Full Terms & Conditions of access and use can be found athttp://www.tandfonline.com/action/journalInformation?journalCode=tfac20
Download by: [Imperial College London Library] Date: 18 May 2016, At: 08:44
Food Additives & Contaminants: Part A
ISSN: 1944-0049 (Print) 1944-0057 (Online) Journal homepage: http://www.tandfonline.com/loi/tfac20
Multiresidue Method for Simultaneous Analysisof Aflatoxin M1, Avermectins, OrganophosphatePesticides and Milbemycin in Milk by UltraPerformance Liquid Chromatography Coupled toTandem Mass Spectrometry
Marianna Ramos dos Anjos, Izabela Miranda de Castro, Maria de LourdesMendes de Souza, Virgínia Verônica de Lima & Francisco Radler de Aquino-Neto
To cite this article: Marianna Ramos dos Anjos, Izabela Miranda de Castro, Maria deLourdes Mendes de Souza, Virgínia Verônica de Lima & Francisco Radler de Aquino-Neto(2016): Multiresidue Method for Simultaneous Analysis of Aflatoxin M1, Avermectins,Organophosphate Pesticides and Milbemycin in Milk by Ultra Performance LiquidChromatography Coupled to Tandem Mass Spectrometry, Food Additives & Contaminants: PartA, DOI: 10.1080/19440049.2016.1175227
To link to this article: http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/19440049.2016.1175227
Accepted author version posted online: 04May 2016.Published online: 04 May 2016.
Submit your article to this journal
Article views: 12 View related articles
View Crossmark data
Publisher: Taylor & Francis
Journal: Food Additives & Contaminants: Part A
DOI: 10.1080/19440049.2016.1175227
Multiresidue Method for Simultaneous Analysis of Aflatoxin M1, Avermectins, Or
ganophosphate Pesticides and Milbemycin in Milk by Ultra Performance Liquid
Chromatography Coupled to Tandem Mass Spectrometry
Marianna Ramos dos Anjos a*
Izabela Miranda de Castro a
Maria de Lourdes Mendes de Souza a
Virgínia Verônica de Lima b
Francisco Radler de Aquino Neto b
a Laboratório de Resíduos e Contaminantes, Embrapa Agroindústria de Alimentos, Av.
das Américas, 29501, Guaratiba, Rio de Janeiro, Brasil. Phone: +5521-36229785.
E-mail: izabela [email protected]; [email protected].
*Corresponding author. Email: [email protected].
b Universidade Federal do Rio de Janeiro, Instituto de Química, LAB-RES/LADETEC,
Rio de Janeiro, Brasil. Email: [email protected]; [email protected].
Abstract
In this work we describe a method developed for the simultaneous analysis of
aflatoxin M1, abamectin, doramectin, eprinomectin, ivermectin, moxidectin,
acephate, azinphos-ethyl, azinphos-methyl, diazinon, methamidophos,
methidathion, mevinphos, pirimiphos-ethyl and pirimiphos-methyl in whole raw
milk, based on the QuEChERS method for extraction and clean-up, with detection
and quantification by Ultra Performance Liquid Chromatography coupled to
Tandem Mass Spectrometry (UPLC-MS/MS). The method was validated
according to parameters of the Analytical Quality Assurance Manual from
the Brazilian Ministry of Agriculture and Commission Decision 2002/657/EC,
and proved suitable for analysis of these analytes within the proposed working
Dow
nloa
ded
by [
Impe
rial
Col
lege
Lon
don
Lib
rary
] at
08:
44 1
8 M
ay 2
016
range, with recovery values between 77 and 110%, standard deviation lower than
20%, limits of detection between 0.05 to 0.99 µg L-1 and limits of quantification
between 0.15 to 1.98 µg L-1. Samples from animals treated with abamectin,
doramectin, ivermectin and diazinon were analysed by the validated method.
Residues of aflatoxin M1 were also found in field samples at levels below the
established maximum residue limit.
Keywords: aflatoxin M1; macrocyclic lactones; milk; organophosphate pesticides;
QuEChERS; UPLC-MS/MS.
Introduction
Milk quality from the stand point of consumption is linked not only to its nutritional
attributes, but above all, to its safety. If this fundamental food is not obtained
under appropriate conditions, it can become a vehicle for chemical and microbiological
contaminants (Antunes and Pacheco 2009). Among the chemical contaminants in
milk are pesticides, veterinary drug residues and mycotoxins.
Pesticide residues in milk may occur indirectly through the consumption
of contaminated feed and forage, use of disinfectants in stalls and dairy production
sites, or directly by the use of veterinary products to control parasites (Bastos et al.
2011). The Boophilus microplus tick (B. microplus) is a major obstacle to
bovine livestock in tropical countries, causing a fall in production of milk and meat.
Organophosphate pesticides (OPs), or their associations, are commonly used in Brazil
as acaricides, due to their relatively low cost and efficient control of cattle ticks (Brito
2007).
Veterinary drug residues in milk occur directly through the administration of
antibiotics to treat mammary gland infections (e.g., mastitis) and reproductive system
diseases, and drugs to control endo and ectoparasites (Beltrane and Machinski Junior
2005). Avermectins, abamectin (ABA), doramectin (DOR), eprinomectin (EPR),
ivermectin (IVR), and the milbemycin, moxidectin (MOX) represent a class of
macrocyclic lactones which have insecticidal, nematicidal and acaricidal activity. These
veterinary drugs are classified as endectocides because they have action against internal
and external (endo and ecto) parasites (Durden 2007).
Aflatoxins are secondary metabolites of some Aspergillus fungi species. The
continuous intake of aflatoxin B1 (AFB1) and aflatoxin B2 (AFB2) by lactating
Dow
nloa
ded
by [
Impe
rial
Col
lege
Lon
don
Lib
rary
] at
08:
44 1
8 M
ay 2
016
animals leads to excretion, in milk, of
their hydroxylated metabolites Aflatoxin M1 (AFM1) and aflatoxin M2 (AFM2),
respectively (Biancardi et al. 2013). AFM1 has high genotoxic activity, although it
is about 10 times less carcinogenic than AFB1 (IARC 2002). Most
countries regulate the maximum levels of AFM1 in milk and milk products, including
Brazil (Brazil 2014). The Brazilian maximum level of AFM1 is the same of the Codex
Alimentarius, 0.5 µg L-1 (CODEX ALIMENTARIUS, 2015) but this value is about ten
times higher than the limit established by the European Union, 0.05µg kg-1 (European
Communities 2006).
The knowledge of residues and contaminants in milk is important for the
development of actions to improve handling, storage and control in this production
chain as well to reduce such contaminants. In Brazil, the actions to control residues and
contaminants in milk are described in the National Plan for Control of Residues and
Contaminants (NPCRC) from the Ministry of Agriculture. The following avermectins,
OPs and aflatoxins are monitored by this plan, with their respective MRL (maximum
residue level): ABA (10 µg L-1); DOR (15 µg L-1); EPR (20 µg L-1); IVR (10 µg L-1);
MOX (10 µg L-1); AFM1 (0.5 µg L-1); acephate (20 µg L-1); azinphos-ethyl (50 µg L-1);
azinphos-methyl (50 µg L-1), diazinon (10 µg L-1), methamidophos (10 µg L-1),
methidathion (20 µg L-1), E and Z mevinphos (50 µg L-1), pirimiphos-methyl (50 µg L-
1) and pirimiphos-ethyl (50 µg L-1) (Brasil, 2014).
The development of analytical methods to determine residues and contaminants
in milk presents several challenges due to the complexity of the matrix, and the high
levels of fat and protein which can interfere in these analyses. Consequently, the
extraction methods of these analytes tend to be long, involving several purification steps
to remove the interfering from the matrix (Aguilera-Luiz et al. 2011). The trend in
residue and contaminants analyses has been to use the QuEChERS method (quick, easy,
cheap, effective, rugged and safe), originally developed for pesticides (Anastassiades et
al 2003). This method involves the initial extraction of analytes with acetonitrile,
followed by the addition of salts (sodium chloride and magnesium sulphate), which
promote the removal of proteins and other interfering substances for the aqueous phase.
Then there is a purification step, dispersive solid phase extraction (d-SPE), which
consists of the addition of small quantities of bulk sorbent to the obtained extract
(Prestes et al. 2009). QuEChERS is very flexible, it can be modified for different
purposes depending on the analytes, matrices and analytical instruments. The method is
Dow
nloa
ded
by [
Impe
rial
Col
lege
Lon
don
Lib
rary
] at
08:
44 1
8 M
ay 2
016
also being applied to analyse veterinary drug residues and mycotoxins in food
(Fernandes et al. 2014).
Liquid chromatography coupled to tandem mass spectrometry (LC-MS/MS) is
the most sensitive and reliable method for detection and quantification of residues and
contaminants in food. Ultra performance liquid chromatography (UPLC) works
with particles of stationary phase less than 2 micrometres in diameter. The use of these
particles along with the high linear velocities of the mobile phase increases the
resolution and reduces the analytical time (Maldaner and Garden, 2009).
The objective of this work was to develop and validate an analytical method for
simultaneous determination of AFM1, OPs, avermectins and milbemycin in whole
raw milk by ultra performance liquid chromatography coupled to tandem
mass spectrometry (UPLC-MS/MS). The same 16 analytes monitored by NPCRC were
included in this analytical method.
Materials and Methods
Reagents
Sodium acetate ACS grade was purchased from Sigma-Aldrich (St. Louis, MO, USA).
Acetonitrile and acetic acid HPLC grade were obtained from Tedia (Fairfield, OH,
USA). Formic acid ACS grade was purchased from Merck (Darmstadt, Germany).
Sodium chloride and magnesium sulphate ACS grade were purchased from Vetec (Rio
de Janeiro, Brazil). Ammonium formate HPLC grade was obtained from Fluka (St.
Gallen, Switzerland). Bondesil® PSA and C18 particles were acquired from Agilent
(Santa Clara, CA, USA).Water was purified in an Advantage A10 Millipore System at
18.2 M©.cm-1.
Standards
Avermectins and OPs standards were purchased from Dr. Ehrenstorfer GmbH
(Augsburg, Germany). AFM1 standard was obtained from Sigma-Aldrich (St. Louis,
MO, USA). Stock solutions were prepared from certified
standards with concentration equal to 1000 µg.mL-1. The stock solutions were used
to prepare working solutions containing the 16 analytes in concentrations of 100
times the MRL (MIX 1) and 10 times the MRL (MIX 2).
Method optimization
Chromatographic and mass spectrometer conditions
The analysis was performed using an Acquity UPLC® system coupled to Quattro
Premier XE® (Waters Corp., Ma, USA). The Acquity UPLC® system is composed of a
Dow
nloa
ded
by [
Impe
rial
Col
lege
Lon
don
Lib
rary
] at
08:
44 1
8 M
ay 2
016
binary pump, autosampler and column oven. The chromatographic separation was
performed on Waters Acquity BEH UPLC® C18 column (100 x 2.1 mm ID, 1.7 µm).
Compositions of mobile phase A (5 mM ammonium formate + 0.01% formic acid, pH
4.00) and mobile phase B (acetonitrile: mobile phase A, 95: 5), gradient: 0-1 min (10%
B); 1 to 5.5 min (55% B); 5.5 to 10.5 min (100% B); 12 min (10% B). The flow rate
used was 0.3 mL min-1, column oven temperature was 30 °C, the autosampler
temperature was 25 °C. The injector was set to full loop injection of 10 µL and the total
run time was 12 min.
Quattro Premier XE® mass spectrometer was operated with an electrospray
ionization source in the positive mode (ESI+). The operating parameters were adjusted
to the following conditions: capillary voltage: 3.5 kV; ion source temperature: 120 °C,
desolvation temperature: 450 °C; cone gas flow (N2): 20 L h-1; desolvation gas flow
(N2): 500 L h-1; collision gas flow (Ar): 0.15 mL min -1. The cone voltages, collision
energies and quantification and confirmation transitions for each analyte were
established from the direct infusion of 1 µg mL-1 solution. The infusion of analytes was
performed with the mobile phases A and B (1:1) using a flow rate of 0.1 mL min-1 in
full scan mode. After adjusting these parameters the multiple reactions monitoring
method (MRM), used for identification and quantification of analytes, was established.
Extraction and clean-up
Extraction efficiency was evaluated for two QuEChERS methods: original and acetate
buffer from organic milk samples spiked at three levels: 0.5, 1.0 and 1.5 times
the MRL of each analyte. For each method three different types of dispersive solid
phase extraction (d-SPE) cleaning were tested, totalling six different treatments and
eighteen extraction experiments. The experiments carried out are shown in Table 1.
a) Original QuEChERS method: 10 mL of milk was extracted with 10 mL
of acetonitrile, stirred for 1 min, followed by addition of 1 g of NaCl and 4 g of MgSO4,
with stirring at vortex for 1 min and centrifugation at 5000 rpm for 5 min.
b) QuEChERS method with acetate buffer: 15 mL of milk was extracted with 15 mL
of 1% acetic acid in acetonitrile, stirred for 1 min, followed by addition of 6 g
of MgSO4 and 1.5 g of sodium acetate with stirring at vortex for 1 min and
centrifugation at 5000 rpm for 5 min.
Clean-up by d-SPE: 2 mL of the extract obtained was transferred to a centrifuge
tube containing the sorbents, stirred for 30 s and centrifuged at 5000 rpm for 5 min. The
extract was filtered through a PTFE membrane, and then 1 mL of extract
Dow
nloa
ded
by [
Impe
rial
Col
lege
Lon
don
Lib
rary
] at
08:
44 1
8 M
ay 2
016
was transferred to a vial, evaporated to dryness and dissolved in 1 mL
acetonitrile: mobile phase A (2: 8, v / v).
Method validation
The best extraction method obtained was validated according to the Analytical Quality
Assurance Manual from the Brazilian Ministry of Agriculture (Brasil 2011). The values
established in this Manual also comply with the requirements of Commission Decision
2002/657/EC (European Communities 2002). The following parameters were
evaluated: selectivity; matrix effect; linearity; decision limit (CC±); detection capability
(CC² ); recovery; limit of detection (LOD); limit of quantification
(LOQ), and repeatability. The calculations were performed by the
software MassLynx® and Microsoft Excel®.
In the proposed method, the selectivity was assessed by analysing six replicates
of the sample extracts of organic whole raw milk.
Evaluation of linearity involved plotting an analytical solvent curve from the
MIX 1, working solution containing the16 analytes, with five points corresponding to 0,
0.5, 1.0, 1.5 and 2.0 times the MRL established for each analyte. The Cochran test was
used to assess the homogeneity of variances obtained for each concentration level.
Calibration data were evaluated by ordinary linear regression in case of
homoscedasticity, or weighted linear regression in case of heteroscedasticity. The
matrix effect was evaluated by comparing the slope of the analytical curve in matrix
extract with the slope of the analytical curve in solvent, through the F-test (Fisher-
Snedecor). Then the Student t- test was applied to determine the statistical equivalence
between the slopes of analytical curves in solvent and matrix.
CC± and CC² were calculated from the standard deviation of the method
repeatability value at the MRL concentration. The LOD and LOQ were calculated by
signal to noise ratio of the equipment. LOD was the concentration equivalent to three
times the noise and LOQ was the concentration equivalent to six times the noise.
The method recovery and repeatability were carried out using organic milk
samples spiked at three levels: 0.5, 1.0 and 1.5 times the MRL of each analyte, with six
replicates for each level. The average recovery and relative standard deviation (RSD)
were calculated for each level.
Samples Analysis
Field samples kindly provided by producers in the state of Rio de Janeiro, Brazil were
analysed using the validated method. The milk samples were obtained from animals that
Dow
nloa
ded
by [
Impe
rial
Col
lege
Lon
don
Lib
rary
] at
08:
44 1
8 M
ay 2
016
were being treated with diazinon, ABA, DOR and IVR. The animals were crossbred
cows, between nine and ten years old and average weight of 400 kg. The samples were
collected between the 1st and 30th day after drug administration. For each drug
six samples were analysed from three different animals, totalling eighteen samples.
These milk samples were not intended for human consumption.
Results and Discussion
Method optimization
Chromatographic and mass spectrometric conditions
The choice of the mobile phase, ionization mode (positive ESI), and transitions of
quantification and confirmation was made according to the literature (Aguilera-Luiz et
al., 2011; Ortelli et al., 2009; Rubensam et al., 2011) and the chemical nature of the
analytes. The presence of an ammonium salt in the mobile phase is important because
ABA, DOR and IVR tend to form adducts, and the formation of ammonium adducts is
better than sodium adducts, which produce no linear response at the detector due to the
presence of sodium traces in the matrix extracts or derived from the analytical process
(Durden, 2007). Some of the parameters used in the Quattro Premier XE® system, such
as the capillary voltage; ion source temperature; desolvation temperature, among others,
were established during calibration of the instrument by the manufacturer.
The precursor ions of each analyte were observed by direct infusion. In the majority of
cases the protonated ion [M + H] + was observed. Ammonium adducts [M + NH4]
+ were observed for ABA, DOR and IVR. The mass spectrometry parameters for
positive ion MS/MS analysis are shown in Table 2.
Extraction and clean-up
The results of the experiments to evaluate the best method for extraction and clean-up
are shown in Table 3. The original QuEChERS method was better than the QuEChERS
method with acetate buffer for most of the analytes, especially for LM, diazinon,
methamidophos, pirimiphos-ethyl and pirimiphos-methyl. Although the best treatment
for AFM1 was 6 (QuEChERS method with acetate buffer and d-SPE using MgSO4,
PSA and C18), the recovery values obtained with the others treatments were within the
acceptable range 50-120% (Brasil, 2011).
Since the proposed multiresidue method includes three classes of substances, the
best extraction was treatment 3 (original QuEChERS method with d-SPE using MgSO4,
PSA and C18), which showed the best recovery values for nine analytes. Treatment 2
(original QuEChERS method with d-SPE using MgSO4 and PSA) also showed good
Dow
nloa
ded
by [
Impe
rial
Col
lege
Lon
don
Lib
rary
] at
08:
44 1
8 M
ay 2
016
recovery results. Treatment 2 had only one recovery result outside the acceptable range
80-110% (Brasil, 2011), for diazinon (78%), and treatment 3 for MOX (77%).
However, the extract obtained with treatment 3 was clearer than the one treated with
only MgSO4 and PSA, since the C18 particles were able to remove some pigments.
Therefore, the extraction method chosen to be validated was the original QuEChERS
method with d-SPE using MgSO4, PSA and C18. The clean-up step by d-SPE was
necessary because the first extract obtained was not clear, probably because the whole
raw milk has high contents of fat.
Method validation
There was no interfering with the same m/z and retention time of the analytes in the
six replicates performed with the unspiked matrix extract, demonstrating the selectivity
of the method. The chromatograms obtained for unspiked matrix extract for each
analyte are shown in Figure 1. The chromatograms obtained for spiked matrix
extract for each analyte are shown in Figure 2.
Performance characteristics of the optimized method are shown in Table 4,
namely the working range, the r2 values for analytical curves, LOD and LOQ obtained
for each analyte, CC± and CC² calculated for LM. The Analytical Quality Assurance
Manual does not require calculation of CC± and CC² for pesticide residues and
mycotoxins in milk (Brasil, 2011).
For the majority of analytes, the coefficients of determination (r2) were close to
one, showing good linearity. The C values calculated were smaller than the tabulated
(0.684, k=5,n=3), indicating a homoscedastic dispersion profile for the majority of
analytes, allowing the standard curves to be evaluated by linear regression using the
ordinary least squares method. The exceptions were AFM1(C=0.928), azinphos-ethyl
(C=0.764) and methidathion (C=0.804), for these analytes weighted linear fits (1/x)
were performed using the MassLynx® software.
In terms of the matrix effect, the Student-t values calculated were greater than
the critical value for most of analytes, so the curves in solvent and matrix did
not have the same inclinations and could not be considered equivalent, confirming the
existence of a matrix effect (the exception being ABA, methamidophos and pirimiphos-
methyl. Thus, the curve in matrix extract was used to quantify the samples,
including the analytes for which no matrix effect was observed.
The values obtained for LOD and LOQ were much smaller
than the MRLs established for these analytes, demonstrating that the method is
Dow
nloa
ded
by [
Impe
rial
Col
lege
Lon
don
Lib
rary
] at
08:
44 1
8 M
ay 2
016
adequate to meet the current Brazilian legislation. To meet the European legislation, the
LOD and LOQ obtained for AFM1 need to be reviewed, since they are very close to the
maximum level established (European Communities 2006). The CC² value must not be
greater than 14 for ABA, IVR and MOX, and not greater than 21 for DOR, and 28 for
EPR (Brasil, 2011). The CC± and the CC² values obtained for EPR and MOX
were within acceptable limits, while for ABA, DOR and IVR, values are above
the acceptance criteria adopted.
The method recoveries and repeatability are shown in Table 5. The
recovery results are within the acceptable range (70-110%). The method showed good
repeatability with RSD values lower than 20%.
Sample Analysis
ABA residues in milk samples ranged from 57.3 to 6.2 µg L-1. Residues above the MRL
(10 µg L-1) were found up to 14 days after treatment. Even after 29 days, ABA residues
in milk were also found, although these values were below the MRL. The IVR residues
ranged from 32.3 to 1.6 µg L-1 and after the 29th day they were not found. DOR residues
were found in the range of 27.8 to 11.5 µg L-1. In Brazil, products whose
active ingredient is ABA or DOR are not recommended for lactating cows, and milk
obtained from animals under treatment is not allowed for human consumption.
For IVR, some products have the same recommendations, however, there are
products formulated with 1% ivermectin that are intended for dairy cattle, without a
grace period for milk collection (Sindan, 2015).
For animals treated with diazinon ear tags, residues below the MRL (10µg L-
1) were found and remained in the range of 1 to 6.7 µg L-1 from the 1st to the
30th day. The ear tags allow a slow release of diazinon and the deadline for their
removal is 150 days. The use of diazinon in dairy cattle is not prohibited in Brazil, and
there is no grace period for the collection of milk when it is administered in the form of
ear tags (Sindan, 2015).
AFM1 residues were detected in all 72 milk samples, but only 20 samples
had values greater than the LOQ (0.04 µg L-1). Values found above LOQ, ranged from
0.16 to 0.48 µg L-1, below the Brazilian limit (0.5 µg L-1), but above the limit
established by the EU (0.05 µg kg-1). These results were expected since animal feed
was supplemented with cereals (a mixture of maize, rice and wheat bran). These
cereals were probably contaminated with AFB1.
Conclusion
Dow
nloa
ded
by [
Impe
rial
Col
lege
Lon
don
Lib
rary
] at
08:
44 1
8 M
ay 2
016
The multiresidue method developed proved to be selective, accurate and precise
in the studied range, enabling the simultaneous analysis of four classes of substances
(aflatoxin, organophosphate pesticides, avermectins and milbemycin) that are included
in the Brazilian official milk monitoring program.
The QuEChERS method, with minor changes, was suitable for multiresidue
extraction of the selected analytes (AFM1, abamectin, doramectin, eprinomectin,
ivermectin, moxidectin, acephate, azinphos-ethyl, azinphos-methyl, diazinon,
methamidophos, methidathion, mevinphos, pirimiphos-ethyl and pirimiphos-methyl) in
whole raw milk, with extracts clear and free from interfering. Ultra performance liquid
chromatography coupled to tandem mass spectrometry (UPLC-MS/MS) was adequate
for detection and quantification of these analytes in milk matrix, with recovery values
between 77 and 110%, standard deviation lower than 20%, limits of detection between
0.05 to 0.99 µg L-1 and limits of quantification between 0.15 to 1.98 µg L-1, appropriate
to meet current legislation.
The results of the field trial showed that the method is suitable for quantitative
analysis of analytes evaluated in milk within the working range. One advantage of this
method is the ability to analyse AFM1 together with other classes of analytes commonly
present in milk.
References
Aguilera-luiz MM, Plaza-Bolaños P, Vidal JLM, Romero-González R, Frenich A. 2011.
Comparison of the efficiency of different extraction methods for the simultaneous
determination of mycotoxins and pesticides in milk samples by ultra high-
performance liquid chromatography-tandem mass spectrometry. Anal Bioanal
Chem. 399: 2863–2875.
Anastassiades M, Lehothay 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 residue in
produce. J AOAC Int. 86: 412-431.
Antunes AEC, Pacheco MTB. 2009. Leite para adultos: mitos e fatos frente à ciência
[Milk for adults: myths and facts front of the science]. São Paulo: Livraria
Varella. p. 457. Portuguese.
Dow
nloa
ded
by [
Impe
rial
Col
lege
Lon
don
Lib
rary
] at
08:
44 1
8 M
ay 2
016
Bastos LHP, Cardoso MHWM, Nóbrega AW, Jacob SC. 2011. Possíveis fontes de
contaminação do alimento leite, por agrotóxicos, e estudos de monitoramento de
seus resíduos: uma revisão nacional [Possible sources of milk contamination by
pesticides, and monitoring studies of their residues: a national review]. Cad Saúde
Colet.19:51-60. Portuguese
Brasil. Ministério da Agricultura, Pecuária e Abastecimento. [Internet]. 2014. Instrução
Normativa SDA nº 11 de 07 de maio de 2014. Publica o Subprograma de
Monitoramento em Carnes (Bovina, Aves, Suína e Equina), Leite, Pescado, Mel,
Ovos e Avestruz para o exercício de 2014, referente ao Plano Nacional de
Controle de Resíduos e Contaminantes- PNCRC, na forma dos Anexos I e II a
presente Instrução Normativa. Diário Oficial [da] República Federativa do Brasil.
Brasília, DF, 07 mai. 2014. Seção 1. Available
from: http://www.agricultura.gov.br/arq_editor/file/CRC/IN11-PNCRB2014.
Brasil. Ministério da Agricultura Pecuária e Abastecimento. [Internet]. 2011. Manual de
garantia da qualidade analítica [Analytical Quality Assurance Manual]. Ministério
da Agricultura Pecuária e Abastecimento. Secretaria de Defesa Agropecuária.
Brasília: MAPA/ACS. p.227. Portuguese.
Brito LG. [Internet]. 2007. Carrapatograma: um aliado do produtor na exploração
leiteira [Carrapatograma: an ally of the producer in the dairy farm]. In: Portal do
Agronegócio, Embrapa Rondônia. Available from: <http://www.portaldo
agronegocio.com.br/conteudo.php?id=23487>. Portuguese.
Beltrane MA, Machinski Júnior M. 2005. Principais riscos químicos no leite: um
problema de saúde pública [Main Chemical Hazards in milk: a public
health problem]. Arqu Ciênc Saúde Unipar. 9: 141-145. Portuguese.
Biancardi A, Piro R, Dall’asta C, Galaverna G. 2013. A simple and reliable
chomatography tandem mass spectrometry method for the determination of
aflatoxin M1 in milk. Food Addit Contam. 30: 381-388.
Dow
nloa
ded
by [
Impe
rial
Col
lege
Lon
don
Lib
rary
] at
08:
44 1
8 M
ay 2
016
Codex Alimentarius. General standard for contaminants and toxins in food and feed.
Codex stan 193-1995. Amended in 2015: 1-59.
Commission Decision No. 657/2002. Implementing Council Directive 96/23/EC
concerning the performance of analytical methods and the interpretation of
results. Off. J. Eur. Commun. L 221: 8-36.
Commission Regulation (EC) No. 1881/2006. Setting maximum levels for certain
contaminants in foodstuffs. Off. J. Eur. Commun. L364: 5-24.
Durden DA. 2007. Positive and negative electrospray LC–MS–MS methods for
quantitation of the anti-parasitic endectocides drugs, abamectin, doramectin,
emamectin, eprinomectin, ivermectin, moxidectin and selamectin in milk. J
Chromatogr B. 850:134–146.
Fernandes VC, Lehotay SJ, Geis-Asteggiante L, Kwon H, Mol HGJ, van der Kamp H,
Mateus N, Domingues V F, Delerue-Matos, C. 2014. Analysis of pesticides
residues in strawberries and soils by GC-MS/MS, LC-MS/MS and two
dimensional GC-time-of-flight MS comparing organic and integrated pest
management farming. Food Addit Contam. 31: 262-270.
IARC. INTERNATIONAL AGENCY FOR RESEARCH ON CANCER. WHO. World
Health Organization. 2002. IARC Monographs on the Evaluation of Carcinogenic
Risks to Humans. 82: 183-193.
Maldaner L, Jardim ICSF. 2009. O estado da arte da cromatografia líquida de
ultraeficiência [The art state of ultra performance liquid chromatography]. Quim
Nova. 32: 214-222. Portuguese.
Ortelli D, Cognard E, Jan P, Edder P. 2009.Comprehensive fast multiresidue screening
of 150 veterinary drugs in milk by ultra-performance liquid chromatography
coupled to time of flight mass spectrometry. J Chromatogr B. 877: 2363–2374.
Dow
nloa
ded
by [
Impe
rial
Col
lege
Lon
don
Lib
rary
] at
08:
44 1
8 M
ay 2
016
Prestes OD, Friggi CA, Adaime MB, Zanella R. 2009. QuECheRS –um método
moderno de preparo de amostra para determinação multirresíduo de pesticidas em
alimentos por métodos cromatográficos acoplados à espectrometria de massas
[QuEChERS-a modern method of sample
preparation for multiresidue determination of pesticides in
food by chromatographic methods coupled to mass spectrometry] . Quim Nova.
32: 1620-1634. Portuguese.
Rubensam G, Barreto F, Hoff RB, Kist TL, Pizzolatto, TM. 2011. A liquid–liquid
extraction procedure followed by a low temperature purification step for the
analysis of macrocyclic lactones in milk by liquid chromatography–tandem mass
spectrometry and fluorescence detection. Anal Chim Acta. 705:24-29.
Sindan. Sindicato Nacional da Indústria de Produtos para Saúde Animal. [Internet].
2015. Compêndio de produtos veterinários de uso permitido no Brasil
[Compendium of veterinary products of allowed use in Brazil]. Available from:
<http://www.cpvs.com.br/cpvs/index.html>. Portuguese
Figure 1: Chromatograms obtained for unspiked matrix extract.
Dow
nloa
ded
by [
Impe
rial
Col
lege
Lon
don
Lib
rary
] at
08:
44 1
8 M
ay 2
016
Figure 2: Chromatograms obtained for spiked matrix extract.
Table 1 Summary of extraction experiments
Treatment QuEChERS Method Clean-up (d-SPE)
1 Original 150 mg MgSO4 + 50 mg PSA
2 Original 150 mg MgSO4 + 50 mg C18
3 Original 150 mg MgSO4 + 50 mg PSA + 50 mg C18
4 Acetate Buffer 150 mg MgSO4 + 50 mg PSA
5 Acetate Buffer 150 mg MgSO4 + 50 mg C18
6 Acetate Buffer 150 mg MgSO4 + 50 mg PSA + 50 mg C18
Dow
nloa
ded
by [
Impe
rial
Col
lege
Lon
don
Lib
rary
] at
08:
44 1
8 M
ay 2
016
Table 2 Parameters for Mass Spectrometry Analysis
Analyte Retention time
(min.)
Precursor ion
Transitions (m/z) Cone (eV)
Collision energy (eV)
ABA 8.10 [M + NH4]+ 890.5 ’ 567.2 (q) 20 15 890.5 ’ 305.2 (c) 35
Acephate 0.90 [M + H]+ 184 ’ 142.7 (q) 20 8 184 ’ 94.7 (c) 25
AFM1 4.32 [M + H]+ 329 ’ 272.9 (q) 50 26 329 ’ 229 (c) 44
Azinphos-ethyl 6.64 [M + H]+ 346 ’ 137 (q) 18 30 346 ’ 97 (c) 20
Azinphos-methyl 6.31 [M + H]+ 318 ’ 132 (q) 22 15 318 ’ 124.8 (c) 20
Diazinon 6.96 [M + H]+ 305 ’ 169 (q) 25 22 305 ’ 153.9 (c) 20
DOR 8.60 [M + NH4]+ 916.3 ’ 331.2 (q) 916.3 ’ 593.3 (c)
20 30 15
EPR 7.53 [M + H]+ 914.5 ’ 186 (q) 20 18 914.5 ’ 144.1 (c) 40
IVR 9.70 [M + NH4]+ 892.4 ’ 569.3 (q) 25 20 892.4 ’ 307.3 (c) 40
Methamidophos 0.90 [M + H]+ 142 ’ 94 (q) 28 15 142 ’ 125 (c) 14
Methidathion 6.32 [M + H]+ 303 ’ 145 (q) 20 12 303’ 85 (c) 20
Mevinphos 3.70 (E) 4.20 (Z)
[M + H]+ 225’ 192.9 (q) 18 8 225 ’ 126.8 (c) 15
MOX 8.88 [M + H]+ 640.4 ’ 528.2 (q) 18 8 640.4 ’ 498.2 (c) 15
Pirimiphos-ethyl 7.65 [M + H]+ 334.2 ’ 198(q) 35 25 334.2 ’ 306.1 (c) 18
Pirimiphos-methyl 7.12 [M + H]+ 306 ’ 108(q) 30 30 306 ’ 67 (c) 40
q- quantification transition; c- confirmation transition
Dow
nloa
ded
by [
Impe
rial
Col
lege
Lon
don
Lib
rary
] at
08:
44 1
8 M
ay 2
016
Table 3 Average recoveries obtained for each treatment Analyte Spiked range
(µg L-1) Recovery (%)*
1 2 3 4 5 6 ABA 5-15 86 101 92 89 62 63
Acephate 10-30 116 83 103 72 60 80 AFM1 0.25-0.75 76 76 78 85 72 88
Azinphos- ethyl 25-75 101 101 99 98 87 92 Azinphos- methyl 25-75 112 92 96 103 100 101
Diazinon 10-30 97 78 102 51 53 49 DOR 7.5-22.5 103 96 97 82 52 69 EPR 10-30 94 88 89 93 67 80 IVR 5-15 103 83 84 98 64 75
Methamidophos 5-15 120 103 105 58 57 52 Methidathion 10-30 93 92 89 83 74 76
Mevinphos (E) 15-45 92 95 96 83 74 90 Mevinphos (Z) 15-45 99 95 99 85 67 101
MOX 5-15 100 100 77 91 83 83 Pirimiphos-ethyl 25-75 95 86 97 60 50 48
Pirimiphos-methyl 25-75 121 91 83 74 67 75 * Average values for three levels of fortification.
Dow
nloa
ded
by [
Impe
rial
Col
lege
Lon
don
Lib
rary
] at
08:
44 1
8 M
ay 2
016
Table 4 Validated parameters for the proposed method
Analyte Linear
range a
r2 solvent
curve
r2 matrix
curve
LOD a LOQ a CC± a CC² a
ABA 0-20 0.982 0.976 0.43 0.86 14,02 18,04
Acephate 0-40 0.992 0.991 0.56 1.12 _ _
AFM1 0-1.0 0.997 0.993 0.02 0.04 _ _
Azinphos- ethyl 0-110 0.999 0.982 0.67 1.34 _ _
Azinphos- methyl 0-104 0.996 0.994 0.99 1.98 _ _
Diazinon 0-20 0.998 0.992 0.13 0.25 _ _
DOR 0-30 0.979 0.965 0.28 0.56 20.22 26.09
EPR 0-40 0.996 0.993 0.84 1.68 22.84 25.67
IVR 0-20 0.992 0.974 0.42 0.84 13.76 17.51
Methamidophos 0-20 0.990 0.994 0.42 0.84 _ _
Methidathion 0-40 0.996 0.995 0.05 0.10 _ _
Mevinphos (E) 0-60 0.998 0.996 0.16 0.32 _ _
Mevinphos (Z) 0-40 0.997 0.996 0.11 0.22 _ _
MOX 0-20 0.991 0.976 0.28 0.56 11.03 12.05
Pirimiphos-ethyl 0-100 0.993 0.996 0.27 0.54 _ _
Pirimiphos-methyl 0-100 0.995 0.995 0.08 0.16 _ _
a µg L-1
Dow
nloa
ded
by [
Impe
rial
Col
lege
Lon
don
Lib
rary
] at
08:
44 1
8 M
ay 2
016
Table 5 Method recovery and repeatability
Analyte Level 1 (0.5 x MRLb)
Recovery(%)/RSD(%)a
Level 2 (MRLb)
Recovery(%)/RSD(%)a
Level 3 (1.5 x MRLb)
Recovery(%)/RSD(%)a
ABA 77 /13 81/6.7 91/8.9 Acephate 99 /4.5 87/1.6 100/3.6
AFM1 85 /16.2 97/14.5 91/14.8 Azinphos-ethyl 105 /5.9 97/3.6 101/1.7
Azinphos-methyl 101 /2.5 94/2.2 97/1.1 Diazinon 102 /7.9 90/12.6 85/12
DOR 73 /3.4 80/6.7 80/7.8 EPR 98 /13.7 110/6.6 108/6.1 IVR 87 /9.8 107/10.6 109/5.6
Methamidophos 108 /5.6 102/2.3 98/3.8 Methidathion 97 /12.6 81/8.0 87/5.6
Mevinphos (E) 107 /3.4 105/0.9 99/1.1 Mevinphos (Z) 83 /9.7 81/1.7 94/2.4
MOX 77 /2.8 91/2.4 87/2.5 Pirimiphos-ethyl 108 /6.2 83/11.5 81/9.6
Pirimiphos-methyl 95/7.2 93/4.2 99/1.8 a- Relative standard deviation (n=6).
b- Maximum residue limit established by Brazilian legislation (µg L-1).
Dow
nloa
ded
by [
Impe
rial
Col
lege
Lon
don
Lib
rary
] at
08:
44 1
8 M
ay 2
016