Quantitative Analysis of Pesticides in QuEChERs Extracts Using APGC/MS/MS

Quantitative Analysis of Pesticides in QuEChERs Extracts Using APGC/MS/MS
Douglas Stevens1, Dominic Roberts2 , Ramesh Rao2
1
Waters Corporation, 34 Maple Street, Milford, MA 01757, USA. 2Waters Corporation, Altrincham Road, Wilmslow, UK.
INTRODUCTION
METHODS
RESULTS & DISCUSSION
Since the sensitivity of this system is well beyond
Each sample type, including matrix matched stan-
regulatory requirements, a practical application of this
Pesticides are widely used in the production of fruit and
Strawberry,
were
Analysis of 20 GC amenable pesticides, difficult to analyze
dards and replicates, was analyzed on three different
performance is to dilute samples, thereby, further
vegetables
homogenized using a domestic food blender. The
in EI due to excessive fragmentation, was performed
days. Figure 2 shows a typical calibration curve and
reducing matrix effects on chromatography
samples were then extracted using the QuEChERS
using
source
residuals plot for endosulfan sulphate generated from
minimizing
conditions either charge exchange or protonation can be
the triplicate injection of the matrix matched calibra-
column. This in turn reduces the frequency of column
selected for an APGC analysis. For the analysis of
tion standard in strawberry extract. The response is
trimming, extends the useful life of the column and
pesticides, protonation provides more efficient ionization
linear from 0.05 to 50 ng/mL with a correlation coeffi-
increases the interval between source cleanings which
mixed pesticide standard in acetonitrile to each
than charge exchange. Therefore, a vial of water was
cient R2 of 0.994. All of the residuals are less than
is already measured in months. The net effect of all of
matrix. To test the repeatability at low concentration,
added to the source to promote protonation. The MRM
transitions with optimized cone voltages and collision
these factors is increased up-time and utilization for
in a diverse range of food commodities. As there are
each matrix was fortified with the pesticide mix at 1
15% demonstrating excellent linearity and repeatabil-
currently in excess of 1000 pesticides in use, laboratories
µg/kg
energies are shown in Table 1. Two transitions were
ity. The limits of detection and linearity achieved for
the system.
are under increasing pressure to broaden the range of
deuterated
pesticides determined in ever shorter turnaround times.
added to give a fixed concentration of 2 ng/mL to
Therefore, the analytical methods they employ need to
each vial prior to analysis and was used as an
use
injection standard to correct for injection volume
across
the
globe.
Governments,
food
producers and food retailers have a duty to ensure they
are not present in final products for consumption. Most
countries have regulations governing pesticide residues in
food. For pesticides in food products, legislation imposes
Maximum Residue Limits (MRLs) which lead to the
requirement for analytical techniques that are sensitive,
selective and reproducible. Multi-residue pesticide analysis
is challenging due to the low limits of detection required
efficient
but
low
selectivity
sample
preparation
methods combined with high selectivity and sensitivity
MS/MS methods. Typically, this analysis is carried out
using a dedicated GC-MS/MS system with an EI source.
As
shown
by
fragmentation
Portoles
of
some
et
1
al , EI
causes
pesticides
leading
extensive
to
poor
sensitivity and selectivity. APGC is a soft ionization
technique which generates high relative and absolute
pear
and
spinach
samples
(CEN method 15662 DisQuE #186004831) protocol to
generate blank matrix extract in acetonitrile. A nine
point
calibration
range
from
0
to
50
ng/mL
(equivalent to µg/kg) was prepared by addition of a
(1ppb
final
internal
concentration
standard,
in
aliquot).
chrysene-d12,
A
was
positive
monitored
for
ion
each
MRM
mode.
pesticide
By
to
varying
increase
method
specificity. The high intensity of the precursor/molecular
ion generated by APGC makes it possible to use specific
of detection ranged from 0.01 to 0.5 ng/mL with ex-
the low level spike in each matrix was analyzed ten
MRM transitions used with EI MS/MS use lower m/z, less
limits and is applicable to routine quantitative analy-
times using the Waters® Xevo TQ-S with the APGC
specific fragment ion as the precursor. The inherent
sis.
source using the conditions described below.
specificity provided by use of the molecular ion as the
selective MRM transitions. Furthermore, the APGC source
simplified, generic sample preparation technique.
precise, accurate and reproducible across different
sitivity and overall performance characteristics of
enabling a single MS instrument to be used for the
APGC on Xevo TQ-S currently exceeds existing regu-
interchangeable
with
the
LC
electrospray
analysis of both LC and GC amenable pesticides.
lations related to pesticide residue analysis.
In this study, we demonstrate sensitive, accurate and
repeatable
results
for
the
analysis
of
pesticides
on

Soft ionization provided by this technique produces
abundant molecular ions for selective and sensitive
MRM transitions

Routine and sensitive multi-residue pesticide
analysis of QuEChERS extracts from fruit and
vegetables, using the same workflow used for LC/
MS/MS analysis of pesticides, is possible with this
system

System can covert between GC and LC operation in
minutes allowing comprehensive analysis of both
GC and LC amenable pesticides on a single
instrument
sample matrices analyzed on different days. The sen-
source
is
injected
APGC on Xevo TQ-S is sensitive, accurate and
reproducible for pesticides that are difficult to
analyze using conventional EI GC/MS/MS
good at < 5%. This demonstrates that the method is
ion results in more confident detection of lower levels of
analytes even in these complex matrices prepared with a
material

Table 2. Mean concentration of each pesticide (n=10) in the
three sample matrices
The %RSD for all pesticides is also shown to be very
precursor in an MRM transition over the use of a fragment
abundance molecular ions resulting in highly sensitive and
of
CONCLUSION
cellent linearity (R2 >0.99) for all. This demonstrates
that the method can easily achieve the regulatory
GC Conditions
amount
all 20 pesticides are summarized in Table 1. The limits
and sensitive MRM transitions. In contrast, many pesticide
variation. All standards were analyzed in triplicate and
the
and
in
QuEChERS extracts of strawberry, pear and spinach below
Figure 2. Typical matrix matched calibration curve for
endosulfan sulphate in strawberry matrix
the regulatory limits.
References
To assess the accuracy and precision of the method
1. Portoles, Tania, Laura Cherta, Joaquim Beltran, and Felix
Hernandez. "Improved gas chromatography–tandem mass
spectrometry determination of pesticide residues making use of
atmospheric
pressure
chemical
ionization."
Journal
of
Chromatography A 1260 (2012): 183-192
each sample matrix was spiked at 1 µg/kg (10 times
MS Conditions
below the blanket MRL of 10 µg/kg) and ten replicate
injections made. The concentration of each pesticide
2. Young, Michael, Tran, Kim Van, Shia, Jeremy C. “Multi-Residue
Pesticide Analysis in Ginseng Powder”. Waters application note
#720005006EN (2014)
was calculated using matrix matched calibration
curves. Table 2 shows the mean calculated concentrations for each pesticide in all three samples matrices.
The accuracy of the method is excellent with all
Table 1. Summary of the 20 pesticides analyzed, MRM
conditions and method performance results
Figure 1. Photo of UPLC and APGC on Xevo TQ-S
TO DOWNLOAD A COPY OF THIS POSTER, VISIT WWW.WATERS.COM/POSTERS
measured concentrations within 5% of the true con-
Figure 3. Mean calculated concentration of pesticides spiked
at 1 μg/kg in 3 different food matrices (n=10)
3. Giroud, Barbara, Antoine Vauchez, Emmanuelle Vulliet, Laure
Wiest, and Audrey Bulete. "Trace level determination of
pyrethroid and neonicotinoid insecticides in beebread using
acetonitrile-based extraction followed by analysis with ultra-highperformance liquid chromatography–tandem mass spectrometry."
Journal of Chromatography A 1316 (2013): 53-61
centration.
©2014 Waters Corporation