Method Validation Using Normal and Weighted Linear Regression Models for Quantification of Pesticides in Mango (Mangifera indica L.) Samples
- 102 Downloads
A fast and efficient method was developed and validated for the determination of pesticides in mangos, which uses the QuEChERS citrate and gas chromatography–mass spectrometry (GC–MS) techniques. A detailed statistical analysis was performed to study the matrix effect. The calibration model using the method of weighted least squares is used in cases, where heteroscedasticity is observed. The matrix effect was observed for most studied compounds using analytical curves based on a spiked matrix. The limits of detection were 0.0025–0.01 mg kg−1, and the limits of quantification (LOQ) were 0.008–0.03 mg kg−1. The LOQ values were minor or equal to the established MRLs by major regulatory agencies in Brazil (ANVISA), the United States (US-EPA), and Europe (CE). The compounds showed acceptable recovery levels of 71–109% with a standard deviation less than 15%. The method was applied to determine pesticide residues in mango samples. For 12 samples, five compounds (chloroneb, propachlor, α-chlordane, chlorpyrifos, DCPA, chlorobenzilate, and trans-permethrin) were detected, with contents of 0.004–0.042 mg kg−1. For chloroneb, propachlor, and α-chlordane, the found concentrations were above the maximum permitted residue limit, according to data from the European Commission.
KeywordsPesticides Matrix effect Statistical analysis Heteroscedasticity Weighted regression
The authors gratefully the Conselho Nacional de Desenvolvimento Científico e Tecnológico—CNPq (Grant Number 405167/2015-6 and 304888/2014-1) and Fundação Cearense de Apoio ao Desenvolvimento Científico e Tecnológico—FUNCAP for financial support of this research and the UFC for providing the laboratory infrastructure for the chromatographic analysis.
Compliance with Ethical Standards
Conflict of interest
The authors declare that they have no conflict of interest.
This article does not contain any studies with human participants or animals performed by any of the authors.
This article does not contain any studies with human participants, so no informed consent was necessary for this study.
- 2.ANVISA—Agência Nacional de Vigilância Sanitária (2016). Monografias de agrotóxicos. http://portal.anvisa.gov.br/. Accessed 20 June 2016
- 3.MAPA—Ministério da Agricultura, Pecuária e Abastecimento (2016) Sistema de agrotóxicos fitossanitários (AGROFIT). http://agrofit.agricultura.gov.br/agrofit_cons/principal_agrofit_cons. Accessed 23 June 2016
- 4.USFDA (2015). Pesticides residues in food. United States Food and Drug Administration. http://www.fda.gov/ICECI/ComplianceManuals/CompliancePolicyGuidanceManual/ucm123236.htm. Accessed 08 Oct 2015
- 5.European Commission Health and Consumer Protection Directorate-General (2013) Guidance document on analytical quality control and validation procedures for pesticide residues analysis in food and feed. SANCO 12571/2013Google Scholar
- 6.Prestes OD, Adaime MB, Zanela R (2011) Sci Chromatogr 3:51–64Google Scholar
- 9.Anastassiades M, Lehotay SJ, Tajnbaher D, Schenck FJ (2003) J AOAC Int 86:412–431Google Scholar
- 17.Caulcutt R, Boddy R (1994) Statistics for analytical chemists. Chapman and Hall, LondonGoogle Scholar
- 24.Miller JN, Miller JC (2010) Statistics and chemometrics for analytical chemistry. Pearson, HarlowGoogle Scholar
- 27.Barbosa PGA, Martins FICC, Lima LK, Milhome MAL, Cavalcante RM, Nascimento RF (2017) Food Anal Methods (in press) Google Scholar
- 31.Pinho GP, Neves AA, Queiroz MELR, Silvério FO (2009) Quím Nova 32:985–987Google Scholar
- 35.Palmeira SMV, Gois LM, Souza LD (2012) Lat Am Appl Res 42:77–81Google Scholar
- 36.WEBBOOK NIST. Disponível em. http://webbook.nist.gov/chemistry/cas-ser.html. Accessed 24 Feb 2015
- 38.European Union (EU) (2012) Pesticides residues MRLs. European Commission. http://ec.europa.eu/food/plant/pesticides/eu-pesticides-database/public/?event=pesticide.residue.selection&language=EN. Accessed 07 Oct 2015