Chinese Journal of Chromatography ›› 2022, Vol. 40 ›› Issue (5): 469-476.DOI: 10.3724/SP.J.1123.2021.11015
• Articles • Previous Articles Next Articles
XU Ruihan1,2, XIE Qianwen1,2, LI Xujun2, ZHAO Hongli3, LIU Xuebin3, WEI Yuanlong2,3,4,5,*(), QIU Aidong1,*(
)
Received:
2021-11-19
Online:
2022-05-08
Published:
2022-04-28
Contact:
WEI Yuanlong, QIU Aidong
CLC Number:
XU Ruihan, XIE Qianwen, LI Xujun, ZHAO Hongli, LIU Xuebin, WEI Yuanlong, QIU Aidong. Modified QuEChERS method based on multi-walled carbon nanotubes coupled with gas chromatography-tandem mass spectrometry for the detection of 10 pyrethroid pesticide residues in tea[J]. Chinese Journal of Chromatography, 2022, 40(5): 469-476.
Compound | Quantitative ion pair (m/z) | CE/ eV | Qualitative ion pairs (m/z) | CEs/ eV |
---|---|---|---|---|
Cyfluthrin | 198.9>170.1 | 25 | 162.9>127.0; 162.9>90.9 | 5; 15 |
Flucythrinate | 156.9>107.1 | 15 | 156.9>77.0; 198.9>157.0 | 35; 10 |
Fenpropathrin | 181.1>152.1 | 25 | 264.9>210.0; 207.9>181.0 | 10; 5 |
Bifenthrin | 181.2>165.2 | 25 | 181.2>166.2; 166.2>165.2 | 10; 20 |
Cyhalothrin | 197.0>141.0 | 10 | 208.0>181.0; 197.0>161.0 | 5; 5 |
Permethrin | 183.0>77.1 | 35 | 184.0>169.1; 183.1>168.0 | 15; 20 |
Cypermethrin | 163.0>91.0 | 10 | 163.0>127.0; 164.9>91.0 | 5; 10 |
Etofenprox | 163.0>107.1 | 20 | 183.1>168.0; 376.0>163.1 | 5; 25 |
Fenvalerate | 167.0>125.1 | 5 | 224.9>119.0; 208.9>141.1 | 15; 15 |
Deltamethrin | 252.9>93.0 | 15 | 252.9>174.0; 250.7>172.0 | 5; 5 |
Table 1 Experimental parameters for GC-MS/MS analysis of 10 pyrethroid pesticides
Compound | Quantitative ion pair (m/z) | CE/ eV | Qualitative ion pairs (m/z) | CEs/ eV |
---|---|---|---|---|
Cyfluthrin | 198.9>170.1 | 25 | 162.9>127.0; 162.9>90.9 | 5; 15 |
Flucythrinate | 156.9>107.1 | 15 | 156.9>77.0; 198.9>157.0 | 35; 10 |
Fenpropathrin | 181.1>152.1 | 25 | 264.9>210.0; 207.9>181.0 | 10; 5 |
Bifenthrin | 181.2>165.2 | 25 | 181.2>166.2; 166.2>165.2 | 10; 20 |
Cyhalothrin | 197.0>141.0 | 10 | 208.0>181.0; 197.0>161.0 | 5; 5 |
Permethrin | 183.0>77.1 | 35 | 184.0>169.1; 183.1>168.0 | 15; 20 |
Cypermethrin | 163.0>91.0 | 10 | 163.0>127.0; 164.9>91.0 | 5; 10 |
Etofenprox | 163.0>107.1 | 20 | 183.1>168.0; 376.0>163.1 | 5; 25 |
Fenvalerate | 167.0>125.1 | 5 | 224.9>119.0; 208.9>141.1 | 15; 15 |
Deltamethrin | 252.9>93.0 | 15 | 252.9>174.0; 250.7>172.0 | 5; 5 |
Fig. 1 Effect of extraction solvent on the recoveries of target pesticides (n=3) Ultrasonic extraction was performed for 35 min (40 kHz), using 30 mg MWCNTs, 200 mg PSA, and 200 mg C18 as purifiers.
Fig. 2 Effect of ultrasonic extraction time on the recoveries of target pesticides (n=3) The extraction solvent was acetonitrile, while 30 mg MWCNTs, 200 mg PSA, and 200 mg C18 were used as purifiers.
Fig. 3 Effects of four kinds of carbon nanomaterials and their dosages on the recoveries of target pesticides (n=3) The extraction solvent used was acetonitrile and ultrasonic extraction was performed for 35 min (40 kHz).
Level | Factors | |||
---|---|---|---|---|
A (solvent) | B (ultrasonic time/min) | C (carbon nanomaterials) | D (dosage of carbon nanomaterials/mg) | |
1 | acetonitrile | 20 | SWCNTs | 30 |
2 | acetone | 35 | MWCNTs | 60 |
3 | ethyl acetate | 50 | amino modified | 90 |
MWCNTs |
Table 2 Orthogonally optimized experimental parameters at different levels of the QuEChERS method
Level | Factors | |||
---|---|---|---|---|
A (solvent) | B (ultrasonic time/min) | C (carbon nanomaterials) | D (dosage of carbon nanomaterials/mg) | |
1 | acetonitrile | 20 | SWCNTs | 30 |
2 | acetone | 35 | MWCNTs | 60 |
3 | ethyl acetate | 50 | amino modified | 90 |
MWCNTs |
No. | Columns | Average recovery/% | ||||||
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
A | B | C | D | |||||
1 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 89.5 | |||
2 | 1 | 2 | 2 | 2 | 99.0 | |||
3 | 1 | 3 | 3 | 3 | 89.0 | |||
4 | 2 | 1 | 2 | 3 | 85.3 | |||
5 | 2 | 2 | 3 | 1 | 81.4 | |||
6 | 2 | 3 | 1 | 2 | 80.9 | |||
7 | 3 | 1 | 3 | 2 | 84.3 | |||
8 | 3 | 2 | 1 | 3 | 84.7 | |||
9 | 3 | 3 | 2 | 1 | 85.6 | |||
K1 | 277.5 | 259.1 | 255.1 | 256.5 | ||||
K2 | 247.6 | 265.1 | 269.9 | 264.2 | ||||
K3 | 254.5 | 255.5 | 254.6 | 259.0 | ||||
k1 | 92.5 | 86.4 | 85.0 | 85.5 | ||||
k2 | 82.5 | 88.4 | 90.0 | 88.1 | ||||
k3 | 84.8 | 85.2 | 84.9 | 86.3 | ||||
R | 10.0 | 3.2 | 5.1 | 2.6 | ||||
Order | A>C>B>D | |||||||
Optimal level | A1 | B2 | C2 | D2 |
Table 3 Results of L9(34) orthogonal optimization experiments and range analysis of the QuEChERS method
No. | Columns | Average recovery/% | ||||||
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
A | B | C | D | |||||
1 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 89.5 | |||
2 | 1 | 2 | 2 | 2 | 99.0 | |||
3 | 1 | 3 | 3 | 3 | 89.0 | |||
4 | 2 | 1 | 2 | 3 | 85.3 | |||
5 | 2 | 2 | 3 | 1 | 81.4 | |||
6 | 2 | 3 | 1 | 2 | 80.9 | |||
7 | 3 | 1 | 3 | 2 | 84.3 | |||
8 | 3 | 2 | 1 | 3 | 84.7 | |||
9 | 3 | 3 | 2 | 1 | 85.6 | |||
K1 | 277.5 | 259.1 | 255.1 | 256.5 | ||||
K2 | 247.6 | 265.1 | 269.9 | 264.2 | ||||
K3 | 254.5 | 255.5 | 254.6 | 259.0 | ||||
k1 | 92.5 | 86.4 | 85.0 | 85.5 | ||||
k2 | 82.5 | 88.4 | 90.0 | 88.1 | ||||
k3 | 84.8 | 85.2 | 84.9 | 86.3 | ||||
R | 10.0 | 3.2 | 5.1 | 2.6 | ||||
Order | A>C>B>D | |||||||
Optimal level | A1 | B2 | C2 | D2 |
Source | Type Ⅲ sum of squares | df | Mean square | F | Sig. |
---|---|---|---|---|---|
A | 491.53 | 2 | 245.76 | 49.30 | 0.000*** |
B | 46.79 | 2 | 23.40 | 4.69 | 0.023* |
C | 150.03 | 2 | 75.02 | 15.05 | 0.000*** |
D | 31.26 | 2 | 15.63 | 3.14 | 0.068 |
Error | 89.73 | 18 | 4.99 | ||
Total | 809.35 | 26 |
Table 4 Results of multi-factor analysis of variance of the QuEChERS method
Source | Type Ⅲ sum of squares | df | Mean square | F | Sig. |
---|---|---|---|---|---|
A | 491.53 | 2 | 245.76 | 49.30 | 0.000*** |
B | 46.79 | 2 | 23.40 | 4.69 | 0.023* |
C | 150.03 | 2 | 75.02 | 15.05 | 0.000*** |
D | 31.26 | 2 | 15.63 | 3.14 | 0.068 |
Error | 89.73 | 18 | 4.99 | ||
Total | 809.35 | 26 |
Compound | Linear equation | r2 | Linear range/ (mg/L) | LOD/ (mg/kg) | LOQ/ (mg/kg) | GB 23200.113-2018 LOQ/(mg/kg)[ | |
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
Cyfluthrin | y=2.9838×105x-6.3133×102 | 0.9998 | 0.01-2 | 0.01 | 0.03 | 0.05 | |
Flucythrinate | y=1.5012×106x-2.2586×104 | 0.9997 | 0.01-2 | 0.005 | 0.01 | 0.05 | |
Fenpropathrin | y=3.0136×105x+2.1241×103 | 0.9994 | 0.01-2 | 0.002 | 0.005 | 0.05 | |
Bifenthrin | y=2.7954×106x+1.4523×104 | 0.9994 | 0.01-2 | 0.001 | 0.005 | 0.05 | |
Cyhalothrin | y=2.9891×106x-1.5338×104 | 0.9998 | 0.01-2 | 0.002 | 0.005 | 0.05 | |
Permethrin | y=7.6320×105x+2.7869×104 | 0.9989 | 0.01-2 | 0.005 | 0.01 | 0.05 | |
Cypermethrin | y=2.5306×105x-1.1162×103 | 0.9999 | 0.01-2 | 0.01 | 0.03 | 0.05 | |
Etofenprox | y=3.0639×106x-2.1589×104 | 0.9999 | 0.01-2 | 0.005 | 0.01 | - | |
Fenvalerate | y=1.2430×106x+3.7634×103 | 0.9996 | 0.01-2 | 0.005 | 0.01 | 0.01 | |
Deltamethrin | y=1.9471×105x-3.9377×103 | 0.9994 | 0.01-2 | 0.01 | 0.04 | 0.05 |
Table 5 Linear ranges, correlation coefficients (r2), LODs, and LOQs for the target pesticides in green tea
Compound | Linear equation | r2 | Linear range/ (mg/L) | LOD/ (mg/kg) | LOQ/ (mg/kg) | GB 23200.113-2018 LOQ/(mg/kg)[ | |
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
Cyfluthrin | y=2.9838×105x-6.3133×102 | 0.9998 | 0.01-2 | 0.01 | 0.03 | 0.05 | |
Flucythrinate | y=1.5012×106x-2.2586×104 | 0.9997 | 0.01-2 | 0.005 | 0.01 | 0.05 | |
Fenpropathrin | y=3.0136×105x+2.1241×103 | 0.9994 | 0.01-2 | 0.002 | 0.005 | 0.05 | |
Bifenthrin | y=2.7954×106x+1.4523×104 | 0.9994 | 0.01-2 | 0.001 | 0.005 | 0.05 | |
Cyhalothrin | y=2.9891×106x-1.5338×104 | 0.9998 | 0.01-2 | 0.002 | 0.005 | 0.05 | |
Permethrin | y=7.6320×105x+2.7869×104 | 0.9989 | 0.01-2 | 0.005 | 0.01 | 0.05 | |
Cypermethrin | y=2.5306×105x-1.1162×103 | 0.9999 | 0.01-2 | 0.01 | 0.03 | 0.05 | |
Etofenprox | y=3.0639×106x-2.1589×104 | 0.9999 | 0.01-2 | 0.005 | 0.01 | - | |
Fenvalerate | y=1.2430×106x+3.7634×103 | 0.9996 | 0.01-2 | 0.005 | 0.01 | 0.01 | |
Deltamethrin | y=1.9471×105x-3.9377×103 | 0.9994 | 0.01-2 | 0.01 | 0.04 | 0.05 |
Compound | LOQ* | 2LOQ | 10LOQ | ||||||||
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
Recovery/% | RSD/% | Recovery/% | RSD/% | Recovery/% | RSD/% | ||||||
Cyfluthrin | 108.5 | 1.72 | 106.9 | 5.63 | 106.4 | 2.32 | |||||
Flucythrinate | 107.0 | 0.76 | 101.5 | 0.80 | 102.3 | 7.10 | |||||
Fenpropathrin | 98.5 | 9.80 | 108.7 | 5.11 | 109.2 | 1.09 | |||||
Bifenthrin | 102.0 | 2.53 | 100.7 | 6.30 | 100.3 | 6.66 | |||||
Cyhalothrin | 97.5 | 1.14 | 109.2 | 1.25 | 105.2 | 4.23 | |||||
Permethrin | 106.0 | 6.85 | 102.3 | 3.10 | 106.4 | 9.77 | |||||
Cypermethrin | 107.0 | 8.80 | 99.5 | 3.04 | 102.3 | 6.29 | |||||
Etofenprox | 104.7 | 6.82 | 107.3 | 8.07 | 100.8 | 4.21 | |||||
Fenvalerate | 102.6 | 0.12 | 109.7 | 6.21 | 109.3 | 3.69 | |||||
Deltamethrin | 105.8 | 6.03 | 106.4 | 6.73 | 91.4 | 5.54 |
Table 6 Average recoveries and RSDs of the target pesticides in green tea at three spiked levels (n=6)
Compound | LOQ* | 2LOQ | 10LOQ | ||||||||
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
Recovery/% | RSD/% | Recovery/% | RSD/% | Recovery/% | RSD/% | ||||||
Cyfluthrin | 108.5 | 1.72 | 106.9 | 5.63 | 106.4 | 2.32 | |||||
Flucythrinate | 107.0 | 0.76 | 101.5 | 0.80 | 102.3 | 7.10 | |||||
Fenpropathrin | 98.5 | 9.80 | 108.7 | 5.11 | 109.2 | 1.09 | |||||
Bifenthrin | 102.0 | 2.53 | 100.7 | 6.30 | 100.3 | 6.66 | |||||
Cyhalothrin | 97.5 | 1.14 | 109.2 | 1.25 | 105.2 | 4.23 | |||||
Permethrin | 106.0 | 6.85 | 102.3 | 3.10 | 106.4 | 9.77 | |||||
Cypermethrin | 107.0 | 8.80 | 99.5 | 3.04 | 102.3 | 6.29 | |||||
Etofenprox | 104.7 | 6.82 | 107.3 | 8.07 | 100.8 | 4.21 | |||||
Fenvalerate | 102.6 | 0.12 | 109.7 | 6.21 | 109.3 | 3.69 | |||||
Deltamethrin | 105.8 | 6.03 | 106.4 | 6.73 | 91.4 | 5.54 |
|
Viewed | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Full text 210
|
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Abstract 250
|
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||