Determination of pesticide residues in complex matrices using multi-walled carbon nanotubes as reversed-dispersive solid-phase extraction sorbent

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. Published by Elsevier B.V.

A common problem in gas chromatography (GC) applications is the analyte losses and/or peak tailing due to undesired interactions with active sites in the inlet and column. Analytes that give poor peak shapes or degrade have higher detection limits, are more difficult to identify and integrate, and are more prone to interferences than stable analytes that give narrow peaks. For susceptible analytes, significant peak quality improvements are obtained when matrix components are present because they fill active sites, thus reducing analyte interactions. This phenomenon is called "matrix-induced chromatographic response enhancement." Several approaches have been proposed to minimize peak distortion phenomena and compensate for matrix-induced effects, which is especially important for accurate quantitation, but each approach has serious limitations for routine multi-pesticide analysis. In this study, we demonstrate the feasibility of using "analyte protectants" to provide a more convenient and effective solution to the problem than other approaches developed thus far. The protecting agents are added to extracts and matrix-free standards alike to provide the chromatographic enhancement effect even for the most susceptible analytes in a very dirty GC system. In this study, we evaluated 93 different compounds to find the most suitable ones for improving chromatographic quality of the signal. Because hydrogen bonding has been shown to be an important factor in analyte interactions with active sites, we mainly focused on additives with strong hydrogen bonding capabilities. Dramatic peak enhancements were achieved using compounds containing multiple hydroxy groups, such as sugars and sugar derivatives, and gulonolactone appears to be the most effective protecting agent for the most pesticides that we tested. The benefits of using analyte protectants versus alternative procedures for overcoming matrix-induced effects in quantitation include: (a) simpler procedure; (b) easier integration of peaks; (c) lower detection limits; (d) better quantitation; (e) less maintenance of the GC inlet; and (e) lower cost. However, long-term influences on the performance of the chromatographic system have yet to be established.

Three sample preparation methods: Luke method (AOAC 985.22), QuEChERS (quick, easy, cheap, effective, rugged and safe) and matrix solid-phase dispersion (MSPD) were applied to different fruits and vegetables for analysis of 14 pesticide residues by high-performance liquid chromatography with electrospray ionization-mass spectrometry (HPLC/ESI/MS). Matrix effect, recovery and process efficiency of the sample preparation methods applied to different fruits and vegetables were compared. The Luke method was found to produce least matrix effect. On an average the best recoveries were obtained with the QuEChERS method. MSPD gave unsatisfactory recoveries for some basic pesticide residues. Comparison of matrix effects for different apple varieties showed high variability for some residues. It was demonstrated that the amount of co-extracting compounds that cause ionization suppression of aldicarb depends on the apple variety as well as on the sample preparation method employed.