Malachite green residue in farmed fish in north-west part of Iran

Figures & data

Table 1. Accuracy and precision of the method for malachite green (MG) and leucomalachite green (LMG) in spiked samples (n = 6).

		Day 1 repeatability		Day 2 repeatability		Day 3 repeatability		Within-laboratory reproducibility
Analyte	Spiked level (µg/kg)	Mean recovery (%)	RSD^a (%)	Mean recovery (%)	RSD^a (%)	Mean recovery (%)	RSD^a (%)	Mean recovery (%)	RSD^a (%)
MG	2	86.2	7.58	79.8	8.42	81.2	5.73	79.5	9.45
	3	79.8	6.38	80.5	7.65	85.6	9.30	84.0	9.63
	4	80.6	6.00	81.0	5.10	79.1	7.50	82.2	10.8
LMG	2	15.0	4.10	16.3	8.95	17.5	5.20	81.5	10.5
	3	18.0	6.22	18.0	9.15	16.9	5.87	80.8	8.88
	4	17.5	5.57	16.2	8.40	17.8	6.66	78.6	8.58

^aRelative standard deviation.

Figure 1. Determination of the detection capability of MG by ELISA.

Table 2. Malachite green concentrations in farmed fish in north-west part of Iran.

			Concentration (µg/kg)		Distribution of positive samples, n (%)
Year	Samples, n	Positive samples, n (%)	Mean ± SEM	Range^a	<0.3 µg/kg^b	0.3–1 µg/kg	1–2 µg/kg	> 2 µg/kg
2014	83	45 (54.2)	1.04 ± 0.10^x	0.35–2.50	38 (45.8)	27 (32.5)	13 (15.7)	5 (6.02)
2015	94	63 (67.0)	1.99 ± 0.23^y	0.41–7.12	31 (33.0)	24 (25.5)	26 (27.7)	13 (13.8)
Total	177	108 (61.0)	1.59 ± 0.14	0.35–7.12	69 (39.0)	51 (28.8)	39 (22.0)	18 (10.2)

^{x, y}Means ± SEM with different superscript letters are significantly different (p < 0.05).

^aMinimum and maximum values in positive samples.

^bDistribution of negative samples.