4.2 Article Proceedings Paper

Evaluation of Three Multiresidue Methods for the Determination of Pesticides in Marijuana (Cannabis sativa L.) with Liquid Chromatography-Tandem Mass Spectrometry

期刊

CHROMATOGRAPHIA
卷 79, 期 17-18, 页码 1069-1083

出版社

SPRINGER HEIDELBERG
DOI: 10.1007/s10337-016-3029-9

关键词

Pesticide residues; LC-MS/MS; Mass spectrometry; QuEChERS; Marijuana; Cannabis

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Marijuana (non-medical cannabis) is a well-recognized psychoactive herbal drug used for recreational purposes. The aim of this work is to describe and compare the performance and suitability of selected methods to analyze pesticide residues in marijuana. The fitness of three typical pesticide multiresidue methods [acetate buffered QuEChERS (method A), a modified citrate buffered QuEChERS (method B) and citrate buffered QuEChERS (method C)] were tested in marijuana through the LC-MS/MS determination of 61 LC amenable pesticides. Considering recoveries at the highest level for the selected pesticides in marijuana, from the 61 target analytes, 37 (method A), 40 (method B) and 46 (method C) compounds gave accurate results (70-120 % range). Method C showed the best performance for the target analytes in terms of recoveries, precision, limits of quantitation and matrix effect. Marijuana showed to be a highly complex matrix. Most analytes suffered high signal suppression (ME <-50 %) for method B while medium (-50 to 20 %) to low (-20 to 0 %) signal suppression was found for methods A and C. Moreover, high coelution of coextractives with the target analytes was observed. A pilot survey with real samples revealed that seized and legally produced marijuana samples contained pesticides. Residues of diazinon (0.03 mg kg(-1)), tebuconazole (0.19 mg kg(-1)) and teflubenzuron (0.11 mg kg(-1)) were simultaneously detected in one marijuana sample. The establishment of MRLs in a legal consumption scenario such as in Uruguay seems to be necessary in the near future.

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

4.2
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