Trevisan Maria Teresa Salles, Owen Robert Wyn, Calatayud-Vernich Pau, Breuer Andrea, Picó Yolanda
Food and Environmental Safety Research Group, Facultat de Farmàcia, Universitat de Valência, Av. Vicent Andrés Estelles, s/n, 46100, Burjassot, Valência, Spain; Departamento de Química Orgânica e Inorgânica, Universidade Federal do Ceará, CP 12200, 60451-970, Fortaleza, Brazil; Division of Preventive Oncology, National Center for Tumor Diseases, Im Neuenheimer Feld 460, Heidelberg, Germany; Cancer Research Center (DKFZ), Im Neuenheimer Feld 581, Heidelberg, Germany.
Division of Preventive Oncology, National Center for Tumor Diseases, Im Neuenheimer Feld 460, Heidelberg, Germany; Cancer Research Center (DKFZ), Im Neuenheimer Feld 581, Heidelberg, Germany.
J Chromatogr A. 2017 Aug 25;1512:98-106. doi: 10.1016/j.chroma.2017.07.033. Epub 2017 Jul 11.
An analytical method using a quick, easy, cheap, effective, rugged and safe (QuEChERS) procedure for multi-residue determination of 52 pesticides in coffee leaf extractshas been developed and validated according to SANTE/11945/2015 guidelines. Different sorbent combinations for dispersive solid phase extraction (d-SPE) clean-up as well as dispersive liquid-liquid microextraction (DLLME) were tested. The relative standard deviations (RSDs) for the recovery of 87-94% of pesticides added to coffee leaf extracts,was ≤20% for samples spiked at concentrations up to 50ngg depending on the clean-up procedures. However, samples spiked with a 100ngg pesticide mixture gave RSDs>20% for most pesticides when d-SPE was carried out adding Supelclean ENVI-Carb 120/400. To explain this fact,the secondary metabolic profile was analyzed in all the extraction and clean-up procedures. Only in the clean-up procedure with the addition of Supel QuE Z-Sep+, does caffeine show a constant adsorption between blank and spiked samples. In other clean-up procedures, the amount of caffeine was higher in those samples spiked with pesticides. This indicates competition between caffeine and pesticides for adsorption to the sorbent. Addition of Supel QuE Z-Sep+ to the procedure revealed only a 32% matrix effect, whereas using PSA+ C18 the matrix effect was close to 97%. The process efficiency is up to 54% with the addition of Supel QuE Z-Sep+ and just up to 7% for the other clean-up procedures. The method was successfully tested in coffee leaves from different types of cultivars. Pesticides were not detected in organic coffee leaf extracts, but thiametoxan was clearly detected in 50% of coffee leaf extracts harvested from coffee trees grown under traditional conditions as determined by UHPLC-TOFMSLC/QqTOF-MS/MS.
已根据SANTE/11945/2015指南开发并验证了一种采用快速、简便、廉价、高效、耐用且安全(QuEChERS)程序测定咖啡叶提取物中52种农药多残留的分析方法。测试了用于分散固相萃取(d-SPE)净化以及分散液液微萃取(DLLME)的不同吸附剂组合。根据净化程序的不同,添加到咖啡叶提取物中的农药回收率为87-94%,对于浓度高达50ngg的加标样品,相对标准偏差(RSD)≤20%。然而,当添加Supelclean ENVI-Carb 120/400进行d-SPE时,对于大多数农药,添加100ngg农药混合物的样品的RSD>20%。为了解释这一现象,在所有提取和净化程序中分析了次生代谢物谱。仅在添加Supel QuE Z-Sep+的净化程序中,咖啡因在空白样品和加标样品之间表现出恒定的吸附。在其他净化程序中,添加农药的样品中咖啡因的含量更高。这表明咖啡因和农药在吸附到吸附剂上存在竞争。在程序中添加Supel QuE Z-Sep+时,基质效应仅为32%,而使用PSA+C18时,基质效应接近97%。添加Supel QuE Z-Sep+时,过程效率高达54%,而其他净化程序仅为7%。该方法在不同品种的咖啡叶中进行了成功测试。有机咖啡叶提取物中未检测到农药,但通过超高效液相色谱-飞行时间质谱/液相色谱/四极杆飞行时间质谱联用仪(UHPLC-TOFMSLC/QqTOF-MS/MS)测定,在50%从传统条件下种植的咖啡树上收获的咖啡叶提取物中清晰检测到噻虫嗪。