| Title |
Methodology for trace analysis of 17 pyrethroids and chlorpyrifos in foodstuff by gas chromatography–tandem mass spectrometry
|
|---|---|
| Published in |
Analytical & Bioanalytical Chemistry, August 2016
|
| DOI | 10.1007/s00216-016-9865-5 |
| Pubmed ID | |
| Authors |
Alexsandro Dallegrave, Tânia Mara Pizzolato, Fabiano Barreto, Ethel Eljarrat, Damià Barceló |
| Abstract |
This study aimed to develop an efficient, sensitive, and reliable analytical method for trace analysis of 17 different pyrethroids and chlorpyrifos in the fatty content of animal products, including beef, chicken, eggs, fish, and milk. The method developed is based on an ultrasound extraction using lyophilized samples, a solid phase extraction cleanup with basic alumina and C18 cartridges in tandem, and analysis by gas chromatography coupled to tandem mass spectrometry in negative chemical ionization mode. Recovery values were in the range of 27-128 % with relative standard deviation always below 25 %, and chiral analysis of recovery data showed predominance of isomers of cis form over trans. Limits of detection (LODs) ranged from 0.002 to 6.43 ng g(-1) lipid weight (lw), and limits of quantification (LOQs) ranged between 0.006 and 21.4 ng g(-1) lw. The developed methodology was used for the analysis of 25 samples of fatty foods. All samples were positive for at least one of the pesticides, chlorpyrifos, bifenthrin, cyhalothrin, permethrin, cypermethrin, or deltamethrin, with mass fraction levels ranging from 0.03 to 270 ng g(-1) lw. Graphical Abstract ᅟ. |
X Demographics
The data shown below were collected from the profile of 1 X user who shared this research output. Click here to find out more about how the information was compiled.
Geographical breakdown
| Country | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Unknown | 1 | 100% |
Demographic breakdown
| Type | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Scientists | 1 | 100% |
Mendeley readers
The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 57 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.
Geographical breakdown
| Country | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Unknown | 57 | 100% |
Demographic breakdown
| Readers by professional status | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Student > Ph. D. Student | 7 | 12% |
| Student > Bachelor | 6 | 11% |
| Researcher | 6 | 11% |
| Student > Master | 6 | 11% |
| Student > Doctoral Student | 4 | 7% |
| Other | 8 | 14% |
| Unknown | 20 | 35% |
| Readers by discipline | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Chemistry | 14 | 25% |
| Agricultural and Biological Sciences | 4 | 7% |
| Environmental Science | 3 | 5% |
| Pharmacology, Toxicology and Pharmaceutical Science | 2 | 4% |
| Psychology | 2 | 4% |
| Other | 5 | 9% |
| Unknown | 27 | 47% |
Attention Score in Context
This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 1. This is our high-level measure of the quality and quantity of online attention that it has received. This Attention Score, as well as the ranking and number of research outputs shown below, was calculated when the research output was last mentioned on 14 October 2016.
All research outputs
#22,778,604
of 25,394,764 outputs
Outputs from Analytical & Bioanalytical Chemistry
#7,552
of 9,624 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#314,841
of 355,267 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Analytical & Bioanalytical Chemistry
#97
of 178 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 25,394,764 research outputs across all sources so far. This one is in the 1st percentile – i.e., 1% of other outputs scored the same or lower than it.
So far Altmetric has tracked 9,624 research outputs from this source. They receive a mean Attention Score of 3.1. This one is in the 1st percentile – i.e., 1% of its peers scored the same or lower than it.
Older research outputs will score higher simply because they've had more time to accumulate mentions. To account for age we can compare this Altmetric Attention Score to the 355,267 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one is in the 1st percentile – i.e., 1% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.
We're also able to compare this research output to 178 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one is in the 1st percentile – i.e., 1% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.