Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in

Compensation for matrix effects in GC analysis of pesticides by using cucumber extract

  • Research Paper
  • Published:
Analytical and Bioanalytical Chemistry Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

Matrix effects (MEs) can adversely affect quantification in pesticide residue analysis using GC. Analyte protectants (APs) can effectively interact with and mask active sites in the GC system, and are added individually or in combination to sample extracts and calibration solutions to minimize errors related to MEs. Unfortunately, APs cannot sufficiently compensate for MEs in all cases. Plant extracts, containing a broad range of natural compounds with AP properties, can also be used for this purpose. In this study, the applicability of cucumber extract as a natural AP mixture was investigated both alone and in combination with traditional APs. Extracts of two selected difficult matrices (onion and garlic) were prepared according to the citrate-buffered QuEChERS (quick, easy, cheap, effective, rugged, and safe) procedure. ME values of 40 representative GC-amenable pesticides were compared when calibrating against standards in pure solvent and in cucumber extract, with and without the addition of APs. Using a GC system with a contaminated inlet liner, the use of a cucumber-based calibration solution decreased MEs remarkably. The combination of APs with cucumber raw extract further decreased MEs, resulting in more than 85% of the tested pesticides showing ≤ 10% ME in onion and ≤ 20% ME in garlic. These results demonstrate that the preparation of calibration standards based on cucumber extracts (with or without the addition of APs) is a very useful and practical approach to compensate for MEs in pesticide residue analysis using QuEChERS and GC-MS/MS. The use of various internal standards is furthermore critically discussed.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Log in via an institution

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Institutional subscriptions

Fig. 1
Fig. 2
Fig. 3
Fig. 4
Fig. 5
Fig. 6
Fig. 7
Fig. 8

Similar content being viewed by others

References

  1. Kittlaus S, Schimanke J, Kempe G, Speer K. Assessment of sample cleanup and matrix effects in the pesticide residue analysis of foods using postcolumn infusion in liquid chromatography–tandem mass spectrometry. J Chromatogr A. 2011;1218(46):8399–410.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  2. Kwon H, Lehotay SJ, Geis-Asteggiante L. Variability of matrix effects in liquid and gas chromatography–mass spectrometry analysis of pesticide residues after QuEChERS sample preparation of different food crops. J Chromatogr A. 2012;1270:235–45.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  3. Tsuchiyama T, Katsuhara M, Nakajima M. Compensation of matrix effects in gas chromatography–mass spectrometry analysis of pesticides using a combination of matrix matching and multiple isotopically labeled internal standards. J Chromatogr A. 2017;1524:233–45.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  4. Walorczyk S. Validation and use of a QuEChERS-based gas chromatographic–tandem mass spectrometric method for multiresidue pesticide analysis in blackcurrants including studies of matrix effects and estimation of measurement uncertainty. Talanta. 2014;120:106–13.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  5. Hajšlová J, Zrostlıkova J. Matrix effects in (ultra) trace analysis of pesticide residues in food and biotic matrices. J Chromatogr A. 2003;1000(1):181–97.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  6. Erney D, Gillespie A, Gilvydis D, Poole C. Explanation of the matrix-induced chromatographic response enhancement of organophosphorus pesticides during open tubular column gas chromatography with splitless or hot on-column injection and flame photometric detection. J Chromatogr A. 1993;638(1):57–63.

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  7. Schenck FJ, Lehotay SJ. Does further clean-up reduce the matrix enhancement effect in gas chromatographic analysis of pesticide residues in food? J Chromatogr A. 2000;868(1):51–61.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  8. Frenich AG, Vidal JLM, Moreno JLF, Romero-González R. Compensation for matrix effects in gas chromatography–tandem mass spectrometry using a single point standard addition. J Chromatogr A. 2009;1216(23):4798–808.

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  9. Basilicata P, Miraglia N, Pieri M, Acampora A, Soleo L, Sannolo N. Application of the standard addition approach for the quantification of urinary benzene. J Chromatogr B. 2005;818(2):293–9.

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  10. Li A, Imasaka T. Internal standards for use in the comprehensive analysis of polychlorinated aromatic hydrocarbons using gas chromatography combined with multiphoton ionization mass spectrometry. J Chromatogr A. 2016;1470:111–7.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  11. Rimayi C, Odusanya D, Mtunzi F, Tsoka S. Alternative calibration techniques for counteracting the matrix effects in GC–MS-SPE pesticide residue analysis—a statistical approach. Chemosphere. 2015;118:35–43.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  12. Yarita T, Aoyagi Y, Otake T. Evaluation of the impact of matrix effect on quantification of pesticides in foods by gas chromatography–mass spectrometry using isotope-labeled internal standards. J Chromatogr A. 2015;1396:109–16.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  13. Uclés S, Lozano A, Sosa A, Vázquez PP, Valverde A, Fernández-Alba A. Matrix interference evaluation employing GC and LC coupled to triple quadrupole tandem mass spectrometry. Talanta. 2017;174:72–81.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  14. Maštovská K, Lehotay SJ, Anastassiades M. Combination of analyte protectants to overcome matrix effects in routine GC analysis of pesticide residues in food matrixes. Anal Chem. 2005;77(24):8129–37.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  15. Anastassiades M, Maštovská K, Lehotay SJ. Evaluation of analyte protectants to improve gas chromatographic analysis of pesticides. J Chromatogr A. 2003;1015(1):163–84.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  16. Wang Y, Jin H-Y, Ma S-C, Lu J, Lin R-C. Determination of 195 pesticide residues in Chinese herbs by gas chromatography–mass spectrometry using analyte protectants. J Chromatogr A. 2011;1218(2):334–42.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  17. Kirchner M, Húšková R, Matisová E, Mocák J. Fast gas chromatography for pesticide residues analysis using analyte protectants. J Chromatogr A. 2008;1186(1):271–80.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  18. EURL-SRM. Use of analyte protectants in GC-analysis a way to improve peak shape and reduce decomposition of susceptible compounds. 2013. http://www.eurl-pesticides.eu/library/docs/srm/EURL_Observation-APs.pdf. Accessed 10 October 2017.

  19. Payá P, Anastassiades M, Mack D, Sigalova I, Tasdelen B, Oliva J, et al. Analysis of pesticide residues using the quick easy cheap effective rugged and safe (QuEChERS) pesticide multiresidue method in combination with gas and liquid chromatography and tandem mass spectrometric detection. Anal Bioanal Chem. 2007;389(6):1697–714.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  20. Čajka T, Maštovská K, Lehotay SJ, Hajšlová J. Use of automated direct sample introduction with analyte protectants in the GC–MS analysis of pesticide residues. J Sep Sci. 2005;28(9–10):1048–60.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  21. Sánchez-Brunete C, Albero B, Martin G, TADEO JL. Determination of pesticide residues by GC-MS using analyte protectants to counteract the matrix effect. Anal Sci. 2005;21(11):1291–6.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  22. Rahman M, Park JH, Abd El-Aty A, Choi JH, Cho SK, Yang A, et al. Analysis of kresoxim-methyl and its thermolabile metabolites in Korean plum: an application of pepper leaf matrix as a protectant for GC amenable metabolites. J Sep Sci. 2013;36(1):203–11.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  23. Rahman MM, Choi J-H, El-Aty AA, Abid MD, Park J-H, Na TW, et al. Pepper leaf matrix as a promising analyte protectant prior to the analysis of thermolabile terbufos and its metabolites in pepper using GC–FPD. Food Chem. 2012;133(2):604–10.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  24. Rahman MM, Jang J, Park J-H, El-Aty AA, Ko A-Y, Choi J-H, et al. Determination of kresoxim-methyl and its thermolabile metabolites in pear utilizing pepper leaf matrix as a protectant using gas chromatography. J Adv Res. 2014;5(3):329–35.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  25. Hepperle J, Dörk D, Barth A, Taşdelen B, Anastassiades M. Studies to improve the extraction yields of incurred pesticide residues from crops using the QuEChERS method. J AOAC Int. 2015;98(2):450–63.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  26. European Committee for Standardization. Foods of plant origin—determination of pesticide residues using GC-MS and/or LC-MS/MS following acetonitrile extraction/partitioning and cleanup by dispersive SPE—QuEChERS-method; EN 15662. 2008.

Download references

Acknowledgments

This study was performed with support from the “Cooperative Research Project between the EU-Reference Laboratory for Residues of Pesticides requiring Single Residue Methods (EURL-SRM) hosted at the Chemisches und Veterinäruntersuchungsamt (CVUA) Stuttgart and National Institute of Agricultural Sciences (NAS) of the Rural Development Administration (RDA) of the Republic of Korea (Project No. PJ012217).”

Funding

Research reported in this publication was supported by the National Institute of Agricultural Sciences (NAS) of the Rural Development Administration (RDA).

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. National Institute of Agricultural Sciences, Rural Development Administration, 166 Nongsaengmyeong-ro, Iseo-myeon, Wanju-gun, 55365, Republic of Korea

    Hyeyoung Kwon, Su-Myoung Hong & Byeong-Chul Moon

  2. EU-Reference Laboratory for Residues of Pesticides Requiring Single Residue Methods (EURL-SRM); hosted at the Chemisches und Veterinäruntersuchungsamt Stuttgart, Schaflandstraße 3/2, 70736, Fellbach, Germany

    Michelangelo Anastassiades & Daniela Dörk

Authors
  1. Hyeyoung Kwon
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Michelangelo Anastassiades
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  3. Daniela Dörk
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  4. Su-Myoung Hong
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  5. Byeong-Chul Moon
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Michelangelo Anastassiades.

Ethics declarations

Conflict of interest

The authors declare that they have no conflicts of interest.

Additional information

Published in the topical collection Food Safety Analysis with guest editor Steven J. Lehotay.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Kwon, H., Anastassiades, M., Dörk, D. et al. Compensation for matrix effects in GC analysis of pesticides by using cucumber extract. Anal Bioanal Chem 410, 5481–5489 (2018). https://doi.org/10.1007/s00216-018-1197-1

Download citation

  • Received:

  • Revised:

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s00216-018-1197-1

Keywords

Search

Navigation