4.6 Article

Multiresidue analysis of 83 pesticides and 12 dioxin-like polychlorinated biphenyls in wine by gas chromatography-time-of-flight mass spectrometry

期刊

JOURNAL OF CHROMATOGRAPHY A
卷 1216, 期 12, 页码 2307-2319

出版社

ELSEVIER
DOI: 10.1016/j.chroma.2009.01.091

关键词

Red wine; White wine; Multiresidue analysis; Pesticide residues; Dioxin-like polychlorinated biphenyls; Gas chromatography-time-of-flight mass spectrometry; Method validation; Measurement uncertainty

向作者/读者索取更多资源

A multiresidue method is described for simultaneous estimation of 83 pesticides and 12 dioxin-like polychlorinated biphenyls (PCBs) in red and white wines. The samples (20 mL wine, acidified with 20 mL 1% HCl) were extracted with 10 mL ethyl acetate (+20 g sodium sulphate) and cleaned by dispersive solid-phase extraction (DSPE) with anhydrous calcium chloride and Florisil successively. The final extract (5 mL) was solvent exchanged to I mL of cyclohexane: ethyl acetate (9: 1), further cleaned by DSPE with 25 mg primary secondary amine sorbent and analyzed by gas chromatography-time-of-flight mass spectrometry (GC-TOF-MS) within 31 min run time. The limits of quantification of most analytes were <= 10-20 mu g/L. Acidification of wine prior to extraction prevented hydrolysis of organophosphorous pesticides as well as dicofol, whereas treatment with CaCl2 minimized the fatty acid co-extractives significantly. Solvent exchange to cyclohexane: ethyl acetate (9: 1) further minimized the co-extractives. Recoveries at 5, 10 and 20 ng/mL were >80% for most analytes except cyprodinil, buprofezin and iprodione. The expanded uncertainties at 10 ng/mL were <20% for most analytes. Intra-laboratory precision in terms of Horwitz ratio of all the analytes was below 0.5, suggesting ruggedness of the method. Effectively, the method detection limit for most analytes was as low as up to I ng/mL in both red and white wine, except for cyfluthrin and cypermethrin. (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