Jieying Gao,
Jian Wang,
Ming Zuo,
Li Ma,
Yue Cui,
Ting Yang and
Min Ding*
Key Laboratory of Clinical Laboratory Diagnostics, Ministry of Education, College of Laboratory Medicine, Chongqing Medical University, Chongqing, 400016, P. R. China. E-mail: dingmin@cqmu.edu.cn; Fax: +86-23-68485992; Tel: +86-23-68485240
First published on 15th December 2014
A highly sensitive high-performance liquid chromatography-tandem mass spectrometry (HPLC-MS/MS) method for simultaneous determination of the quaternary ammonium pesticides chlormequat (CQ) and mepiquat (MQ) in pears and potatoes was developed and fully validated. The modified QuEChERS method was employed for sample preparation. A hydrophilic interaction liquid chromatography (HILIC) column was used for the chromatographic separation of highly polar analytes. The detection was performed by a triple quadrupole mass spectrometer with an electrospray ionization (ESI) source in positive ion mode by multiple reaction monitoring (MRM). The detailed fragmentation mechanisms of targeted analytes in MS/MS system were studied on the theoretical level using density functional theory (DFT) calculations. The limits of detection (LODs) were 0.021 μg kg−1 and 0.21 μg kg−1 for CQ and MQ, respectively. The mean recoveries of CQ and MQ were in the range of 83.4–119.4% with RSD less than 7.0%. The developed method was applied to the analysis of CQ and MQ in actual samples from different retail outlets in China, implying its potential in fast monitoring of CQ and MQ residues.
High-performance liquid chromatography coupled with mass spectrometry (HPLC-MS) or tandem MS (HPLC-MS/MS) has been used to simultaneously analyze CQ and MQ residues in different matrices.8–11 Because of the high polarity of quaternary ammonium compounds, hydrophilic interaction liquid chromatography (HILIC) column or strong cationic exchange (SCX) column was chosen to improve the retention and separation of CQ and MQ, which could remove the need for the use of ion-pairing reagents in the mobile phase in earlier studies.12,13 Especially, HILIC column has been recently used for simultaneous quantification of CQ and MQ in food samples, obtaining satisfactory chromatographic resolution.14 However, further study is required to develop a solid method suitable for the routine analysis of these two quaternary ammonium pesticides through the optimization of sample preparation procedure.
Of the published HPLC-MS or HPLC-MS/MS methods mainly solid phase extraction (SPE) was used for CQ and MQ in various matrices.8,11,13–17 Although the SPE was sensitive and accurate, the procedure was relatively tedious and time/solvent-consuming. In recent years, a QuEChERS (quick, easy, cheap, effective, rugged, and safe) method which was originally developed by Anastassiades et al.18 in 2003 has been widely accepted for sample preparation in pesticide residue analysis. This method was considered to be a streamlined approach that involves two steps: extraction of targeted analytes from the matrix and clean-up by dispersive solid-phase extraction (DSPE) to pull out interfering matrix materials from the sample extract. To widen the applicability of the method, some modifications to the original QuEChERS method were introduced for different kinds of pesticides in food commodities.19–26 But up to now, few HPLC-MS/MS method has been published using QuEChERS as sample preparation procedure for simultaneous determination of quaternary ammonium pesticides CQ and MQ.25
In the present study, we aim to develop an HPLC-MS/MS method designed for simultaneous determination of quaternary ammonium pesticides CQ and MQ in fruit and vegetables. Pear and potato were chosen as representative of frequently occurring fruits and vegetables, respectively. The sample preparation employed a modified QuEChERS method which required small volumes of organic solvent and binary sorbents to achieve high recovery and satisfactory reproducibility. A HILIC column was used for the chromatographic separation to improve the retention and resolution of highly polar CQ and MQ. The detailed fragmentation mechanisms of targeted analytes in MS/MS system were provided for the first time by the use of computational techniques. Our method was simple, fast, sensitive and cost-effective, and could be used as a routine method for analyzing CQ and MQ residues.
To a 50 mL polypropylene (PP) centrifuge tube, 5.00 ± 0.01 g of blended sample matrix, 35 μL of IS and 3.5 mL of MeCN were added and vortex-mixed for 30 s. Then the phase partition was induced by addition of 3 g of MgSO4. The tube was immediately shaken for 1 min to prevent coagulation of MgSO4 and centrifuged for 10 min at 6000×g. For the sample clean-up, 1 mL of MeCN extract were placed into the 2 mL centrifuge tube containing 25 mg of PSA sorbent, 25 mg of GCB and 125 mg of MgSO4, shook for 1 min and centrifuged at 13300×g for 10 min. The resulting supernatants were filtered using a 0.22 μm nylon syringe filter for LC-MS/MS analysis.
For the MS/MS analysis, an Agilent 6410 Triple Quadrupole mass spectrometer (Agilent Technologies, Wilmington, DE, USA) with an ESI (electrospray ionization) source was employed. The source was operated in positive ion mode by multiple reaction monitoring (MRM). Each MRM transition was assigned a dwell time of 30 ms. The nebulizer was operated at 45 psi. The nitrogen drying gas flow rate and temperature were kept at 12 L min−1 and 350 °C, respectively. The data acquisition was performed using Agilent MS workstation Mass hunter 1.0 software.
In the clean-up step, different sorbents are used to pull out matrix interfering substances such as polar organic acids, sugars, lipids, carotinoids and chlorophyll. At the same time, MgSO4 is added to remove excess water and improve analyte partitioning. Three common sorbents used in pesticides residue analysis contain PSA (primary secondary amine), C18EC (octadecysilane, end-capped) and GCB (graphitized carbon black). PSA is used as a weak anion exchanger to remove polar organic acids, sugars and pigments from the matrices. Both C18EC and GCB are non-polar sorbents and suitable for the adsorption of non-polar and medium-polar compounds from the polar samples. Especially, GCB is effective in the removal of hydrophobic interaction-based compounds, such as carotinoids and chlorophyll. In this study, seven combinations (see Fig. 1) of three above sorbents were respectively used to evaluate their effects on the purification efficiency. Fig. 1(a) and (b) showed the peak areas of CQ and MQ standards in solvent, respectively. The peak area of analyte in spiked sample extract closer to that in solvent indicated the better purification efficiency. According to the results of both analytes, PSA + GCB was considered to be the most favorable sorbent for clean-up among the seven examined combinations. On the other hand, when the sample was spiked prior to preparation (see Fig. 1(e) and (f)), the peak area for CQ was the highest when the PSA + GCB sorbent was used, which demonstrated high extraction efficiency as well as good purification efficiency, even though a comparative peak area was observed for MQ. Hence, PSA + GCB was chosen as a binary sorbent for the subsequent studies.
No. | Extraction | Purification | Peak area | ||||
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
MeCN (mL) | MgSO4 (g) | PSA (mg) | GCB (mg) | MgSO4 (mg) | CQ | MQ | |
1 | 2.5 (I) | 2.0 (I) | 25 (I) | 25 (I) | 75 (I) | 46![]() |
68![]() |
2 | 2.5 | 2.5 (II) | 50 (II) | 50 (II) | 100 (II) | 50![]() |
69![]() |
3 | 2.5 | 3.0 (III) | 75 (III) | 75 (III) | 125 (III) | 61![]() |
78![]() |
4 | 2.5 | 3.5 (IV) | 100 (IV) | 100 (IV) | 150 (IV) | 43![]() |
44![]() |
5 | 5.0 (II) | 2.0 | 50 | 75 | 150 | 32![]() |
36![]() |
6 | 5.0 | 2.5 | 25 | 100 | 125 | 39![]() |
47![]() |
7 | 5.0 | 3.0 | 100 | 25 | 100 | 42![]() |
51![]() |
8 | 5.0 | 3.5 | 75 | 50 | 75 | 39![]() |
48![]() |
9 | 7.5 (III) | 2.0 | 75 | 100 | 100 | 24![]() |
26![]() |
10 | 7.5 | 2.5 | 100 | 75 | 75 | 26![]() |
30![]() |
11 | 7.5 | 3.0 | 25 | 50 | 150 | 30![]() |
38![]() |
12 | 7.5 | 3.5 | 50 | 25 | 125 | 30![]() |
36![]() |
13 | 10.0 (IV) | 2.0 | 100 | 50 | 125 | 22![]() |
24![]() |
14 | 10.0 | 2.5 | 75 | 25 | 150 | 24![]() |
29![]() |
15 | 10.0 | 3.0 | 50 | 100 | 75 | 22![]() |
27![]() |
16 | 10.0 | 3.5 | 25 | 75 | 100 | 24![]() |
30![]() |
![]() |
|||||||
Peak area CQ | |||||||
I/4 | 50![]() |
31![]() |
35![]() |
36![]() |
33![]() |
||
II/4 | 38![]() |
35![]() |
33![]() |
35![]() |
35![]() |
||
III/4 | 28![]() |
39![]() |
37![]() |
36![]() |
38![]() |
||
IV/4 | 23![]() |
34![]() |
33![]() |
32![]() |
32![]() |
||
R | 26![]() |
7267 | 3938 | 3981 | 5668 | ||
CV (%) | 33.9 | 8.5 | 5.2 | 5.3 | 7.0 | ||
![]() |
|||||||
Peak area MQ | |||||||
I/4 | 65![]() |
39![]() |
46![]() |
46![]() |
43![]() |
||
II/4 | 45![]() |
44![]() |
42![]() |
45![]() |
44![]() |
||
III/4 | 33![]() |
48![]() |
45![]() |
43![]() |
46![]() |
||
IV/4 | 27![]() |
40![]() |
37![]() |
36![]() |
36![]() |
||
R | 37![]() |
9636 | 8641 | 10![]() |
9673 | ||
CV (%) | 38.7 | 10.2 | 9.2 | 10.8 | 9.8 |
However, as a dominant factor, the optimal volume of MeCN (2.5 mL) needed to be refined because of its location on the terminal of four examined levels. Therefore, under the optimal condition of other factors, the effect of the volume of MeCN on the extraction recovery was further examined by varying the volume from 2.0 to 5.0 mL. As shown in Fig. 2, there was no signal when the volume of MeCN was below 2.5 mL because a small amount of MeCN was absorbed into the 5 g food sample itself. This implied that the phase partition could not be induced when the volume of MeCN was too small. Although the recoveries of both analytes lied between 90% and 110% when the volume was changed from 2.5 to 5.0 mL, better reproducibility, reflected in lower relative standard deviations (RSDs < 5%), was obtained when the volume was more than 3.5 mL. Especially, when the volume of MeCN was 3.5 mL, the recovery was closest to 100% with a satisfactory RSD less than 3%. Hence, 3.5 mL was selected as the optimal volume of MeCN added in the extraction step.
On the HILIC column, the separation was carried out with aqueous–organic mobile phases. The effects of MeCN and MeOH as organic solvents were firstly evaluated using 20 mM CH3COONH4 containing 0.1% HCOOH. Compared to MeCN, MeOH possessed improved peak shape and reproducibility of the retention time of the analytes. Moreover, the volumes of MeOH in the mobile phase were investigated by varying the volume ratio from 20% to 40%. When the volume of MeOH was 20%, CQ and MQ could not be separated although the total run time (2 min) was short. With the increase of the volume of MeOH, the resolution of the analytes enhanced while the retention time elongated. A satisfactory separation was observed when the volume of MeOH increased to 35% with a relatively short run time of 3.5 min. Typical chromatograms of mixed blank extract, mixed blank extract spiked with 14 μg kg−1 of the analytes, and an actual sample were depicted in Fig. 3. The retention time of CQ and MQ were 2.37 and 2.71 min, respectively.
![]() | ||
Fig. 3 Typical chromatograms of mixed blank potato (a), mixed blank potato plug standard solutions (b), and a potato sample (c). |
Analyte | Precursor | TS | Product | CE | ΔG≠ | ΔGr |
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
a Collision energy (CE) is in V.b Activated Gibbs free energy (ΔG≠) is defined as the free energy barrier of TS1 to precursor or TS2 to IM1, in kcal mol−1.c Reaction energy (ΔGr) is defined as the relative free energy of product to precursor, in kcal mol−1. | ||||||
CQ-Q/CQ-C | ![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
−31 | 60.2 | −10.2 |
MQ-Q | ![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
−30 | 91.8 | −1.8 |
MQ-C (step 1) | ![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
−30 | 60.5 | 0.8 |
MQ-C (step 2) | ![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
−30 | 60.5 | 30.2 |
Then the fragmentation mechanisms of both analytes were studied by use of computational techniques to elucidate detailed fragmentation behaviors of precursor ions. The calculations were performed by Gaussian 03 program.27 Density functional theory B3LYP method28–30 in conjunction with the 6-31+G(d,p) basis set31 was employed to fully optimize the geometric structures of all the precursor ions, transition states (TS), intermediates (IM) and product ions in fragmentation pathways of both analytes, and to calculate the harmonic vibrational frequencies to characterize the nature of the transition state with only one imaginary frequency or stationary point as true minimum with no imaginary. Meanwhile, the transition state associated with the correct reactant and product was verified by the intrinsic reaction coordinate (IRC) calculations.32 Optimized Cartesian coordinates of all stationary points were given in the ESI.† The fragmentation process of precursor ions, the activated Gibbs free energies (ΔG≠) and the reaction energy (ΔGr) were summarized in Table 2.
As shown in Table 2, for CQ, the quantification product ion at m/z 58.1 and confirmation product ion at m/z 63.0 could be simultaneously generated via one fragmentation pathway of the precursor ion [M]+ with the cleavage of N(1)–C(2) and C(1)–H(1) bonds. Although thermodynamics data showed that this process could spontaneously occur, reflected in a negative reaction energy (−10.2 kcal mol−1), the extra collision energy was needed to surmount a free energy barrier of ca. 60 kcal mol−1. For MQ, the quantification product ion at m/z 98.1 and confirmation product ion at m/z 58.1 were produced via two different fragmentation pathways. One is a concerted mechanism with the cleavage of C(1)–H(1) bond and simultaneous formation of methane to offer the quantification product ion. Another one is a stepwise mechanism with the initial formation of a five-membered ring intermediate and subsequent ring-opening reaction giving rise to the confirmation product ion. A higher free energy barrier of 91.8 kcal mol−1 for MQ-Q resulted in its lower ionization efficiency compared to CQ-Q at nearly equal collision energy, which may explain why the LOD of the method for MQ was weak than that for CQ (see Section “Accuracy, precision, LOD and LOQ” for details). Although the free energy barrier in fragmentation pathway of MQ-C compared favorably with that of MQ-Q, the strong endothermic characteristic (the reaction energy being 30.2 kcal mol−1) made the occurrence of reaction difficult. Correspondingly, the signal intensity of MQ-C was lower than that of MQ-Q. Our calculations clarified the detailed fragmentation mechanisms of both analytes, offering the quantification and confirmation product ions which were in nice agreement with the experimental observation.
Analyte | Matrix | Regression equation | Calibration range (μg kg−1) | R2 | LOD (μg kg−1) | MEa (%) |
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
a Matrix effect (ME) is defined as (slope of matrix-matched curve − slope of solvent-based curve)/slope of solvent-based curve; 0% = no matrix effect. | ||||||
CQ | Solvent | y = 0.1167x + 0.0373 | 0.07–175 | 1.0000 | 0.021 | — |
Pear | y = 0.1355x + 0.0045 | 0.07–175 | 1.0000 | 0.021 | 16.1 | |
Potato | y = 0.1490x + 0.0033 | 0.07–175 | 0.9999 | 0.021 | 27.7 | |
MQ | Solvent | y = 0.0951x − 0.0536 | 0.7–175 | 0.9999 | 0.21 | — |
Pear | y = 0.1140x + 0.0134 | 0.7–175 | 0.9997 | 0.21 | 19.9 | |
Potato | y = 0.2144x − 0.0649 | 0.7–175 | 1.0000 | 0.21 | 125.4 |
Matrix effect (ME) was evaluated by comparing the slopes obtained in the calibration with matrix-matched standards (Smatrix) and those obtained with solvent-based standards (Ssolvent), and expressed by
![]() | (1) |
The ME value lower than 0 indicated signal suppression while the ME value higher than 0 indicated ionization enhancement. In Table 3, minor enhancement effects for both analytes in pear matrix were observed (both ME < 20%). But there were significant ionization enhancements for CQ (ME = 27.7%) and MQ (ME = 125.4%) in potato matrix, which may due to strong competition between excessive polar carbohydrates and targeted analytes for the chromatographic retention and subsequent ionization. In view of this, matrix-matched calibration was required for quantification in this study.
Analyte | Spiked level (μg kg−1) | Pear | Potato | ||||
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
Recovery (%) | SD (%) | RSD (%) | Recovery (%) | SD (%) | RSD (%) | ||
CQ | 0.35 | 105.8 | 3.5 | 3.3 | 103.8 | 4.0 | 3.9 |
35 | 91.6 | 2.8 | 3.1 | 87.6 | 2.3 | 2.6 | |
140 | 97.0 | 0.4 | 0.4 | 96.0 | 5.1 | 5.3 | |
MQ | 1.4 | 112.0 | 3.1 | 2.8 | 119.4 | 6.1 | 5.1 |
35 | 87.8 | 2.3 | 2.6 | 83.4 | 5.8 | 7.0 | |
140 | 98.9 | 6.4 | 6.5 | 107.0 | 2.3 | 2.2 |
The limit of detection (LOD) and the limit of quantification (LOQ) were determined as the lowest fortification level that yielded a signal-to-noise (S/N) ratio of 3:
1 and 10
:
1, respectively. For CQ, the LOD was 0.021 μg kg−1 and the LOQ was 0.070 μg kg−1. For MQ, the LOD and LOQ were 0.21 and 0.70 μg kg−1, respectively. The sensitivity of our method was one to two orders of magnitude higher than that obtained previously using similar QuEChERS-HPLC-MS/MS method where the LOQs were 10 μg kg−1 for CQ and 5 μg kg−1 for MQ.25 This improvement was attributed mainly to the better resolution of targeted analytes on HILIC column and the more sufficient clean-up using binary sorbents (the polar PSA in collaboration with non-polar GCB) to minimize the interference of matrix coexistences, followed by minimizing the volumes of extraction solvent (the solvent/sample ratio of 3.5 mL: 5 g) with a satisfactory reproducibility to enhance the recovery.
Sample | Source | CQ (μg kg−1) | MQ (μg kg−1) |
---|---|---|---|
a The “Green Fruit and Vegetables” logo items.b The concentration is not detected. | |||
Pear | Supermarket 1 | 0.79 ± 0.04 | 0.95 ± 0.02 |
Supermarket 1a | 0.73 ± 0.04 | 0.93 ± 0.05 | |
Supermarket 2 | 0.80 ± 0.03 | 0.90 ± 0.03 | |
Supermarket 2a | 0.65 ± 0.02 | 0.89 ± 0.03 | |
Supermarket 3 | 0.70 ± 0.05 | 0.81 ± 0.04 | |
Supermarket 3a | 0.62 ± 0.06 | 0.92 ± 0.06 | |
Farmers market 1 | 0.75 ± 0.01 | 0.99 ± 0.04 | |
Farmers market 2 | 0.74 ± 0.03 | 0.80 ± 0.06 | |
Street market 1 | 0.89 ± 0.08 | 0.85 ± 0.04 | |
Street market 2 | 0.93 ± 0.07 | 0.94 ± 0.04 | |
Potato | Supermarket 1 | 0.64 ± 0.01 | 0.81 ± 0.04 |
Supermarket 1a | 0.53 ± 0.02 | 0.79 ± 0.06 | |
Supermarket 2 | 0.65 ± 0.03 | 0.80 ± 0.02 | |
Supermarket 2a | n.d.b | n.d. | |
Supermarket 3 | 0.51 ± 0.02 | 0.77 ± 0.03 | |
Supermarket 3a | 0.50 ± 0.01 | 0.80 ± 0.02 | |
Farmers market 1 | 0.60 ± 0.03 | 0.90 ± 0.06 | |
Farmers market 2 | 0.61 ± 0.03 | 0.83 ± 0.04 | |
Street market 1 | 0.59 ± 0.00 | 0.85 ± 0.04 | |
Street market 2 | 0.62 ± 0.05 | 0.76 ± 0.05 |
Footnote |
† Electronic supplementary information (ESI) available. See DOI: 10.1039/c4ra10698a |
This journal is © The Royal Society of Chemistry 2015 |