Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in

Analytical method validation and comparison of two extraction techniques for screening of azoxystrobin from widely used crops using LC–MS/MS

  • Original Paper
  • Published:
Journal of Food Measurement and Characterization Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

A simple analytical method was developed and validated in chilli, tomato, grape and mango fruits using liquid chromatography tandem mass spectrometry. The method comprised of extraction with ethyl acetate and cyclohexane mixture followed by d-SPE cleanup employing modified quick, easy, cheap, effective, rugged and safe extraction method and quantified in LC–MS/MS using gradient elution. The method was validated in concentration ranging from 0.01 to 0.1 µg g−1. The recovery of azoxystrobin in different crops was ranging from 84.36 to 95.64 % at three different concentration levels of analytes with relative standard deviation (HorRat < 20 %) of 4–14 %. The global uncertainty was calculated at limit of quantification level i.e. 0.01 µg g−1. In order to evaluate in safety use in India, a field study was conducted with the following extraction method. The calculated half life periods of azoxystrobin were ranging from 3.10–3.46, 3.64–3.46, 1.65–1.96 and 1.32–1.36 days respectively for experimental substrates. The PHI values of azoxystrobin in chilli, tomato, grape and mango fruits were determined as 4.76, 3.90, 4.06 and 10.74 days respectively.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Log in via an institution

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Institutional subscriptions

Fig. 1
Fig. 2
Fig. 3

Similar content being viewed by others

References

  1. R.R. Karpate, R. Saxena, Post harvest profile of chilli. (Dept. of Ag. and Cooperation, Ministry of Agriculture, Nagpur, 2009), MRIN-2

  2. FAO Statistical Database, FAOSTAT, (2007), http://www.fao.org. Accessed 29 June 2013

  3. P.C. Adsule, Good Agricultural Practices for Production of Quality Table Grapes. (N.R.C for Grapes, Pune, 2013), pp. 38–57. www.drs.nio.org/drs/bitstream/2264/4073/1/Mar_Geol_307-310_88a.pdf. Accessed 18 Feb 2013

  4. FAO database, Azoxystrobin: 229, (FAO/WHO Plant Production and protection 215, Ministry of Agriculture, Forestry and Fisheries, Tokyo, Japan, 2012), pp. 55–95. http://www.fao.org/fileadmin/templates/agphome/documents/Pests_Pesticides/JMPR/Report12/JMPR_2012_Report.pdf. Accessed 18 June 2014

  5. The gazette of India: Extraordinary (2009) Part II-Sec. 3(i): 8. (Dept. of Health and Public welfare, New Delhi), www.drugscontrol.org/GSR%20157%20(E)%20dtd%204.3.09.pdf. Accessed 30 July 2013

  6. O. Golge, B. Kabak, J. Food Compos. Anal. 41, 86–97 (2015). doi:10.1016/j.jfca.2015.02.007

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  7. O. Golge, B. Kabak, Food Chem. 176, 319–332 (2015). doi:10.1016/j.jfca.2015.02.007

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  8. J.P. dos Anjos, J.B. de Andrade, Microchem. J. 120, 69–76 (2015). doi:10.1016/j.microc.2015.01.009

    Article  Google Scholar 

  9. M.D.H. Prodhan, E.-N. Papadakis, E. Papadopoulou-Mourkidou, Int. J Environ. Anal. Chem. 1–11 (2015). doi:10.1080/03067319.2015.1025227

  10. E. Szpyrka, A. Kurdziel, A. Matyaszek, M. Podbielska, J. Rupar, M. Słowik-Borowiec, Food Control 48, 137–142 (2015). doi:10.1016/j.foodcont.2014.05.039

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  11. B. Ivanova, M. Spiteller, Analyst 137(14), 3355–3364 (2012). doi:10.1039/C2AN35174A

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  12. M. Wilkinson, (1994) ICIA5504: Metabolism in winter wheat, Jealott’s Hill Research Station, Zeneca Agrochemicals, UK. FAO Report No. RJ1682B. Syngenta File No. ICI5504/0286

  13. A. Boudina, C. Emmelin, A. Baaliouamer, O. Païssé, J.M. Chovelon, Chemosphere 68(7), 1280–1288 (2007). doi:10.1016/j.chemosphere.2007.01.051

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  14. K. Banerjee, A.P. Ligon, M. Spiteller, Anal. Bioanal. Chem. 382(7), 1527–1533 (2005). doi:10.1007/s00216-005-3336-8

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  15. K. Banerjee, A.P. Ligon, M. Spiteller, Agric. Food Chem. 54(25), 9479–9487 (2006). doi:10.1021/jf0620214

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  16. K. Banerjee, A.P. Ligon, M. Spiteller, Anal. Bioanal. Chem. 388(8), 1831–1838 (2007). doi:10.1007/s00216-007-1382-0

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  17. G. Anderson, M.E. Lewiston, Preparing solutions and making dilutions. (Mississippi Genome Exploration Laboratory, Mississippi State, MS) http://www.mgel.msstate.edu/pdf/solutions.pdf. Accessed 10 July 2014

  18. A. Ben-David, C.E. Davidson, J. Microbiol. Methods 107, 214–221 (2014). doi:10.1016/j.mimet.2014.08.023

    Article  Google Scholar 

  19. W. Horwitz, L.R. Kamps, K.W. Boyer, J. Assoc. Off. Anal. Chem. 63(6), 1344–1354 (1980)

    CAS  Google Scholar 

  20. Method validation and quality control procedures for pesticide residues analysis in food and feed (2009) Document No. SANCO/10684/2009. 6th EU AQC

  21. European Union Commission Directorate of General Health and Consumer Protection (2000) Guidance document on residue analytical methods. Document No. SANCO/825/00 rev. 6

  22. Quantifying uncertainty in analytical measurement, (2000) Document no. EURACHEM/CITAC Guide CG 4, 2nd ed., http://www.measurementuncertainty.org.html. Accessed 15 July 2013

  23. W.M. Hoskins, FAO Plant Prot. Bull. 9, 163–168 (1961)

    Google Scholar 

  24. EFSA, Reasoned opinion on the review of the existing maximum residue levels (MRLs) for azoxystrobin according to Article 12 of Regulation (EC) No 396/20051, European Food Safety Authority (EFSA), Parma, Italy, EFSA Journal, 11(12): 3497–3594 (2013). http://www.efsa.europa.eu/en/efsajournal/doc/3497.pdf. Accessed 25 Sep 2014

Download references

Acknowledgments

Authors are thankful to Indofil Industries Limited, Mumbai for financial assistance and grateful to Department of Agril. Chemicals, Bidhan Chandra KrishiViswavidyalaya, Mohanpur, WB, India, for all instrumental facilities. They are also thankful to Department of Chemistry, Visva-Bharati, Santiniketan, WB, India for the general facilities to continue the research.

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Department of Chemistry, Visva Bharati, Santiniketan, 731235, WB, India

    Subhrajit Mukherjee & Gourab Kanti Das

  2. Department of Ag. Chemistry & Soil Science, Calcutta University, Kolkata, 700019, WB, India

    Subhadeep Mukherjee

  3. Department of Ag. Chemicals, Bidhan Chandra Krishi Viswavidyalaya, Mohanpur, 741252, WB, India

    Subhrajit Mukherjee, Subhadeep Mukherjee & Anjan Bhattacharyya

Authors
  1. Subhrajit Mukherjee
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Subhadeep Mukherjee
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  3. Gourab Kanti Das
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  4. Anjan Bhattacharyya
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Subhrajit Mukherjee.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Mukherjee, S., Mukherjee, S., Das, G.K. et al. Analytical method validation and comparison of two extraction techniques for screening of azoxystrobin from widely used crops using LC–MS/MS. Food Measure 9, 517–524 (2015). https://doi.org/10.1007/s11694-015-9260-5

Download citation

  • Received:

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s11694-015-9260-5

Keywords

Search

Navigation