4.6 Article

Chemometric study and optimization of extraction parameters in single-drop microextraction for the determination of multiclass pesticide residues in grapes and apples by gas chromatography mass spectrometry

期刊

JOURNAL OF CHROMATOGRAPHY A
卷 1216, 期 45, 页码 7630-7638

出版社

ELSEVIER SCIENCE BV
DOI: 10.1016/j.chroma.2009.08.092

关键词

Single-drop microextraction; Experimental design; Liquid phase extraction; Fruits; Residue analysis; Food analysis; Sample preparation

向作者/读者索取更多资源

A simple and rapid single-drop microextraction method coupled with gas chromatography and mass spectrometry (SDME-GC/MS) for the determination of 20 pesticides with different physicochemical properties in grapes and apples was optimized by the use of a multivariate strategy. Emphasis on the optimization study was given to the role of ionic strength, sugar concentration and pH of the donor sample solution prepared from the fruit samples. Since all three variables were found to affect negatively SDME (a lower extraction efficiency was observed as the values of variables were increased for most of the pesticides studied), donor sample solution was optimized using a central composite design to evaluate the optimum pH value and the optimum dilution of the sample extract. With some exceptions (chlorpyrifos ethyl, alpha-endosulfan, beta-endosulfan, pyriproxyfen, gamma-cyhalothrin and bifenthrin), the optimum method included the dilution of the analytical sample by 12.5-fold with a buffered acetone/water solution at pH = 4 and exhibited good analytical characteristics for the majority of target analytes (pyrimethanil, pirimicarb, metribuzin, vinclozolin, fosthiazate, procymidone, fludioxonil, kresoxim methyl, endosulfan sulfate, fenhexamid, iprodione, phosalone, indoxacarb and azoxystrobin) by providing high enrichment factors (14-328), low limits of detection (0.0003-0.007 mu g/g), and good precision (relative standard deviations below 15%). (C) 2009 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