Advertisement

Analytical and Bioanalytical Chemistry

, Volume 410, Issue 22, pp 5431–5438 | Cite as

Ultra turrax® tube drive for the extraction of pesticides from egg and milk samples

  • Julia Sturm
  • Peter Wienhold
  • Thomas Frenzel
  • Karl Speer
Communication
Part of the following topical collections:
  1. Food Safety Analysis

Abstract

The Ultra turrax® tube drive, already successfully applied for the extraction of plant materials, has also proved to be suitable for the analysis of pesticides in eggs and milk. In comparison to the matrix solid-phase dispersion (MSPD), the extraction is less time-consuming at excellent extraction efficiency. Further advantages are the flexibility of the extraction conditions with respect to the pH value and water activity. So, even strongly acidic pesticides such as phenoxy carboxylic acids can be extracted. Eighty-nine GC-amenable and 75 LC-amenable pesticides, which had been detected successfully in whole chicken eggs following MSPD extraction and further processing according to Hildmann et al., could also be analyzed with the modified method. In addition, the analysis spectrum could be expanded by 4 GC- and 37 LC-amenable substances. Of the 208 pesticides tested, 205 substances could be detected in whole chicken eggs. Similar excellent results were achieved for the milk matrix. Furthermore, the modified extraction method allows a determination of the fat content from the same analysis approach.

Keywords

Pesticides Ultra turrax®tube drive MSPD Egg Milk GC-MS/MS LC-MS/MS 

Notes

Compliance with ethical standards

Conflict of interest

The authors declare that they have no conflict of interest.

Supplementary material

216_2018_1254_MOESM1_ESM.pdf (158 kb)
ESM 1 (PDF 157 kb)

References

  1. 1.
    German Official Collection of Methods of Analysis pursuant to § 64 LFGB, L 00.00-34.Google Scholar
  2. 2.
    Anastassiades M, Lehotay SJ, Stajhbaher D, Schenk FJ. Fast and easy multi residue method employing acetonitrile extraction/partitioning and “dispersive solid-phase extraction” for the determination of pesticide residues in produce. J AOAC. 2003;86(2):412–31.Google Scholar
  3. 3.
    Lehotay SJ, Son KA, Kwon H, Koesukwiwat U, Fu W, Mastovká K, et al. Comparison of QuEChERS sample preparation methods for the analysis of pesticide residues in fruits and vegetables. J Chromatogr A. 2010;1217:2548–60.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  4. 4.
    Kinsella B, Byrne P, Cantwell H, McCormack M, Furey A, Danaher M. Determination of the new anthelmintic monepantel and its sulfone metabolite in milk and muscle using UHPLC-MS/MS and QuEChERS method. J Chromatogr B. 2011;879:3707–13.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. 5.
    Kinsella B, Lehotay SJ, Mastovská K, Lightfield AR, Danaher FA. New method for the analysis of flukicide and other anthelmintic residues in bovine milk and liver using liquid chromatography-tandem mass spectrometry. Anal Chim Acta. 2009;637:196–207.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  6. 6.
    Lehotay SJ, Mastovská K. Evaluation of two fast and easy methods for pesticide residue analysis in fatty food matrices. J AOAC Int. 2005;88(2):630–8.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  7. 7.
    Lehotay SJ, Mastovská K, Lightfield AR. Use of buffering and other means to improve results of problematic pesticides in a fast and easy method for residue analysis of fruits and vegetables. J AOAC Int. 2005;88(2):615–29.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  8. 8.
    Klein J, Alder L. Applicability of gradient liquid chromatography with tandem mass spectrometry to the simultaneous screening for about 100 pesticides in crops. J AOAC Int. 2003;86(5):1015–37.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  9. 9.
    Lambropoulou DA, Albanis TA. Methods of sample preparation for determination of pesticide residues in food matrices by chromatography-mass spectrometry-based techniques. A review. Anal Bioanal Chem. 2007;389:1663–83.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  10. 10.
    Hildmann F, Gottert C, Frenzel T, Kempe G, Speer K. Pesticide residues in chicken eggs—a sample preparation methodology for analysis by gas and liquid chromatography/tandem mass spectrometry. J Chrom A. 2015;1403:1–20.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. 11.
    Rasche C, Fournes B, Dirks U, Speer K. Multi-residue pesticide analysis (gas chromatography–tandem mass spectrometry detection) - improvement of the quick, easy, cheap, effective, rugged, and safe method for dried fruits and fat-rich cereals—benefit and limit of a standardized apple purée calibration (screening). J Chrom A. 2015;1403:21–31.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. 12.
    Analytical quality control and method validation procedures for pesticide residues analysis in food and feed, Document No SANTE/2015/11945.Google Scholar
  13. 13.
    Souci SW, Fachmann W, Kraut H. Food composition and nutrition tables. 2016; ISBN 978-3-8047-5072-2.Google Scholar

Copyright information

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

Authors and Affiliations

  • Julia Sturm
    • 1
  • Peter Wienhold
    • 2
  • Thomas Frenzel
    • 2
  • Karl Speer
    • 1
  1. 1.TU Dresden, Chair of Special Food Chemistry and Food ProductionDresdenGermany
  2. 2.Saxon State Institute of Health and Veterinary AffairsDresdenGermany

Personalised recommendations