4.6 Article

Characterization of recovery profiles using gas chromatography-triple quadrupole mass spectrometry for the determination of pesticide residues in meat samples

期刊

JOURNAL OF CHROMATOGRAPHY A
卷 1133, 期 1-2, 页码 315-321

出版社

ELSEVIER
DOI: 10.1016/j.chroma.2006.08.039

关键词

pesticide residues; meat analysis; GC-MS/MS; recovery components; recovery profiles

向作者/读者索取更多资源

The assessment of the recovery factor with the analyte concentration in meat samples has been studied for the determination of organochlorine and organophosphoruis pesticides in meat by gas chromatography-triple quadrupole mass spectrometry (GC-MS/MS). For that purpose, recent IUPAC recommendations, which distinguishes between two terms, recovery factor and apparent recovery, have been followed. Besides, the systematic error due to the matrix effect has been evaluated by a new term recently proposed, calibration recovery. Recovery profiles were obtained analyzing spiked blank matrix, where the analytes were added before and after the extraction procedure. In a first step, the quantification of the compounds was carried out using a solvent calibration curve. The systematic errors due to the matrix effect during the quantification step and the error due to the sample treatment have been evaluated. Both apparent and calibration recovery components depend on the actual analyte concentration in the sample while the recovery factor remains constant except for analyte concentration close to quantification limit. In addition, the concentration limits, from which an acceptable recovery value (70-110%) can be obtained, are given. If spiked samples are quantified by matrix-matched calibration, the matrix effect is minimized and the calibration recovery component is 100%, and apparent recovery only depends on the recovery factor. The obtained values indicate recovery factor does not depend on the analyte concentration, except for those values closed to quantification limit. (c) 2006 Elsevier B.V. All rights reserved.

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