4.7 Article

Determination of carbaryl in tomato in natura using an amperometric biosensor based on the inhibition of acetylcholinesterase activity

期刊

SENSORS AND ACTUATORS B-CHEMICAL
卷 129, 期 1, 页码 40-46

出版社

ELSEVIER SCIENCE SA
DOI: 10.1016/j.snb.2007.07.098

关键词

pesticide; enzyme; electroanalytical determination; food matrices

向作者/读者索取更多资源

This work reports the utilization of two methodologies for carbaryl determination in tomatoes. The measurements were carried out using an amperometric biosensor technique based on the inhibition of acetylcholinesterase activity due to carbaryl adsorption and a HPLC procedure. The electrochemical experiments were performed in 0.1 mol L-1 phosphate buffer solutions at pH 7.4 with an incubation time of 8 min. The analytical curve obtained in pure solutions showed excellent linearity in the 5.0 x 10(-5) to 75 x 10(-5) mol L-1 range, with the limit of detection at 0.4 x 10(-3) gL(-1). The application of such a methodology in tomato samples involved solely liquidising the samples, which were spiked with 6.0 x 10(-6) and 5.0 x 10(-5) mol L-1 carbaryl. Recovery in such samples presented values of 99.0 and 92.4%, respectively. In order to obtain a comparison, HPLC experiments were also conducted under similar conditions. However, the tomato samples have to be manipulated by an extraction procedure (MSPD), which yielded much lower recovery values (78.3 and 84.8%, respectively). On the other hand, the detection limit obtained was much lower than that for the biosensor, i.e., 3.2 x 10(-6) g L-1. Finally, the biosensor methodology was employed to analyze carbaryl directly inside the tomato, without any previous manipulation. In this case, the biosensor was immersed in the tomato pulp, which had previously been spiked with the pesticide for 8 min, removed and inserted in the electrochemical cell. A recovery of 83.4% was obtained, showing very low interference of the matrix constituents. (C) 2007 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

4.7
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