4.6 Article

Multiresidue Pesticide Analysis in Tea Using GC-MS/MS to Determine 12 Pesticide Residues (GB 2763-2021)

期刊

MOLECULES
卷 27, 期 23, 页码 -

出版社

MDPI
DOI: 10.3390/molecules27238419

关键词

gas chromatography-tandem mass spectrometry; solid-phase extraction; pesticide residues; multiple reaction monitoring; GB 2763-2021

资金

  1. Tokyo Biochemical Research Foundation (TBRF)
  2. [TBRF-RF-21-129]

向作者/读者索取更多资源

This study developed a reliable and sensitive method for detecting pesticide residues in tea. By optimizing the sample preparation process and using GC-MS/MS, the concentrations and detection limits of 12 pesticide residues in tea were successfully determined. This study fills the gap in the current national standards for detecting pesticide residues in tea.
Pesticides are widely used on tea plants, and pesticide residues are of significant concern to consumers. The National Food Safety Standard Maximum Residue Limits for Pesticides in Food (GB 2763-2021) was recently amended. However, detection methods for pesticides newly added to the list of residues in beverages have not yet been established. For that reason, this study developed a solid-phase extraction (SPE) and gas chromatography-tandem mass spectrometry (GC-MS/MS) method for determining the residues of 12 pesticides, including four newly added, in black and green tea. Sample preparation processes (sample extraction, SPE clean-up, elution solvent, and elution volume) were optimized to monitor these residues reliably. Multiple reaction monitoring (MRM) was used for GC-MS/MS electron impact (EI) mode determination. Finally, satisfactory recoveries (70.7-113.0% for green tea and 72.0-99.1% for black tea) were achieved at three concentrations (10 mu g/kg, 20 mu g/kg, and 100 mu g/kg). The LOQs were 0.04-8.69 mu g/kg, and the LODs were 0.01-3.14 mu g/kg. This study provides a reliable and sensitive workflow for determining 12 pesticide residues in tea, filling a gap in the newly revised National Standards.

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