–04-0, >98%), tryptamine
together with Joint FAO/WHO Expert Committee on Food Additives (C10H12N2, CAS No. 61–54-1, >98%) were supplied by Dr. Ehrenstorfer
(JECFA) carried out risk assessments for HIS in fermented foods in 2011, (Augsburg, Germany).
it was believed that the Acute Reference Dose (ARfD) of HIS for healthy Individual stock solutions (400 mg/L) of SPD, SPM, CAD, HIS, PUT
adults was 50 mg, and the risk was low when the HIS content in fish and and stock solutions (40 mg/L) of TYR, 2-PHE, TRY were prepared by
its products was less than 200 mg/kg (European Food Safety Authority dissolving eight compounds in deionized water, and stored at 4 ◦ C. The
(EFSA) Panel On Biological Hazards (BIOHAZ), 2011). The risk assess­ working solutions were prepared from stock solutions by appropriate
ment of BAs has not been carried out in China. dilutions with deionized water. Chromatographic grade acetonitrile, n-
Various detection methods of BAs in food have developed, such as hexane and methanol were supplied by J. T. Baker Chemical Co. (Phil­
spectrophotometry (Gao, Grant, & Lu, 2015), capillary electrophoresis lipsburg, USA). Perchloric acid (HClO), trichloroacetic acid (TCA) and
(CE) (An et al., 2015; Daniel, Dos Santos, Vidal, & do Lago, 2015), thin sodium hydroxide (NaOH) were purchased from Sinopharm Group
layer chromatography (TLC) (Romano et al., 2012), gas Chemicals Limited (Shanghai, China). Octadecylsilane (C18, 50 µm, 60
chromatography-mass spectrometry (GC–MS) (Parchami, Kamalabadi, Å) and primary secondary amine (PSA, 40–63 mm, 6 nm) were pur­
& Alizadeh, 2017; Wojnowski, Namieśnik, & Płotka-Wasylka, 2019), chased from Agela Technologies (Tianjin, China). Oasis mixed cation
high performance liquid chromatography (HPLC) (Jain, Gupta & Verma, exchange (MCX) solid-phase extraction (SPE) cartridges 3 mL/60 mg
2015; Preti, Antonelli, Bernacchia, & Vinci, 2015; Nemati, Farajzadeh, were supplied by Waters (Taunton, USA). 0.22 µm polytetrafluoro­
Mohebbi, Sehatkhah, & Afshar Mogaddam, 2020), ultra high perfor­ ethylene (PTFE) syringe filters were supplied by Keyilong (Tianjin,
mance liquid chromatography (UPLC) (Fernanda Angulo, Flores, Ara­ China). Ammonium formate (HPLC grade) were supplied by Honeywell
nda, & Henriquez-Aedo, 2020), and high performance liquid (New Jersey, USA). Chromatographic grade formic acid was obtained
chromatography-tandem mass (HPLC-MS/MS) (Fu et al., 2016; Dong, from Aladdin–Holdings (Shanghai, China). Deionized water was pre­
& Xiao, 2017; Molognoni, Daguer, de Sá Ploêncio, & De Dea Lindner, pared by the Milli-Q Ultra Pure Water System (Millipore, Billerica, MA,
2018). HPLC method is currently the most commonly used method for USA).
BAs detection due to its advantages of rapid and easy operation, good
separation, high sensitivity and accuracy. Nemati et al. proposed a 2.2. Sample information and sample preparation
microwave-assisted extraction method prior to HPLC analysis for the
simultaneous determination of four BAs in canned tuna fish samples All the aquatic products and their products were purchased from
(Nemati, Farajzadeh, Mohebbi, Sehatkhah, & Afshar Mogaddam, 2020). supermarket in Shanghai. Samples were packed separately in sealing
HPLC-MS/MS can be used both for quantitative and qualitative analysis, bags with ice and transported to the laboratory immediately. Edible
which provides higher sensitivity and accuracy. A UHPLC-MS/MS parts of samples were cut and ground to homogeneous for detection.
method was developed followed by modified QuEChERS for the deter­ 2 g of the samples were transferred into a centrifugal tube and ho­
mination of 7 BAs in soy sauce (Dong, & Xiao, 2017). A UHPLC-MS/MS mogenized for 5 min with 20 mL 5% HClO using Digital Display Vortex
method was established combining rapid extraction and derivatization Mixer basic MS3 (IKA, Staufen, Germany), then placed for 20 min in an
for the determination of 8 BAs in different fishes at different storage ultrasonic cleaner 3510-DTH (Branson, Connecticut, USA). After
conditions (Fu et al., 2016). Seven BAs and preservatives in meat and centrifugation at 5000 rpm for 10 min using refrigerated centrifuge
fish were detected by LC-MS with the limit of quantification (LOQ) of CF16RX (Hitachi, Tokyo, Japan), the remaining solid was extracted
Bas greater than 25 mg/kg (Molognoni, Daguer, de Sá Ploêncio, & De again with the 20 mL 5% HClO. Both extracts were decanted and com­
Dea Lindner, 2018). According to our knowledge, determinations of BAs bined in a 50 mL graduated tube. The pH of supernatant was adjusted to
in reported literature mainly focus on the samples of beer and wine 3 by adding moderate volum of NaOH (400 g/L), then diluted to 50 mL
(Daniel et al., 2015; Romano et al., 2012; Fernanda Angulo, Flores, using 0.5% HClO.
Aranda, & Henriquez-Aedo, 2020), beverages (Jain, Gupta & Verma, 2 mL of the extraction was transferred to a glass tube and cleaned by
2015; Preti, Antonelli, Bernacchia, & Vinci, 2015), meat (Wojnowski, n-hexane. Took 0.5 mL of the cleaned solution, and diluted it to 1 mL by
Namieśnik, & Płotka-Wasylka, 2019), soy sauce (Dong, & Xiao, 2017), 0.5% HClO. After mixing, the final solution was filtered for LC-MS
sausage and cheese (Liu, Xu, Ma, & Guo, 2018). Moreover, the pre­ analysis.
treatment of these methods needs derivatization, and there are few
methods for simultaneous determination of 8 BAs (SPD, SPM, CAD, HIS, 2.3. LC-MS analysis
PUT, TYR, 2-PHE, TRY) by the triple quadrupole mass spectrometer in
aquatic products and their derived products. The 5500 QTRAP triple quadrupole mass spectrometry (AB SCIEX,
In recent years, excess HIS or BAs poisoning incidents of fish occur Framingham, MA, USA) coupled to the LC-30AD ultrahigh performance
frequently (Rahmani, et al., 2018; Mercogliano, & Santonicola, 2019). liquid chromatography system (Shimadzu, Kyoto, Japan) was used.
Based on the above problems, an HPLC-MS/MS method was developed ACQUITY HSS T3 column (2.1 mm × 100 mm, 1.8 µm, Waters, Milford,
to detect 8 BAs in aquatic products and their derived products. This work MA, USA) was used for analysis. Mobile phase A was 0.5% formic acid in
aimed to provide a scientific basis for the risk assessment of BAs in water and B was acetonitrile. The linear gradient program was per­
aquatic products and their products, and this work might be useful for formed as follows: 0–1 min 0% B, 1–5 min, from 0% to 50% B, 5–5.1

2
X. Zhang et al. Food Chemistry 361 (2021) 130044

min, from 50% to 98% B, 5.1–6.5 min 98% B, 6.5–6.6 min, from 98% to chromatographic peak shapes of TYR, 2-pPHE and TRY showed obvious
0% B, 6.6–8 min 0% B. Temperature of automatic injector was 15 ◦ C. split peaks (Fig. 1A). Therefore, the mobile phase system of acetonitrile-
The injection volume was 10 μL at a flow rate of 0.3 mL/min for mobile 0.5% formic acid was finally selected. The total ion chromatogram of
phase and the column temperature was 40 ◦ C. BAs is shown in Fig. 1B. The retention times of BAs are displayed in
The MS analysis was in multiple-reaction monitoring (MRM) mode Table 1.
and the electrospray ionization was in positive ion mode. The applied
parameters were as follows: ion spray voltage, 5500 V; gasification
temperature, 550 ◦ C; curtain gas, 40 psi; collision gas, medium; ion 3.2. Study of extraction conditions
source gas, 50 psi; declustering potential, 65 V. The MS parameters of
retention time, optimized ion transitions and collision energies are listed The commonly used extraction methods were liquid–liquid extrac­
in Table 1. tion (LLE) (Preti, Antonelli, Bernacchia, & Vinci, 2015; Sorouraddin,
Farajzadeh, Hassanyani, & Afshar Mogaddam, 2016; Liu, Xu, Ma, &
Guo, 2018), liquid-phase microextraction (LPME) (Wojnowski,
2.4. Statistical analysis Namieśnik, & Płotka-Wasylka, 2019; Nemati, Farajzadeh, Mohebbi,
Sehatkhah, & Afshar Mogaddam, 2020) and head-space solid-phase
Raw data of BAs were recorded and calculated in Microsoft Excel. microextraction (HS-SPME) (Parchami, Kamalabadi, & Alizadeh, 2017).
Data were evaluated by descriptive statistics. Linearity was established The commonly used extraction solvents were trichloroacetic acid (TCA)
using linear regression model relating BA concentrations and the signal (Jain, Gupta & Verma, 2015; Parchami, Kamalabadi, & Alizadeh, 2017),
intensities from analyte. perchloric acid (HClO) (An, 2015; Preti, Antonelli, Bernacchia, & Vinci,
2015; Liu, Xu, Ma, & Guo, 2018) and so on (Fu et al., 2016; Dong, &
3. Results Xiao, 2017; Molognoni, Daguer, de Sá Ploêncio, & De Dea Lindner,
2018). Because of the complex substrate of aquatic products (containing
3.1. HPLC-MS/MS conditions fat, protein, mineral elements etc.), proper extraction reagent can
dissolve BAs and precipitate protein. To get a reliable extraction effi­
To optimize the mass characterizations, direct infusion of individual ciency in the actual sample, this article chose positive residue samples as
standard solution (100 µg/L) of each BA was performed. Mass scans the object of study of extraction conditions. Positive sample of canned
were performed in positive ion mode with the flow rate at 10 µL/min. Q1 tuna samples purchased from supermarkets and FAPAS quality control
mass was confirmed at first, then the two characteristic ion pairs of each material (No. T27253QC, matrix: canned fish, HIS content range from
compound were selected as qualitative and quantitative ions by Q3 mass 31.4 to 45.6 mg/kg) purchased from Fera (Sand Hutton, York, Britain)
scans, ionization conditions and collision energy were optimized at the were selected for testing. Fig. 2 reports BAs’ concentration with various
end. extraction solvents, 0.5% and 5% perchloric acid aqueous solution, and
As BAs measured in this study were all nitrogenous organic com­ 1% and 5% trichloroacetic acid solution. The extractions of 1% tri­
pounds with strong polarity, four different polar columns were tested. chloroacetic acid solution and 5% trichloroacetic acid solution gave a
The selected columns were as follows: Kinetex F5 (100 mm × 2.1 mm, low result for each BAs. The extractions of 0.5% perchloric acid solution
2.6 µm), TSK gel Amide-80 (100 mm × 2.0 mm, 5 µm), ZIC-cHILIC (150 gave a good result for HIS, but poor results for SPD and PUT. Better
mm × 2.1 mm, 3 µm), and ACQUITY HSS T3 (100 mm × 2.1 mm, 1.8 extraction effects of all eight BAs were obtained by using 5% perchloric
µm). F5 column showed higher sensitivities for all the 8 BAs, but the acid solution which was selected as the final extraction solution. It is
stabilities of SPD, SPM and HIS were poorer, which led to poor linear­ reported that the recovery of the BAs is influenced by the pH, the ana­
ities of those three compounds (Fig. S1B). TSK column presented poor lyte, the sample type and the acid type in the extraction and deprotei­
retentions of the BAs, as all the compounds retention at about 0.5 min nization process (da Silveira, Tavares, & Glória, 2007; Moret & Conte,
(Fig. S1C). The peak shapes of SPD and SPM separated by the HILIC 1996). Recently, hydrochloric acid, perchloric acid, sulfosalicylic acid
column were very poor (Fig. S1A). T3 column was finally selected as its and trichloroacetic acid were tested, results also proved that perchloric
higher selectivity and sensitivity. acid was the best extractant (Korös, Varga, & Molnár-Perl, 2008).
The composition and ratio of mobile phase not only affected the The BAs have strong biological activity as a result of amino acid
chromatographic behavior of compounds, but also affected their ioni­
zation efficiency, thereby affecting the detection sensitivity. In order to
obtain good response and chromatographic separation, mobile phase
systems of methanol-2 mmol/L ammonium acetate (containing 0.5%
formic acid), acetonitrile-2 mmol/L ammonium acetate (containing
0.5% formic acid), and acetonitrile-0.5% formic acid were compared.
When ammonium acetate was added in the aqueous phase, the

Table 1
MS parameters of eight BAs.
Compounds Retention time Q1 mass Q3 mass Collision energy
(min) (m/z) (m/z) (eV)

SPD 0.97 146.1 129.1/ 15/19

112.1a
SPM 0.97 203.2 129.1/ 25/27
112.1a
CAD 0.97 103 86.1a/69 15/22
HIS 0.97 112.2 95.1a/68 20/30
PUT 0.95 89.1 72 a/30 13/31
TYR 3.35 138.2 121.1a/77 16/34 Fig. 1. Chromatogram peaks of TYR in mobile phase containing ammonium
2-PHE 4.17 122.2 105a/77 16/35
acetate (A). Total ion chromatogram of the 8 BAs standards spiked in the grass
TRY 4.36 161.2 144.1a/117 18/33
carp matrix solution (B). (a) SPD, SPM, CAD, HIS and PUT: 1 µg/mL, (b) TYR:
a
Quantitative ion. 0.1 µg/mL, (c) 2-PHE: 0.1 µg/mL, and (d) TRY: 0.1 µg/mL.

3
X. Zhang et al. Food Chemistry 361 (2021) 130044

2003). The spiked recoveries of CAD and PUT were less than 1% using
MCX-SPE. Acceptable recoveries were achieved using C18 and PSA, but
HIS and PUT (65.0% and 64.8%) were lower than using n-hexane
(105.9% and 97.9%), especially HIS. However, the recoveries of 8 BAs
ranged from 70.5% to 113% after the purification of n-hexane, which
indicated that using n-hexane as purification agent could not only obtain
better purification effect, but also reduce the loss of analyte. Therefore,
n-hexane was selected as the purification agent of this study. In addition,
using n-hexane as purification agent makes it faster, cheaper and more
convenient than reported methods (Table S3).
Three kinds of membrane filters with pore sizes of 0.22 μm were
tested, including nylon membrane filters (NYL), polyethersulfone
membrane filters (PES) and polytetrafluoroethylene membrane filters
(PTFE). The spiked blank matrix solution of white shrimp with 50 µg/L
of each BA was filtered by three kinds of membrane filters respectively,
and peak areas on HPLC-MS/MS were measured. There was greater loss
of SPD, CAD, HIS and PUT using NYL filters, and of SMP, HIS and TRY
Fig. 2. The BAs extracted from positive samples of canned tuna and QCM by using PES filters (Fig. 3B). PTFE filters were finally selected as the filter
different extract solvent. of this study because of its lowest loss of 8 kinds of BAs.

decarboxylase activities (Wang, Yamaki, Kawai, & Yamazaki, 2020).

3.4. Method validation
The temperature and time of ultrasonic extraction might affect the re­
sults of the experiment. Table S1 lists the results obtained with HIS
In order to validate the method of sensitivity, stability and reliability,
FAPAS QCM. The results showed that ultrasonic extraction time and
Table 2 gives the performance of analytical features, including range of
temperature would not affect the extraction efficiency.
linearity (LR), correlation coefficient (R2), limit of detection (LOD), limit
of quantification (LOQ), intraday and interday precision.
The series of mixed standard working solutions (7 gradient concen­
3.3. Selection of purification agent and membrane filters
tration points), good linearity with high R2 of 0.99 or higher and wide
linear range were obtained. The standard solutions of SPD, SPM, CAD,
The commonly used purification methods for the analysis of BAs in
HIS and PUT ranged from 20 to 2000 µg/L, and the LOD and LOQ
food were freezing lipid filtration (Molognoni, Daguer, de Sá Ploêncio, &
(calculated as the signal to noise ratios of 3 and 10, respectively) were
De Dea Lindner, 2018), liquid–liquid distribution removal (Zhong, Liao,
1.0 mg/kg and 2.5 mg/kg, respectively. The standard solutions of TYR,
Ding, Ye, & Liu, 2015; Mohammed, Bashammakh, Alsibaai, Alwael, &
2-PHE and TRY ranged from 2 to 200 µg/L, and the LOD and LOQ were
El-Shahawi, 2016; Mattsson, Xu, Preininger, Tse Sum Bui, & Haupt,
0.1 mg/kg and 0.25 mg/kg, respectively. This method has a higher
2018), solid-phase extraction column for lipid removal (Liu, Xu, Ma, &
sensitivity comparing with the published paper using HPLC-MS/MS to
Guo, 2018), dispersed solid-phase for lipid removal (Dong, & Xiao,
determine BAs in fish without derivatization (Table S3).
2017). Commonly used purification agents are n-hexane, C18, PSA, and
To validate the precision of the proposed method, the relative stan­
SPE. There are impurities such as fat, pigment and water-soluble protein
dard deviations (RSDs) of peak areas were calculated for intraday and
in aquatic products. Extraction of 5% perchloric acid solution was used
interday variations. The intraday variation was measured by analyzing
for extraction and protein precipitation in this study. Moreover, in the
BAs standards at 100 µg/L for SPD, SPM, CAD, HIS, PUT and 10 µg/L for
purification step, n-hexane, MCX-SPE, C18 and PSA were studied to
TYR, 2-PHE, TRY in triplicate within one day, and the inter-day varia­
choose the best purification agent by spiking white shrimp samples with
tion was tested by analyzing the same BAs standards on three different
5 mg/kg of each BA. Fig. 3A shows the ABs recoveries of different pu­
days. As shown in Table 2, the intra-day and inter-day precision range
rification agents. Spiked recoveries of SPD and HIS were lower before
between 0.98 and 2.54% and 2.11–3.87%, separately, which indicated
purification, indicating that matrix effects of the two compounds exist
good stability and repeatability of this method.
and further reduction needed (Matuszewski, Constanzer, & Chavez-Eng,
Table 3 displays the recoveries and precisions of 8 BAs spiked at
three levels in different aquatic products and their products (yellow
croaker, white shrimp, mussel, squid, canned tuna, shrimp paste). The
accuracy was expressed as a percentage of calculated value (measuring
value minus blank value) to the nominal concentration. The accuracy for
the 8 BAs at three levels ranged from 71.8% to 113.0%, from 70.9% to
113.1%, and from 75.5% to 111.3%, respectively, with the RSD ranged

Table 2
Quantitative features of the developed method.
Compounds LR (µg/ R2 LOD LOQ Intraday Interday
L) (mg/ (mg/ RSD (n = RSD (n =
kg) kg) 3) 3, day) (%)

SPD 20–2000 0.9968 1.0 2.5 3.98 9.78

SPM 20–2000 0.9983 1.0 2.5 4.07 6.63
CAD 20–2000 0.9998 1.0 2.5 2.28 8.52
HIS 20–2000 0.9916 1.0 2.5 2.42 6.17
PUT 20–2000 0.9931 1.0 2.5 3.06 10.5
Fig. 3. Recoveries of BAs after cleanup with n-hexane, MCX-SPE, C18 and PSA TYR 2–200 0.9995 0.1 0.25 1.53 3.45
2-PHE 2–200 0.9940 0.1 0.25 0.93 5.10
on the extract from white shrimp samples (A). Intensities of the 8 BAs standards
TRY 2–200 0.9996 0.1 0.25 1.47 3.54
spiked in the white shrimp matrix solution using three membrane filters (B).

4
X. Zhang et al. Food Chemistry 361 (2021) 130044

Table 3
Recoveries and precision of 8 biogenic amines spiked in different aquatic products and their products (n = 3).
Analytes Add level (mg/kg) Recovery/% (RSD/%)

Yellow croake White shrimp Mussel Squid Canned tuna Shrimp paste

SPD 2.5 112.1 (4.16) 113.0 (1.37) 108.2 (1.99) 95.4 (0.59) 102.1 (3.96) 112.9 (2.39)
5 111.6 (1.79) 110.4 (1.67) 108.4 (2.48) 94.1 (0.88) 113.1 (1.03) 112.7 (1.30)
12.5 104.3 (3.66) 105.6 (7.33) 110.0 (3.17) 98.4 (1.42) 107.2 (4.39) 110.2 (1.20)
SPM 2.5 110.2 (3.52) 112.6 (6.28) 101.2 (4.02) 102.3 (1.05) 99.4 (3.04) 101.1 (3.06)
5 111.1 (2.04) 108.9 (3.14) 100.4 (2.98) 96.4 (1.06) 105.2 (6.00) 106.7 (5.14)
12.5 99.5 (6.31) 101.0 (5.74) 96.5 (4.01) 96.7 (2.47) 102 (0.96) 103.3 (6.17)
CAD 2.5 73.9 (7.52) 73.3 (6.84) 112.3 (9.57) 74.9 (2.03) 74.9 (4.44) 80.7 (3.86)
5 78.5 (8.57) 71.5 (7.41) 109.5 (9.66) 101.3 (4.51) 105.7 (3.63) 76.9 (7.00)
12.5 82.6 (9.61) 77.9 (6.54) 107.1 (8.76) 100.1 (1.50) 98.2 (1.59) 76.8 (3.41)
HIS 2.5 103.7 (6.14) 107.9 (5.35) 99.5 (3.57) 111.3 (1.76) 76.2 (3.88) 81.9 (2.03)
5 101.5 (8.66) 95.7 (6.21) 105.7 (5.55) 104.5 (6.47) 70.9 (5.05) 94.1 (0.80)
12.5 96.2 (6.74) 82.5 (4.49) 102.3 (6.77) 90.0 (1.82) 75.5 (3.74) 99.7 (1.99)
PUT 2.5 89.4 (5.54) 78.5 (9.98) 90.5 (8.44) 100.1 (0.81) 75.4 (1.35) 88.4 (0.94)
5 85.7 (6.38) 85.4 (8.37) 96.4 (9.37) 89.3 (1.69) 78.3 (0.62) 99.9 (3.39)
12.5 91.8 (10.81) 90.7 (5.06) 92.0 (8.65) 101.2 (1.48) 83.9 (4.51) 102.4 (7.43)
TYR 0.25 78.3 (2.47) 77.5 (6.74) 111.3 (3.25) 77.6 (1.85) 87.1 (2.89) 74.3 (5.19)
0.5 80.5 (3.82) 82.5 (5.47) 109.0 (4.21) 83.7 (2.59) 110.2 (0.44) 72.8 (1.72)
1.25 82.2 (3.44) 77.1 (3.34) 104.6 (3.32) 97.4 (3.64) 111.3 (0.95) 83.7 (1.44)
2-PHE 0.25 82.1 (9.03) 85.9 (12.31) 94.3 (5.49) 94.4 (6.00) 77.5 (3.69) 84.7 (4.02)
0.5 90.4 (1.02) 90.9 (3.87) 91.4 (1.43) 100.4 (4.51) 81.8 (6.57) 76.4 (0.33)
1.25 83.1 (3.35) 90.6 (3.20) 92.7 (7.72) 88.7 (2.55) 81.0 (3.21) 83.5 (0.73)
TRY 0.25 80.7 (2.57) 71.8 (5.74) 78.2 (3.57) 75.8 (1.12) 94.3 (5.49) 82.1 (1.61)
0.5 82.8 (3.50) 72.9 (7.68) 79.8 (5.81) 90.5 (6.41) 93.0 (1.87) 94.5 (2.03)
1.25 87.3 (1.66) 80.3 (6.30) 88.7 (3.77) 88.5 (1.32) 92.6 (2.83) 98.0 (2.03)

from 0.33% to 10.81%. The results indicated that the described method Declaration of Competing Interest
was sufficiently precise and accurate for routine analysis of BAs.
The authors declare that they have no known competing financial
3.5. Detection of real samples interests or personal relationships that could have appeared to influence
the work reported in this paper.
The established method was applied to detect 8 BAs in 6 kinds of
samples purchased from the local market. BAs contents of yellow Acknowledgement
croaker, white shrimp, mussel, squid, canned tuna and shrimp paste are
listed in Table S2. SPD and SPM of 6 samples were all detected ranging This work was supported by the Central Public-interest Scientific
from 4.14 mg/kg to 15.31 mg/kg, and from 2.09 mg/kg to 35.58 mg/kg, Institution Basal Research Fund of China (NO. 2020TD72).
separately. SPM and TYR had the highest contents among all 8 BAs in
canned tuna and shrimp paste. All HIS and TYR levels were less than the Appendix A. Supplementary data
USA and EU acceptable levels (FDA, 1995).
Supplementary data to this article can be found online at https://doi.
4. Conclusion org/10.1016/j.foodchem.2021.130044.

A quick and sensitive method for determination of 8 BAs in aquatic References

products and their derived products was established by HPLC-MS/MS
without derivatization. The extraction procedure of the method was Al Bulushi, I., Poole, S., Deeth, H. C., & Dykes, G. A. (2009). Biogenic amines in fish:
Roles in intoxication, spoilage, and nitrosamine formation-A review. Critical Reviews
simple and the purification was rapid. The LODs and LOQs of 8 BAs in Food Science and Nutrition, 49(4), 369–377. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.
ranged from 0.1 mg/kg to 1 mg/kg, and from 0.25 mg/kg to 2.5 mg/kg, toxicon.2011.10.011.
separately. The method was demonstrated to have a wide linear range, Anal, A. K., Perpetuini, G., Petchkongkaew, A., Tan, R., Avallone, S., Tofalo, R., …
Waché, Y. (2020). Food safety risks in traditional fermented food from South-East
good sensitivity and accuracy. This method was suitable for the detec­ Asia. Food Control, 109, 106922. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.foodcont.2019.106922.
tion of BAs in fish, shrimp, crab, shellfish and other aquatic products and An, D., Chen, Z., Zheng, J., Chen, S., Wang, L., Huang, Z., & Weng, L. (2015).
their products. Determination of biogenic amines in oysters by capillary electrophoresis coupled
with electrochemiluminescence. Food Chemistry, 168, 1–6. https://doi.org/10.1016/
j.foodchem.2014.07.019.
CRediT authorship contribution statement Banks, C. N., & Adams, M. E. (2012). Biogenic amines in the nervous system of the
cockroach, Periplaneta americana following envenomation by the jewel wasp.
Ampulex compressa. Toxicon, 59(2), 320–328. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.
Xuan Zhang: Data curation, Investigation, Formal analysis, Writing -
toxicon.2011.10.011.
original draft. Changling Fang: Investigation, Data curation, Writing - Daniel, D., Dos Santos, V. B., Vidal, D. T., & do Lago, C. L. (2015). Determination of
original draft. Dongmei Huang: Supervision, Writing - original draft, biogenic amines in beer and wine by capillary electrophoresis-tandem mass
Validation, Data curation. Guangxin Yang: Investigation. Yunyu Tang: spectrometry. Journal of Chromatography A, 1416, 121–128. https://doi.org/
10.1016/j.chroma.2015.08.065.
Investigation, Data curation. Yongfu Shi: Data curation, Writing - re­ DB 31/2004-2012. Local food safety standard Fermented meat product. Local standards
view & editing. Cong Kong: Investigation, Writing - review & editing. of Shanghai [S].
Pei Cao: Conceptualization, Resources. Youqiong Cai: Conceptualiza­ del Rio, B., Redruello, B., Linares, D. M., Ladero, V., Ruas-Madiedo, P., Fernandez, M., …
Alvarez, M. A. (2019). The biogenic amines putrescine and cadaverine show in vitro
tion, Funding acquisition, Project administration, Writing - review & cytotoxicity at concentrations that can be found in foods. Scientific Reports, 9(1), 120.
editing. https://doi.org/10.1038/s41598-018-36239-w.
Dong, H., & Xiao, K. (2017). Modified QuEChERS combined with ultra high performance
liquid chromatography tandem mass spectrometry to determine seven biogenic

5
X. Zhang et al. Food Chemistry 361 (2021) 130044

amines in Chinese traditional condiment soy sauce. Food Chemistry, 229, 502–508. Mercogliano, R., & Santonicola, S. (2019). Scombroid fish poisoning: Factors influencing
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.foodchem.2017.02.120. the p roduction of histamine in tuna supply chain. A review. LWT-Food Science and
European Community (2005). Commission Regulation (EC) No. 2073/2005 of 15 Technology, 114, Article 108374. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.lwt.2019.108374.
November 2005 on microbiological criteria for foodstuffs. Official Journal of the Mohammed, G. I., Bashammakh, A. S., Alsibaai, A. A., Alwael, H., & El-Shahawi, M. S.
European Communities: Information and Notices. L 338, 1-26. (2016). A critical overview on the chemistry, clean-up and recent advances in
European Food Safety Authority (EFSA) Panel on Biological Hazards (BIOHAZ) (2011). analysis of biogenic amines in foodstuffs. Trends in Analytical Chemistry, 78, 84–94.
Scientific Opinion on risk based control of biogenic amine formation in fermented https://doi.org/10.1002/chin.201640280.
foods. EFSA Journal, 9 (10), 2393–2486. https://doi.org/10.2903/j.efsa.2011.2393. Molognoni, L., Daguer, H., de Sá Ploêncio, L. A., & De Dea Lindner, J. (2018). A multi-
FDA (1995). Food and Drug Administration, USA, Decomposition and histamine raw purpose tool for food inspection: Simultaneous determination of various classes of
frozen tuna and mahi–mahi; canned tuna; and related species; availability of revised preservatives and biogenic amines in meat and fish products by LC-MS. Talanta, 178,
compliance policy guide. Federal Registration, 60 (149), 39754–39756. 1053–1066. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.talanta.2017.08.081.
FDA (1998). FDA and EPA guidance levels. In: Fish and fishery products hazards and Moret, S., & Conte, L. S. (1996). High-performance liquid chromatographic evaluation of
controls guide (2nd ed.) (pp. 245-248). Washington, DC: Department of Health and biogenic amines in foods an analysis of different methods of sample preparation in
Human Services, Public Health Service, Food and Drug Administration, Center for relation to food characteristics. Journal of Chromatography A, 729, 363–369. https://
Food Safety and Applied Nutrition, Office of Seafood (Appendix 5). doi.org/10.1016/0021-9673(95)00961-2.
Fernanda Angulo, M., Flores, M., Aranda, M., & Henriquez-Aedo, K. (2020). Fast and Nemati, M., Farajzadeh, M. A., Mohebbi, A., Sehatkhah, M. R., & Afshar
selective method for biogenic amines determination in wines and beers by ultra high Mogaddam, M. R. (2020). Simultaneous application of deep eutectic solvent as
performance liquid chromatography. Food Chemistry, 309, Article 125689. https:// extraction solvent and ion-pair agent in liquid phase microextraction for the
doi.org/10.1016/j.foodchem.2019.125689. extraction of biogenic amines from tuna fish samples. Microchemical Journal, 159,
Fu, Y., Zhou, Z., Li, Y., Lu, X., Zhao, C., & Xu, G. (2016). High-sensitivity detection of Article 105496. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.microc.2020.105496.
biogenic amines with multiple reaction monitoring in fish based on benzoyl chloride Parchami, R., Kamalabadi, M., & Alizadeh, N. (2017). Determination of biogenic amines
derivatization. Journal of Chromatography A, 1465, 30–37. https://doi.org/10.1016/ in canned fish samples using head-space solid phase microextraction based on
j.chroma.2016.08.067. nanostructured polypyrrole fiber coupled to modified ionization region ion mobility
da Silveira, T. M. L., Tavares, E., & Glória, M. B. A. (2007). Profile and levels of bioactive spectrometry. Journal of Chromatography A, 1481, 37–43. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.
amines in instant coffee. Journal of Food Composition and Analysis, 20, 451–457. chroma.2016.12.046.
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jfca.2007.02.003. Preti, R., Antonelli, M. L., Bernacchia, R., & Vinci, G. (2015). Fast determination of
GB 2733-2015. National food safety standard Fresh and frozen aquatic products. biogenic amines in beverages by a core-shell particle column. Food Chemistry, 187,
National Standards of the People’s Republic of China [S]. 555–562. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.foodchem.2015.04.075.
GB 7098-2015. National food safety standard Canned food. National Standards of the Rahmani, J., Miri, A., Mohseni-Bandpei, A., Fakhri, Y., Bjørklund, G., Keramati, H., …
People’s Republic of China [S]. Khaneghah, A. M. (2018). Contamination and prevalence of histamine in Canned
Gao, F., Grant, E., & Lu, X. (2015). Determination of histamine in canned tuna by Tuna from Iran: A systematic review, meta-analysis, and health risk assessment.
molecularly imprinted polymers-surface enhanced Raman spectroscopy. Analytica Journal of Food Protection, 81(12), 2019–2027. https://doi.org/10.4315/0362-028X.
Chimica Acta, 901, 68–75. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.aca.2015.10.025. JFP-18-301.
Gu, J., Liu, T., Hou, J., Pan, L., Sadiq, F. A., Yuan, L., … He, G. (2018). Analysis of Romano, A., Klebanowski, H., La Guerche, S., Beneduce, L., Spano, G., Murat, M. L., &
bacterial diversity and biogenic amines content during the fermentation processing Lucas, P. (2012). Determination of biogenic amines in wine by thin-
of stinky tofu. Food Research International, 111, 689–698. https://doi.org/10.1016/j. layerchromatography/densitometry. Food Chemistry, 135, 1392–1396. https://doi.
foodres.2018.05.065. org/10.1016/j.foodchem.2012.06.022.
Jain, A., Gupta, M., & Verma, K. K. (2015). Salting-out assisted liquid–liquid extraction Sorouraddin, S. M., Farajzadeh, M. A., Hassanyani, A., & Afshar Mogaddam, M. R.
for the determination of biogenic amines in fruit juices and alcoholic beverages after (2016). Combination of homogenous liquid-liquid extraction and dispersive liquid-
derivatization with 1-naphthylisothiocyanate and high performance liquid liquid microextraction for extraction and preconcentration of amantadine from
chromatography. Journal Chromatography A, 1422, 60–72. https://doi.org/10.1016/ biological samples followed by its indirect determination by flame atomic absorption
j.chroma.2015.10.036. spectrometry. RSC Advances, 6, 108603–108610. https://doi.org/10.1039/
Korös, A., Varga, Z., & Molnár-Perl, I. (2008). Simultaneous analysis of amino acids and D0RA10077C.
amines as their o-phthalaldehyde-ethanethiol-9-fluorenylmethyl chloroformate Shalaby, A. R. (1996). Significance of biogenic amines to food safety and human health.
derivatives in cheese by high-performance liquid chromatography. Journal of Food Research International, 29, 675–690. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0963-9969(96)
Chromatography A, 1203, 146–152. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.chroma.2008.07.035. 00066-X.
Liang, J., Li, D., Shi, R., Wang, J., & Xiong, K. (2019). Effects of different co-cultures on Wang, D., Yamaki, S., Kawai, Y., & Yamazaki, K. (2020). Histamine production behaviors
the amino acid availability, biogenic amine concentrations and protein metabolism of a psychrotolerant histamine-producer, morganella psychrotolerans, in various
of fermented sufu and their relationships. LWT-Food Science and Technology, 113, environmental conditions. Current Microbiology, 77, 460–467. https://doi.org/
Article 108323. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.lwt.2019.108323. 10.1007/s00284-019-01853-y.
Liu, S. J., Xu, J. J., Ma, C. L., & Guo, C. (2018). A comparative analysis of derivatization Wojnowski, W., Namieśnik, J., & Płotka-Wasylka, J. (2019). Dispersive liquid-liquid
strategies for the determination of biogenic amines in sausage and cheese by HPLC. microextraction combined with gas chromatography–mass spectrometry for in situ
Food Chemistry, 266, 275–283. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.foodchem.2018.06.001. determination of biogenic amines in meat: Estimation of meat’s freshness.
Mattsson, L., Xu, J., Preininger, C., Tse Sum Bui, B., & Haupt, K. (2018). Competitive Microchemical Journal, 14, 130–138. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.microc.2018.10.034.
fluorescent pseudo-immunoassay exploiting molecularly imprinted polymers for the Zhao, N., Lai, H., He, W., Wang, Y., Huang, Y., Zhao, M., … Ge, L. (2021). Reduction of
detection of biogenic amines in fish matrix. Talanta, 181, 190–196. https://doi.org/ biogenic amine and nitrite production in low-salt Paocai by controlled package
10.1016/j.talanta.2018.01.010. during storage: A study comparing vacuum and aerobic package with conventional
Matuszewski, B. K., Constanzer, M. L., & Chavez-Eng, C. M. (2003). Strategies for the salt solution package. Food Control, 123, Article 107858. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.
assessment of matrix effect in quantitative bioanalytical methods based on HPLC- foodcont.2020.107858.
MS/MS. Analytical Chemistry, 75(13), 3019–3030. https://doi.org/10.1021/ Zhong, J., Liao, N., Ding, T., Ye, X., & Liu, D. (2015). Liquid chromatographic method for
ac020361s. toxic biogenic amines in foods using a chaotropic salt. Journal of Chromatography A,
1406, 331–336. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.chroma.2015.06.048.