Application of Matrix Solid-Phase Dispersion and Liquid Chromatography–Ion Trap Mass Spectrometry for the Analysis of Pesticide Residues in Fruits

Radišić, Marina; Vasiljević, Tatjana; Dujaković, Nikolina; Laušević, Mila

doi:10.1007/s12161-012-9448-9

Cited by 20 publications

(8 citation statements)

References 19 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…This method has been successfully applied for years in the analysis of different pesticide groups (high polarity, acidic or basic pesticides) [11–14]. In addition to these methods, matrix solid‐phase dispersion has been used in many studies to isolate pesticides from food samples [15–18]. In recent years, easy, inexpensive, and environmentally friendly microextraction methods such as SPME [19, 20], dispersive liquid‐liquid microextraction (DLLME) [21, 22], single drop microextraction [23], hollow fiber‐liquid phase microextraction [24], ultrasonically‐assisted emulsifier microextraction [25], vortex‐assisted LLME [26] and air‐assisted LLME [27] are used in the analysis of pesticides.…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Dispersive liquid‐liquid microextraction method combined with sugaring‐out homogeneous liquid‐liquid extraction for the determination of some pesticides in molasses samples

Yıldız

Çabuk

2021

J of Separation Science

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

In this study, a sensitive analytical method was developed to determine some pesticides (cyprodinil, trifloxystrobin, prometryn, propachlor, fenitrothion, chlorpyrifos, profenofos, and phosalone) in molasses samples. Pesticides were extracted from samples by dispersive liquid‐liquid microextraction method combined with sugaring‐out homogeneous liquid‐liquid extraction and determined by gas chromatography–mass spectrometry analysis. In this method, pesticides in molasses samples were first extracted using a water‐miscible solvent (acetonitrile) in the sugaring‐out homogeneous liquid‐liquid extraction stage. The sugar in the ratio of 84–88% naturally contained in the molasses sample enabled phase separation in the acetonitrile‐water homogeneous mixture. Then acetonitrile phase containing pesticides was used as dispersing solvent in the second step of the process. Under the specified optimum conditions, the limit of detection was calculated between 0.8–6.1 ng/g and the limit of quantification was in the range of 2.5–20 ng/g. The relative standard deviation values of molasses samples containing 150 ng/g of each analyte were found to be lower than 4.9% intra‐day and 5.6% for inter‐day. This validated method has been successfully applied to different types of molasses.

show abstract

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Dispersive liquid‐liquid microextraction method combined with sugaring‐out homogeneous liquid‐liquid extraction for the determination of some pesticides in molasses samples

Yıldız

Çabuk

2021

J of Separation Science

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…In comparison, our novel method provides lower limit of detection (LOD) than those of LPME (Peng et al 2007). Compared with SPME (Wu et al 2012;Radišić et al 2013) and DLLME-HPLC , although our LOD was slightly higher, the extraction time was shorter in our method. This result indicated that the developed method had the merits of improved simplicity and sensitivity.…”

Section: Evaluation Of Methods Performancementioning

confidence: 81%

“…DLLME offers significant advantages including simplicity, easy handling, cost-effectiveness, rapidity, limited consumption of organic solvents, and high enrichment capabilities. These features have attracted the interest of many research groups, and DLLME has been applied for the extraction of triazines from different matrixes (Radišić et al 2013;Wu et al 2012;Zhang and Xu 2014;Andruch et al 2013;Wang et al 2014). Of course, like other analytical methods, DLLME also has its drawbacks.…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Salt De-Emulsification Dispersive Liquid-Liquid Microextraction and Back-Extraction Combined with Sweeping Micellar Electrokinetic Capillary Chromatography for Detection of Triazine Herbicides in Honey

Yue

et al. 2015

Food Anal. Methods

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

A rapid, simple, and sensitive method has been developed for the analysis of triazine herbicides in honey samples by using salt de-emulsification dispersive liquidliquid microextraction and back-extraction (SD-DLLME-BE) coupled with sweeping in micellar electrokinetic chromatography (MEKC). In the newly developed method, chloroform can be generated by the reaction of chloral hydrate and sodium hydroxide, and the chloroform droplets dispersed into bulk aqueous solution can be swiftly carried to the bottom of the centrifuge tube with the addition of calcium chloride. Then, back-extraction was utilized to extract the analytes into an aqueous solution prior to capillary electrophoresis (CE) analysis. The advantages of the new in situ DLLME lie in dispersive solvent-free and no centrifugation operation compared with the conventional DLLME. Several important parameters influencing the preconcentration and extraction efficiency of SD-DLLME-BE such as sodium dodecyl sulfate (SDS) concentration, pH, chloral hydrate and sodium hydroxide content, extraction time, and calcium chloride content were optimized. Under the optimized conditions, the enrichment factors were achieved in the range from 459 to 636. The proposed method provided a good linearity, low limits of detection (8.56 ng/mL), and good repeatability of the extractions (relative standard deviations (RSDs) below 8.8 %, n=6).Honey samples were analyzed by the proposed method, and obtained results indicated that the proposed method provides acceptable recoveries and precisions.

show abstract

“…Many studies have been conducted to determine tebufenozide in different matrices using many extraction methods including vortex, ultrasound, oscillation, and supercritical fluid extraction (SFE), pressurized liquid extraction (PLE), dispersive solid phase extraction (dSPE), hollow fibre liquid phase micro‐extraction (HF‐LPME), ionic liquid assisted liquid micro‐extraction (IL‐VALLME) and accelerated solvent extraction (ASE) . Several detection methods have been implemented for the analysis of tebufenozide including gas chromatography (GC), high‐performance liquid chromatography (HPLC), liquid chromatography with mass spectrometry (LC–MS), gas chromatography with mass spectrometry (GC–MS), liquid chromatography with tandem mass spectrometry (LC–MS/MS), gas chromatography with tandem mass spectrometry (GC–MS/MS), and micellar electrokinetic capillary chromatography . For example, Araujo et al .…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Determination, residue analysis, risk assessment and processing factors of tebufenozide in okra fruits under field conditions

et al. 2019

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

BACKGROUND: Ensuring the yield, quality, and profitability of okra by preventing and controlling pests with the application of insecticides has increased in the last decade. Some insecticide residues might remain in edible parts of okra (fruits) and lead to several potential human health problems. Therefore, research on the residue behaviour, risk assessment and removal approach of insecticides on okra fruits is important for food safety, together with the proper application and residual elimination of insecticides in okra. RESULTS: A simple liquid chromatography with tandem mass spectrometry (LC-MS/MS) method was established and validatedfor determining the tebufenozide residues in okra fruits. The recoveries of tebufenozide in okra fruits were >72% with relative standard deviations of 0.6 to 6.1%. The dissipation rates of tebufenozide were different in okra fruits cultivated under open land and glasshouse field conditions because of the discriminating humidity and temperature conditions. The dietary intake of the tebufenozide residues from okra fruit consumption for Chinese consumers was fairly low, with approximately no potential health risk. The processing factor values of washing, blanching, washing + blanching and soaking were all less than one, which indicated that these processes could effectively reduce the residual hydrazide in the okra fruit. CONCLUSION: The developed method for analysing tebufenozide in okra fruits was applicable for field studies on this insecticide. The potential health risk of tebufenozide in okra fruits could be negligible to the health of different age groups of Chinese consumers. The soaking process effectively removed tebufenozide residues from okra fruits. The obtained data will help Chinese governments establish a maximum residue limit of tebufenozide in okra and provide data for the risk assessment and removal of tebufenozide in other crops.

show abstract

Application of Matrix Solid-Phase Dispersion and Liquid Chromatography–Ion Trap Mass Spectrometry for the Analysis of Pesticide Residues in Fruits

Cited by 20 publications

References 19 publications

Dispersive liquid‐liquid microextraction method combined with sugaring‐out homogeneous liquid‐liquid extraction for the determination of some pesticides in molasses samples

Dispersive liquid‐liquid microextraction method combined with sugaring‐out homogeneous liquid‐liquid extraction for the determination of some pesticides in molasses samples

Salt De-Emulsification Dispersive Liquid-Liquid Microextraction and Back-Extraction Combined with Sweeping Micellar Electrokinetic Capillary Chromatography for Detection of Triazine Herbicides in Honey

Determination, residue analysis, risk assessment and processing factors of tebufenozide in okra fruits under field conditions

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About