Multifamily determination of pesticide residues in soya-based nutraceutical products by GC/MS–MS

Páleníková, Agneša; Martínez-Domínguez, Gerardo; Arrebola, Francisco; Romero‐González, Roberto; Hrouzková, Svetlana; Frenich, Antonia Garrido

doi:10.1016/j.foodchem.2014.10.100

Cited by 55 publications

(37 citation statements)

References 29 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…The salt-out extraction is followed by cleanup of the extract with dispersive solid phase extraction (dSPE). Common dSPE sorbents include C18 or C8 for removal of lipids; florisil for removal of polar and low-fat co-extracts; graphitized carbon black (GCB) for removal of pigments and some fatty acids; primary secondary amine (PSA) for efficient removal of saccharides and organic acid as it is a weak anion exchanger; and Z-Sep (ZrO 2 bonded to silica) or Z-Sep+ (ZrO 2 and C18 both bonded to silica) for removal of lipids [15]. PSA has been reported to remove butanoic acid, decanoic acid, heptanoic acid, hexanoic acid, linoleic acid, and phytosterol (stigmasterol), while not effectively removing alkaloids (caffeine and theobromine) and γ-tocopherol [30].…”

Section: Modified Quechers Procedures and Dispersive Solid Phase Extrmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…Target analytes with the lowest recoveries included folpet (63-69%) and tolylfluanid (63-71%) analyzed by GC and pymetrozine (31-82%) and tolylfluanid (60-76%) analyzed by LC methods [32]. Ethyl acetate instead of acetonitrile (extraction solvent) has also been used particularly for GC-amenable pesticides [15,17,31,33], but the dSPE is generally more effective with acetonitrile and in some matrices such as peas, the co-extractives may increase significantly when ethyl acetate is used as the extraction solvent [32]. Others have found that the number of GC-amenable pesticides increases with the use of ethyl acetate rather than acetonitrile and good recoveries were obtained with dSPE using a mixture of PSA, GCB, PSA, and Zr-Sep + [15].…”

Section: Sample Preparationmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…Ethyl acetate instead of acetonitrile (extraction solvent) has also been used particularly for GC-amenable pesticides [15,17,31,33], but the dSPE is generally more effective with acetonitrile and in some matrices such as peas, the co-extractives may increase significantly when ethyl acetate is used as the extraction solvent [32]. Others have found that the number of GC-amenable pesticides increases with the use of ethyl acetate rather than acetonitrile and good recoveries were obtained with dSPE using a mixture of PSA, GCB, PSA, and Zr-Sep + [15]. Recoveries improved for cleanup of extracts for analysis of OPs and carbamates by LC-MS/MS (egg products) when acetonitrile, rather than ethyl acetate, was used, and when ethyl acetate was used, recoveries >120% were reported even when followed by dSPE [31].…”

Section: Sample Preparationmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…PSA without C18 or GCB was found to provide better recoveries and precision for neonicotinoids in soil [28]. C18 can result in poor recoveries of some more nonpolar GCamenable analytes (recoveries <70 or >120%) when the sample matrix has a high fat content and, under these situations, Zr-Sep+ has been used to remove lipids [15]. Zr-Sep+ was also used for cleanup of extracts from high fat content edible oil samples reducing matrix effects better than observed with PSA and C18 [23].…”

Section: Sample Preparationmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…The addition of protectants including 3-ethoxy-1,2-propanediol and D-sorbitol prior to GC-MS/MS analysis can also minimize strong interactions of target analytes and matrix with the injector liner or GC column [14,15,21]. Re-acidifying extracts after cleanup with acetic or formic acid have also been used to improve peak shapes and response for GC-MS or LC-MS/ MS methods and protect analytes that are sensitive to degradation at high pH [18].…”

Section: Sample Preparationmentioning

confidence: 99%

See 4 more Smart Citations

Sample Preparation Methods for Pesticide Analysis in Food Commodities, Biological and Environment Matrices

Raina‐Fulton¹,

Xie²

2017

Ideas and Applications Toward Sample Preparation for Food and Beverage Analysis

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

This chapter focuses on sample preparation procedures for pesticide analysis of food commodities, biological and environmental matrices. This will include pesticides with a broad range of polarity including those that are more amenable to gas chromatographymass spectrometry (organochlorines, organophosphorus pesticides, and pyrethroids) and those commonly analyzed by liquid chromatography-mass spectrometry (carbamates, azole, and strobilurin fungicides, and phenylureas as well as organophosphorus pesticides). QuEChERS (quick, easy, cheap, effective, rugged, and safe) methods or QuEChERS methods with modifications to allow wetting of the dry sample matrix, buffering, changing extraction solvent from acetonitrile to ethyl acetate are examined. Subsequent cleanup using dispersive solid phase extraction or cartridge format solid phase extraction has also been completed to reduce matrix effects. Other solid matrices are frequently extracted with pressurized liquid extraction, microwave assisted extraction, or ultrasonic extraction combined with or followed by dispersive solid phase extraction or solid phase extraction. Particularly for chromatography-mass spectrometry, careful consideration of matrix effects needs to be made when considering the design of the sample preparation procedures. Selection of extraction solvent needs to consider both polarity of target analytes (and their solubility in selected solvents) as well as co-extracted matrix components.

show abstract

Section: Modified Quechers Procedures and Dispersive Solid Phase Extrmentioning

confidence: 99%

Section: Sample Preparationmentioning

confidence: 99%

Section: Sample Preparationmentioning

confidence: 99%

Section: Sample Preparationmentioning

confidence: 99%

Section: Sample Preparationmentioning

confidence: 99%

See 3 more Smart Citations

Sample Preparation Methods for Pesticide Analysis in Food Commodities, Biological and Environment Matrices

Raina‐Fulton¹,

Xie²

2017

Ideas and Applications Toward Sample Preparation for Food and Beverage Analysis

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

Analysis of Herbicide and/or Pesticide Residues in Dietary Botanical Supplements

Raina‐Fulton

Aborkhees

Behdarvandan

2018

Encyclopedia of Analytical Chemistry

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Analysis of pesticides in nutraceuticals, particularly dietary botanical supplements, is challenging owing to the low water content of powder or tablet samples and potentially higher concentration of co‐extracts produced during the drying and manufacturing processes. These co‐extracts can cause signal suppression or enhancement in mass spectrometric (MS) detection. Poor chromatographic stability and peak shapes can also be observed from co‐eluting matrix components. Sample preparation is critical to the detection of pesticides in extracts, and the major sample preparation methods used for dietary botanical supplements included modified QuEChERS (quick, easy, cheap, effective, rugged, and safe) methods, dilute‐and‐shoot, and pressurized liquid extraction (PLE) with in‐cell (on‐line) cleanup. Additional cleanup of extracts was completed by dispersive solid‐phase extraction (dSPE) or solid‐phase extraction (SPE). Recoveries of individual pesticides from a variety of chemical classes of varying polarities were evaluated using the major sample preparation approaches utilized for analysis of pesticides since 2010. Major chemical classes of pesticides included those predominately analyzed by GC‐MS/MS (pyrethroid insecticides) or LC‐MS/MS (carbamates, sulfonyl ureas, phenyl ureas, and neonicotinoid insecticides) and those that have greater flexibility to be analyzed by GC‐MS/MS or LC‐MS/MS (azole and strobilurin fungicides). Other selected herbicides including cyclohexene oxime herbicides, aryloxyphenoxy propionic herbicides, or fungicides that were included in multiresidue analysis methods were also examined. Common dSPE sorbents included primary secondary amine (PSA), octyldecyl silane (C18), graphitized carbon black (GCB), and zirconia and C18 bonded to silica (Z‐Sep + ), while carbon‐based sorbents were used for SPE along with Florisil ® . C18 and PSA were also used for SPE often in combination with a carbon‐based sorbent. Highlighted are the issues with different chemical classes or sample matrix types.

show abstract

Analytical Methods for Pesticide Detection in Foodstuffs

Hrouzková

2016

Food Safety

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Multifamily determination of pesticide residues in soya-based nutraceutical products by GC/MS–MS

Cited by 55 publications

References 29 publications

Sample Preparation Methods for Pesticide Analysis in Food Commodities, Biological and Environment Matrices

Sample Preparation Methods for Pesticide Analysis in Food Commodities, Biological and Environment Matrices

Analysis of Herbicide and/or Pesticide Residues in Dietary Botanical Supplements

Analytical Methods for Pesticide Detection in Foodstuffs

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About