4.6 Review

Ambient (desorption/ionization) mass spectrometry methods for pesticide testing in food: a review

期刊

ANALYTICAL METHODS
卷 12, 期 40, 页码 4831-4852

出版社

ROYAL SOC CHEMISTRY
DOI: 10.1039/d0ay01474e

关键词

-

资金

  1. Consejeria de Economia, Conocimiento, Empresas y Universidad, Regional Government of Andalucia, Spain [PY2018-1211]
  2. EU FEDER funds
  3. Research Programme of the University of Jaen [Accion 10]
  4. European Union Horizon 2020 research and innovation program under the Marie Sklodowska-Curie (MSCA) [840743]
  5. Marie Curie Actions (MSCA) [840743] Funding Source: Marie Curie Actions (MSCA)

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Ambient mass spectrometry refers to the family of techniques that allows ions to be generated from condensed phase samples under ambient conditions and then, collected and analysed by mass spectrometry. One of their key advantages relies on their ability to allow the analysis of samples with minimal to no sample workup. This feature maps well to the requirements of food safety testing, in particular, those related to the fast determination of pesticide residues in foods. This review discusses the application of different ambient ionization methods for the qualitative and (semi)quantitative determination of pesticides in foods, with the focus on different specific methods used and their ionization mechanisms. More popular techniques used are those commercially available including desorption electrospray ionization (DESI-MS), direct analysis on real time (DART-MS), paper spray (PS-MS) and low-temperature plasma (LTP-MS). Several applications described with ambient MS have reported limits of quantitation approaching those of reference methods, typically based on LC-MS and generic sample extraction procedures. Some of them have been combined with portable mass spectrometers thus allowing in situ analysis. In addition, these techniques have the ability to map surfaces (ambient MS imaging) to unravel the distribution of agrochemicals on crops.

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