Analysis  of  multi chemical class pesticide residues in Citrus by LC-MS/MS  adopting  QuAChERS technique.

 

M. Aruna1,  Dr. K. Kavitha2*,  Dr. R. Madhusudhan Raju3, Dr. K. Narasimha Reddy4*

1 Research Scholar, Dept. of Chemistry, University College of Science, Osmania University, Hyderabad-500007, India.

2Senior Scientist , All India Net Work Project on Pesticide Residues, Rajendranagar, PJTS Agricultural University, Hyderabad – 500 030 , India

3Professor, Dept. of Chemistry, University college of Science, Osmania University,  Hyderabad – 500 007, India.

4Principal Scientist (Chemistry) Retired. All India Net Work Project on Pesticidce Residues, Prof. Jayashankar Telangana State Agricultural University, Rajendranagar, Hyderabad – 500 030, India.

*Corresponding Author E-mail: knreddy_4@yahoo.com

 

 

ABSTRACT:

There are many analytical methods to estimate the pesticide residues in agriculture produce and food products . The multi chemical group pesticide  residue analytical method has been validated for the routine analysis of 54 multi chemical class  pesticide  residues in Citrus fruit (citrus limetta) and   fortified  levels of 10 µgkg-1 to 100 µgkg-1 by Liquid chromatography coupled with triple quadrupole mass spectrometry (LC-MS/MS- TQ) in a single run  of 24.01minutes.  And the method was applied for the analysis of different fruits i.e., Mango, bear, Banana, grapes, pomegranate, guava etc.  By this method volatile and non  volatile pesticides of different chemical class  can be identified and quantified in single stroke in a sample. Samples were extracted by the adopting  QuEChERS method including extraction of sample with acetonitrile and simultaneous liquid partitioning by adding addition of Sodium chloride and Sodium sulphate  followed by simple clean up  by adding anhydrous magnesium sulfate (MgSO4) and primary secondary amine (PSA) based on the principle of dispersive solid phase extraction(dSPE). By this  method the finding obtained were  high recoveries, accuracy, repeatability, reproducibility of   results and  small quantity of  sample and  less volumes of solvents are used by this method. The  limit    of detection (LOD)   was 5 µg kg-1 and  limit  of  quantification in  citrus fruit was (LOQ) 10 µg kg-1   found  by this method.

 

 

KEYWORDS: Multi chemical  class Pesticide Residues, citrus, LC/MS/MS, QuAChERS method.

 

 


 

INTRODUCTION:

In the field of agriculture many agricultural chemicals are using  for the control of pests, insects and fungal diseases  and their toxicological effects of the chemicals  on human and animals are exposed  daily are of ever increasing concern.  Most of the agricultural chemicals are endocrine disruptors (Wissem Mnif

 et al., 2011) and manmade chemicals are interfering with the  hormones system by blocking or mimicking normal function (Commission of the European Communities, 2001). The long term and frequent application of pesticides on the crops will lead to form an un degradable toxic products that are called residues.  These residues remained on vegetable and fruits even after the post harvest stages. The application of agricultural chemicals on crops  leads to the human exposure when  the agriculture produce is consumed. These pesticides may have been different chemicals class and different activities viz., Insecticides, acaricides, fungicides and herbicides during different stages of the plant and storage. The Pesticide residues  have potential adverse effects on vegetables, fruits animals resources and human health  (Perez Bendito et al. 1999).  Because of their widespread usage, their toxic residues have been reported in various environmental matrices (Kumari B et al 1996, 2002).  Therefore it is essential to studies of residues of these chemicals in food products. The citrus limetta  is an important crop in  south India  and utilized in  various types of foods preparations viz., vegetarian, non vegetarian diet,  curries,  pickles and  juices etc. Various studies have been done towards the beneficial properties of fruit juices, because they have several components such as phenols, vitamins and flavonoids with anti oxidant properties (Benzie IF et al. 2014).   An attempt made to standardize the analytical method in citrus fruit (Citrus limetta i.e., cheeni variety)  as the  plants is treated with different chemicals class  of viz., insecticides, fungicides and herbicides etc. A new  analytical method for the analysis of pesticide residues was modified and   developed (Anastassiades et el., 2013) to monitor the  agriculture produce,  and name as quick, easy, cheap, effective rugged and safe (QuEChERS)  method. To change matrices an attempt was made to develop the  new  multi chemical class  residue analytical method  to monitor  the citrus samples for   54 different  class of agricultural  chemicals at  a time. By adopting this  multi residue analytical technique  the  analysis time will reduced to 20 to 25 minutes and preparation of sample has to meet the international standards in pesticide residue analysis (Gontarev M et al 2007).  Rapid, simple and robust extraction methods are required in routine analysis of pesticide residue laboratories. The QuEChERS method has several advantages over old methods of pesticide residues, as the recoveries are high (>85%) compared with old  traditional methods (Luke, M., et al 1975 and Fillion J et al, 2000). The sample taken for analysis is small about 10 to 20 grams and clean up by  dispersive solid phase extraction  (dSPE)  method and whole laboratory process  will be completed 30- 40 minutes. By reducing the analysis time (Hiemstra et al., 2007) the solvent usage is very low volumes without any organo chlorinated solvent. The QuEChERS extraction and cleanup procedure has been following in many residue laboratories because of obtaining high recovery values even in very low concentrations. The QuEChERS analytical procedure involves utilizes methyl cyanide  (Acetonitrile) for extraction, followed by liquid partitioning step. The addition of sodium chloride (NaCl) sodium sulphate (Na2SO4) ) to induce partitioning of the Acetonitrile  extract from the water in the sample. An aliquot of the extract is then cleaned up by adding Sorbents  Magnesium sulphate (MgSO4), Primary Secondary Amine (ethylenediamine N-propyl bonding  with silica gel base) and graphitized carbon black (GCB) works with the principle of dSPE (dispersive solid phase extraction), no organo chlorinated solvent were used. The final extract in Acetonitrile is directly injected and analyzed on  LC-MS/MS. Primary Secondary Amine (PSA) has been found as the most effective sorbent for removal of various carboxylic acids, carbonyl group compounds etc.,  and significantly reducing matrix- enhancement effect. On the other hand, graphitized carbon black (GCB) is very useful for removal of coloring substances (i.e. pigments) and sterols. The development of new methods in the analysis of pesticide residues on Liquid chromatography coupled with triple quadrupole mass spectrometry (LC/MS/MS - TQ),  and  these methods mainly focused on accuracy, repeatability and reproducibility of results and another one important accept is that  volatile and non volatile compounds of various chemical classes pesticides with different  activities  can be easily identified and quantified by LC/MS/MS.   The triple quadrupole  mass analyzers  are powerful detectors with an enhanced selectivity and data acquisition speed these will allows the simultaneous monitoring of a higher number of co-eluting compounds and identification and  quantification of pesticide residues in trace analysis of complex matrices. The current  analytical procedure   was properly validated under the guidelines of European SANCO and the ISO 17025 norms (SANCO 2013). The aim of this study is to develop and validate the analysis of volatile and non volatile multi chemical class pesticides and  analyzed  in a single injection by adopting  best extraction methods with Liquid Chromatography mass spectrometric Detector. These studies were focus on citrus sample preparation, sample extraction following QuEChERS analytical  method and instrumental operating parameter are  optimized by finding  the  multiple reaction  monitoring (MRM) parameters in LC-MS-MS to identify and quantify  about 54 multi  chemical group of  pesticides of various activity in Citrus fruit in a short period i.e., within 24.01  minutes.

 

EXPERIMENTAL:

Analytical grade pesticide standards of different chemical group  were procured from Dr.Ehrenstorfer and Sigma Aldrich (Germany), and  the solvents viz.,  acetonitrile (HPLC grade), n-Hexane (HPLC grade) and Sodium chloride (NaCl), anhydrous sodium sulphate (Na2SO4),), graphitized carbon black (GCB) and anhydrous magnesium sulphate (MgSO4) all analytical grade chemicals  procured from Merck India.  Before use of anhydrous sodium sulphate (Na2SO4) and anhydrous magnesium sulphate (MgSO4)were baked for 4 hours at 600C in muffle furnace to remove possible phthalate impurities. Primary secondary amine (PSA) was   procured    from   Agilent   Technologies.   The   primary   standard   solutions of 500 μg ml-1 each pesticide compound was prepared  by weighing of powder or liquid and dissolved in methanol, acetone or n-hexane in calibrated volumetric flasks. Then the standard solutions are stored in deep fridge  at about -20°C in deep freezer.   A multi pesticide compound mixture of working standard solution  1 μg ml-1 was prepared by adequate dilution of the corresponding stock solution with methanol and stored under refrigerator at -20°C. And six calibration  pesticide standard  solutions (working standards) were prepared in the range from 5 ppb to 100 ppb in calibrated  volumetric flasks using methanol as solvent. Each concentration level was injected (1μl) six times in SHIMADZU 8040 Model LCMS/MS, SHIMADZU 8040 equipped with triple quardrupole mass spectrometer for calibration standards linearity studies.

 

Extraction and clean-up procedure:

The un treated control  citrus samples was collected  from local farmers field and adopted the QuEChERS (Quick Easy Cheap Effective Rugged Safe) method for extraction and clean up and validated as per SANCO/12571/2013 guidelines. A portion of 1 kg collected  citrus  sample was chopped  with robot coupe blixer.  Weighed out of 15 ± 0.1 g sample in to 50 ml centrifuge tube, The required quantities of 54 pesticides working standard mixture was added to each 15 g sample to get fortification levels of 10µg kg-1,               50 µg kg-1,   and   100 µg kg-1 and replicated same thrice.  And  to   each  tube  30 ± 0.1mL acetonitrile added and caped   shaken well for 2 minute. The samples in tube was  homogenized  at 14000-15000rpm for 2-3 minutes using Heidolph silent crusher (low volume homogenizer).  After this    3.0 ± 0.1g sodium chloride was added and mixed it by shaking gently and   centrifuged for 3 min. at 2500-3000 rpm with Remi R-238 centrifuge  to separate the organic layers.   The upper organic layer of 16 ml was taken  in another test tube and add 9.0 ± 0.1 g anhydrous sodium sulphate to remove the moisture content. After vigorous shaking   8 ml extract was transferred  in to 15 ml centrifuge tube contains  0.4 g ± 0.01 g primary secondary amine (PSA) and 1.2 ± 0.01g anhydrous magnesium sulphate and 25mg of Graphitized Carabon Black (GCB), caped the tube well and vortex for 30 seconds,  then centrifuged the tube for 5 minutes at 2500-3000 rpm.  From  that 1 ml extract  transferred into auto injected vials through 0.2µm filter paper and analyzed on LC/MS/MS. The effect of matrix was evaluated during method development to get accuracy and precision of analytical method (Alder et al 2006).  The matrix-matched calibration standards were prepared with blank sample, the blank sample was extracted applying the same procedure and  corresponding volumes of multi-chemical compound working standard solution was added into  centrifuge tube before the clean-up stage. The mean recovery of the residues was calculated to efficiency of the method for qualitative and quantitative analysis of selected pesticides in/on Citrus sample (citrurs limetta) for  monitoring the real amples.

 

LC- MS/MS analysis:

The final sample extracts are  analyzed on Shimadzu 8040 Model LC/MS/MS, SHIMADZU 8040  equipped with triple quadrupole mass spectrometer using electro  spray  ionization (ESI)  technique in   the  positive ion  mode  (ESI+).  The LC instrument was a Shimadzu Module model equipped with four pro-star  pumps (LC-30AD), auto sampler(SIL-30AL) with  50µl Sample loop and attached with column oven (CTO-20AC). The Kinetix reversed phase column 10 cm length, 3 mm inner diameter  i.d.,  1.6 µm  particle size), and column oven temp 400C and LC- Lab solution software was used for instrument control and data analysis.  LC section and  MS/MS section  general operating parameters are presented in Table 1 .  All the replicated samples are allowed to run for required time and calculated the R.S.D. and recovery values of each compound.  The limit of detection (LOD) is the lowest concentration of analyte detectable by this analytical method in citrus matrix,    limit of quantification (LOQ)  is the lowest solute concentration that can be determined/quantified  with acceptable precession and accuracy were determined by signal-to-noise (S/N) ratios of 4 and 10 respectively.

 


 

 

Table. 1   Parameters of  LC/MS/MS  SHIMADZU coupled  with Triple Quadrupole  Mass Detector  for pesticide residue analysis.

LIQUID

CHROMATO GRAPHY.

SHIMADZU - LC    

MASS SPECTROMETER

TRIPLE QUARDRUPOLE

SHIMADZU 8040

Triple Quadruple Mass Spectrometer equipped with ESI (Electron Spray Ionization) interface

 

 

Interface voltage

4.5 to 5 KV

Pump

30 AD

Nebulizing gas

Nitrogen

Auto injector

30 AC

Nebulizing gas flow

2.0 lit/ min

Column

Kinetix C-18 (reverse phase column)

100 mm length, 3.0 mm ID, 2.6µm particle size

Drying gas flow

15 lit/ min

Column oven temperature

40oC

Desolvation line(DL) temperature (0C)

2500 C

Pump flow

0.4ml/min

Heat block temperature (0C)

3000 C

Solvents used

(mobile phase)

A: 10 mM Ammonium formate Water

B: 10 mM Ammonium formate Methanol

Scanning Mode

MRM

Gradient program

Time(min)      pump A%      pump B%

 initial                      65                    35

 2.00                        65                    35

 7.00                        40                    60

 9.00                        40                    60

14.00                       05                    95

17.00                       15                    85

19.00                       30                    70

21.00                       65                    35

22.00                       65                    35

24.01                      Stop

Polarity

 

Collision Gas

 

Dwell time (mill Sec.)

Positive

 

Argon Gas

 

50

 

 

Fig.1  LC/MS/MS  Chromatogram of 54  mixture  pesticides of 100 µg kg-1 in  Multi Reaction Monitoring  (MRM)  method.

 

 

 


RESULTS AND DISCUSSIONS:

The equipment  LC-MS-8040 Quadrupole MS-MS spectrometer coupled with Triple Quardupole Detector (TQD) and  with an electro spray ionization (ESI) interface. The ESI Source conditions were capillary voltage 4.5- 5.0 kv in positive ion mode. In order to optimize the MS-MS conditions, first selected the best LC elutents  composition (solvent ratios) that would provide the optimum response for MS detection. It was found that 10 mM (milli molar) ammonium formate in water (pH 4) and 10 mM ammonium formate in methanol (pH 4) gradient gave the best result. The standard mixture was injected as direct infusion of 1 µl of a standard solution of each compound without column. The positive and negative modes were tested for all the compounds, since the majority compounds were gives much response in positive mode. And the gas temperature, drying gas flow, nebulizer gas flow, interface voltage and dwell time were investigated with the aim of obtaining an intense peak for each compound. First, the compound was monitored in full scan mode in mass by charge (m/z) range from 100 - 1000.  Full scan precursor ion spectra of the (M + H) were collected with the first Quadrupole,  QI  Quadrupole for precursor ion selection identified the precursor ions of each compound in this run. And  Q2 Quadrupole for fragmentation of precursor ion and production of the product ions by using Collision energy. The Collision Induced Dissociation (CID) is performed with pressure of argon gas at ranging from 17 Kpa to 230 Kpa. And in Q3-Qudrupole  the product ions are selected . Two fragment of product ions were selected in Q3, the high intensity and characteristic fragment ion (quantifier ion)  was chosen for Quantification , and the other ion for Qualifier ion. A minimum of two MS/MS transitions was selected for each compound.  Finally the MS/MS parameters for both   the   compounds   were   optimized  in  full  scan mode. The optimized Multiple Reaction Monitoring  parameters  (Table 2) were standardized   for separation, identification and quantification of 54 multi chemical class pesticide  in a mixture to get good  resolution of  chromatogram and spectra.


 

 

 

Table 2  Agricultural chemicals class ,  activity, optimized MRM  parameters for qualitative and quantitative analysis of   pesticides  on   LC/MS/MS.

S.

No

Name of the Pesticide

Mol. weight

Activity

Chemical class

Retention time

Precursor

Ion

Qualifier Ion

Quantifier Ion

1.

Abamectin

873.11

Insecticide,

acaricide and nematicide.

mixture of avermectins

(B1a and B1b)

17.962

890.40

567

305

2.

Acephaate

183.16

insecticide

Organo phosphate

1.332

184.00

49

143

3.

Acetamaprid

222.68

insecticides

neonicotinamide

3.025

223.00

99

126

4.

Alachlor

269.76

herbicide

chloroacetanilide

13.966

270.10

62

238

5.

Allethrin

302.41

insecticides

pyrethroid

16.752

303.20

123

135

6.

Anilophos

311.85

herabicide

Organo phosphate

15.073

369.90

198

125

7.

Atrazine

215.68

herbicide

chlorotriazine

10.045

216.10

96

174

8.

Azinophos ethyl

345.38

Insecticide and acaricide

Organo phosphate

13.889

346.00

160

131

9.

Bifenthrin

422.87

insecticide

pyrethroid

18.566

440.20

166

181

10.

Carbaryl

201.22

insecticide

carbamate

8.752

202.10

127

145

11.

Carbendazim

191.19

fungicide

benzimidazolylcarbamate

4.177

192.00

131

159

12.

Carbofuron

221.26

insecticide

(benzofuranyl methylcarbamate

7.956

222.10

123

165

13.

Chlorfenviphos

359.57

insecticide

organophosphate

15.279

360.90

98

155

14.

Chlorpyriphos

350.62

insecticide

organophosphate

16.920

351.90

199

96

15.

Chlorpyriphos methyl

322.53

Insecticide

organophosphate

13.976

323.90

291

124

16.

Cypermethrin

416.32

insecticide

pyrethroid

17.584

433.10

127

190

17.

Demeton-s-methyl sulfone

262.28

Insecticide

Organo thio phosphate

1.709

263.00

109

168

18.

Diazinon

304.35

insecticide

organothiophosphate

15.268

305.10

153

169

19.

Dichlorvas

220.98

insecticide

Organo phosphate

7.959

222.00

123

165

20

Dimethoate

229.26

insecticide

Organo phosphate

3.019

230.00

125

198

21.

Ethion

384.48

insecticide

organothiophosphate

16.798

384.90

142

199

22.

Fenamidone

311.40

fungicide

imidazole

12.244

312.10

236

92

23.

Fenpropathrin

349.42

insecticide

pyrethroid

16.922

349.90

125

96

24.

Hexaconazole

314.21

fungicide

conazole

15.301

314.10

92

70

 

25.

Imidacloprid

255.16

insecticide

neo- nicotinoid

2.347

256.00

175

209

26.

Indoxycarb

527.83

insecticide

oxadiazine

16.033

527.90

293

203

27.

L-Cyhalothrin

449.85

insecticide

pyrethroid

17.466

467.10

449

224

28.

Malathion

330.36

Insecticide

Organo phosphate

12.938

331.00

99

127

29.

Malaxon

314.29

insecticide

Organo phosphate

8.523

315.00

127

99

30.

Metalaxyl

279.33

fungicide

acylamino acid

10.407

280.10

192

220

31.

Methamidophos

141.1

insecticide

Organo phosphate

1.295

142.00

125

94

32.

Methomyl

162.21

insecticide

oxime carbamate 

1.781

163.00

108

88

33.

Monocrotophos

223.2

insecticide

Organo phosphate

3.024

224.00

193

127

34.

Myclobutanil

288.77

fungicide

conazole 

13.214

289.10

125

70

35.

Nitenpyram

270.72

insectinide

neonicotinoid 

13.965

271.10

225

163

36.

Parathion

291.3

insecticide

Organo phosphate

1.799

292.00

130

211

37.

Penconazole

284.18

fungicide

conazole 

14.843

284.10

158

70

38.

Pendimethalin

281.31

herbicide

dinitroaniline 

16.997

282.10

43

212

39.

Phorate

260.36

Insecticide

Organo phosphate

15.432

261.00

47

75

40.

Phosalone

367.8

insecticide

Organo phosphate

15.073

367.90

182

125

41.

Phosphamidon

299.7

insecticide

Organo phosphate

7.108

300.00

127

174

42.

Profenophos

373.63

insecticide

Organo phosphate

16.358

372.90

299

302

23.

Quinalphos

298.3

insecticide

Organo phosphate

14.758

299.00

147

163

44.

Simazine

201.66

herabicide

chlorotriazine

7.909

202.10

145

124

45.

Spinosad-A

739

insecticide

Macrocyclic Lactone

17.556

732.40

99

142

46.

Spinosad-D

739

insecticide

Macrocyclic Lactone

17.967

746.40

98

142

47.

Spiromesifen

370.48

Insecticide and miticide

tetronic acid (keto- enole)

17.173

371.00

255

273

48.

Spirotetramat

373.44

insecticide

tetronic acid (keto- enole)

14.009

374.20

330

302

 

49.

Tebuconazole

307.81

fungicide

triazol

14.940

308.10

125

70

50.

Thiacloprid

252.72

Insecticide and molluscicides

neonicotinamide

4.107

253.00

90

125

51.

Thiamethoxam

291.71

Insecticide

neonicotinamide

1.791

293.50

133

211

52.

Thiodicarb

354.47

insecticide

carbamate

9.895

355.00

108

88

53.

Tricyclozole

189.23

fungicide

azole

4.982

190.00

135

162

54.

Trifloxystrobin

408.37

Fungicide

methoxyiminoacetate strobilurin

16.092

409.00

206

186

 

 

 


The standard LC-MS chromatogram of 54  pesticides of 100 µg kg-1 on LC-MS/MS was depicted  in Figure. 1 and the data is recorded with reference to  retention times (RT) and spectra count.  The  percentage of  RSD from linearity for each pesticide was given in Table 3. It was seen that the R2 value  (Coefficient of Determination is a measure of goodness of fit of linear regression) ranged from 0.992 - 0.999 and percentage of Relative Standard Deviation is in between 0.26 -8.82 explains that the instrument has wide range of  linearity for quantification purposes.

 


 

 

Table 3.  Linearity Parameters for different pesticides on LC-MS/MS (TQD) with Multi Reaction Monitoring   method.

S.

No

Name of the pesticide

Coefficient

Of   Variation (R2)

RSD

 

S.

No

Name of the

pesticide

Coefficient

Of  variation (R2)

RSD

1.

Abamectin

0.994

8.25

28.

Malathion

0.999

0.86

2.

Acephate

0.997

0.88

29.

Malaxon

0.998

3.20

3.

Acetamaprid

0.999

0.93

30.

Metalaxyl

0.998

1.91

4.

Alachlor

0.996

1.02

31.

Methamidophos

0.998

0.48

5.

Allethrin

0.992

3.04

32.

Methomyl

0.994

1.13

6.

Anilophos

0.992

1.61

33.

Monocrotophos

0.999

2.30

7.

Atrazine

0.998

1.73

34.

Myclobutanil

0.995

1.27

8.

Azinophos ethyl

0.997

1.12

35.

Nitenpyram

0.996

1.92

9.

Bifenthrin

0.992

8.82

36.

Parathion

0.998

5.56

10.

Carbaryl

0.999

0.85

37.

Penconazole

0.992

1.35

11.

Carbendazim

0.998

1.20

38.

Pendimethalin

0.997

1.78

12.

Carbofuron

0.998

0.81

39.

Phorate

0.993

1.63

13.

Chlorfenviphos

0.997

2.37

40.

Phosalone

0.997

2.92

14.

Chlorpyriphos

0.993

8.33

41.

Phosphamidon

0.999

0.44

15.

Chlorpyriphos methyl

0.992

3.52

42.

Profenophos

0.994

0.75

16.

Cypermethrin

0.996

4.46

43.

Quinalphos

0.996

3.33

17.

Demeton-s-methyl sulfone

0.997

0.26

 

44.

Simazine

0.999

2.30

18.

Diazinon

0.996

1.55

45.

Spinosad-A

0.994

3.23

19.

Dichlorvas

0.997

1.07

46.

Spinosad-D

0.993

8.73

20

Dimethoate

0.998

0.80

47.

Spiromesifen

0.994

8.28

21.

Ethion

0.993

0.63

48.

Spirotetramat

0.996

5.92

22.

Fenamidone

0.998

1.83

49.

Tebuconazole

0.994

2.60

23.

Fenpropathrin

0.994

7.04

50.

Thiacloprid

0.998

1.46

24.

Hexaconazole

0.995

2.74

51.

Thiamethoxam

0.993

8.76

25.

Imidacloprid

0.996

2.10

52.

Thiodicarb

0.996

2.33

26.

Indoxycarb

0.997

1.10

53.

Tricyclozole                                                                                                

0.997

0.83

27.

L-Cyhalothrin

0.995

6.35

54.

Trifloxystrobin

0.998

3.29

 

 


Limit of determination of pesticides found to be 5µg kg-1 in citrus matrix. And limit quantification were studied 10, 50, 100 µg kg-1   levels and    recoveries obtained  ranged from  79.7% to 113.6%, at 10 µg kg-1  fortification level, from  82.7 to 113.4% were  at 50 µg kg-1  fortification   level,  and   90.2%  to 120.3% at  100 µg kg-1  fortification  levels (Table 4)  and same is depicted  in bar graphs Fig. 2 to 4.


 

 

 

 

 

Fig. 2

 

 

Fig. 3

 

 

 

Fig. 4

 

Figure 2, 3 and 4 are   Pesticides recovery profiles from the validation experiments    using LC/MS/MS Triple Quadrupole at different levels of fortified citrus samples

 

Table. 4  Percentage recoveries of different fortification levels of pesticides in citrus 

S.No

Name of the pesticide

Average % recovery at different fortification levels (mean )

   10 µg kg-1

 50 µg kg-1

 100 µgkg-1

LOD (µgkg-1)

LOQ (µgkg-1)

1.

Abamectin

93.9

95.3

101.5

5

10

2.

Acephate

82.4

87.5

93.9

5

10

3.

Acetamaprid

100.8

103.7

110.7

5

10

4.

Alachlor

96.2

96.1

99.7

5

10

5.

Allethrin

95.7

94.2

104.9

5

10

6.

Anilophos

79.7

82.7

97.8

5

10

7.

Atrazine

96.2

91.6

102.5

5

10

8.

Azinophos ethyl

89.0

89.4

114.2

5

10

9.

Bifenthrin

113.6

98.7

107.2

5

10

10.

Carbaryl

98.6

99.4

99.2

5

10

11.

Carbendazim

95.6

98.0

99.5

5

10

12.

Carbofuron

111.5

113.4

120.3

5

10

13.

Chlorfenviphos

90.8

98.9

99.7

5

10

14.

Chlorpyriphos

87.5

86.5

95.6

5

10

15.

Chlorpyriphos methyl

91.1

97.4

101.0

5

10

16.

Cypermethrin

97.7

99.9

103.7

5

10

17.

Demeton-s-methyl sulfone

98.1

99.5

105.3

          5

10

18.

Diazinon

93.2

84.6

113.0

5

10

19.

Dichlorvas

88.8

93.0

101.8

5

10

20.

Dimethoate

93.5

96.3

99.6

5

10

21.

Ethion

90.5

93.0

102.9

5

10

22.

Fenamidone

96.6

87.3

103.2

5

10

23.

Fenpropathrin

100.8

88.2

102.0

5

10

24.

Hexaconazole

94.7

97.8

99.1

5

10

25.

Imidacloprid

93.3

96.4

105.3

5

10

26.

Indoxycarb

87.3

87.4

94.4

5

10

27.

L-Cyhalothrin

85.5

91.9

101.0

5

10

28.

Malathion

83.0

89.0

96.1

5

10

29.

Malaxon

93.2

96.6

107.4

5

10

30.

Metalaxyl

94.1

96.6

106.3

5

10

31.

Methamidophos

91.9

98.3

99.4

5

10

32.

Methomyl

98.1

99.3

104.2

5

10

33.

Monocrotophos

102.0

93.4

105.8

5

10

34.

Myclobutanil

98.4

85.6

96.4

5

10

35.

Nitenpyram

92.8

94.9

103.3

5

10

36.

Parathion

94.7

98.9

103.6

5

10

37.

Penconazole

97.3

85.1

90.6

5

10

38.

Pendimethalin

84.0

93.4

94.4

5

10

39.

Phorate

99.3

84.2

110.2

5

10

40.

Phosalone

84.9

94.6

115.8

5

10

41.

Phosphamidon

89.9

87.3

101.5

5

10

42.

Profenophos

88.6

89.4

105.6

5

10

43.

Quinalphos

91.3

97.3

101.8

5

10

44.

Simazine

87.7

87.6

97.7

5

10

45.

Spinosad-A

82.1

91.7

106.0

5

10

46.

Spinosad-D

98.3

88.9

99.1

5

10

47.

Spiromesifen

93.2

95.1

98.3

5

10

48.

Spirotetramat

80.7

91.0

103.0

5

10

49.

Tebuconazole

84.7

90.7

94.4

5

10

50.

Thiacloprid

92.4

95.7

95.5

5

10

51.

Thiamethoxam

96.6

98.6

103.0

5

10

52.

Thiodicarb

99.8

97.7

106.8

5

10

53.

Tricyclozole 

92.5

94.8

95.5

5

10

54.

Trifloxystrobin

96.7

99.6

90.2

5

10

 

 


LOD:  Limit of detection LOQ:  Limit of quantification

The recoveries finding are very near  and similar to  research  findings  of various investigations i.e.,  Steven J. Lehotan et al (2005) reported 70% - 120% in oranage samples, Takatori S et al (2013) reported 70% - 120% in eight commodities (fruits and vegetables),   Bujagendra Raju et al  (2011) reported  78%  to  102%  in  mango,  and  Pasoma A K  et al (2014) reported 49.7% - 127% in chico  mastic gum samples.  The extraction and cleanup methodology adopted was  proved to be rapid and highly effective for extraction of 54 pesticides of different chemical class in Citrus fruit  with a recovery of various pesticides in the range of  79% - 110% .   The method used for estimation of pesticides using by this  method with LC-MS/MS  is effective, accurate  for identification  and quantification of pesticides at very low levels. The technique is very useful for monitoring studies for the targeted pesticides identification levels up to  > 0.01 µgkg-1 in Citrus fruit as the Maximum Residue Levels of many pesticide were around this range.  The accuracy of the method was calculated through the recovery of each pesticide. The recovery rate of each pesticide at three different fortification levels was evaluated in order to  assess the extraction and cleanup  efficiency of the proposed method.  For this, 15 g of untreated control Citrus samples collected from farmers field was spiked with the corresponding volume of the working standard solution at each fortification level (10, 50 and 100         µgkg-1). Thus the recovery levels were properly validated within three concentration levels. Satisfactory results were found in three fortification levels for all these pesticides. The evaluation of recovery at these concentrations ensured that trueness of the method. The method developed by Anastassiades M et al. (2003)  for fast and easy extraction procedures for analysis of multiple pesticides in foods has been followed worldwide in various matrices, and during the present investigation, it was known that the method is highly applicable for citrus matrix also as there were no matrix interferences.  The sample preparation, better extraction and cleanup steps,  mobile phase selection  and optimized  of MRM parameters  in instrument was important steps to get  better results in LC-MS/ MS analysis .

 

Analysis of real citrus samples  by adopting validated method

The newly developed validated method for the 54 pesticide has been applied for the routine analysis of real citrus samples collected from different place of Telangana State Southern region of India.   The analytical data presented in Table  5  reviled that  about 22% of samples were detected with pesticide residues viz., acephate, profenophos, chlorpyriphos, malathion, ethion, phoslone, Tebuconazole and fenpropathjrin,  which are commonly applied on citrus crop. Among them 10% of samaples were recorded the residues above Maximum Residue Levels (MRL) prescribed by Europian Union/Codex . The residues of oargano phosphate chemical group i.e.,  profenophos, quinalphos and  ethion  detected above MRL values.  Hence the method developed 54 multi class pesticide residues was highly suitable for monitoring studies not only in citrus  but  also in other fruits crops.

 


 

Table 5 : Pesticide Residues (mgkg-1) detected in   the  real  citrus samples collected from  different  places   of  Telangana region of India.

Citrus fruit sample code*

Acephate

Profenophos

Quinal

phos

Chlorpyriphos

Malathion

Ethion

Phoslone

Tebuconazole

Fenpropathrin

 

Residues mg/kg-1

1. H1- MS

BDL

BDL

BDL

BDL

BDL

BDL

BDL

BDL

BDL

2 . H2-MS

BDL

0.290

BDL

0.225

BDL

BDL

BDL

BDL

BDL

3.  H3- MS

BDL

BDL

BDL

BDL

BDL

0.117

BDL

BDL

0.06

4.  H4- MS

BDL

BDL

BDL

BDL

BDL

BDL

BDL

BDL

BDL

5.  H5-MS

0.172

BDL

BDL

BDL

BDL

BDL

BDL

BDL

BDL

6.  H6-MS

BDL

BDL

BDL

BDL

BDL

BDL

BDL

BDL

BDL

7. N1-MS

BDL

BDL

BDL

0.12

BDL

0.289

BDL

BDL

BDL

8. N2-MS

BDL

0.096

BDL

BDL

BDL

0.105

BDL

BDL

BDL

9. N3-MS

0.338

0.160

BDL

BDL

BDL

BDL

BDL

BDL

BDL

10. N4-MS

BDL

BDL

BDL

BDL

0.120

0.090

BDL

BDL

BDL

11. N5-MS

BDL

BDL

BDL

0.09

BDL

BDL

BDL

0.037

BDL

12.N6-MS

BDL

BDL

0.138

BDL

BDL

BDL

BDL

BDL

BDL

13.W1-MS

BDL

BDL

BDL

BDL

BDL

BDL

BDL

BDL

BDL

14.W2-MS

BDL

BDL

0.223

0.181

BDL

BDL

BDL

BDL

BDL

15.W3-MS

0.326

BDL

BDL

BDL

BDL

BDL

0.03

BDL

0.09

16.W4-MS

BDL

BDL

BDL

BDL

BDL

BDL

BDL

BDL

BDL

17.W5-MS

BDL

0.192

0.201

BDL

BDL

BDL

BDL

BDL

BDL

18.W6-MS

BDL

BDL

BDL

BDL

BDL

BDL

BDL

BDL

BDL

19. K1-MS

BDL

BDL

0.109

BDL

BDL

BDL

BDL

BDL

BDL

20.K2-MS

BDL

BDL

0.132

BDL

BDL

BDL

BDL

0.044

BDL

21.K3-MS

0.312

BDL

BDL

BDL

BDL

BDL

BDL

BDL

BDL

22.K4-MS

BDL

BDL

BDL

BDL

BDL

BDL

BDL

BDL

0.075

23.K5-MS

BDL

BDL

BDL

0.065

BDL

BDL

BDL

BDL

BDL

24.K6-MS

BDL

BDL

BDL

0.198

BDL

BDL

0.04

BDL

0.05

25.S1-MS

BDL

BDL

BDL

0.353

BDL

BDL

BDL

BDL

BDL

26.S2-MS

BDL

BDL

BDL

BDL

BDL

BDL

BDL

BDL

BDL

27.S3-MS

BDL

BDL

BDL

0.208

BDL

0.512

BDL

BDL

BDL

28.S4-MS

BDL

BDL

BDL

BDL

BDL

0.329

BDL

BDL

BDL

29.S5-MS

BDL

BDL

BDL

0.402

BDL

BDL

BDL

BDL

BDL

30.S6-MS

0.521

BDL

BDL

BDL

BDL

BDL

BDL

BDL

BDL

MRL VALUE

mgkg-1 (EU/Codex)

1.0

0.05

0.05

1.0

7.0

0.01

0.05

0.05

2.0

*H1-H6:Hyderabad, N1-N6:Nalgonda, W1-W6: Warangal, K1-K6: Karimnagar, S1-S6: Sangareddy, MS: Market Sample,  BDL:  Below Detectable Level., MRL: Maximum Residue Level,  EU: European Union.

 

 


CONCLUSION:

The QuEChERS method was validated for the analysis as many as 54 pesticide of various  chemical class of different activities in citrus matrix.  The LC/MS/MS  with Triple Quadrupole Detector is most powerful tool to analyze the both volatile and non volatile compounds of  various chemical group  pesticides.   The method has given the excellent recovery values even in the very low concentrations and  effective in  citrus matrix.  Sample preparation is an important step for better extraction and cleanup for LC-MS analysis and in the present investigation the method described by Lehotey SJ (2011) was followed with some modifications, and based on the results obtained the present study. The instrumental analysis was carried out by LC-MS/MS mainly operating in multiple reaction monitoring mode (MRM) and fast running time of 24.01 minutes and very less extraction and cleanup process with less solvents usage.  The monitoring of real samples has proved to best method for analysis of pesticides of various chemical group in citrurs and also can be applicable for other fruits.

ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS

The authors wish to express their gratitude to the Director of Research, Prof. Jayashankar Telangana State Agricultural University, and  Research Scientists of AINP on Pesticide Residue (ICAR), Hyderabad  for carrying the research work  and providing the guidance.

 

REFERENCES:

1.         Wissem Mnif,Aziza Ibn Hadj Hassine, Aicha Bouaziz and Benoit   Roig   (2011): Effect of  Endocrine Disruptor Pesticides, Int J Environ.  Res.  Public Health. 8(6): 2265-2303. 

2.         Communication from the Commission to the Council and the European Parliament on the Implementation of the community strategy for Endocrine Disrupters – A range of substance suspected of interfering with the Hormone systems of Human and  Wildlife, Commission of the European  Communities, June 14, 2001.

3.         Perez  Bendito  D.   and     Rubi S.  (1999) : Environmental Analytical    Chemistry (Comprehensive    Analytical Chemistry): Volume 32, 1st Edition, 1- 864.

4.         Kumari B; Singh R; Madan V.K; Kumar R and Kathpal T.S (1996): DDT and HCH Compounds in soil, ponds and drinking water of Haryana, India; Bull. Environ. Cont. Toxicology,  57(5), 787-   793.  

 

5.         Kumari B, Madan V.K, Kumar R and Kathpal T.S  (2002) : Monitoring of seasonal  vegetables Fruits.  Pesticides residues; Environ. Monit. Assess, 74, 263-270.

6.         Benzie IF, Choi SW  and Dairy council of California  (2014): Antioxidants in food content,   measurement significance action, cautions, caveats and research needs.                    Adv. Food Nutri.  Res. 71   P.1-53.

7.         Anastassiades M, Lehotay SJ, Stajnbaher D and Schenck FJ 2003. Fast and easy  multiresidue  method     employing acetonitrile extraction/partitioning and “dispersive solid-   phase  extraction” for the determination of pesticide residues in  produce. Journal of AOAC  International 86(2): 412-431.

8.         S. Gontarev, V. Shmanai, S.K. Frey, M. Kvach and F.J. Schweigert, Rapid Commun. Mass Spectrom.,21, 1 (2007).

9.         Luke, M., Froberg, J. E., and Masumoto, H. T. (1975) Extraction and cleanup of organ chlorine, Chem.,  JAOAC 58, 1020–1026,

10.       Fillion, J., Sauvé, F., and Selwyn, J.   (2000):  Multiresidue method for the determination of residues of 251 by  spectrometry and liquid chromatography with fluorescence detection, J. AOAC  (83), 698–713.         

11.       Hiemstra M and A. De Kok,  (2007) : Mass spectrometry for the analysis of the pesticide residues   and their metabolites. Chromatography A, 1154, 3.               

12.       SANCO/12571/2013 (2013):   Guidance document on analytical quality control and  validation  procedures for pesticide residues analysis in food and feed. Health and  Consumer Protection   Directorate General, European Commission.                 

13.       Alder L,   Greulich  K, Kempe G and  Vieth B (2006):  Residue  analysis of 500  high priority pesticides: Better by GC–MS or LC–MS/MS, Mass Spectra Review, Vol.(25) 838.

14.       Steven J Lehotan, Andre DF KOK, Maurice Hiemstra and Petervan Bodegraven (2005):  Validation  of fast and easy method for the determination of residues from  229   pesticides in  fruits and vegetables using GC-LC and Mass Spectrometric detection,   AOAC 88(2) 595-613.

15.       Takatori S,  Yamamoto H,  Fukui N,  Yamaguchi S,  Kitagawa Y,  Kakimoto Y, Osakada  M, Okihashi   M, Kajimura K, Obana H. (2013):  Validation study on a rapid multi-   residue     method for determination   of pesticide residues in  vegetables and   fruits by   LC-MS/MS.   Shokuhin Eiseigaku Zasshi. 2013;54(3): 237-49.

16.       Bujagendra  R M, Narsimha RC, Ravi Kumar GV, Thirupathi RB, Mulali Krishna,   Prasad K, Venkateswarlu P (2011): Determination of multiclass pesticdide residues in mangoes by  Liquid Chromatogaraphy Tandem Mass spectrometry. International Journal of Applied   Biology and Pharmaceutical technology 2(2) 279-289.

17.       A. K. Psoma,   N. Pasias, , A. A. Bletsou,  and , N. S. Thomaidis  (2014) : Development    and Validation of a Multi-residue Method for the Determination of Pesticides in Chios  Mastic Gum by QuEChERS and Liquid Chromatography– Tandem Mass Spectrometry,   Food Analytical Methods ;  8(3) 624 - 634.

18.       Lehotey SJ (2011) :  QuEChERS sample preparation approach for mass spectrometric  analysis  of pesticide residues in foods. Methods in Molecular Biology 747: 65-91.

 

 

 

 

 

 

Received on 16.04.2016         Modified on 15.05.2016

Accepted on 16.06.2016         © AJRC All right reserved

Asian J. Research Chem 9(6): June 2016; Page 260-270

DOI: 10.5958/0974-4150.2016.00043.2