4.7 Article

Determination of 27 pesticides in wine by dispersive liquid-liquid microextraction and gas chromatography-mass spectrometry

Journal

MICROCHEMICAL JOURNAL
Volume 126, Issue -, Pages 415-422

Publisher

ELSEVIER SCIENCE BV
DOI: 10.1016/j.microc.2015.11.003

Keywords

Pesticide; Wine; Dispersive liquid-liquid microextraction; Gas chromatography-mass spectrometry

Funding

  1. National Natural Science Foundation of China [21225731, 21477166]
  2. NSF of Guangdong Province [S2013030013474]
  3. Shenzhen CIQ Science project [SZ2015209]
  4. National Key Technology Support project [2012BAD29B01-5]

Ask authors/readers for more resources

A low solvent consumption method was developed to determine 27 different classes of pesticides (including organochlorine pesticide, organophosphorus pesticide, pyrethroid pesticide, fungicide, herbicide and acaricide) in wine using dispersive liquid-liquid microextraction (DLLME). Extraction parameters including type and volume of extraction solvent, type and volume of disperser solvent, salinity, pH, centrifugation time, vortex extraction time and wine volumes were optimized. A mixture of 60 mu L chloroform (extraction solvent) and 940 mu L acetonitrile (disperser solvent) was injected into 5 mL wine diluent. After shaking and centrifugation, the sedimented phase was transferred into a 200 mu L glass insert and determined by gas chromatography-mass spectrometry method (GC-MS). The results demonstrated that the recoveries for all the pesticides spiked at three different levels ranged from 66.7 to 126.1%. The intra-day repeatabilities (RSDs) ranged from 2.0 to 27.2%. The limits of detection ranged from 0.025 to 0.88 mu g/L, and the limits of quantification ranged from 0.082 to 2.94 mu g/L. The proposed method is very low cost, rapid and convenient, and could be an effective method for monitoring of multi-pesticide in wine. (C) 2015 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

4.7
Not enough ratings

Secondary Ratings

Novelty
-
Significance
-
Scientific rigor
-
Rate this paper

Recommended

No Data Available
No Data Available