4.7 Article

Dispersive liquid-liquid microextraction for the determination of organochlorine pesticides residues in honey by gas chromatography-electron capture and ion trap mass spectrometric detection

Journal

FOOD CHEMISTRY
Volume 134, Issue 3, Pages 1665-1672

Publisher

ELSEVIER SCI LTD
DOI: 10.1016/j.foodchem.2012.03.073

Keywords

Dispersive liquid-liquid microextraction; Organochlorine pesticides; Gas chromatography-mass spectrometry; Electron capture; Honey

Ask authors/readers for more resources

A simple dispersive liquid-liquid microextraction (DLLME) protocol for the determination of 15 organochlorine pesticides residues in honey is proposed. The selected pesticides were separated using gas chromatography and detected by electron capture (ECD) or ion trap mass spectrometry (GC-IT/MS). Several parameters affecting the extraction efficiency namely type and volume of organic extraction solvent, type and volume of disperser solvent, sample pH, ionic strength, extraction time and centrifugation speed were systematically investigated. The final DLLME protocol involved the addition of 750 mu L acetonitrile (disperser) and 50 mu L chloroform (extraction solvent) into a 5 mL aqueous honey solution followed by centrifugation. The sedimented organic phase (chloroform) were analysed directly by GC-IT/MS or evaporated and reconstituted in acetonitrile prior to the GC-ECD analysis. The analytical performance of the GC-ECD and GC-IT/MS methods was compared and discussed. Under the selected experimental conditions, the enrichment factors varied between of 36 and 114. The limits of detection (LOD) were in the range of 0.02-0.15 mu g L-1 (0.4-3 ng g(-1)) for GC-ECD and 0.01-0.2 mu g L-1 (0.2-4 ng g(-1)) for GC-IT/MS which is adequate to verify compliance of products to legal tolerances. The proposed method was applied to the analysis of the selected organochlorine pesticides residues in various honey samples obtained from Greek region. Mean recoveries were ranged from 75% to 119% while the precision was better than 20% in both methodologies. (C) 2012 Elsevier Ltd. 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