Analytical and Bioanalytical Chemistry

, Volume 410, Issue 22, pp 5481–5489 | Cite as

Compensation for matrix effects in GC analysis of pesticides by using cucumber extract

  • Hyeyoung Kwon
  • Michelangelo AnastassiadesEmail author
  • Daniela Dörk
  • Su-Myoung Hong
  • Byeong-Chul Moon
Research Paper
Part of the following topical collections:
  1. Food Safety Analysis


Matrix effects (MEs) can adversely affect quantification in pesticide residue analysis using GC. Analyte protectants (APs) can effectively interact with and mask active sites in the GC system, and are added individually or in combination to sample extracts and calibration solutions to minimize errors related to MEs. Unfortunately, APs cannot sufficiently compensate for MEs in all cases. Plant extracts, containing a broad range of natural compounds with AP properties, can also be used for this purpose. In this study, the applicability of cucumber extract as a natural AP mixture was investigated both alone and in combination with traditional APs. Extracts of two selected difficult matrices (onion and garlic) were prepared according to the citrate-buffered QuEChERS (quick, easy, cheap, effective, rugged, and safe) procedure. ME values of 40 representative GC-amenable pesticides were compared when calibrating against standards in pure solvent and in cucumber extract, with and without the addition of APs. Using a GC system with a contaminated inlet liner, the use of a cucumber-based calibration solution decreased MEs remarkably. The combination of APs with cucumber raw extract further decreased MEs, resulting in more than 85% of the tested pesticides showing ≤ 10% ME in onion and ≤ 20% ME in garlic. These results demonstrate that the preparation of calibration standards based on cucumber extracts (with or without the addition of APs) is a very useful and practical approach to compensate for MEs in pesticide residue analysis using QuEChERS and GC-MS/MS. The use of various internal standards is furthermore critically discussed.


Pesticide residue analysis QuEChERS Matrix effects GC-MS/MS Matrix-based calibration Internal standard 



This study was performed with support from the “Cooperative Research Project between the EU-Reference Laboratory for Residues of Pesticides requiring Single Residue Methods (EURL-SRM) hosted at the Chemisches und Veterinäruntersuchungsamt (CVUA) Stuttgart and National Institute of Agricultural Sciences (NAS) of the Rural Development Administration (RDA) of the Republic of Korea (Project No. PJ012217).”

Funding information

Research reported in this publication was supported by the National Institute of Agricultural Sciences (NAS) of the Rural Development Administration (RDA).

Compliance with ethical standards

Conflict of interest

The authors declare that they have no conflicts of interest.


  1. 1.
    Kittlaus S, Schimanke J, Kempe G, Speer K. Assessment of sample cleanup and matrix effects in the pesticide residue analysis of foods using postcolumn infusion in liquid chromatography–tandem mass spectrometry. J Chromatogr A. 2011;1218(46):8399–410.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  2. 2.
    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.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  3. 3.
    Tsuchiyama T, Katsuhara M, Nakajima M. Compensation of matrix effects in gas chromatography–mass spectrometry analysis of pesticides using a combination of matrix matching and multiple isotopically labeled internal standards. J Chromatogr A. 2017;1524:233–45.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  4. 4.
    Walorczyk S. Validation and use of a QuEChERS-based gas chromatographic–tandem mass spectrometric method for multiresidue pesticide analysis in blackcurrants including studies of matrix effects and estimation of measurement uncertainty. Talanta. 2014;120:106–13.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  5. 5.
    Hajšlová J, Zrostlıkova J. Matrix effects in (ultra) trace analysis of pesticide residues in food and biotic matrices. J Chromatogr A. 2003;1000(1):181–97.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  6. 6.
    Erney D, Gillespie A, Gilvydis D, Poole C. Explanation of the matrix-induced chromatographic response enhancement of organophosphorus pesticides during open tubular column gas chromatography with splitless or hot on-column injection and flame photometric detection. J Chromatogr A. 1993;638(1):57–63.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. 7.
    Schenck FJ, Lehotay SJ. Does further clean-up reduce the matrix enhancement effect in gas chromatographic analysis of pesticide residues in food? J Chromatogr A. 2000;868(1):51–61.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  8. 8.
    Frenich AG, Vidal JLM, Moreno JLF, Romero-González R. Compensation for matrix effects in gas chromatography–tandem mass spectrometry using a single point standard addition. J Chromatogr A. 2009;1216(23):4798–808.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. 9.
    Basilicata P, Miraglia N, Pieri M, Acampora A, Soleo L, Sannolo N. Application of the standard addition approach for the quantification of urinary benzene. J Chromatogr B. 2005;818(2):293–9.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. 10.
    Li A, Imasaka T. Internal standards for use in the comprehensive analysis of polychlorinated aromatic hydrocarbons using gas chromatography combined with multiphoton ionization mass spectrometry. J Chromatogr A. 2016;1470:111–7.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  11. 11.
    Rimayi C, Odusanya D, Mtunzi F, Tsoka S. Alternative calibration techniques for counteracting the matrix effects in GC–MS-SPE pesticide residue analysis—a statistical approach. Chemosphere. 2015;118:35–43.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  12. 12.
    Yarita T, Aoyagi Y, Otake T. Evaluation of the impact of matrix effect on quantification of pesticides in foods by gas chromatography–mass spectrometry using isotope-labeled internal standards. J Chromatogr A. 2015;1396:109–16.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  13. 13.
    Uclés S, Lozano A, Sosa A, Vázquez PP, Valverde A, Fernández-Alba A. Matrix interference evaluation employing GC and LC coupled to triple quadrupole tandem mass spectrometry. Talanta. 2017;174:72–81.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  14. 14.
    Maštovská K, Lehotay SJ, Anastassiades M. Combination of analyte protectants to overcome matrix effects in routine GC analysis of pesticide residues in food matrixes. Anal Chem. 2005;77(24):8129–37.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  15. 15.
    Anastassiades M, Maštovská K, Lehotay SJ. Evaluation of analyte protectants to improve gas chromatographic analysis of pesticides. J Chromatogr A. 2003;1015(1):163–84.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  16. 16.
    Wang Y, Jin H-Y, Ma S-C, Lu J, Lin R-C. Determination of 195 pesticide residues in Chinese herbs by gas chromatography–mass spectrometry using analyte protectants. J Chromatogr A. 2011;1218(2):334–42.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  17. 17.
    Kirchner M, Húšková R, Matisová E, Mocák J. Fast gas chromatography for pesticide residues analysis using analyte protectants. J Chromatogr A. 2008;1186(1):271–80.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  18. 18.
    EURL-SRM. Use of analyte protectants in GC-analysis a way to improve peak shape and reduce decomposition of susceptible compounds. 2013. Accessed 10 October 2017.
  19. 19.
    Payá P, Anastassiades M, Mack D, Sigalova I, Tasdelen B, Oliva J, et al. Analysis of pesticide residues using the quick easy cheap effective rugged and safe (QuEChERS) pesticide multiresidue method in combination with gas and liquid chromatography and tandem mass spectrometric detection. Anal Bioanal Chem. 2007;389(6):1697–714.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  20. 20.
    Čajka T, Maštovská K, Lehotay SJ, Hajšlová J. Use of automated direct sample introduction with analyte protectants in the GC–MS analysis of pesticide residues. J Sep Sci. 2005;28(9–10):1048–60.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. 21.
    Sánchez-Brunete C, Albero B, Martin G, TADEO JL. Determination of pesticide residues by GC-MS using analyte protectants to counteract the matrix effect. Anal Sci. 2005;21(11):1291–6.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  22. 22.
    Rahman M, Park JH, Abd El-Aty A, Choi JH, Cho SK, Yang A, et al. Analysis of kresoxim-methyl and its thermolabile metabolites in Korean plum: an application of pepper leaf matrix as a protectant for GC amenable metabolites. J Sep Sci. 2013;36(1):203–11.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  23. 23.
    Rahman MM, Choi J-H, El-Aty AA, Abid MD, Park J-H, Na TW, et al. Pepper leaf matrix as a promising analyte protectant prior to the analysis of thermolabile terbufos and its metabolites in pepper using GC–FPD. Food Chem. 2012;133(2):604–10.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  24. 24.
    Rahman MM, Jang J, Park J-H, El-Aty AA, Ko A-Y, Choi J-H, et al. Determination of kresoxim-methyl and its thermolabile metabolites in pear utilizing pepper leaf matrix as a protectant using gas chromatography. J Adv Res. 2014;5(3):329–35.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  25. 25.
    Hepperle J, Dörk D, Barth A, Taşdelen B, Anastassiades M. Studies to improve the extraction yields of incurred pesticide residues from crops using the QuEChERS method. J AOAC Int. 2015;98(2):450–63.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  26. 26.
    European Committee for Standardization. Foods of plant origin—determination of pesticide residues using GC-MS and/or LC-MS/MS following acetonitrile extraction/partitioning and cleanup by dispersive SPE—QuEChERS-method; EN 15662. 2008.Google Scholar

Copyright information

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

Authors and Affiliations

  • Hyeyoung Kwon
    • 1
  • Michelangelo Anastassiades
    • 2
    Email author
  • Daniela Dörk
    • 2
  • Su-Myoung Hong
    • 1
  • Byeong-Chul Moon
    • 1
  1. 1.National Institute of Agricultural SciencesRural Development AdministrationIseo-myeonRepublic of Korea
  2. 2.EU-Reference Laboratory for Residues of Pesticides Requiring Single Residue Methods (EURL-SRM); hosted at the Chemisches und Veterinäruntersuchungsamt StuttgartFellbachGermany

Personalised recommendations