Skip to main content
NCBI home page
Scientific Reports logoLink to Scientific Reports
. 2022 May 3;12:7164. doi: 10.1038/s41598-022-11352-z

Miniaturized QuEChERS extraction method for the detection of multi-residue pesticides in bat muscle tissue

Camila Guimarães Torquetti 1, Mirna Maciel d’Auriol-Souza 2, Leiliane Coelho André 2, Ana Tereza Bittencourt Guimarães 3, Benito Soto-Blanco 1,✉
PMCID: PMC9065137  PMID: 35505235

Abstract

Habitat loss and fragmentation are among the greatest threats to biodiversity and ecosystem stability, with physiological implications on wild fauna. Bats (Microchiroptera) are small mammals with a wide variety of eating habits, and the well-being of these animals is disturbed by exposure to pesticides. This study aimed to develop a miniaturized QuEChERS (Quick, Easy, Cheap, Effective, Rugged, and Safe) extraction method for the detection of multi-residue pesticides in bat muscle tissue using gas chromatography coupled with mass spectrometry (GC–MS). A total of 48 pesticides were tested in 250 mg of bat muscle tissue. The developed analytical method was applied to 148 bats collected from two different areas in Minas Gerais State, Southeast Region of Brazil. The method presented good sensitivity and allowed the determination of residues of 48 pesticides in bat muscle using GC–MS. The miniaturized extraction method makes the analysis feasible even when the sample volume is limited. However, no pesticide residues were detected in bats from the two areas investigated.

Subject terms: Environmental sciences, Environmental chemistry

Introduction

Environmental contamination by pesticides exerts both direct and indirect impacts on ecosystems1,2. These impacts include a reduction in biodiversity3,4 and a decline in the population of several species, including bats2,5–7, birds8, and amphibians9,10. The determination of environmental contamination by pesticides can provide a toxicological risk assessment of the evaluated species. The exposure of animals to pesticides can be assessed by determining residual pesticide levels in tissues, usually performed via gas chromatography coupled with mass spectrometry (GC–MS), which allows the separation and detection of a mixture of components with high analytical sensitivity11,12. Because of the complex nature of the samples and the low concentrations of pesticides present in animals with small body mass, it is crucial to extract and concentrate the analytes of interest during sample preparation while removing possible interferents13.

The Quick, Easy, Cheap, Effective, Rugged, and Safe (QuEChERS) extraction method was developed as a simple multi-residue method that can be performed in any laboratory, without the need for sophisticated equipment14. This method was initially proposed for the extraction of pesticide residues from vegetable matrices; however, owing to its simplicity and efficacy, it has been adapted and optimized for use in other types of matrices, including animal tissues15,16, milk17, honey18–20, water21,22, and soil23,24.

The original QuEChERS method requires 10 g of sample14, which is not always available for smaller sample sizes. Therefore, miniaturization of QuEChERS is an alternative technique for analyzing small samples25–27. In addition, the miniaturized method uses fewer reagents and solvents, is relatively cheaper, and reduces environmental impact compared to traditional methods28.

Bats (Microchiroptera) are small mammals with a wide variety of eating habits; thus, they play an important ecosystem service in maintaining biomes through seed dispersal, pollination, and the control of insect and small vertebrate populations29. The first reports on bat mortality from pesticides were published in the early 1950s30,31. Other studies have reported on the exposure of bats to pesticides, primarily organochlorines, via the determination of residues and their effects, as well as the determination of lethal doses and concentrations of the pesticides2. Recently, there has been an increased interest in evaluating the effects of prolonged exposure to pesticides2 on living organisms. However, assessments of natural populations remain scarce32,33.

The determination of pesticide residues in most bat species is challenging because of their small body masses: individual animals can weigh less than 10 g34. Therefore, this study aimed to develop a miniaturized QuEChERS extraction method for detecting multi-residue pesticides in bat muscle tissue using GC–MS. The developed method uses fewer reagents and less bat tissue than traditional techniques.

Materials and methods

Standards and reagents

Analytical-grade reagents for high performance liquid chromatography (HPLC) analysis, including acetonitrile (J. T. Baker, Mexico), ethyl acetate (J. T. Baker, Mexico), hexane (Merck, Darmstadt, Germany), primary and secondary amines (PSA; Agilent, USA), octadecylsilane (C18; Agilent, Santa Clara, CA, USA), magnesium sulfate (St. Louis, MO, USA), and acetone (Scharlau, Barcelona, Spain), were used in this study. Ultrapure water was obtained using a Millipore Q UV3 purification system (Merck, Milford, CT, USA). Analytical standards of investigated pesticides were provided (> 98.0% purity grade) by Dr. Ehrenstorfer (Augsburg, Germany) and AccuStandard (New Haven, CT, USA).

Animals

The experimental design and animal collection were approved by the Ethics Committee on the Use of Animals at the Federal University of Minas Gerais (Protocol CEUA 166/2017) and Chico Mendes Institute for Conservation and Biodiversity (Protocol ICMBio 57,026-1).

Two areas with different anthropic pressures were chosen for bat collection: one in a rural area of the Uberaba municipality, MG, Brazil (19°45′43'' S' and 48°06′05'' W), characterized by intense agricultural activity35, and the other in the National Park (PARNA) of Serra do Cipó, Santana do Riacho, MG, Brazil, a Brazilian federal conservation unit36. The bats were collected in 2018 and 2019 using 10–12 m long mist nets, which were opened at dusk on trails, fragments of forest, and in the vicinity of day shelters. The mist nets remained open for approximately 4 h (18:00–22:00 h) and were inspected at intervals of 20–30 min. Capture procedures were conducted in conformity with the American Society of Mammalogists37. A total of 148 bats were collected: 78 from the agricultural region of Uberaba and 70 from the PARNA federal conservation unit. The animals were placed in individual cloth bags until euthanasia was performed. The animals were then placed in a plastic bag containing a cotton pad, which was previously immersed in isoflurane, to induce loss of consciousness, followed by an intraperitoneal injection of an anesthetic (ketamine hydrochloride). The bats were then stored in a freezer at − 20 °C until analysis.

Optimization of sample extraction and cleanup

The choice of tissues for the chromatographic analysis was based on previous studies, which indicated that higher concentrations of pesticide and other xenobiotic residues can be found in the liver, fat, and muscle tissues38–40. Consequently, because bats have little fat, muscle was used as a matrix due to its large abundance41. However, because the liver was insufficient for analysis, especially in smaller species, fragments of fat and liver from larger bats were collected to perform a comparative analysis between different types of tissues.

Two extraction methods, using 1.0 g (method A) and 250 mg (method B) of bat muscle tissue, were compared.

Method A is based on a modified QuEChERS extraction method described by Oliveira et al.15. Water (3.6 mL), acetonitrile (5.0 mL), and ethyl acetate (2.14 mL) were added to 1.0 g of sample, and the mixture was vortexed for 1 min at 2200 rpm. This was followed by the addition of MgSO4 (2.86 mg) and sodium acetate (0.71 mg), which were then homogenized in a vortex for 1 min at 2200 rpm and centrifuged for 11 min at 4000 rpm. The samples were then kept at − 20 °C overnight. Next, the samples were centrifuged for 5 min at 4000 rpm, and the extract (1.0 mL) was subsequently transferred to a microcentrifuge tube containing MgSO4 (150 mg), PSA (30 mg), and C18 (30 mg). After stirring at room temperature (for 1 min at 2200 rpm) and centrifugation (for 12 min at 9000 rpm), the supernatant was injected into the GC–MS instrument.

Method B is based on the miniaturized QuEChERS extraction method proposed by Brandhonneur et al.25. The samples were thawed and fragments of the pectoral muscle (250 mg) were removed, dehydrated, and homogenized with MgSO4 (400 mg). Acetonitrile (1.4 mL), hexane (200 µL), and azoxystrobin (1.2 ng/mL, for process control) were added to each sample. The samples were vortexed for 5 min at 2200 rpm and placed in a freezer at − 20 °C for 30 min. The samples were then centrifuged for 20 min at 5000 rpm. Next, the organic phase (800 µL) was transferred to a microcentrifuge tube containing MgSO4 (100 mg), PSA (50 mg), and C18 (50 mg). After vortexing for 1 min at 2200 rpm, the samples were placed on a shaker for 10 min at room temperature and then centrifuged for 12 min at 12,000 rpm at 10 °C. The organic phase (150 µL) was transferred into a vial equipped with an insert to evaporate the solvent at room temperature. The samples were reconstituted with acetone (75 µL), vortexed for 30 s at 2200 rpm, and the solution (8 µL) was then injected into the GC–MS instrument.

Azoxystrobin (batch standard G128076 from Dr. Ehrenstorfer, Germany) in acetonitrile (1.2 ng/mL) was used as the process control. All samples, including white samples (non-spiked samples), were fortified with 440 µL of azoxystrobin (1.2 ng/mL). The extraction was considered satisfactory when the azoxystrobin recovery rate varied between 80 and 110%42.

After determining the best extraction method (A or B), the bat muscle fragment was fortified with a pesticide stock solution and extracted to determine the retention time (RT) and ions for the selected ion monitoring (SIM) mode chromatography.

Chromatographic system

Chromatographic analyses were performed using a GC–MS instrument (Agilent 7890A-5975C) equipped with an automatic sampler (Agilent Sampler 80). Chromatographic separation was performed using a capillary column DB-5 (30 m × 0.25 mm × 0.25 µm; Agilent Technologies, USA) with He (99.999%; Air Products, Brazil) as the carrier gas at a flow rate of 1.2 mL/min. The chromatographic conditions included an injector temperature of 250 °C, injection volume of 8 µL in splitless mode, a column temperature ramp from 60 to 160 °C with three heating rate ramps of 20 °C/min, followed by an increase to 255 °C at 5 °C/min, and then a ramp of 20 °C/min up to a final temperature of 280 °C, which was maintained for 7 min. The post-run time was 2 min at 280 °C, with a He flow rate of 2.6 mL/min. The total chromatographic runtime was 32.25 min. The injection syringe was washed three times with acetone–water (1:1 v/v) and acetonitrile between the injections. The spectrometer was set at an impact ionization voltage of 70 eV, ionization source temperature of 230 °C, quadrupole temperature of 150 °C, and interface temperature of 300 °C.

The software used for data acquisition was the MSD ChemStation. Data acquisition started at 3.5 min in the full-scan mode, with a mass range between 50 and 450 m/z in the SIM mode. The pesticides were confirmed by comparing the results with the data from the National Institute of Standards and Technology (NIST) library database. SIM mode was used for the identification of compounds in standard solutions, and the monitored ions and RTs are listed in Table 1.

Table 1.

Chemical formula, molecular mass, retention time (RT), and detection ions (m/z) of the compounds analyzed via gas chromatography coupled with mass spectrometry (GC–MS).

Compound Chemical formula Molecular mass RT Ion 1 (m/z) Ion 2 (m/z) Ion 3 (m/z)
Alachlor C14H20ClNO2 269.77 12.63 269.00 188.00 160.00
Aldrin C12H8Cl6 364.91 13.95 292.90 262.90 79.00
Azoxystrobin C22H17N3O5 344.00 29.64 403.10 388.10 344.00
Bifenthrin C23H22ClF3O2 422.868 21.98 422.10 181.00 186.00
Bromophos-methyl C8H8BrCl2O3PS 365.996 14.61 330.80 212.80 124.80
Bromopropylate C17H16Br2O3 428.12 21.93 427.80 340.80 182.80
Captan C9H8Cl3NO2S 300.589 15.57 263.80 148.90 78.90
Carbophenothion C11H16ClO2PS3 342.865 19.72 341.90 156.90 96.90
Chlorfenapyr C15H11BrClF3N2O 407.61 17.99 407.90 247.00 58.90
Chlorothalonil C8Cl4N2 265.911 11.12 265.80 228.90 193.90
Chlorpyrifos-methyl C7H7Cl3NO3PS 320.90 12.38 285.80 124.90 78.90
Chlorthiophos C11H15Cl2O3PS2 361.245 18.93 359.90 268.80 96.80
Cyfluthrin C22H18Cl2FNO3 434.288 26.14 433.00 226.00 162.00
Cypermethrin C22H19Cl2NO3 415.07 26.45 315.10 181.00 162.90
DDD 2,4 C14H10Cl4 320.041 17.54 234.90 198.90 165.00
DDE 4,4 C14H8Cl4 318.025 16.18 317.80 245.90 176.00
DDT 2,4 C14H9Cl5 354.486 18.84 353.80 234.80 198.80
Dicofol C14H9Cl5O 370.486 14.39 249.90 138.90 110.90
Dieldrin C12H8Cl6O 377.87 17.41 379.80 276.80 251.90
Endosulfan I C9H6Cl6O3S 403.82 16.49 240.80 206.90 194.80
Endosulfan II C9H6Cl6O3S 403.82 18.22 407.70 268.80 170.00
Endosulfan sulfate C9H6Cl6O4S 419.81 19.86 421.80 386.80 236.80
Endrin C12H8Cl6O 380.91 18.11 379.90 262.80 80.90
Fenarimol C17H12Cl2N2O 330.03 24.02 330.00 218.90 138.90
Fenitrothion C9H12NO5PS 277.02 13.39 276.90 260.00 124.90
Fenpropathrin C22H23NO3 349.4229 22.28 349.10 181.00 97.00
Fenvalerate C25H22ClNO3 419.900 28.05 419.10 167.00 124.90
Folpet C9H4Cl3NO2S 296.558 15.77 294.00 103.90 75.80
HCH alpha C6H6Cl6 290.83 9.71 353.70 218.80 180.80
HCH beta C6H6Cl6 290.83 10.42 253.80 218.80 180.80
HCH delta C6H6Cl6 290.83 11.47 253.70 218.80 180.80
HCH gamma C6Cl6 284.782 10.63 253.80 218.80 180.80
Heptachlor C10H5Cl7 369.82 12.82 371.80 271.80 99.90
Heptacloro epoxid C10H5Cl7O 389.317 15.25 387.80 352.90 80.90
Lambda cyhalothrin C23H19ClF3NO3 449.10 23.89 449.10 209.00 181.00
Methoxychlor C16H15Cl3O2 344.01 22.12 344.00 227.00 152.00
Mirex C10Cl12 539.63 23.60 331.70 271.60 236.70
Ovex (Clorfenson) C12H8Cl2O3S 303.161 16.93 301.90 174.90 110.90
Oxyfluorfen C15H11ClF3NO4 361.700 17.67 361.00 299.90 252.00
Parathion-methyl C8H10NO5PS 263.00 12.59 262.90 124.90 108.90
Permethrin C21H20Cl2O3 390.08 25.27 207.00 183.00 162.90
Phosalone C12H15ClNO4PS2 366.99 23.02 366.90 181.90 120.90
Procymidone C14H11Cl2NO2 296.149 15.69 282.90 254.90 96.00
Profenofos C11H15BrClO3PS 371.94 17.23 373.90 338.90 138.90
Prothiofos C11H15Cl2O2PS2 345.245 17.04 308.90 266.90 112.80
Quintozene C6Cl5NO2 295.335 10.48 294.80 264.60 236.70
Tetradifon C12H6Cl14O2S 353.88 22.81 355.80 239.10 98.00
Trifluralin C13H16F3N3O4 335.2790 9.15 306.00 290.00 263.90
Vinclozolin C12H9Cl2NO3 286.111 12.52 284.90 211.90 197.90
Open in a new tab

Optimization of chromatographic conditions

A standard stock solution containing 69 pesticides was used. One thousand microliters of the stock solution in acetonitrile-ethyl acetate (7:3 v/v) was injected into the GC–MS instrument. The working solutions of each pesticide are listed in Table 2.

Table 2.

Retention time (RT), stock and working solutions, recovery and probability obtained from the NIST library of thecompounds analyzed via gas chromatography coupled with mass spectrometry (GC–MS).

Pesticide RT Stock solution (ng/µL) Working solution (ng/µL) Recovery Probability (NIST)
40–120% %
Alachlor 12.634 1.00 0.200 85.0000 90.3
Aldrin 13.949 1.00 0.200 68.0443 97.2
Azoxystrobin 29.64 1.00 0.200 90.9974 77.5
Bifenthrin 21.982 1.00 0.200 168.3717 79.5
Bromophos-methyl 14.613 1.00 0.200 71.9557 97.2
Bromopropylate 21.934 1.00 0.201 101.8729 90.0
Captan 15.57 2.01 0.402 86.8741 72.0
Carbophenothion 19.724 1.00 0.200 68.5728 96.2
Cyfluthrin 17.989 0.50 0.100 97.9695 74.4
Cypermethrin 11.115 1.00 0.200 57.2688 52.9
Chlorfenapyr 12.381 0.50 0.100 88.3344 75.1
Chlorothalonil 18.934 1.01 0.201 81.4200 78.8
Chlorpyrifos-methyl 26.141 2.01 0.401 83.8698 69.4
Chlorthiophos 26.454 1.00 0.200 94.5525 49.4
DDD 2,4 17.54 0.50 0.100 79.7596 38.1
DDE 4,4 17.326 0.50 0.100 84.6471 70.5
DDT 2,4 18.836 0.50 0.100 85.9344 72.3
Dicofol 14.388 1.00 0.200 88.0430 13.8
Dieldrin 17.413 1.00 0.200 334.0041 89.3
Endosulfan I 16.487 1.00 0.200 35.2980 41.6
Endosulfan II 18.223 1.00 0.200 98.9812 20.4
Endosulfan sulfate 19.86 1.00 0.200 92.7842 90.3
Endrin 18.115 1.00 0.201 75.4328 86.5
Fenarimol 24.021 1.00 0.200 101.3539 94.5
Fenitrothion 13.393 1.00 0.200 93.1230 94.4
Fenpropathrin 22.284 1.00 0.200 89.5164 73.1
Fenvalerate 28.047 1.00 0.200 91.5683 69.9
Folpet 15.766 2.00 0.400 69.8972 54.6
Phosalone 9.713 1.00 0.200 97.4683 35.9
Heptachlor 10.424 1.00 0.200 59.8488 39.1
Heptacloro epoxid 11.466 1.00 0.200 42.1311 32.3
Lambda cyhalothrin 10.628 1.00 0.200 135.7007 32.1
Methoxychlor 23.894 1.00 0.200 90.0305 93.5
Mirex 12.819 1.00 0.200 100.2361 87.6
Ovex (Clorfenson) 15.248 1.01 0.201 75.5841 90.9
Oxyfluorfen 22.119 1.00 0.200 72.0795 88.2
Parathion-methyl 23.62 0.50 0.100 55.6079 88.9
Permethrin 16.925 1.00 0.200 107.2255 93.1
Procymidone 17.667 2.00 0.400 86.3608 95.3
Profenofos 12.585 2.00 0.400 75.8056 96.7
Prothiofos 25.272 1.01 0.201 53.8811 42.1
Quintozene 23.024 1.00 0.200 0.0000 89.9
Tetradifon 15.688 1.00 0.200 69.3978 86.5
Trifluralin 17.228 2.00 0.401 138.5663 91.2
Vinclozolin 17.043 2.00 0.400 83.4945 94.7
HCH alpha 9.71 0.50 0.100 204.0544 *
HCH beta 22.81 2.00 0.401 1013.6074 76.4
HCH delta 9.148 1.00 0.200 73.8760 97.6
HCH gamma 12.517 1.00 0.200 79.4278 91.0
Open in a new tab

* Analytical error.

Initially, 1 µL of pesticide standards in acetonitrile-acetate was injected using a splitless liner, at an injector temperature of 250 °C, and carrier gas at a flow rate between 1.0 and 1.2 mL/min.

Four oven temperature ramp conditions were applied to determine the optimal conditions for better analytical sensitivity, as described below.

Condition 1: An initial column temperature of 80 °C, followed by a heating rate of 20 °C/min up to 160 °C, an increase to 255 °C at 5 °C/min, and a ramp of 20 °C/min to a final temperature of 280 °C, which was maintained for 1 min. The total runtime was 25.25 min.

Condition 2 (adapted from Maštovská et al.43): An initial column temperature of 80 °C, maintained for 1.5 min, followed by a 20 °C/min heating ramp up to 180 °C, an increase to 230 °C at 5 °C/min, and a ramp of 25 °C/min until a final temperature of 290 °C was reached, which was maintained for 10 min. The total runtime was 28.9 min.

Condition 3 (adapted from Faria et al.44): The column temperature ramp started at 60 °C, which was maintained for 1 min, followed by a heating rate of 30 °C/min up to 180 °C, an increase to 300 °C at 5 °C/min, and a ramp of 50 °C/min until a final temperature of 325 °C, which was maintained for 2 min. The total runtime was 29.5 min.

Condition 4 (adapted from Valenzuela et al.45): An initial column temperature of 60 °C, followed by a heating rate of 20 °C/min up to 160 °C, an increase to 255 °C at 5 °C/min, and a ramp of 20 °C/min to a final temperature of 280 °C, which was maintained for 7 min. The total runtime was 32.25 min.

Temperature ramps were optimized using injection volumes of 2, 5, and 8 µL. The evaluation of pesticide degradation in the injection system was conducted at injector temperatures of 100, 150, 200, and 250 °C.

Method validation and greenness

The detection limit (DL) was calculated by multiplying the standard deviation (SD) by three46. The SD was obtained by assessing 10 white samples (extracts obtained from bat muscle only) and recording the abundance corresponding to the RT of each pesticide. One bat captured in PARNA Serra do Cipó was exclusively used to calculate the DL. The sample was from the reference area; therefore, high concentrations of pesticide residues were not expected. A larger bat was also chosen because it has more muscle tissue. Consequently, 10 extracts were prepared for the measurements and calculation of the SD. Little variation was expected in the values obtained because the samples were extracted from the same individual; the variations were attributed to the limitations of the instrument and extraction methods.

After determining the best extraction method, the recovery was calculated to observe the possible losses that occurred during the analytical process47,48. Two bat muscle fragments from a bat captured in PARNA Serra do Cipó were used. One fragment was fortified with a pesticide stock solution of standards containing 69 pesticides before extraction and the other was fortified after extraction. Thereafter, both fragments were subjected to chromatographic runs to determine the analytes and the estimated recovery values. The recovery indicates the amount of analyte detected in relation to the amount added to the sample. Variations in the values may occur because of matrix effects and loss of analytes due to degradation in the injection system or extraction procedure (cleanup, dilution, drying, or pre-concentration).

The greenness of the developed method was determined using Green Analytical Procedure Index (GAPI)49 and Analytical EcoScale (AES)50 metric systems.

Ethical approval

The study was conducted according to the Declaration of Helsinki and ARRIVE guidelines, and approved by the Ethics Committee on the Use of Animals at the Federal University of Minas Gerais (Protocol CEUA 166/2017) and by the Chico Mendes Institute for Conservation and Biodiversity (Protocol ICMBio 57,026-1). the study is reported in accordance with.

Consent to participate

All the authors agreed to participate in the publication.

Results

The miniaturized QuEChERS method (Method B) presented the optimal results for the extraction as it produced discernible peaks and less noise in the spectra. Subsequently, the sample extraction, cleanup method, and chromatographic conditions were optimized. Four oven temperature ramps (Conditions 1–4) were tested, and Conditions 1 and 4 showed the best results. These conditions were tested again with an injection volume of 2 µL. Condition 4 was chosen because it had less noise and a better peak definition (Fig. 1). The chosen method was then tested using injection volumes of 5 and 8 µL. An injection volume of 8 µL resulted in the detection of a greater number of pesticides.

Figure 1.

Figure 1

Open in a new tab

Chromatogram of blank bat muscle sample spiked with 69 pesticides obtained via gas chromatography coupled with mass spectrometry (GC–MS) in full-scan mode using Condition 4 (initial column temperature of 60 °C, followed by a heating rate of 20 °C/min up to 160 °C, an increase to 255 °C at 5 °C/min, and a ramp of 20 °C/min to a final temperature of 280 °C, which was maintained for 7 min; the total runtime was 32.25 min).

To determine whether pesticide degradation occurred in the injection system, injector temperatures of 100, 150, 200, and 250 °C were also tested.

For data acquisition, three ion transitions were detected for each pesticide at their respective RTs using this method. The pesticides were identified and confirmed by comparing the mass spectra obtained in the full-scan mode with the NIST library51. A minimum probability of 70% was applied between the spectrum obtained in full-scan mode and the library database to confirm the identification of the analyte. This percentage was considered adequate because the tests were performed using analytical standards. Differences in probability were obtained by comparing the spectra obtained in the full-scan and SIM modes. These differences occur because it is possible to view all the ions present in full-scan mode, whereas only the selected ions are displayed in SIM mode. In the SIM spectrum, the analyte was quantified by estimating the corresponding peak area. The DL estimations are listed in Table 3.

Table 3.

Retention time (RT), recovery, standard deviation (SD), and detection limit (DL) of the compounds analyzed via gas chromatography coupled with mass spectrometry (GC–MS).

Compound RT % SD DL
Alachlor 12.63 90.3 42,487.12 127,461
Aldrin 13.95 97.2 150,304.90 450,915
Azoxystrobin 29.64 77.5 9942.20 29,827
Bifenthrin 21.98 79.5 5078.33 15,235
Bromophos-methyl 14.61 97.2 24,018.28 72,055
Bromopropylate 21.93 90 4565.86 13,698
Captan 15.57 72 34,961.06 104,883
Carbophenothion 19.72 96.2 30,464.97 91,395
Chlorfenapyr 17.99 74.4 9395.30 28,186
Chlorothalonil 11.16 52.9 9080.17 27,241
Chlorpyrifos 18.93 78.8 23,983.91 71,952
Chlorpyrifos-methyl 12.38 75.1 56,800.25 170,401
Cyfluthrin 26.14 69.4 20,108.86 60,327
Cyhalothrin-lambda 23.89 93.5 4945.55 14,837
Cypermethrin 26.45 49.4 20,336.56 61,010
DDD 2,4 17.54 38.1 3669.19 11,008
DDE 4,4 17.33 70.5 3315.94 9948
DDT 2,4 18.84 72.3 2612.30 7837
Dicofol 14.39 13.8 30,104.87 90,315
Dieldrin 17.41 89.3 1647.39 4942
Endosulfan I 16.49 41.6 8405.06 25,215
Endosulfan II 18.22 20.4 29,272.27 87,817
Endosulfan sulfate 19.86 90.3 28,347.78 85,043
Endrin 18.12 86.5 27,846.99 83,541
Fenarimol 24.02 94.5 6130.06 18,390
Fenitrothion 13.39 94.4 21,292.26 63,877
Fenpropathrin 22.28 73.1 43,522.44 130,567
Fenvalerate alpha 28.057 69.9 17,002.46 51,007
Folpet 15.77 54.6 61,354.62 184,064
HCH alpha 9.71 35.9 1867.91 5604
HCH beta 10.42 39.1 16,943.89 50,832
HCH delta 11.47 32.3 8203.15 24,609
Heptachlor 12.82 87.6 8458.18 25,375
Heptacloro epoxid 15.25 90.9 14,973.71 44,921
Hexachlorobenzene 10.63 32.1 4154.33 12,463
Methoxychlor 22.12 88.2 9494.075 28,482
Mirex 23.62 88.9 10,877.95 32,634
Ovex (Clorfenson) 16.93 93.1 18,757.17 56,272
Oxyfluorfen 17.67 95.3 3331.79 9995
Parathion-methyl 12.59 96.7 56,303.56 168,911
Permethrin 25.27 42.1 53,311.78 159,935
Phosalone 23.02 89.9 169,183.28 507,550
Procymidone 15.69 86.5 71,457.31 214,372
Profenofos 17.23 91.2 16,225.92 48,678
Prothiofos 17.04 94.7 28,589.13 85,767
Tetradifon 22.81 76.4 981,945.32 2,945,836
Trifluralin 9.15 97.6 467.27 1402
Vinclozolin 12.52 91 28,995.68 86,987
Open in a new tab

The recovery values ranged from 35.3 to 97.6%. According to the Association of Official Analytical Chemists48, the recommended range of recovery percentages for analytes at a concentration of 1 ppb varies from 40 to 120%48. Seven pesticides (trifluralin, HCH alpha, HCH beta, endosulfan I, dieldrin, bifenthrin, and lambda-cyhalothrin) showed recovery values outside the recommended range (Table 3). However, as the NIST library was used as a confirmatory method, only endosulfan I and lambda-cyhalothrin did not show acceptable recovery. Therefore, the extraction method we developed yielded satisfactory results.

The developed method was evaluated for greenness using GAPI and AES. The estimation parameters of the GAPI are presented in Table 4 and a pictogram is shown in Fig. 2. For the greenness evaluation using AES, the method obtained a score of 80 (Table 5), which indicates an excellent green analysis.

Table 4.

Green Analytical Procedure Index estimation of the developed analytical method.

Category Criteria Color
I Sample preparation
1 Collection Offline Red
2 Preservation None Green
3 Transport None Green
4 Storage Under normal condition Yellow
5 Type of method Extraction required Red
6 Scale of extraction Microextraction Yellow
7 Solvents/reagents used Non-green reagents used Red
8 Additional treatments Simple treatments Yellow
II Reagent and solvents
9 Amount  < 10 mL (< 10 g) Green
10 Health hazard NFPA health hazard scores: Acetone-2; Acetonitrile-3; Hexane-1 Yellow
11 Safety hazard NFPA Flammability scores: Acetone-3; Acetonitrile-3; Hexane-3 Yellow
III Instrumentation
12 Energy  ≤ 0.1 kWh per sample Green
13 Occupational hazard Hermetic sealing of analytical process Green
14 Waste  < 1 mL (1 g) Green
15 Waste treatment Degradation Yellow
Open in a new tab

Figure 2.

Figure 2

Open in a new tab

Green Analytical Procedure Index (GAPI) evaluation pictogram of the developed analytical method.

Table 5.

Analytical EcoScale score points of the developed analytical method.

Category Criteria Penalty Points (PP)
Reagents Acetonitrile (< 10 mL/sample) 4
Hexane (< 10 mL/sample) 8
Acetone (< 10 mL/sample) 4
Instrument energy GC/MS (> 1.5 kWh/sample) 2
Occupational hazard Hermetization of analytical process 0
Waste  < 1 mL (< 1 g) 1
Degradation 1
Total PP 20
AES score 100-PP 80
Open in a new tab

No residual pesticides were detected above the DLs in the muscle tissues of bats from Uberaba and PARNA Serra do Cipó. Similarly, no residual pesticides were detected in the extracts obtained from the liver and adipose tissues.

Discussion

In this study, we developed a method for determining the residue of 48 pesticides in bat muscle using GC–MS. A miniaturized QuEChERS method adapted from Brandhonneur et al.25 presented optimal results as it yielded discernible peaks and less baseline noise. Miniaturization of the method makes analysis feasible even when the sample quantity is limited. In addition, it uses fewer reagents than traditional methods, reducing both the cost and impact on the environment and health of researchers.

Acetonitrile is one of the most commonly used extraction solvents because it allows the extraction of many pesticides while minimizing the extraction of lipids, carbohydrates, and proteins that are present in the matrix52. Lipids are compounds that warrant more attention because they can compromise the quality of results and can also be deposited in the injection system or chromatographic column, damaging the chromatographic system53. The hexane added to the extraction process assists in the removal of lipophilic compounds because these compounds are less soluble in acetonitrile54. Drying salts, such as magnesium sulfate (MgSO4) and sodium sulfate (Na2SO4), remove residual water from the solution and facilitate the removal of polar components from the matrix14,52,55. In this work, we used MgSO4 because it has greater drying power than Na2SO452. In addition, the heat released during the chemical hydration reaction of MgSO4 can contribute to pesticide extraction14.

Furthermore, we used PSA and C18 sorbents to remove co-extracted interferents from the matrix14,56,57 during sample cleanup. PSA has a bidentate structure that exerts a chelating effect, which enables the retention of free fatty acids, carbohydrates, and other polar compounds present in the matrix14, whereas C18 is important for the removal of fatty acids and other non-polar components56.

According to the validation guide for quality control methods and procedures for the analysis of pesticide residues, for the analysis by CG-MS with a simple quadrupole mass analyzer to be valid, the data must be acquired in full-scan method, with a limited range of m/z and SIM mode monitoring of three ions46. In the full-scan mode, a complete mass scan was performed in the range of 50–450 m/z, generating a full spectrum that contained more than one substance at the same RT. This data acquisition mode is less sensitive when analytes are present at low concentrations, whereas high concentrations of matrix interferents are present58,59. The sensitivity and selectivity of the method can be improved using SIM mode, in which the mass analyzer is programmed to monitor only the characteristic ions of the studied compounds59.

The developed method allowed for the detection of 48 pesticides using GC–MS. Other methods have been used to detect pesticides in bats32,33. Valdespino and Sosa33 also identified 19 organochlorine pesticides using GC–MS. Stecherts et al.32 analyzed 25 organochlorine, organophosphate, and pyrethroid pesticides in bat carcasses using three different chromatographic systems (GC/ECD, HPLC/DAD, and LC/MS/MS). Thus, the method described in this study allows for the detection of a greater number of pesticides. Furthermore, both aforementioned methods required the use of the whole bat carcass, whereas our method used only 250 mg of bat muscle, allowing the use of the rest of the animal for other analyses, which presents a great advantage for future studies of environmental toxicology.

Previous studies evaluated the exposure of insectivorous bats by determining the residues of organochlorine and organophosphate insecticides2. However, no residual pesticide was detected above the DLs in bats from either Uberaba or PARNA Serra do Cipó. PARNA Serra do Cipó is an integral protection conservation unit that is not surrounded by intensive agricultural activities36. In contrast, Uberaba is one of the main municipalities in the state of Minas Gerais that produces grains and sugarcane35, and the use of pesticides for these crops is higher than that for other crops in Brazil60. Literature on environmental contamination by pesticides in these municipalities is scarce. However, analyses of the water supply to city inhabitants have revealed contamination by alachlor, atrazine, carbendazim, chlordane, DDT, DDD, DDE, diuron, glyphosate, lindane, mancozeb, permethrin, trifluralin, 2,4-D, 2,4, 5-T, aldicarb, aldrin, carbofuran, chlorpyrifos, endosulfan, endrin, methamidophos, metalachlor, molinate, methyl parathion, pendimenthalin, profenofos, simazine, tebuconazole, and terbufos61. Therefore, although pesticide residues were not detected, it is reasonable to assume that bats in Uberaba are exposed to environmental contamination by pesticides, with concentrations below those defined in the DLs.

The greenness of the developed analytical method was estimated using two metric systems: GAPI49 and AES50. GAPI is a qualitative analysis that measures 15 parameters that are divided into three categories: I, sample preparation (collection, preservation, transport, storage, type of method, scale of extraction, solvents/reagents used, and additional treatments); II, reagents and solvents (amount, health hazard, and safety hazard); and III, instrumentation assessment (energy consumption, occupational hazard, waste produced, and waste treatment). Each parameter is color coded according to the estimated environmental impact as follows: low (green), medium (yellow), or high (red); and the results are presented as a pictogram formed by five pentagons49,62. The GAPI pictogram for the method described herein exhibited a lower estimated environmental impact than those of previous QuEChERS methods63.

In this study, we used the AES metric system50 to evaluate the greenness of the developed method. AES is based on EcoScale, a semi-quantitative analysis for measuring the ecological, safety, and economic impacts of organic synthesis methods64. AES attribute scores for the analytical method range from 0 to 100. Penalty points are calculated based on reagent amounts and hazards, energy consumption, occupational hazards, and waste, which are then subtracted from the maximum score of 100. Excellent green analytical methods have scores higher than 75, and scores higher than 50 are considered acceptable50,62. The method described in this study obtained a score of 80, which indicates an excellent green analysis.

In summary, the analytical method used in this study allowed the identification of 48 different pesticides present in bat muscle using GC–MS. However, no pesticide residues were detected in the 148 analyzed bats from the two different areas.

Acknowledgements

This research was funded by Fundação de Amparo à Pesquisa do Estado de Minas Gerais—FAPEMIG, grant number APQ-01705-18, and Conselho Nacional de Desenvolvimento Científico e Tecnológico—CNPq, grant number 311182/2017-8.

Author contributions

Conceptualization: C.G.T., A.T.B.G., B.S.B. Collection of samples: C.G.T. Analysis: C.G.T., M.M.A.S., L.C.A. Writing, Review, and Editing: C.G.T., A.T.B.G., B.S.B. All authors reviewed the manuscript. All the authors gave their consent for publication.

Data availability

The datasets generated during and/or analysed during the current study are available from the corresponding author on reasonable request.

Competing interests

The authors declare no competing interests.

Footnotes

Publisher's note

Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.

References

  • 1.Köhler HR, Triebskorn R. Wildlife ecotoxicology of pesticides: can we track effects to the population level and beyond? Science. 2013;341:759–765. doi: 10.1126/science.1237591. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 2.Torquetti CG, Guimarães ATB, Soto-Blanco B. Exposure to pesticides in bats. Sci. Total Environ. 2021;755:142509. doi: 10.1016/j.scitotenv.2020.142509. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 3.Geiger F, et al. Persistent negative effects of pesticides on biodiversity and biological control potential on European farmland. Basic Appl. Ecol. 2010;11:97–105. doi: 10.1016/j.baae.2009.12.001. [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  • 4.Beketov MA, Kefford BJ, Schäfer RB, Liess M. Pesticides reduce regional biodiversity of stream invertebrates. Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. USA. 2013;110:11039–11043. doi: 10.1073/pnas.1305618110. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 5.Clark DR, Bagley FM, Johnson WW. Northern Alabama colonies of the endangered grey bat Myotis grisescens: organochlorine contamination and mortality. Biol. Conserv. 1988;43:213–225. doi: 10.1016/0006-3207(88)90114-0. [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  • 6.Mitchell-Jones AJ, Cooke AS, Boyd IL, Stebbings RE. Bats and remedial timber treatment chemicals – a review. Mamm. Rev. 1989;19:93–110. doi: 10.1111/j.1365-2907.1989.tb00405.x. [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  • 7.Clark DR., Jr DDT and the decline of free-tailed bats (Tadarida brasiliensis) at Carlsbad Cavern, New Mexico. Arch. Environ. Contam. Toxicol. 2001;40:537–543. doi: 10.1007/s002440010207. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 8.Mineau P, Whiteside M. Pesticide acute toxicity is a better correlate of U.S. grassland bird declines than agricultural intensification. PloS One. 2013;8:e57457. doi: 10.1371/journal.pone.0057457. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 9.Sparling DW, Fellers GM, McConnell LL. Pesticides and amphibian population declines in California, USA. Environ. Toxicol. Chem. 2001;20:1591–1595. doi: 10.1002/etc.5620200725. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 10.Davidson C. Declining downwind: amphibian population declines in California and historical pesticides use. Ecol. Appl. 2004;14:1892–1902. doi: 10.1890/03-5224. [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  • 11.Alder L, Greulich K, Kempe G, Vieth B. Residues analysis of 500 high priority pesticides: better by GC-MS or LC-MS/MS? Mass Spectrom. Rev. 2006;25:838–865. doi: 10.1002/mas.20091. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 12.Lehotay SJ, et al. Identification and confirmation of chemical residues in food by chromatography-mass spectrometry and other techniques. Trends Anal. Chem. 2008;27:1070–1090. doi: 10.1016/j.trac.2008.10.004. [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  • 13.Hercegová A, Dömötörová M, Matisová E. Sample preparation methods in the analysis of pesticide residues in baby food with subsequent chromatographic determination. J. Chromatogr. A. 2007;1153:54–73. doi: 10.1016/j.chroma.2007.01.008. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 14.Anastassiades M, Lehotay SJ, Stajnbaher D, Schenck FJ. 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. 2003;86:412–431. doi: 10.1093/jaoac/86.2.412. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 15.Oliveira FA, Reis LPG, Soto-Blanco B, Melo MM. Pesticides residues in the Prochilodus costatus (Valenciennes, 1850) fish caught in the São Francisco River, Brazil. J. Environ. Sci. Health B. 2015;50:398–405. doi: 10.1080/03601234.2015.1011946. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 16.Oliveira FADS, Pereira ENC, Gobbi JM, Soto-Blanco B, Melo MM. Multiresidue method for detection of pesticides in beef meat using liquid chromatography coupled to mass spectrometry detection (LC-MS) after QuEChERS extraction. Food Addit. Contam. Part A Chem. Anal. Control Expo. Risk Assess. 2018;35:94–109. doi: 10.1080/19440049.2017.1395519. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 17.Oliveira FAS, et al. Optimization of chromatographic conditions and comparison of extraction efficiencies of four different methods for determination and quantification of pesticide content in bovine milk by UFLC-MS/MS. Quím. Nova. 2014;37:1699–1706. [Google Scholar]
  • 18.Tette PA, et al. Multiclass method for pesticides quantification in honey by means of modified QuEChERS and UHPLC-MS/MS. Food Chem. 2016;211:130–139. doi: 10.1016/j.foodchem.2016.05.036. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 19.Almeida MO, et al. Optimization of method for pesticide detection in honey by using liquid and gas chromatography coupled with mass spectrometric detection. Foods. 2020;9:1368. doi: 10.3390/foods9101368. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 20.Pinheiro CGMDE, Oliveira FAS, Oloris SCS, Silva JBA, Soto-Blanco B. Pesticide residues in honey from the stingless bee Melipona subnitida (Meliponini, Apidae) J. Apic. Sci. 2020;64:29–36. [Google Scholar]
  • 21.Brondi SHG, Macedo AN, Vicente GHL, Nogueira ARA. Evaluation of the QuEChERS method and gas chromatography-mass spectrometry for the analysis pesticides residues in water and sediment. Bull. Environ. Contam. Toxicol. 2011;86:18–22. doi: 10.1007/s00128-010-0176-9. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 22.Cerqueira MBR, et al. Evaluation of the QuEChERS method for the extraction of pharmaceuticals and personal care products from drinking-water treatment sludge with determination by UPLC-ESI-MS/MS. Chemosphere. 2014;107:74–82. doi: 10.1016/j.chemosphere.2014.03.026. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 23.Asenio-Ramos M, Hernández-Borges J, Ravelo-Pérez LM, Rodríguez-Delgado MA. Evaluation of a modified QuEChERS method for the extraction of pesticides from agricultural, ornamental and forestal soils. Anal. Bioanal. Chem. 2010;396:2307–2319. doi: 10.1007/s00216-009-3440-2. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 24.Bragança I, Plácido A, Paíga P, Domingues VF, Delerue-Matos C. QuEChERS: a new sample preparation approach for the determination of ibuprofen and its metabolites in soils. Sci. Total Environ. 2012;433:281–289. doi: 10.1016/j.scitotenv.2012.06.035. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 25.Brandhonneur N, et al. A micro-QuEChERS method coupled to GC-MS for the quantification of pesticides in specific maternal and fetal tissues. J. Pharm. Biomed. Anal. 2015;104:90–96. doi: 10.1016/j.jpba.2014.10.035. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 26.Stöckelhuber M, et al. Determination of pesticides adsorbed on arthropods and gastropods by a Micro-QuEChERS approach and GC-MS/MS. Chromatographia. 2017;80:825–829. doi: 10.1007/s10337-017-3280-8. [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  • 27.Jesús F, et al. Miniaturized QuEChERS based methodology for multiresidue determination of pesticides in odonate nymphs as ecosystem biomonitors. Talanta. 2018;178:410–418. doi: 10.1016/j.talanta.2017.09.014. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 28.Gałuszka A, Migaszewski A, Namieśnik J. The 12 principles of green analytical chemistry and the SIGNIFICANCE mnemonic of green analytical practices. Trends Anal. Chem. 2013;50:78–84. doi: 10.1016/j.trac.2013.04.010. [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  • 29.Kunz TH, Torrez EB, Bauer D, Lobova T, Fleming TH. Ecosystem services provided by bats. Ann. N. Y. Acad. Sci. 2011;1223:1–38. doi: 10.1111/j.1749-6632.2011.06004.x. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 30.Benton AH. Effects on Wildlife of DDT used for control of Dutch Elm disease. J. Wildl. Manag. 1951;15:20–27. doi: 10.2307/3796765. [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  • 31.Dalquest, W. W. Mammals of the Mexican state of San Luis Potosi. Doctoral Thesis, Louisiana State University and Agricultural & Mechanical College (1951). https://digitalcommons.lsu.edu/gradschool_disstheses/7990.
  • 32.Stecherts C, Kolb M, Bahadir M, Djossa BA, Fahr J. Insecticide residues in bats along a land use-gradient dominated by cotton cultivation in northern Benin, West Africa. Environ. Sci. Pollut. Res. Int. 2014;21:8812–8821. doi: 10.1007/s11356-014-2817-8. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 33.Valdespino C, Sosa VJ. Effect of landscape tree cover, sex and season on the bioaccumulation of persistent organochlorine pesticides in fruit bats of riparian corridors in eastern Mexico. Chemosphere. 2017;175:373–382. doi: 10.1016/j.chemosphere.2017.02.071. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 34.Altringham JD. Bats, from evolution to conservation. Oxford University Press; 2011. [Google Scholar]
  • 35.SEAPA (Secretaria do Estado de Agricultura, Pecuária e Abastecimento) Projeções do Agronegócio – Minas Gerais – 2017–2027, 3rd ed. (SEAPA, 2018).
  • 36.ICMBio (Instituto Chico Mendes de Conservação da Biodiversidade) Plano de Manejo do Parque Nacional da Serra do Cipó e Área de Proteção Ambiental Morro da Pedreira (ICMBio, 2009).
  • 37.Sikes RS, Animal Care and Use Committee of the American Society of Mammalogists Guidelines of the American Society of Mammalogists for the use of wild mammals in research and education. J. Mammal. 2016;97:663–688. doi: 10.1093/jmammal/gyw078. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 38.Jefferies DJ. Organochlorine inseticide residues in British bats and their significance. J. Zool. 1972;166:245–263. doi: 10.1111/j.1469-7998.1972.tb04088.x. [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  • 39.Covaci A, Gheorghe A, Schepens P. Distribution of organochlorine pesticides, polychlorinated biphenyls and α-HCH enantiomers in pork tissues. Chemosphere. 2004;56:757–766. doi: 10.1016/j.chemosphere.2004.02.014. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 40.Barbieri MV, et al. Analysis of 52 pesticides in fresh fish muscle by QuEChERS extraction followed by LC-MS/MS determination. Sci. Total Environ. 2019;653:958–967. doi: 10.1016/j.scitotenv.2018.10.289. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 41.Freitas MB, Welker AF, Pinheiro EC. Seasonal variation and food deprivation in common vampire bats (Chiroptera: Phyllostomidae) Braz. J. Biol. 2006;66:1051–1055. doi: 10.1590/S1519-69842006000600012. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 42.Codex Alimentarius. Guidelines on performance criteria for methods of analysis for the determination of pesticide residues in food and feed. CXG90-2017 (FAO, 2017).
  • 43.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;77:8129–8137. doi: 10.1021/ac0515576. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 44.Faria, V. H. F. et al. Avaliação de resíduos de agrotóxicos em polpas de morango industrializadas. Pesticidas Revista de Ecotoxicologia e Meio Ambiente19, 49-56 (2009).
  • 45.Valenzuela EF, Menezes HC, Cardeal ZL. New passive sampling device for effective monitoring of pesticides in water. Anal. Chim. Acta. 2019;1054:26–37. doi: 10.1016/j.aca.2018.12.017. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 46.EC (European Commission). Guidance document on analytical quality control and method validation procedures for pesticides residues analysis in food and feed. SANTE/12682/2019 (DG SANTE, 2019).
  • 47.Brasil – Ministério da Agricultura, Pecuária e Abastecimento. Secretaria de Defesa Agropecuária. Guia de validação e controle de qualidade analítica: fármacos em produtos para alimentação e medicamentos veterinários (Ministério da Agricultura, Pecuária e Abastecimento, 2011).
  • 48.AOAC International. Appendix F: Guidelines for Standard Method Performance Requirements. AOAC Official Methods of Analysis (AOAC International, 2016).
  • 49.Płotka-Wasylka J. A new tool for the evaluation of the analytical procedure: green analytical procedure index. Talanta. 2018;181:204–209. doi: 10.1016/j.talanta.2018.01.013. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 50.Gałuszka A, Migaszewski ZM, Konieczka P, Namieśnik J. Analytical Eco-Scale for assessing the greenness of analytical procedures. Trends Anal. Chem. 2012;37:61–72. doi: 10.1016/j.trac.2012.03.013. [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  • 51.Tahboub YR, Zaater MF, Al-Talla ZA. Determination of the limits of identification and quantitation of selected organochlorine and organophosphorous pesticide residues in surface water by full-scan gas chromatography/mass spectrometry. J. Chromatogr. A. 2005;1098:150–155. doi: 10.1016/j.chroma.2005.08.064. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 52.Lehotay S, Lightfield AR, Harman-Fetcho JA, Donoghue DJ. Analysis of pesticides residues in eggs by direct sample introduction/gas chromatography/tandem mass spectrometry. J. Agric. Food Chem. 2001;49:4589–4596. doi: 10.1021/jf0104836. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 53.Hajšlová J, Zrostlíková J. Matrix effects in (ultra)trace analysis of pesticide residues in food and biotic matrices. J. Chromatogr. A. 2003;1000:181–197. doi: 10.1016/S0021-9673(03)00539-9. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 54.Przybylski C, Segard C. Method for routine screening of pesticides and metabolites in meat based baby-food using extraction and gas chromatography-mass spectrometry. J. Sep. Sci. 2009;32:1858–1867. doi: 10.1002/jssc.200900016. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 55.Lehotay S. Analysis of pesticide residues in mixed fruit and vegetable extracts by direct sample introduction/gas chromatography/tandem mass spectrometry. J. AOAC Int. 2000;83:680–697. doi: 10.1093/jaoac/83.3.680. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 56.Georgakopoulos P, et al. Optimization of octadecyl (C18) sorbent amount in QuEChERS analytical method for the accurate organophosphorus pesticide residues determination in low-fatty baby foods with response surface methodology. Food Chem. 2001;128:536–542. doi: 10.1016/j.foodchem.2011.03.042. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 57.Lehotay SJ, et al. Comparison of QuEChERS sample preparation methods for the analysis of pesticides residues in fruits and vegetables. J. Chromatogr. A. 2010;1217:2548–2560. doi: 10.1016/j.chroma.2010.01.044. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 58.Peña F, Cárdenas S, Gallego M, Calcárcel M. Analysis of phenylrea herbicides from plants by GC/MS. Talanta. 2002;56:727–734. doi: 10.1016/S0039-9140(01)00616-6. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 59.Soboleva E, Ahad K, Ambrus A. Applicability of some mass spectrometric criteria for the confirmation of pesticide residues. Analyst. 2004;129:1123–1129. doi: 10.1039/b405024j. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 60.Bombardi, L. M. Geografia do Uso de Agrotóxicos no Brasil e Conexões com a União Europeia (FFLCH-USP, 2017).
  • 61.Brasil – Ministério da Saúde. Secretaria de Vigilância em Saúde. Departamento de Saúde Ambiental, do Trabalhador e Vigilância das Emergências em Saúde Pública. Indicadores institucionais do Programa Nacional de Vigilância da Qualidade da Água para consumo humano – 2019 (Ministério da Saúde, 2020).
  • 62.Sajid M, Płotka-Wasylka J. Green analytical chemistry metrics: a review. Talanta. 2022;238:123046. doi: 10.1016/j.talanta.2021.123046. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 63.Billiard KM, Dershem AR, Gionfriddo E. Implementing green analytical methodologies using solid-phase microextraction, a review. Molecules. 2020;25:5297. doi: 10.3390/molecules25225297. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 64.Van Aken K, Strekowski L, Patiny L. EcoScale, a semi-quantitative tool to select an organic preparation based on economical and ecological parameters. Beilstein J. Org. Chem. 2006;2:3. doi: 10.1186/1860-5397-2-3. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]

Associated Data

This section collects any data citations, data availability statements, or supplementary materials included in this article.

Data Availability Statement

The datasets generated during and/or analysed during the current study are available from the corresponding author on reasonable request.

Articles from Scientific Reports are provided here courtesy of Nature Publishing Group

RESOURCES