4.7 Article

Analytical method for the determination of cyromazine and melamine residues in soil using LC-UV and GC-MSD

Journal

JOURNAL OF AGRICULTURAL AND FOOD CHEMISTRY
Volume 48, Issue 8, Pages 3352-3358

Publisher

AMER CHEMICAL SOC
DOI: 10.1021/jf991231w

Keywords

cyromazine; melamine; soil; liquid chromatography-ultraviolet defection; gas chromatography-mass selective detection; Good Laboratory Practices (GLP)

Ask authors/readers for more resources

A method is reported for the determination of cyromazine and melamine residues in soil. Soil samples are extracted twice via mechanical shaking, each time with 70% acetonitrile/30% 0.050 M ammomium carbonate for 30 min. An aliquot portion of the pooled extracts is subjected to strong cation exchange (SCX) purification on AG 50W-X4 resin. Final analysis is accomplished using liquid chromatography-ultraviolet (LC-UV) detection at a wavelength of 214 nm. Confirmatory analyses can be performed using gas chromatography-mass selective detection (GC-MSD) in the selected ion monitoring (SIM) mode. The limit of detection (LOD) is 2.5 ng injected and the limit of quantification (LOQ)! is 10 ppb when using LC-W for the analysis of N-cyclopropyl-1,3,5-triazine-2,4,6-triazine (cyromazine) and 1,3,5-triazine-2,4,6-triamine (melamine). The LOD is 0.050 ng injected and the LOQ is 10 ppb when using GC-MSD for confirmatory analyses. The mean procedural recoveries were 97 and 95% and the standard deviations were 16 and 11% for cyromazine and melamine, respectively (n = 24), when using LC-UV. The mean procedural recoveries were 107 and 92% and the standard deviations were 9.9 and 16% for cyromazine and melamine, respectively (n = 29), when using GC-MSD. The method validation study was conducted under U.S. EPA FIFRA Good Laboratory Practice Guidelines 40 CFR 160. The method also passed an Independent Laboratory Validation (ILV) as per U.S. EPA FIFRA Subdivision N.

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