4.6 Article

Suitability of microwave-assisted extraction coupled with solid-phase extraction for organophosphorus pesticide determination in olive oil

期刊

JOURNAL OF CHROMATOGRAPHY A
卷 1207, 期 1-2, 页码 38-45

出版社

ELSEVIER SCIENCE BV
DOI: 10.1016/j.chroma.2008.08.051

关键词

Organophosphorus pesticides; Olive oil; Microwave-assisted extraction; Chemometric approach

资金

  1. FONDECYT [11060461]

向作者/读者索取更多资源

A systematic study of the microwave-assisted extraction coupled to solid-phase extraction of nine organophosphorus pesticides (dimethoate, diazinon, pirimiphos methyl, parathion methyl, malathion, fenthion, chlorpyriphos, methidathion and azinphos methyl) from olive oil is described. The method is based on microwave-assisted liquid-liquid extraction with partition of organophosphorus pesticides between an acetonitrile-dichloromethane mixture and oil. Cleanup of extracts was performed with ENVI-Carb solid-phase extraction cartridge using dichloromethane as the elution solvent. The determination of pesticides in the final extracts was carried out by gas chromatography-flame photometric detection and gas chromatography-tandem mass spectrometry, using a triple quadrupole mass analyzer, for confirmative purposes. The study and optimization of the method was achieved through experimental design where recovery of compounds using acetonitrile for partition ranged from 62 to 99%. By adding dichloromethane to the extracting solution, the recoveries of more hydrophobic compounds were significantly increased. Under optimized conditions recoveries of pesticides from oil were equal to or higher than 73%, except for fenthion and chlorpyriphos at concentrations higher than 0.06 mu g g(-1) and diazinon at 0.03 mu g g-1, with RSDs equal to or lower than 11% and quantification limits ranging from 0.007 to 0.020 mu g g(-1). The proposed method was applied to residue determination of the selected pesticides in commercial olive and avocado oil produced in Chile. (C) 2008 Elsevier B.V. All rights reserved.

作者

我是这篇论文的作者
点击您的名字以认领此论文并将其添加到您的个人资料中。

评论

主要评分

4.6
评分不足

次要评分

新颖性
-
重要性
-
科学严谨性
-
评价这篇论文

推荐

暂无数据
暂无数据