Testing the Stability of Pesticides During Sample Processing for the Chlorpyrifos and Malathion Residue Analysis in Cucumber, Including Matrix Effects

Abstract

This article describes the procedure of the testing the stability of compounds during sample processing for the pesticide residue analysis in cucumber, including matrix matched assessment. To find out significant differences, one-tailed t test was applied to the data at 95% confidence level. Our results showed that the calculated value was bigger than the critical value (t ( calc ) > t ( crit )), which means the pesticides were decomposed under our processing conditions.

Activated carbon from waste as an efficient adsorbent for malathion for detection and removal purposes

“…Malathion is 17 the most widely used organophosphate insecticide in the USA, 18 Saudi Arabia and Turkey [6][7][8]. Malathion is an organophosphorus 19 compound that can cause childhood leukemia, anemia, and kidney 20 failure as well as cholinesterase [9,10].…”

Determination of Pesticide Residues in Sour Cherry used in the Sour Fruit Juice Production in Tokat provinces

“…Calibration curves of pesticide standards in representative sample matrix were linear over the range of 5-200 μg L -1 , with r 2 , (r 2 ≥ 0.99). For linearity, it is important that the correlation coefficient is greater than 0.99 (Tiryaki et al, 2008). This result shows that the method was linear with a specified concentration ranges.…”

Antalya'da Yeti̇şti̇ri̇len Narlarda Pesti̇si̇t Kalintilarinin Beli̇rlenmesi̇ Ve Sağlik Ri̇sk Değerlendi̇rmesi̇

“…The matrix calibration curves and calibration equations of 260 pesticides were linear (R 2 ≥ 0.990) in the 5-200 µg mL ¹ calibration range. The correlation coefficient (R 2 ) over 0.990 is an important criterion of linearity (Tiryaki et al, 2008). Calibration curves of boscalid and pyraclostrobin, which had concentrations lower than the MRL, and acetamiprid, buprofezin, chlorpyrifos, deltamethrin, and tebuconazole, which had residue concentrations higher than the MRL, are shown in Figure 2.…”