Analysis of imidacloprid and pyrimethanil in shallot (Allium ascalonicum) grown under greenhouse conditions using tandem mass spectrometry: establishment of pre-harvest residue limits

ABSTRACT In this study, the original Quick, Easy, Cheap, Effective, Rugged and Safe method was used for the extraction of imidacloprid and pyrimethanil followed by a rapid clean‐up through dispersive solid‐phase extraction technique with primary secondary amine sorbent and magnesium sulfate in shall...

Full description

Saved in:
Bibliographic Details
Published in:Biomedical chromatography 2013-04, Vol.27 (4), p.451-457
Main Authors: Park, Jong-Hyouk, Park, Joon-Seong, Abd El-Aty, A. M., Rahman, Md. Musfiqur, Na, Tae-Woong, Shim, Jae-Han
Format: Article
Language:English
Subjects:
Chromatography, Liquid - economics
Chromatography, Liquid - methods
decline pattern
half-life
imidacloprid
Imidazoles - analysis
LC-MS/MS
Limit of Detection
Neonicotinoids
Nitro Compounds - analysis
Pesticide Residues - analysis
Pesticides - analysis
pre-harvest residue limit
pyrimethanil
Pyrimidines - analysis
Shallots - chemistry
Solid Phase Extraction - economics
Solid Phase Extraction - methods
Tandem Mass Spectrometry - economics
Tandem Mass Spectrometry - methods
Time Factors
Citations: Items that this one cites
Items that cite this one
Online Access:Get full text
Tags: Add Tag
No Tags, Be the first to tag this record!
Description
Summary:ABSTRACT In this study, the original Quick, Easy, Cheap, Effective, Rugged and Safe method was used for the extraction of imidacloprid and pyrimethanil followed by a rapid clean‐up through dispersive solid‐phase extraction technique with primary secondary amine sorbent and magnesium sulfate in shallot. Residues were analyzed using LC‐tandem mass spectrometry in positive‐ion electrospray ionization mode. The limits of detection and quantification were estimated to be 0.006 and 0.02 mg/kg, respectively. The samples were fortified at two different concentration levels (0.2 and 1.0 mg/kg), and the recoveries ranged between 79.7 and 83.9% with relative standard deviation values 
ISSN:0269-3879
1099-0801
DOI:10.1002/bmc.2812