4.8 Article

Solid-phase microextraction liquid chromatography/tandem mass spectrometry to determine postharvest fungicides in fruits

期刊

ANALYTICAL CHEMISTRY
卷 75, 期 14, 页码 3606-3615

出版社

AMER CHEMICAL SOC
DOI: 10.1021/ac0341362

关键词

-

向作者/读者索取更多资源

A method to determine five postharvest fungicides (dichloran, flutriafol, o-phenylphenol, prochloraz, tolclofos methyl) in fruits (cherries, lemons, oranges, peaches) has been developed using solid-phase microextraction (SPME) coupled to liquid chromatography (LC) with photodiode array (DAD), mass spectrometry (MS), or tandem mass spectrometry (MS/MS) with ion trap detection. Extraction involved sample homogenization with an acetone/water solution (5:1), filtration, and acetone evaporation prior to fiber extraction. The pesticides were isolated with a fused-silica fiber coated with 50-mum Carbowax/template resin. The effects of pH, ion strength, sample volume, and extraction time were investigated, and their impact on the SPME-LC/MS was studied. Dynamic and static modes of desorption were compared and the variables affecting desorption processes in SPME-LC optimized. Static desorption provided the best recoveries and peak shapes. Recoveries at the limit of quantification (LOQ) levels were between 10% for prochloraz and 60% for o-phenylphenol, with relative standard deviations from 13.6% for prochloraz to 3.1% for o-phenylphenol. The versatility of the method was also exhibited by its excellent linearity in the concentration intervals between 0.0005 and 5 mg kg(-1) for dichloran and 0.01-10 mg kg(-1) for tolclofos methyl and prochloraz. LOQs ranged from 0.25 to 1 mug g(-1) using DAD, from 0.002 to 0.01 mug g(-1) using LC/MS, and from 0.0005 to 0.01 to mug g(-1) using LC/MS/MS. LOQs obtained in the present study using LC/MS and LC/MS/ MS are lower than maximum residue limits established for all the fungicides in any matrix studied. The method enables to determine polar pesticides at low-microgram per gram levels in fruits.

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

4.8
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