Advertisement

Analytical and Bioanalytical Chemistry

, Volume 407, Issue 11, pp 3009–3021 | Cite as

S1 certification of alpha-endosulfan, beta-endosulfan, and endosulfan sulfate in a candidate certified reference material (organochlorine pesticides in tea) by isotope dilution gas chromatography-mass spectrometry

  • Della Wai-mei Sin
  • Yee-Lok WongEmail author
  • Eddie Chung-chin Cheng
  • Man-fung Lo
  • Clare Ho
  • Chuen-shing Mok
  • Siu-kay Wong
Research Paper
Part of the following topical collections:
  1. Reference Materials for Chemical Analysis

Abstract

This paper presents the certification of alpha-endosulfan, beta-endosulfan, and endosulfan sulfate in a candidate tea certified reference material (code: GLHK-11-03) according to the requirements of the ISO Guide 30 series. Certification of GLHK-11-03 was based on an analytical method purposely developed for the accurate measurement of the mass fraction of the target analytes in the material. An isotope dilution mass spectrometry (IDMS) method involving determination by (i) gas chromatography-negative chemical ionization-mass spectrometry (GC-NCI-MS) and (ii) gas chromatography-electron ionization-high-resolution mass spectrometry (GC-EI-HRMS) techniques was employed. The performance of the described method was demonstrated through participation in the key comparison CCQM-K95 “Mid-Polarity Analytes in Food Matrix: Mid-Polarity Pesticides in Tea” organized by the Consultative Committee for Amount of Substance-Metrology in Chemistry in 2012, where the study material was the same as the certified reference material (CRM). The values reported by using the developed method were in good agreement with the key comparison reference value (KCRV) assigned for beta-endosulfan (727 ± 14 μg kg−1) and endosulfan sulfate (505 ± 11 μg kg−1), where the degree of equivalence (DoE) values were 0.41 and 0.40, respectively. The certified values of alpha-endosulfan, beta-endosulfan, and endosulfan sulfate in dry mass fraction in GLHK-11-03 were 350, 730, and 502 μg kg−1, respectively, and the respective expanded uncertainties, due to sample inhomogeneity, long-term and short-term stability, and variability in the characterization procedure, were 27 μg kg−1 (7.8 %), 48 μg kg−1 (6.6 %), and 33 μg kg−1 (6.6 %).

Graphical abstract

Assignment of property values

Keywords

Certified reference material Alpha-endosulfan Beta-endosulfan Endosulfan sulfate Isotope dilution gas chromatography-mass spectrometry 

Notes

Acknowledgments

The authors would like to thank Dr. Chau-ming Lau (Government Chemist) of the Government Laboratory of HKSAR, for his support and encouragement during this project. Thanks are also given to Drs. Wai-on Lee, Yiu-chung Yip, Yiu-chung Wong, and Mr. Chi-shing Ng for their helpful discussion and Wing-yin Yeung, Wing-ki Law, Chung-tung Kwok, Wai-shan Chu, and Phoebe Y. T. Hon for their contributions in this work. The contents of this paper do not necessarily reflect the views of the Government of the HKSAR nor does mention of trade names or commercial products constitute endorsement or recommendations for use.

Supplementary material

216_2015_8455_MOESM1_ESM.pdf (470 kb)
ESM 1 (PDF 470 kb)

References

  1. 1.
    International Organization for Standardization, Geneva, Switzerland, ISO Guide 35:2006Google Scholar
  2. 2.
    International Organization for Standardization, Geneva, Switzerland, ISO Guide 34:2009Google Scholar
  3. 3.
    Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations – Production, FAOSTATGoogle Scholar
  4. 4.
    Canadian Food Inspection Agency, 2009–2010 pesticide residues and metals in dried tea, http://www.inspection.gc.ca/food/chemical-residues-microbiology/chemical-residues/dried-tea/eng/1348263667494/1348263826430. Accessed 29 Sept 2014
  5. 5.
    Canadian Food Inspection Agency, 2010–2011 pesticides in coffee, fruit juice and tea, http://www.inspection.gc.ca/food/chemical-residues-microbiology/chemical-residues/pesticides/eng/1351913846907/1351913943956. Accessed 29 Sept 2014
  6. 6.
    US Environmental Protection Agency, Reregistration eligibility decision for endosulfan, EPA 738-R-02-013 November 2002Google Scholar
  7. 7.
  8. 8.
  9. 9.
  10. 10.
  11. 11.
    Pesticide residue in food and feed, CODEX pesticides residues in food online database, http://www.codexalimentarius.net/pestres/. Accessed 29 Sept 2014
  12. 12.
    EU Pesticides Database, Regulation (EU) No. 212/2013Google Scholar
  13. 13.
    The Japan Food Chemical Research Foundation http://www.m5.ws001.squarestart.ne.jp/foundation/search.html. Accessed 29 Sept 2014
  14. 14.
    US Environmental Protection Agency, [EPA-HQ-OPP-2011-0104; FRL-9363-1], 40 CFR Part 180, http://www.gpo.gov/fdsys/pkg/FR-2013-02-06/html/2013-02392.htm. Accessed 29 Sept 2014
  15. 15.
    Guan Huat Tan, Mee-Kin Chai (2011) Sample preparation in the analysis of pesticides residue in food by chromatographic techniques, pesticides—strategies for pesticides analysis, Prof. Margarita Stoytcheva (Ed.), ISBN: 978-953-307-460-3, http://cdn.intechopen.com/pdfs/12948/InTech-Sample_preparation_in_the_analysis_of_pesticides_residue_in_food_by_chromatographic_techniques.pdf. Accessed 29 Sept 2014
  16. 16.
    British Standards Institution (2009) BS ISO 3890–1Google Scholar
  17. 17.
    British Standards Institution (2009) BS ISO 3890–2Google Scholar
  18. 18.
    US Environmental Protection Agency (1985) Method 680Google Scholar
  19. 19.
    Plaza Bolaños P, Garrido Frenich A, Martínez Vidal JL (2007) J Chromatogr A 1167:9–17CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. 20.
    Ahmad N, Bugueno G, Guo L, Marolt R (1999) J Environ Sci Health B 34:829–848CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. 21.
    Ferrer C, Gómez MJ, García-Reyes JF, Ferrer I, Thurman EM, Fernández-Alba AR (2005) J Chromatogr A 1069:183–194CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. 22.
    Han L, Guo D, Deng X, Wang M, Wang C, Ma Y (2007) Se Pu 25:902–906 (Chinese edn)Google Scholar
  23. 23.
    Hou ZG, Li YR, Zhang Y, Wang XM, Chen D, Lv ZB, Yuan X (2011) Afr J Biotech 10:19764–19770Google Scholar
  24. 24.
    Lozano A, Rajski L, Belmonte-Valles N, Uclés A, Uclés S, Mezcua M, Femández-Alba AR (2012) J Chromatogr A 1268:109–122CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. 25.
    Guan Y, Tang H, Chen D, Xu T, Li L (2013) Anal Methods 5:3056–3067CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. 26.
    Amirahmadi M, Shoeibi S, Abdollahi M, Rastegar H, Khosrokhavar R, Hamedani MP (2013) Iran J Environ Health Sci Eng 10:9CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. 27.
    Zhang X, Mobley N, Zhang J, Zheng X, Lu L, Ragin O, Smith CJ (2010) J Agric Food Chem 58:11553–11560CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. 28.
    Zhao Q, Jin B, Xie L, Wu W, Lan F, Lin L, Han R (2006) Se Pu 24:629–632 (Chinese edn)Google Scholar
  29. 29.
    Naithani V, Kakkar P (2006) Bull Environ Contam Toxicol 76:429–435CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. 30.
    Li AJ, Wang MT, Song LG, Song A, Rong H, Yao TL (2007) Agrochemicals 46:839–840, 845Google Scholar
  31. 31.
    General Administration of Quality Supervision, Inspection and Quarantine of People’s Republic of China, GB/T23204–2008 (Chinese edn)Google Scholar
  32. 32.
    General Administration of Quality Supervision, Inspection and Quarantine of People’s Republic of China, GB/T23376–2009 (Chinese edn)Google Scholar
  33. 33.
    Zhang Y, Liu JW, Zheng WJ, Wang L, Zhang HY, Fang GZ, Wang S (2008) J Environ Sci Health B 43:127–133CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  34. 34.
    Wang S, Zhang J, Yang Z, Wang J, Zhang Y (2005) J Agric Food Chem 53:7377–7384CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  35. 35.
    Lu X, Ren FS, Wang WB, Du HX, Li HD, Ding RY, Zhu DW, Lee NA, Sheild R, Kennedy IR (2006) J Tea Sci 02Google Scholar
  36. 36.
    Stanley KA, Curtis LR, Massey Simonich SL, Tanguay RL (2009) Aquat Toxicol 95:355–361CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  37. 37.
    US Environmental Protection Agency (1699) MethodGoogle Scholar
  38. 38.
    Feng J, Tang H, Chen D, Wang G, Li L (2012) Anal Methods 4:4198–4203CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  39. 39.
    Hon PYT, Chu PWS, Cheng CH, Lee TCL, Chan PK, Cheung STC, Wong YC (2011) J Chromatogr A 1218:6907–6913CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  40. 40.
    Mak CY, Wong YL, Mok CS, Choi SM (2012) Anal Methods 4:3674–3678CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  41. 41.
    Sin DWM, Chan PK, Cheung STC, Wong YL, Wong SK, Mok CS, Wong YC (2012) Anal Chim Acta 721:110–114CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  42. 42.
    Wong YL, Mok CS (2013) Anal Methods 5:2305–2314CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  43. 43.
    Kanrar B, Mandal S, Bhattacharyya A (2010) J AOAC Int 93:411–424Google Scholar
  44. 44.
    European Commission, Commission Decision of 12 August 2002 implementing Council Directive 96/23/EC concerning the performance of analytical methods and interpretation of results (2002/657/EC) (2002) Off J Eur Union L221:8–36Google Scholar
  45. 45.
    CCQM-K95 ‘Mid-polarity analytes in food matrix: mid-polarity pesticides in tea’ final report, October 2014Google Scholar
  46. 46.
    Traceability in the CIPM MRA, CIPM 2009-24, Revised 13 October 2009Google Scholar
  47. 47.
    EURACHEM/CITAC guide CG 4, 3rd edn, QUAN:2012.1Google Scholar
  48. 48.
    Guide to the expression of uncertainty in measurement, ISO, Geneva (1993) (Reprinted 1995: reissued as ISO Guide 98–3 (2008))Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer-Verlag Berlin Heidelberg 2015

Authors and Affiliations

  • Della Wai-mei Sin
    • 1
  • Yee-Lok Wong
    • 1
    Email author
  • Eddie Chung-chin Cheng
    • 1
  • Man-fung Lo
    • 1
  • Clare Ho
    • 1
  • Chuen-shing Mok
    • 1
  • Siu-kay Wong
    • 1
  1. 1.Government LaboratoryKowloonChina

Personalised recommendations