In this work, surface-enhanced Raman scattering (SERS) spectrum was used to build a rapid analytical method for pesticide residues in fruits. QuEChERS (quick, easy, cheap, effective, rugged and safe) method was modified by multi-walled carbon nanotubes as clean-up sorbents. Overall recoveries of selected pesticide phosmet ranged from 77 to 97% in apples at three spiking levels (0.5, 1 and 2 mg kg−1). The relative standard deviations were between 6.6 and 14%. The limit of detection for phosmet was 0.1 mg kg−1 in standard solution and 0.5 mg kg−1 in apples, which was below the maximum residue limits in fruits of USA, EU and China. The intensity of phosmet characteristic peak existed good linear relationship with the logarithm of concentration between 0.5 and 5 mg kg−1, with the calibration curve coefficients (R2) of 0.9994, which indicated quantitative potential for pesticide residue detection. The method was extended to other pesticides, and the obtained SERS results could be used to establish a spectra database. All the experiments were performed with a portable Raman instrument. Combining pretreatment method with spectra database, a sensitive, rapid and convenient method could be built for pesticide residues detection in fruits.
Pesticides have been widely used to prevent or eliminate insects in agricultural products [1, 2]. However, pesticide residues have induced increasing attention due to their threat to life health and environment. Studies show that chronic contact pesticides might lead to adverse effects on the consumers [3,4,5]. Therefore, the detection of pesticide residues is extremely urgent. Researchers have dedicated to establish methods to detect trace pesticide residues on crops. Normally, current methods mostly used in laboratories are chromatography-based methods such as gas chromatography (GC), high-performance liquid chromatography (HPLC) and HPLC/GC coupled with mass spectra (MS) [6,7,8]. These methods are sensitive and capable of detecting multiple pesticide residues quantitatively. However, several deficiencies of these methods restrict their applications, such as the need for sample preparation which is usually complicated and time-consuming; the experiment needs technical researchers, long measurement time and high cost. In many cases, such as in situ detections or in-filed measurements, establishing a fast, convenient and low-cost procedure to determine pesticide residues is significant . In recent years, some novel detection methods such as enzyme inhibition assay, immunoassay or bio-sensor method have been developing quickly . However, several defects such as short storage time and solution instability problem still exist , and the accuracy and cost have not been satisfactory.
Vibration spectra such as Raman spectroscopy have been widely used as an effective method to estimate food safety . Since its discovery in 1970s, surface-enhanced Raman scattering (SERS) became an important spectroscopic method [13, 14]. The studies showed that SERS spectra are ultra-sensitive, even could detect single molecules [15, 16]. Due to high sensitivity and fingerprint information about the chemical structure of analytes, SERS spectra have been employed to detect pesticides by several groups . Li et al.  synthesized shell-isolated nanoparticles to detect pesticide residues parathion on the surface of fresh orange both by confocal microprobe and portable Raman system. Liu et al.  used SERS based on Au@Ag nanoparticles for rapid identification and detection of pesticides residues in the fruit peels. Tang et al.  prepared Ag colloid to obtained mixed pesticides SERS signals to identify them. He et al.  used SERS based on silver dendrites to detect thiabendazole on apple surface, which was swabbed to recover pesticides. Mandrile et al.  used gold nanoparticles to detect pyrimethanil on contaminated fruits surface-based optimized methodology by SERS and Raman mapping strategy.
However, most researches chose several points of the peers to evaluate the pesticide residues of the crops. As we know, the pesticide residues are not evenly distributed on the surface of crops; furthermore, they generally exist both at the surface and permeate into the inside of the crops. The detection results from one or several points on the surface of the crops are not representative. The crops normally contain several components and relatively low concentration of pesticides; in order to acquire typical results of the pesticide residues on the crops, pretreatment is necessary and important before detection. Fan et al.  showed the feasibility of applying SERS for detection pesticides in apples that were pretreated before detection, and the group also simplified sample preparation method based on QuEChERS later . QuEChERS has been widely used as a pretreatment method to make the process quick, easy, cheap, effective and safe . During the procedure, the clean-up performance is not always satisfactory to remove interferences . Generally, primary secondary amine (PSA) sorbent was used to remove polar pigments, polar organic acids, some fatty acids and sugars, but the clean-up performance is not satisfactory . Graphitized carbon black (GCB) or C18 was applied in modified QuEChERS to remove pigments or non-polar interfering substances, but it can adsorb planar pesticides [27, 28]. Multi-walled carbon nanotubes (MWCNTs) are a kind of novel carbonaceous materials; due to their huge surface area, they have been applied to adsorb interfering substances in fruit and vegetable during pesticides analysis [29, 30]. Our group has reported that MWCNTs as the clean-up material combined with GC–MS method to analysis pesticide residues; and as an alternative absorbent for removing interfering substances in the crops, MWCNTs have been validated to be as superior clean-up material to PSA [31, 32].
In this paper, based on SERS spectra, we focused on detecting pesticide residues such as phosmet, which is a kind of pesticides widely used as protective fungicides in fruits . Before SERS measurement, the fruits are planned to be pretreated with modified QuEChERS method to obtain the purified analyte which could represent typical fruits. The procedure has been extended to other pesticides such as thiabendazole and thiram. In order to establish a fast detection method for field application, all SERS experiments were intended to be performed by a portable Raman instrument.
Tetrachloroauric acid (HAuCl4·3H2O), sodium citrate and (3-aminopropyl) trimethoxysilane (APS) were purchased from Sigma. Acetonitrile of HPLC grade was purchased from Fisher Chemicals (Fair Lawn, NJ, USA). Magnesium sulfate anhydrous (MgSO4, 98%) and sodium chloride (NaCl, 99.5%) of analytical grade were purchased from Sinopharm Chemical Reagent (Beijing, China). Analytical standards of the pesticides in this study were provided by the Institute of the Control of Agrochemicals, Ministry of Agriculture and Peoples’ Republic of China. Primary secondary amine (PSA) and C18 were purchased from Agilent. Multi-walled carbon nanotubes (MWCNTs) with average external diameters of 10–20 nm were obtained from Tianjin Bonna-Agela Technologies Co., Ltd. (China). All chemicals were of analytic grade and were used without further purification. Ultra-pure water was obtained from a Milli-Q water purification system and used for all aqueous. The 0.22 μm nylon syringe filters were used to filter the extracts.
The stock solution of the pesticides (1000 μg mL−1) was prepared by exact weighing of the powder and dissolved in 10 mL acetonitrile, and stored at − 20 °C in the dark. A serial of working standard solutions were prepared by dilution from the stock solution and used for spiking fruits samples, studying the linear dynamic range of SERS analysis. The working solutions were stored at 4 °C in darkness.
2.2 Synthesis of Au nanoparticles
Au@SiO2 core–shell nanoparticles (NPs) were prepared according to the procedure of Li et al.’s method . Briefly, Au NPs cores were first synthesized by a sodium citrate reduction method . Under vigorous magnetic stirring, 1 mM APS was added to the as-prepared Au solution. After 15 min stirring, sodium silicate solution (0.54%) was added to the solution and kept stirring at 90 °C for 1 h. The obtained Au@SiO2 NPs solution was stored at 4 °C for further detections. Before each SERS measurement, 1.5 mL Au@SiO2 NPs solution was added in a tube and centrifuged for 5 min at 8000 r min−1; the bottom deposit was obtained for further SERS experiments.
2.3 Characterization and instruments
The UV–Vis absorption spectroscopy of the Au@SiO2 NPs was recorded on a GBC Cintra-10e spectrophotometer. TEM images were performed using JEOL JEM-2100F microscope with an accelerating voltage of 200 kV. Raman spectra were recorded with a Nuctech Portable Raman inspection instrument (Nuctech RT5000), with a laser wavelength of 785 nm and a charge-coupled device (CCD) detector. The initial laser power was about 450 mW. Raman equipment is calibrated by a software-controlled method. The samples were placed in a 2 mL glass vial, which was put in the sample room of the instrument to reduce interference from ambient light. The laser illuminated the samples through the side of the vial. The acquisition time for each spectrum was 5 s.
2.4 Sample preparation and SERS measurement
As mentioned before, apples were pretreated before SERS measurements with QuEChERS method. A schematic illustration is shown in Scheme 1 of sample pretreatment and measurements of pesticides. Apples were obtained from supermarkets in Beijing. Editable portion was homogenized for 1 min by a blender at high speed. Homogenized apple (10.0 ± 0.1 g) was weighed in a 50 mL centrifuge tube. Ten milliliters of acetonitrile was added afterward, and the tube was then vortexed for 1 min at room temperature. After that, 1 g NaCl and 4 g MgSO4 were added. The tube was shaken for 1 min and put into ice-water bath immediately until cooled to room temperature. After extraction, the tube was centrifuged for 5 min (3800 rpm). Then, 1 mL aliquot of supernatant was transferred into a 2.0 mL micro-centrifuge tube which contained 10 mg of MWCNTs and 150 mg of MgSO4. The tube was shaken vigorously for 30 s before centrifugation at 10,000 rpm for another 30 s. The supernatant was filtered by a membrane (0.22 μm) and transferred to a HPLC vial. In order to search for a better purification result, we also used 50 mg C18 or 50 mg PAS as sorbents, to replace MWCNTs in the above procedure.
For recovery determination, the apple samples (10.0 ± 0.1 g) were spiked with 50, 100 and 200 μL standard stock solutions (100 mg kg−1) in 50 mL centrifuge tubes, to obtain three samples with concentration levels of 0.5, 1 and 2 mg kg−1, respectively. The spiked samples were set aside for 30 min before extraction. Other spectra were obtained from the pesticide samples spike with the above-pretreated fruits.
The samples were prepared using the following procedure for SERS measurements: 400 μL analyte solution, which was obtained by the above QuEChERS method, was mixed thoroughly with the above Au@SiO2 NPs deposit and 20 μL NaCl (0.1 M) in a standard HPLC sample glass vial of 2 mL. Each spectrum was measured four times. The characteristic peaks of apple without pesticide residues were obtained first as blank sample data.
3 Results and discussion
3.1 SERS spectra of phosmet
Figure 1 shows a typical TEM image of the as-prepared Au NPs, which clearly show that the average diameter of the Au NPs is estimated to be 45 ± 5 nm. Figure 2 shows the TEM image of the Au@SiO2 NPs, as can be seen, the thickness of the SiO2 shell is about 2–3 nm. The UV–Vis spectra of the as-prepared Au@SiO2 NPs is shown in Fig. 1c, which exhibited one band at about 540 nm; the spectrum was with a slight shift to red compared to that of Au NPs (Fig. 2A), and the result was similar to Ref. . As Li et al.  reported, with the protection of thin SiO2 shell, less interference would induce during the detection for the complicated system such as fruits. Furthermore, Au@SiO2 NPs were more stable for storage and transportation during the process of in-filed measurements. We used new prepared Au@SiO2 and AuNPs to detect the same pesticide solution (1 mg kg−1 thiabendazole); the intensity of SERS spectra obtained by AuNPs (Fig. 2B c) was slightly stronger than that of Au@SiO2 NPs (Fig. 2B a). However, while both NPs were stored in the bottle for 45 days at room temperature, the spectra intensity of the same pesticide solution was decreased significantly for AuNPs (Fig. 2B d), while for Au@SiO2 NPs it was slightly decreased (Fig. 2B b). As we were trying to build a rapid pesticide detection method that could be used in field, we need more stable Au@SiO2 NPs for further detection.
Figure 3 shows SERS spectra of phosmet stand solution with serial concentrations from 10 to 0.1 mg kg−1. Several characteristic peaks were shown obviously . A strong peak at 609 cm−1 was attributed to the C=O in-plane deformation vibration mode. The 674 cm−1 peak was from P=S stretching. The band at about 715 cm−1 arose from benzene ring breathing mode. The peak at about 1016 cm−1 may due to asymmetric P–O–C deformation vibration. The peaks at 1193 cm−1 and 1409 cm−1 were C–H out-of plane deformation vibration in P–O–CH3 and S–CH2–N, respectively. The peak at 1257 cm−1 can be attributed to C–N stretching in S–CH2–N. The peak appeared at around 1773 cm−1 was attributed to C=O stretching. As is seen in Fig. 3, the intensity of characteristic peaks decreased with the concentration of phosmet and were still distinguishable, while the concentration decreased to as low as 0.1 mg kg−1. The spectra of Au@SiO2 NPs without pesticide were obtained as blank spectra. There were several weak peaks in these blank spectra, and in order to avoid inference of these bands, the peaks of phosmet shown at 609, 674, 1193 and 1773 cm−1 were chosen as characteristic bands for the phosmet detection.
4 Pretreatment of fruits
As mentioned before, the fruits normally contained organic acids, pigments and other non-targeted compounds, which would interfere with the SERS spectra of the targets. A good clean-up procedure is indispensable for the pesticide residue analysis in fruits. Due to its unique structure and huge surface area, MWCNTs have been used as an alternative absorbent in our previous work; compared to PSA, the clean-up effect and recoveries of pesticide of MWCNTs were better [31, 32]. Our group has used TEM to observe MWCNTs before and after the adsorption of interference of fruits . The results show that some large interference appears on the surface of the nanotube and small matrix substances in the hollow cylindrical structures of nanotubes. Thus, the interaction probably occurs on both the surface of MWCNTs and absorptive action of the nanotubes. In this work, we applied modified QuEChERS approach by using MWCNTs as clean-up sorbents for pesticide residues extraction from the fruits. PSA and C18 were induced to compare the clean-up efficiency for SERS measurement. In order to simplify the procedure and reduce the pretreatment time, QuEChERS method was modified to be suitable for SERS measurements. Figure 4 shows the SERS spectra of fruits purified with above three sorbents. As can be seen, compared to the spectra of apples without sorbents (Fig. 4d), and purified with C18 (Fig. 4c) or PSA (Fig. 4b), the spectra of analyte extract clean-up by MWCNTs (Fig. 4a) show low basement and less peaks that would interfere with SERS detection of pesticide residues. MWCNTs have achieved the best performance for fruits clean-up. Similar clean-up performance has been found in cowpea in our earlier research . The subsequent experiments would choose MWCNTs as a clean-up material.
4.1 SERS spectra of phosmet in fruits
Apples spiked with 0.5–5 mg kg−1 phosmet were pretreated by the method illustrated in the sample preparation part. SERS spectra of the result samples are shown in Fig. 5. The apples contain no detectable phosmet residues which were used as blank sample for comparison. As can be seen, the spectra of blank (Fig. 5 blank) have several weak peaks, which appeared in different bands and did not interfere with the characteristic peaks of phosmet. The major characteristic bands of phosmet such as 607, 670, 1192 and 1772 cm−1 can be identified clearly and were consisted with the SERS spectra of phosmet standard solutions (Fig. 3). As we know, the limit of detection was determined as the concentration of analyte giving a signal-to-noise ratio (S/N) of 3 for the characteristic peaks. At 0.5 mg kg−1, the peaks at 607 cm−1, 670 cm−1, 1192 cm−1 and 1772 cm−1 were still distinguishable, and the S/N beyond 3. Generally, as for phosmet, the maximum residue limit in apple of USA, EU and China is above 3 mg kg−1, which is above the detection limit of our method (0.5 mg kg−1).
The results showed a great potential of using the method for quantitative analysis of phosmet residues in apples. Similar to the standard solution of phosmet, Fig. 5 shows that the intensities of main peaks decreased as the concentration of phosmet in the apple decreased; the intensities of the peaks were linearly related to the concentration of phosmet in the apples. Choosing the strongest characteristic band at 607 cm−1, Fig. 6 shows the relationship between Raman intensity and the concentration of phosmet between 0.5 and 5 mg kg−1. It is interesting to find out a good linear relationship existed between y and x, where y was intensity of Raman peak and x was lnc (c stands for phosmet concentration), with the calibration curve coefficients (R2) of 0.9994. The results indicated that this method could be used to quantitatively detect phosmet residues in apples, and the detection limitation is 0.5 mg/L, far more beyond maximum residue limits in stand demands.
The accuracy and precision of the above method were assessed by apple samples fortified with three different concentration levels (0.5, 1 and 2 mg kg−1). Four repetitive samples were set for each concentration. The result recoveries are shown in Table 1. The average recoveries ranged from 77 to 97% with RSDs between 6.6 and 14%. The recoveries were in acceptable range (70–120%) . The result showed that the detection method has good corrected recoveries for phosmet in apple. The pretreatment method meets the requirement of phosmet residue analysis in apple.
4.2 Other pesticides in apples
The above procedure was applied to detect other pesticides in apples. Thiabendazole and thiram were spiked in apples, pretreated and analyzed using the above method. Figure 7 shows the result SERS spectra of the analyst samples. Using the above procedure, SERS spectra of the apples containing no pesticide residues were used as blank sample for comparison (Fig. 7A, B d), as compared to the SERS spectra of thiabendazole stand solution (Fig. 7A a); similar characteristic peaks could be seen clearly in SERS spectra of apples spike with 1 mg kg−1 and 0.5 mg kg−1 thiabendazole (Fig. 7A b, c), and identical results were found for thiram spiked in apple of 10 mg kg−1 and 1 mg kg−1 (Fig. 7B b, c). The detection limits were below the residue limit in fruits of thiabendazole and thiram, which were 3 mg kg−1 and 5 mg kg−1, respectively.
The above detection method was extended to more pesticides. Figure 8 shows SERS spectra of 12 pesticides. As can be seen, several characteristic peaks of pesticides spiked with apple pretreatment sample (a1–d1) were consistent with the corresponding stand solutions (1 mg kg−1) (a2–d2). Moreover, the characteristic peaks of these pesticides were different from each other. The SERS spectra of these pesticides could be created to be a database, combined with the portable Raman instrument, and a convenient method for pesticide residues detection could be built.
In summary, a sensitive, rapid and convenient method based on SERS, QuEChERS pretreatment and portable Raman instrument has been built for pesticide residues detection in fruits. Overall recoveries of pesticide phosmet ranged from 77 to 97% in apples at three spiking levels (0.5, 1 and 2 mg kg−1), with RSDs between 6.6 and 14%. The detection limitation of phosmet was 0.1 mg kg−1 in standard solution and 0.5 mg kg−1 in apples; the intensity of characteristic peak in phosmet showed good linear relationship with logarithm concentration between 0.5 and 5 mg kg−1 (R2 = 0.9994). The detection limits were all below the maximum residue limits in standard requirements. The method could be extended to other pesticides such as thiabendazole and thiram. All the spectra could be used to create a database, combined with portable Raman instrument and the simple pretreatment method, and a fast, ultra-sensitive and convenient method for pesticide residues detection could be built.
Tilman D, Cassman KG, Matson PA, Naylor R, Polasky S (2002) Agricultural sustainability and intensive production practices. Nature 418:671–677
Isman MB (2006) Botanical insecticides, deterrents, and repellents in modern agriculture and an increasingly regulated world. Annu Rev Entomol 51:45–66
Andre C, Truong TT, Robert JF, Thomassin MA, Guillaume YC (2005) Construction and evaluation of a humic acid column: implication for pesticide risk assessment. Anal Chem 77:4201–4206
Costa LG (2006) Current issues in organophosphate toxicology. Clin Chim Acta 366:1–13
Yang TX, Guo XY, Wang H, Fu SY, Yu J, Wen Y, Yang HF (2014) Au dotted magnetic network nanostructure and its application for on-site monitoring femtomolar level pesticide. Small 10:1325–1331
Yu K, Krol J, Balogh M, Monks I (2003) A fully automated LC/MS method development and quantification protocol targeting 52 carbamates, thiocarbamates, and phenylureas. Anal Chem 75:4103–4112
Mujawar S, Utture SC, Fonseca E, Matarrita J, Banerjee K (2014) Validation of a GC–MS method for the estimation of dithiocarbamate fungicide residues and safety evaluation of mancozeb in fruits and vegetables. Food Chem 150:175–181
Al-Alam J, Bom L, Chbani A, Fajloun Z, Millet M (2017) Analysis of dithiocarbamate fungicides in vegetable matrices using HPLC-UV followed by atomic absorption spectrometry. J Chromatogr Sci 55:429–435
Xu ML, Liu JB, Lu J (2014) Deterination and control of pesticide residues in beverages: a review of extraction techniques, chromatography, and rapid detection methods. Appl Spectrosc Rev 49:97–120
Watanabe E, Miyake S, Yogo Y (2013) Review of enzyme-linked immunosorbent assays (ELISAs) for analyses of neonicotinoid insecticides in agro-environments. J Agric Food Chem 61:12459–12472
Xu ML, Gao Y, Han XX, Zhao B (2017) Detection of pesticide residues in food using surface-enhanced Raman spectroscopy: a review. J Agric Food Chem 65:6719–6726
Lu XN, Al-Qadiri HM, Lin MS, Rasco BA (2011) Application of mid-infrared and Raman spectroscopy to the study of bacteria. Food Bioprocess Technol 4:919–935
Fleischmann M, Hendra PJ, McQuillan AJ (1974) Raman spectra of pyridine adsorbed at a silver electrode. Chem Phys Lett 26:163–166
Jeanmaire DL, Van Duyne RP (1977) Surface Raman spectroelectrochemistry: part I. heterocyclic, aromatic, and aliphatic amines adsorbed on the anodized silver electrode. J Electroanal Chem 84:1–20
Kneipp K, Wang Y, Kneipp H, Perelman LT, Itzkan I, Dasari RR, Feld MS (1997) Single molecule detection using surface-enhanced Raman scattering (SERS). Phys Rev Lett 78:1667–1670
Nie S, Emory SR (1997) Probing single molecules and single nanoparticles by surface-enhanced Raman scattering. Science 275:1102–1106
Li JF, Huang YF, Ding Y, Yang ZL, Li SB, Zhou XS, Fan FR, Zhang W, Zhou ZY, Wu DY (2010) Shell-isolated nanoparticle-enhanced Raman spectroscopy. Nature 464:392–395
Liu BH, Han GM, Zhang ZP, Liu RY, Jiang CL, Wang SH, Han MY (2012) Shell thickness-dependent Raman enhancement for rapid identification and detection of pesticide residues at fruit peels. Anal Chem 84:255–261
Tang HR, Li QQ, Ren YL, Geng JP, Cao P, Sui T, Wang X, Du YP (2011) Surface enhanced Raman spectroscopy signals of mixed pesticides and their identification. Chin Chem Lett 22:1477–1480
He L, Chen T, Labuza TP (2014) Recovery and quantitative detection of thiabendazole on apples using a surface swab capture method followed by surface-enhanced Raman spectroscopy. Food Chem 148:42–46
Mandrile L, Giovannozzi AM, Durbiano F, Martra G, Rossi AM (2018) Rapid and sensitive detection of pyrimethanil residues on pome fruits by Surface Enhanced Raman Scattering. Food Chem 244:16–24
Fan Y, Lai K, Rasco BA, Huang Y (2014) Analyses of phosmet residues in apples with surface-enhanced Raman spectroscopy. Food Control 37:153–157
Luo H, Huang Y, Lai K, Rasco BA, Fan Y (2016) Surface-enhanced Raman spectroscopy coupled with gold nanoparticles for rapid detection of phosmet and thiabendazole residues in apples. Food Control 68:229–235
Anastassiades M, Lehotay SJ, Stajnbaher D, Schenck FJ (2003) Fast and easy multiresidue method employing acetonitrile extraction partitioning and “dispersive solid-phase extraction” for the determination of pesticide residues in produce. J AOAC Int 86:412–431
Han Y, Zou N, Song L, Li Y, Qin Y, Liu S, Li X, Pan C (2015) Simultaneous determination of 70 pesticide residues in leek, leaf lettuce and garland chrysanthemum using modified QuEChERS method with multi-walled carbon nanotubes as reversed-dispersive solid-phase extraction materials. J Chromatogr B 1005:56–64
Klinsunthorn N, Petsom A, Nhujak T (2011) Determination of steroids adulterated in liquid herbal medicines using QuEChERS sample preparation and high-performance liquid chromatography. J Pharm Biomed Anal 55:1175–1178
Wilkowska A, Biziuk M (2011) Determination of pesticide residues in food matrices using the QuEChERS methodology. Food Chem 125:803–812
Komasawa N, Ueki R, Kaminoh Y, Nishi SI (2010) Comparison of QuEChERS sample preparation methods for the analysis of pesticide residues in fruits and vegetables. J Chromatogr A 1217:2548–2560
Qin Y, Zhao P, Fan S, Han Y, Li Y, Zou N, Song S, Zhang Y, Li F, Li X (2015) The comparison of dispersive solid phase extraction and multi-plug filtration cleanup method based on multi-walled carbon nanotubes for pesticides multi-residue analysis by liquid chromatography tandem mass spectrometry. J Chromatogr A 1385:1–11
Oliveira TMBF, Barroso MF, Morais S, Lima Neto PD, Correia AN, Oliveira MBPP, Delerue Matos C (2013) Biosensor based on multi-walled carbon nanotubes paste electrode modified with laccase for pirimicarb pesticide quantification. Talanta 106:137–143
Zhao P, Wang L, Zhou L, Zhang F, Kang S, Pan C (2012) Multi-walled carbon nanotubes as alternative reversed-dispersive solid phase extraction materials in pesticide multi-residue analysis with QuEChERS method. J Chromatogr A 1225:17–25
Han Y, Song L, Zou N, Chen R, Qin Y, Pan C (2016) Multi-residue determination of 171 pesticides in cowpea using modified QuEChERS method with multi-walled carbon nanotubes as reversed-dispersive solid-phase extraction materials. J Chromatogr B 1031:99–108
Hernández Borges J, Cabrera JC, Rodríguez Delgado MÁ, Hernández Suárez EM, Saúco VG (2009) Analysis of pesticide residues in bananas harvested in the Canary Islands (Spain). Food Chem 113:313–319
Frens G (1973) controlled nucleation for the regulation of the particle size in monodisperse gold suspensions. Nat Phys Sci 241:20–22
Liu B, Zhou P, Liu XM, Sun X, Li H, Lin MS (2013) Detection of pesticides in fruits by surface-enhanced Raman spectroscopy coupled with gold nanostructures. Food Bioprocess Technol 6:710–718
Zhao P, Alvarez PJJ, Li X, Pan C (2018) Development of an analytical method for pesticide residues in berries with dispersive solid phase extraction using multiwalled carbon nanotubes and primary secondary amine sorbents. Anal Methods 10:757–766
European Commission Guidance document on analytical quality control and validation procedures for pesticide residues analysis in food and feed. Directorate General for Health and Food Safety SANTE/11813/2017
This work was supported by Natural Science Foundation of Zhejiang Province, China (Grant No. LQ18F050004).
Conflict of interest
The author(s) declare that they have no conflict of interest.
Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.
Rights and permissions
About this article
Cite this article
Jiang, L., Gu, K., Liu, R. et al. Rapid detection of pesticide residues in fruits by surface-enhanced Raman scattering based on modified QuEChERS pretreatment method with portable Raman instrument. SN Appl. Sci. 1, 627 (2019). https://doi.org/10.1007/s42452-019-0619-9
- Multi-walled carbon nanotubes (MWCNTs)
- Rapid detection