62
views
0
recommends
+1 Recommend
0 collections
    0
    shares
      • Record: found
      • Abstract: found
      • Article: not found

      Comparison of QuEChERS sample preparation methods for the analysis of pesticide residues in fruits and vegetables.

      Read this article at

      ScienceOpenPublisherPubMed
      Bookmark
          There is no author summary for this article yet. Authors can add summaries to their articles on ScienceOpen to make them more accessible to a non-specialist audience.

          Abstract

          This article describes the comparison of different versions of an easy, rapid and low-cost sample preparation approach for the determination of pesticide residues in fruits and vegetables by concurrent use of gas and liquid chromatography (GC and LC) coupled to mass spectrometry (MS) for detection. The sample preparation approach is known as QuEChERS, which stands for "quick, easy, cheap, effective, rugged and safe". The three compared versions were based on the original unbuffered method, which was first published in 2003, and two interlaboratory validated versions: AOAC Official Method 2007.01, which uses acetate buffering, and European Committee for Standardization (CEN) Standard Method EN 15662, which calls for citrate buffering. LC-MS/MS and GC-MS analyses using each method were tested from 50 to 1000ng/g in apple-blueberry sauce, peas and limes spiked with 32 representative pesticides. As expected, the results were excellent (overall average of 98% recoveries with 10% RSD) using all 3 versions, except the unbuffered method gave somewhat lower recoveries for the few pH-dependent pesticides. The different methods worked equally well for all matrices tested with equivalent amounts of matrix co-extractives measured, matrix effects on quantification and chemical noise from matrix in the chromatographic backgrounds. The acetate-buffered version gave higher and more consistent recoveries for pymetrozine than the other versions in all 3 matrices and for thiabendazole in limes. None of the versions consistently worked well for chlorothalonil, folpet or tolylfluanid in peas, but the acetate-buffered method gave better results for screening of those pesticides. Also, due to the recent shortage in acetonitrile (MeCN), ethyl acetate (EtOAc) was evaluated as a substitute solvent in the acetate-buffered QuEChERS version, but it generally led to less clean extracts and lower recoveries of pymetrozine, thiabendazole, acephate, methamidophos, omethoate and dimethoate. In summary, the acetate-buffered version of QuEChERS using MeCN exhibited advantages compared to the other tested methods in the study.

          Related collections

          Author and article information

          Journal
          J Chromatogr A
          Journal of chromatography. A
          Elsevier BV
          1873-3778
          0021-9673
          Apr 16 2010
          : 1217
          : 16
          Affiliations
          [1 ] US Department of Agriculture, Agricultural Research Service, Eastern Regional Research Center, 600 East Mermaid Ln., Wyndmoor, PA 19038, USA. steven.lehotay@ars.usda.gov
          Article
          S0021-9673(10)00081-6
          10.1016/j.chroma.2010.01.044
          20144460
          ab51cd8e-63f3-44ad-9a45-fe174e5cc6a6
          Published by Elsevier B.V.
          History

          Comments

          Comment on this article

          scite_
          790
          10
          388
          1
          Smart Citations
          790
          10
          388
          1
          Citing PublicationsSupportingMentioningContrasting
          View Citations

          See how this article has been cited at scite.ai

          scite shows how a scientific paper has been cited by providing the context of the citation, a classification describing whether it supports, mentions, or contrasts the cited claim, and a label indicating in which section the citation was made.

          Similar content379

          Cited by91