Advertisement

Analytical and Bioanalytical Chemistry

, Volume 410, Issue 22, pp 5465–5479 | Cite as

Use of a quality control approach to assess measurement uncertainty in the comparison of sample processing techniques in the analysis of pesticide residues in fruits and vegetables

  • Steven J. Lehotay
  • Lijun Han
  • Yelena Sapozhnikova
Research Paper
Part of the following topical collections:
  1. Food Safety Analysis

Abstract

In routine monitoring of foods, reduction of analyzed test portion size generally leads to higher sample throughput, less labor, and lower costs of monitoring, but to meet analytical needs, the test portions still need to accurately represent the original bulk samples. With the intent to determine minimal fit-for-purpose sample size, analyses were conducted for up to 93 incurred and added pesticide residues in 10 common fruits and vegetables processed using different sample comminution equipment. The commodities studied consisted of apple, banana, broccoli, celery, grape, green bean, peach, potato, orange, and squash. A Blixer® was used to chop the bulk samples at room temperature, and test portions of 15, 10, 5, 2, and 1 g were taken for analysis (n = 4 each). Additionally, 40 g subsamples (after freezing) were further comminuted using a cryomill device with liquid nitrogen, and test portions of 5, 2, and 1 g were analyzed (n = 4 each). Both low-pressure gas chromatography-tandem mass spectrometry (LPGC-MS/MS) and ultrahigh-performance liquid chromatography (UHPLC)-MS/MS were used for analysis. An empirical approach was followed to isolate and estimate the measurement uncertainty contribution of each step in the overall method by adding quality control spikes prior to each step. Addition of an internal standard during extraction normalized the sample preparation step to 0% error contribution, and coefficients of variation (CVs) were 6–7% for the analytical steps (LC and GC) and 6–9% for the sample processing techniques. In practice, overall CVs averaged 9–11% among the different analytes, commodities, batches, test portion weights, and analytical and sample processing methods. On average, CVs increased up to 4% and bias 8–12% when using 1–2 g test portions vs. 10–15 g.

Graphical abstract

Efficient quality control approach to include sample processing

Keywords

Sample processing Comminution Measurement uncertainty Pesticide residues analysis Fruits and vegetables 

Notes

Acknowledgments

We thank Robyn Moten, Limei Yun, and Tawana Simons for their help in the laboratory related to this study. We also thank Joseph Uknalis for the help using the microscope.

Compliance with ethical standards

Conflict of interest

The authors declare that they have no conflicts of interest.

Supplementary material

216_2018_905_MOESM1_ESM.pdf (1.9 mb)
ESM 1 (PDF 1.94 mb)

References

  1. 1.
    Ellison SLR, Barwick VJ. Using validation data for ISO measurement uncertainty estimation. Part 1. Principles of an approach using cause and effect analysis. Analyst. 1998;123:1387–92.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. 2.
    Barwick VJ, Ellison SLR. Measurement uncertainty: approaches to the evaluation of uncertainties associated with recovery. Analyst. 1999;124:981–90.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. 3.
    Van Zoonen P, Hoogerbrugge R, Gort SM, van de Wiel HJ, van’t Klooster HA. Some practical examples of method validation in the analytical laboratory. Trends Anal Chem. 1999;18:584–93.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. 4.
    Hund E, Luc Massart D, Smeyers-Verbeke J. Operational definitions of uncertainty. Trends Anal Chem. 2001;20:394–406.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. 5.
    Taverniers I, Van Bockstaele E, De Loose M. Trends in quality in the analytical laboratory. I. Traceability and measurement uncertainty of analytical results. Trends Anal Chem. 2004;23:480–90.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. 6.
    Feinberg M, Boulanger B, Dewé W, Hubert P. New advances in method validation and measurement uncertainty aimed at improving the quality of chemical data. Anal Bioanal Chem. 2004;380:502–14.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. 7.
    Egea González FJ, Hernández Torres ME, Garrido Frenich A, Martínez Vidal JL, García Campaña AM. Internal quality-control and laboratory-management tools for enhancing the stability of results in pesticide multi-residue analytical methods. Trends Anal Chem. 2004;23:361–9.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. 8.
    Gustavo González A, Ángeles HM. A practical guide to analytical method validation, including measurement uncertainty and accuracy profiles. Trends Anal Chem. 2007;26:227–38.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. 9.
    Campanyó R, Granados M, Guiteras J, Prat MD. Antibiotics in food: legislation and validation of analytical methodologies. Anal Bioanal Chem. 2009;395:877–91.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. 10.
    Araujo P. Key aspects of analytical method validation and linearity evaluation. J Chromatogr B. 2009;877:2224–34.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. 11.
    Rozet E, Marini RD, Ziemons E, Dewé W, Roudaz S, Boulanger B, et al. Total error and uncertainty: friends or foes? Trends Anal Chem. 2011;30:797–806.Google Scholar
  12. 12.
    Andersen JET. On the development of quality assurance. Trends Anal Chem. 2014;60:16–24.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. 13.
    Azilawati MI, Dzulkifly MH, Jamilah B, Shuhaimi M, Amin I. Estimation of uncertainty from method validation data: application to a reverse-phase high-performance liquid chromatography method for the determination of amino acids in gelatin using 6-aminoquinoyl-N-hydroxysuccinimidyl carbamate reagent. J Pharm Biomed Anal. 2016;129:389–97.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. 14.
    Valverde A, Aguilera A, Valverde-Monterreal A. Practical and valid guidelines for realistic estimation of measurement uncertainty in multi-residue analysis of pesticides. Food Control. 2017;71:1–9.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. 15.
    Ferrer C, Lozano A, Uclés S, Valverde A, Fernández-Alba AR. European Union proficiency tests for pesticide residues in fruit and vegetables from 2009 to 2016: overview of the results and main achievements. Food Control. 2017;82:101–13.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. 16.
    European Commission Directorate-General for Health and Food Safety. Guidance document on analytical quality control and method validation procedures for pesticides residues analysis in food and feed. SANTE/11945/2015.Google Scholar
  17. 17.
    Lehotay SJ, Cook JM. Sampling and sample processing in pesticide residue analysis. J Agric Food Chem. 2015;63:4395–404.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. 18.
    Han L, Lehotay SJ, Sapozhnikova Y. Use of an efficient measurement uncertainty approach to compare room temperature and cryogenic sample processing in the analysis of chemical contaminants in foods. J Agric Food Chem. 2018;  https://doi.org/10.1021/acs.jafc.7b04359.
  19. 19.
    Herrmann SS, Hajeb P, Andersen G, Poulsen ME. Effects of milling on the extraction efficiency of incurred pesticides in cereals. Food Addit Contam A. 2017;34:1948–58.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. 20.
    Raynie DE. Know your sample: size matters. LCGC N Am. 2016;34:530–2.Google Scholar
  21. 21.
    Riter LS, Wujcik CE. Novel two-stage fine milling enables high-throughput determination of glyphosate residues in raw agricultural commodities. J AOAC Int. in press;  https://doi.org/10.5740/jaoacint.17-0317.
  22. 22.
    Sapozhnikova Y, Lehotay SJ. Evaluation of different parameters in the extraction of incurred pesticides and environmental contaminants in fish. J Agric Food Chem. 2015;63:5163–8.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. 23.
    Riter LS, Lynn KJ, Wujcik CE, Buchholz LM. Interlaboratory assessment of cryomilling sample preparation for residue analysis. J Agric Food Chem. 2015;63:4405–8.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. 24.
    Naik S, Malla R, Shaw M, Chaudhuri B. Investigation of comminution in a Wiley mill: experiments and DEM simulations. Powder Techn. 2013;237:338–54.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. 25.
    Fussell RJ, Hetmanski MT, MacArthur R, Findlay D, Smith F, Ambrus Ä, et al. Measurement uncertainty associated with sample processing of oranges and tomatoes for pesticide residue analysis. J Agric Food Chem. 2007;55:1062–70.Google Scholar
  26. 26.
    Fussell RJ, Hetmanski MT, Colyer A, Caldow M, Smith F, Findlay D. Assessment of the stability of pesticides during the cryogenic processing of fruits and vegetables. Food Addit Contam. 2007;24:1247–56.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. 27.
    Fussell RJ, Addie KJ, Reynolds SL, Wilson MF. Assessment of the stability of pesticides during cryogenic sample processing. 1. Apples. J Agric Food Chem. 2002;50:441–8.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. 28.
    Hill ARC, Harris CA, Warburton AG. Effects of sample processing on pesticide residues in fruits and vegetables. In: Fajgelj A, Ambrus Ä, editors. Principles and practices of method validation. Cambridge: Royal Society of Chemistry; 2000. p. 41–8.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. 29.
    Young SJV, Parfitt CH Jr, Newell RF, Spittler TD. Homogeneity of fruits and vegetables comminuted in a vertical cutter mixer. J AOAC Int. 1996;79:976–80.Google Scholar
  30. 30.
    US Department of Agriculture, Agricultural Marketing Service. Pesticide Data Program. Washington, DC. www.ams.usda.gov/pdp accessed Dec 2017.
  31. 31.
    Sapozhnikova Y, Lehotay SJ. Review of recent developments and applications in low-pressure (vacuum outlet) gas chromatography. Anal Chim Acta. 2015;899:13–22.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  32. 32.
    Lehotay SJ, Han L, Sapozhnikova Y. Automated mini-column solid-phase extraction cleanup for high-throughput analysis of chemical contaminants in foods by low-pressure gas chromatography-tandem mass spectrometry. Chromatographia. 2016;79:1113–30.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  33. 33.
    Lehotay SJ. Utility of the summation chromatographic peak integration function to avoid manual reintegrations in the analysis of targeted analytes. LCGC N Am. 2017;25:391–402.Google Scholar
  34. 34.
    Dixon WJ, Massey FJ Jr. Introduction to statistical analysis. Fourth ed. New York: McGraw-Hill; 1983.Google Scholar
  35. 35.
    Lehotay SJ, de Kok A, Hiemstra M, van Bodegraven P. Validation of a fast and easy method for the determination of residues from 229 pesticides in fruits and vegetables using gas and liquid chromatography and mass spectrometric detection. J AOAC Int. 2005;88:595–614.Google Scholar
  36. 36.
    Kwon H, Lehotay SJ, Geis-Asteggiante L. Variability of matrix effects in liquid and gas chromatography-mass spectrometry analysis of pesticide residues after QuEChERS sample preparation of different food crops. J Chromatogr A. 2012;1270:235–45.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  37. 37.
    Mol HGJ, Zomer P, López MG, Fussell FJ, Scholten J, de Kok A, et al. Identification in residue analysis based on liquid chromatography with tandem mass spectrometry: experimental evidence to update performance criteria. Anal Chim Acta. 2015;873:1–13.Google Scholar
  38. 38.
    Uclés S, Lozano A, Sosa A, Parrilla Vázquez P, Valverde A, Fernández-Alba AR. Matrix interference evaluation employing GC and LC coupled to triple quadrupole tandem mass spectrometry. Talanta. 2017;174:72–81.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer-Verlag GmbH Germany, part of Springer Nature 2018

Authors and Affiliations

  • Steven J. Lehotay
    • 1
  • Lijun Han
    • 2
  • Yelena Sapozhnikova
    • 1
  1. 1.US Department of Agriculture, Agricultural Research ServiceEastern Regional Research CenterWyndmoorUSA
  2. 2.College of ScienceChina Agricultural UniversityBeijingChina

Personalised recommendations