4.5 Article

Simultaneous enantioselective determination of six pesticides in aqueous environmental samples by chiral liquid chromatography with tandem mass spectrometry

期刊

JOURNAL OF SEPARATION SCIENCE
卷 41, 期 6, 页码 1287-1297

出版社

WILEY-V C H VERLAG GMBH
DOI: 10.1002/jssc.201701259

关键词

chiral analysis; enantiomers; liquid chromatography tandem mass spectrometry; pesticides; water analysis

资金

  1. National Natural Science Foundation of China [81503029]
  2. Young and Middle-aged Backbone Personnel Training Program of Shenyang Pharmaceutical University [ZQN2016011]

向作者/读者索取更多资源

A robust and sensitive method was developed for the enantiomeric analysis of six chiral pesticides (including metalaxyl, epoxiconazole, myclobutanil, hexaconazole, napropamide, and isocarbophos) in aquatic environmental samples. The optimized chromatographic conditions for the quantification of all the 12 enantiomers were performed with Chiralcel OD-RH column using mobile phase consisting of 0.1% aqueous formic acid and acetonitrile operated under reversed-phase conditions and then analyzed using liquid chromatography with tandem mass spectrometry. Twelve enantiomers were detected in multiple reaction monitoring mode. Solid-phase extraction and dispersive liquid-liquid microextraction were employed in this study. Response surface methodology was applied to assist in the dispersive liquid-liquid microextraction optimization. Under the optimum conditions, recoveries of pesticides enantiomers varied from 83.0 to 103.2% at two spiked levels with relative standard deviation less than 11.5%. The concentration factors were up to 1000 times. Method detection and quantification limits varied from 0.11 to 0.48 ng/L and from 0.46 to 1.49 ng/L, respectively. Finally, this method was used to determination of the enantiomers composition of the six pesticides in environmental aqueous matrices, which will help better understand the behavior of individual enantiomer and make accurate risk assessment to ecosystems.

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