Trace analysis of fumagillin in honey by liquid chromatography-diode array-electrospray ionization mass spectrometry
ABSTRACT In this work a new liquid chromatography with diode array detection and electrospray ionization mass spectrometry (LC-DAD-ESI-MS) method has been developed for the determination of fumagillin residues in honey. This procedure involves a solid-phase extraction on polymeric cartridges for the isolation of fumagillin from diluted honey. Chromatographic separation of fumagillin was performed in isocratic mode, on a C(18) column (150 mm x 4.60mm i.d., 5 microm), the mobile phase consisted of a mixture of ammonium formate 20mM in water and acetonitrile (61/39, v/v), at 35 degrees C and the flow rate was set at 1.0 mL/min. Average analyte recoveries, influenced by the botanical origin were from 88 to 96% in replica sets of fortified honey samples. The detection limits of the LC-DAD-ESI-MS method were between 24 and 1 microg/kg for clear honeys (rosemary) and between 45 and 4 microg/kg for dark honeys (heather). The developed method has been applied to the analysis of fumagillin residues in honey samples collected from veterinary treated beehives, infected by Nosema ceranae and fed with the technical product at different doses.
- SourceAvailable from: hal.archives-ouvertes.fr[Show abstract] [Hide abstract]
ABSTRACT: In this review, relevant data is presented on an emerging disease of the 21th century in European countries, caused by Nosema ceranae. Within a few years after it was detected in Spain in 2005, the rest of European countries that had technical capacity to differentiate Nosema apis from N. ceranae reported its presence. In a similar way as the initial detection of Varroa in Europe, active scientific work is raising many questions due to the absence of clinical symptoms in infected colonies and a long incubation period of the pathogen. N. ceranae presents a different epidemiological pattern and pathology compared to N. apis. The disease caused by N. ceranae is now named nosemosis type C (COLOSS workshop, 2009) and is characterized by the ability to detect the disease-causing agent throughout the year. The continuous death of highly infected bees, mostly foragers, has a clear effect on colony population and productivity. Although there has been a huge effort in the last years to increase knowledge about this disease, significant research is still needed on epidemiology, pathology, prophyllaxis and treatment.Apidologie 05/2010; 41(3):375-392. DOI:10.1051/apido/2010019 · 1.68 Impact Factor
- [Show abstract] [Hide abstract]
ABSTRACT: Honey bees play an important role in food production (honey, pollen etc.), and their pollinating activity is not only essential to maintain world agriculture production but also to ensure biodiversity in different ecosystems. Nosema ceranae is a highly prevalent worldwide pathogen for honey bees that has been related to colony losses. A commercial formulation that contains fumagillin dicyclohexylamine, Fumidil B®, can control N. ceranae infection. However, the effectiveness of Fumidil B® is affected by several factors, such as storage, treatment preparation, the quantity consumed by bees etc. Indeed, UV exposure (e.g. sunlight) drastically reduces the initial concentration of fumagillin within a few hours, while temperature affects its degradation. Although laboratory tests suggest that a semisolid mixture of honey and powdered sugar is the best option to apply fumagillin, its application in syrup (250mL per dosage) is more effective for the treatment of infected colonies. The total amount of syrup containing fumagillin ingested by honey bees is a key factor in its efficacy, and it has been found that medicated patties were not fully consumed in field trials. In honey bee colonies, the dose of 120mg/honey bee colony at the recommended posology is effective against depopulation and colony death due to N. ceranae after 1year, without residues being detected in honey, although reinfection could be detected 4months after treatment ended. Keywords Nosema ceranae –Fumagillin–Stability–Syrup–Honey–sugar patty–Dosage–Treatment–Colony depopulationApidologie 05/2011; 42(3):364-377. DOI:10.1007/s13592-011-0003-2 · 1.68 Impact Factor
- [Show abstract] [Hide abstract]
ABSTRACT: In recent years, a worldwide decline in the Apis mellifera populations has been detected in many regions, including Spain. This decline is thought to be related to the effects of pathogens or pesticides, although to what extent these factors are implicated is still not clear. In this study, we estimated the prevalence of honey bee colony depopulation symptoms in a random selected sample (n = 61) and we explored the implication of different pathogens, pesticides and the flora visited in the area under study. The prevalence of colony depopulation symptoms in the professional apiaries studied was 67.2% [95% confidence interval (CI) = 54.6-79.8; P < 0.0001]. The most prevalent pathogen found in the worker honey bee samples was Nosema ceranae[65.6%; 95% CI = 52.8-78.3; P < 0.0001], followed by Varroa destructor[32.7%; 95% CI = 20.2-45.4; P < 0.0001] and 97.5% of the colonies infected by N. ceranae were unhealthy (depopulated). Co-infection by V. destructor and N. ceranae was evident in 22.9% (95% CI = 11.6-34.3; P < 0.0001) of the samples and only in unhealthy colonies. Of the 40 pesticides studied, only nine were detected in 49% of the stored pollen samples analysed. Fipronil was detected in only three of 61 stored pollen samples and imidacloprid was not detected in any. Acaricides like fluvalinate, and chlorfenvinphos used to control Varroa mite were the most predominant residues in the stored pollen, probably as a result of their application in homemade formulae. None of the pesticides identified were statistically associated to colony depopulated. This preliminary study of epidemiological factors suggests that N. ceranae is a key factor in the colony losses detected over recent years in Spain. However, more detailed studies that permit subgroup analyses will be necessary to contrast these findings.Environmental Microbiology Reports 04/2010; 2(2):243-50. DOI:10.1111/j.1758-2229.2009.00099.x · 3.29 Impact Factor