4.5 Article

Development and validation of multi-residue method for determination of 412 pesticide residues in cotton fiber using GC-MS/MS and LC-MS/MS

期刊

JOURNAL OF THE TEXTILE INSTITUTE
卷 109, 期 1, 页码 46-63

出版社

TAYLOR & FRANCIS LTD
DOI: 10.1080/00405000.2017.1322478

关键词

Cotton; pesticide residues; Oeko-Tex; QuEChERS; GC-MS; MS; LC-MS; MS

资金

  1. Central Laboratory of Residue Analysis of Pesticides and Heavy Metals in Food (QCAP Lab)

向作者/读者索取更多资源

The new global concept is to care about textiles and clothes safety to improve the protection of the human health and the environment from the harmful pesticide residues. Very few articles have been published for determination of several pesticide classes in cotton fibers in one multi-residue method. A simple, efficient, sensitive, accurate, and reliable multi-residue method was developed for the determination of 412 residual pesticides in cotton fibers using modified QuEChERS method with Liquid and Gas Chromatography coupled to Triple Quadrupole Mass Spectrometer (LC-MS/MS & GC-MS/MS) for qualitative and quantitative analysis according to the international standards concepts. The developed method covered several pesticide classes, including 43 carbamates, 16 pyrethroids, 27 organochlorines (OCs), 54 organophosphorus (Ops), 31 urea derivatives, 7 Polychlorinated biphenyl (PCBs), 6 Neonicotinoid, and 228 other pesticides. Most of the target pesticides were listed in Oeko-Tex Standards, the EU Ecolabel for textile products, and the Egyptian recommendations of the Agricultural Pesticide Committee (APC-Egypt). The method optimization and validation were carried out according to the EU guidelines. The results were shown to be reliable where the corresponding average recoveries within the acceptable range of 70-120%; the relative standard deviations were less than 20%. The limit of quantitation (LOQ) of this method is 0.01mgkg(-1) all pesticides except for 3 GC-compounds and 19 LC-compounds which have LOQ of 0.05mgkg(-1).

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

4.5
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