4.5 Article

Multi-residue analysis of pesticide residues in mangoes using solid-phase microextraction coupled to liquid chromatography and UV-Vis detection

Journal

JOURNAL OF SEPARATION SCIENCE
Volume 34, Issue 21, Pages 2960-2966

Publisher

WILEY-V C H VERLAG GMBH
DOI: 10.1002/jssc.201100341

Keywords

HPLC/UV-Vis; Mangoes; Pesticide residues; SPME

Funding

  1. National Research Council (CNPq)
  2. State of Bahia Foundation for the Support for Research (FAPESB)
  3. PRONEX
  4. INCT
  5. FINEP
  6. CAPES

Ask authors/readers for more resources

A sensitive and efficient solid-phase microextraction method, based on liquid chromatography and UV-Vis detection, was developed and validated as an alternative method for sample screening prior to LC-MS analysis. It enables the simultaneous determination of ten pesticides in mango fruits. The fiber used was polydimethylsiloxane while optimum SPME conditions employed have been developed and optimized in a previous work. The desorption process was performed in static mode, using acetonitrile as a solvent. The results indicate that the DI-SPME/HPLC/UV-Vis procedure resulted in good linear range, accuracy, precision and sensibility and is adequate for analyzing pesticide residues in mango fruits. The limits of detection (0.6-3.3 mu g/kg) and quantification (2.0-10.0 mu g/kg) were achieved with values lower than the maximum residue levels (MRLs) established by Brazilian legislation for all pesticides in this study. The average recovery rates obtained for each pesticide ranged from 71.6 to 104.3% at three fortification levels, with the relative standard deviation ranging from 4.3 to 18.6%. The proposed method was applied for the determination of the aforementioned compounds in commercial mango samples and residues of azoxystrobin, fenthion, permethrin, abamectin and bifenthrin were detected in the mango samples, although below the MRLs established by Brazilian legislation.

Authors

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

Reviews

Primary Rating

4.5
Not enough ratings

Secondary Ratings

Novelty
-
Significance
-
Scientific rigor
-
Rate this paper

Recommended

No Data Available
No Data Available