Loading…

Determination of Tuta absoluta pheromones in water and tomato samples by headspace–gas chromatography–mass spectrometry

Tuta absoluta is a tomato pest which is originally from South America. This pest was detected in eastern Spain in 2006 and it rapidly invaded various European countries and spread throughout the Mediterranean basin. The usual detection of this pest is based on the physical evaluation of the crops an...

Full description

Saved in:
Bibliographic Details
Published in:Analytical and bioanalytical chemistry 2015-01, Vol.407 (3), p.795-802
Main Authors: del Carmen Alcudia-León, María, Lucena, Rafael, Cárdenas, Soledad, Valcárcel, Miguel
Format: Article
Language:English
Subjects:
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:Tuta absoluta is a tomato pest which is originally from South America. This pest was detected in eastern Spain in 2006 and it rapidly invaded various European countries and spread throughout the Mediterranean basin. The usual detection of this pest is based on the physical evaluation of the crops and in the exhaustive count of potential insects in dedicated traps. The early detection of that pest on the basis of more objective or measurable indicators is desirable. In this case, the combination of headspace and gas chromatography with mass spectrometric detection is proposed for the identification of Tuta absoluta pest using two of its pheromone components as markers. These components, namely: (3 E ,8 Z ,11 Z )-tetradecatrien-1-yl acetate and (3 E ,8 Z )-tetradecadien-1-yl acetate, are characteristic of Tuta absoluta and they are not present in other insect pheromones. The developed combination allows the determination of both components in water and tomato samples with limits of detection in the range from 25–32 ng/L to 89–111 ng/kg, respectively. The precision, expressed as relative standard deviation, was better than 4.6 % for water samples and better than 7.1 % when tomato samples were analyzed. The relative recovery values varied in the interval 94–100 and 83–99 % for water and tomato samples.
ISSN:1618-2642
1618-2650
DOI:10.1007/s00216-014-7950-1