| Title |
Compensation for matrix effects in GC analysis of pesticides by using cucumber extract
|
|---|---|
| Published in |
Analytical & Bioanalytical Chemistry, July 2018
|
| DOI | 10.1007/s00216-018-1197-1 |
| Pubmed ID | |
| Authors |
Hyeyoung Kwon, Michelangelo Anastassiades, Daniela Dörk, Su-Myoung Hong, Byeong-Chul Moon |
| 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. |
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 35 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.
Geographical breakdown
| Country | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Unknown | 35 | 100% |
Demographic breakdown
| Readers by professional status | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Student > Ph. D. Student | 5 | 14% |
| Researcher | 4 | 11% |
| Student > Bachelor | 4 | 11% |
| Other | 3 | 9% |
| Student > Master | 3 | 9% |
| Other | 7 | 20% |
| Unknown | 9 | 26% |
| Readers by discipline | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Chemistry | 9 | 26% |
| Agricultural and Biological Sciences | 6 | 17% |
| Environmental Science | 1 | 3% |
| Pharmacology, Toxicology and Pharmaceutical Science | 1 | 3% |
| Unknown | 18 | 51% |
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 August 2018.
All research outputs
#22,767,715
of 25,385,509 outputs
Outputs from Analytical & Bioanalytical Chemistry
#7,543
of 9,619 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#297,902
of 339,673 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Analytical & Bioanalytical Chemistry
#129
of 180 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 25,385,509 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 9,619 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 339,673 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 180 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.