Time filter

Source Type

Paoloni A.,Environmental Contaminants Laboratory | Alunni S.,Environmental Contaminants Laboratory | Pelliccia A.,Environmental Contaminants Laboratory | Pecorelli I.,Environmental Contaminants Laboratory
Journal of Environmental Science and Health - Part B Pesticides, Food Contaminants, and Agricultural Wastes | Year: 2016

A simple and straightforward method for simultaneous determination of residues of 13 pesticides in honey samples (acrinathrin, bifenthrin, bromopropylate, cyhalothrin-lambda, cypermethrin, chlorfenvinphos, chlorpyrifos, coumaphos, deltamethrin, fluvalinate-tau, malathion, permethrin and tetradifon) from different pesticide classes has been developed and validated. The analytical method provides dissolution of honey in water and an extraction of pesticide residues by n-Hexane followed by clean-up on a Florisil SPE column. The extract was evaporated and taken up by a solution of an injection internal standard (I-IS), ethion, and finally analyzed by capillary gas chromatography with electron capture detection (GC-µECD). Identification for qualitative purpose was conducted by gas chromatography with triple quadrupole mass spectrometer (GC-MS/MS). A matrix-matched calibration curve was performed for quantitative purposes by plotting the area ratio (analyte/I-IS) against concentration using a GC-µECD instrument. According to document No. SANCO/12571/2013, the method was validated by testing the following parameters: linearity, matrix effect, specificity, precision, trueness (bias) and measurement uncertainty. The analytical process was validated analyzing blank honey samples spiked at levels equal to and greater than 0.010 mg/kg (limit of quantification). All parameters were satisfactorily compared with the values established by document No. SANCO/12571/2013. The analytical performance was verified by participating in eight multi-residue proficiency tests organized by BIPEA, obtaining satisfactory z-scores in all 70 determinations. Measurement uncertainty was estimated according to the top-down approaches described in Appendix C of the SANCO document using the within-laboratory reproducibility relative standard deviation combined with laboratory bias using the proficiency test data. © 2016 Taylor & Francis Group, LLC.

Discover hidden collaborations