4.6 Article

Quantification of endocrine disruptors and pesticides in water by gas chromatography-tandem mass spectrometry. Method validation using weighted linear regression schemes

Journal

JOURNAL OF CHROMATOGRAPHY A
Volume 1217, Issue 43, Pages 6681-6691

Publisher

ELSEVIER
DOI: 10.1016/j.chroma.2010.05.005

Keywords

Endocrine disruptors; Pesticides; GC-MS; Water; Weighted linear regression schemes; Validation

Funding

  1. FCT [SFRH/BD/41764/2007]
  2. Fundação para a Ciência e a Tecnologia [SFRH/BD/41764/2007] Funding Source: FCT

Ask authors/readers for more resources

multi-residue methodology based on a solid phase extraction followed by gas chromatography-tandem mass spectrometry was developed for trace analysis of 32 compounds in water matrices, including estrogens and several pesticides from different chemical families, some of them with endocrine disrupting properties. Matrix standaid calibration solutions were prepared by adding known amounts of the analytes to a residue-free sample to compensate matrix-induced chromatographic response enhancement observed for certain pesticides. Validation was done mainly according to the International Conference on Harmonisation recommendations, as well as some European and American validation guidelines with specifications for pesticides analysis and/or CC-MS methodology. As the assumption of homoscedasticity was not met for analytical data, weighted least squares linear regression procedure was applied as a simple and effective way to counteract the greater influence of the greater concentrations on the fitted regression line, improving accuracy at the lower end of the calibration curve. The method was considered validated for 31 compounds after consistent evaluation of the key analytical parameters: specificity. linearity, limit of detection and quantification, range, precision, accuracy, extraction efficiency, stability and robustness. (C) 2010 Elsevier B.V. All rights reserved

Authors

I am an author on this paper
Click your name to claim this paper and add it to your profile.

Reviews

Primary Rating

4.6
Not enough ratings

Secondary Ratings

Novelty
-
Significance
-
Scientific rigor
-
Rate this paper

Recommended

No Data Available
No Data Available