Skip to main content
Journal of Analytical Methods in Chemistry logoLink to Journal of Analytical Methods in Chemistry
. 2022 Jun 15;2022:7684432. doi: 10.1155/2022/7684432

Rapid Screening of 352 Pesticide Residues in Chrysanthemum Flower by Gas Chromatography Coupled to Quadrupole-Orbitrap Mass Spectrometry with Sin-QuEChERS Nanocolumn Extraction

Yuanyuan Wang 1,, Zhijuan Meng 2, Chunyan Su 3, Sufang Fan 2, Yan Li 2, Haiye Liu 1, Xuan Zhang 1, Pingping Chen 1, Yunyun Geng 1, Qiang Li 2,
PMCID: PMC9217587  PMID: 35757318

Abstract

To analyze pesticide residues, GC coupled with quadrupole-Orbitrap MS (GC-Orbitrap-MS) has become a powerful tool because of its unique characteristics of accurate mass full-spectrum acquisition, high resolution, fast acquisition rates, and overcoming matrix interference. This paper presents an efficiency evaluation of GC-Orbitrap-MS for identification and quantitation in the 352 pesticide residues analysis of chrysanthemum flowers in full-scan mode. A streamlined pretreatment approach using one-step extraction and dilution was used, which provided high-throughput processing and excellent recovery. The samples were extracted using acetonitrile. The extracted solution was purified by a Sin-QuEChERS Nano column to suppress the matrix in chrysanthemum flowers and determined by GC-Orbitrap-MS. The calibration curves for the 352 pesticides obtained by GC-Orbitrap-MS were linear in the range of 0.5–200 μg·kg−1, with the correlation coefficients higher than 0.99. The limits of detection (LODs) and the limits of quantification (LOQs) for the 352 pesticide residues were 0.3–3.0 μg·kg−1 and 1.0–10.0 μg·kg−1, respectively. The average recoveries in chrysanthemum flower at three levels were 95.2%, 88.6%, and 95.7%, respectively, with relative standard deviations (RSDs) of 7.1%, 7.5%, and 7.2%, respectively. Lastly, the validated method and retrospective analysis was applied to a total of 200 chrysanthemum flower samples bought in local pharmacies. The proposed method can simultaneously detect multipesticide residues with a good performance in qualitative and quantitative detection.

1. Introduction

Chrysanthemum flower (Dendranthema grandiflora) is one of the most common Chinese herbal medicines, and it has been consumed as food for health care and disease prevention since ancient times. It is mainly used for the treatment of respiratory and cardiovascular diseases and shows significant activities, such as antimicrobial, anti-inflammatory, and anti-cancer and neuroprotective and cardiovascular system [1]. Because of its efficacy in alleviating chronic diseases, some consumers often drink chrysanthemum tea as a health food [2]. The chrysanthemum flower, as a good product of the “integration of medicine and food” [3], has a huge consumer group.

However, in order to minimize the loss of crops during planting, pesticides are widely used to control many plant diseases and insects, such as gray mold, rust, aphids, thrips, leaf pickers, leaf folding insects, and spider mites [4]. Therefore, chrysanthemum flowers may be exposed to a variety of pesticides and contain pesticide residues. However, with the widespread use of pesticides, overuse, abuse, and misuse of pesticides also occur from time to time, which will lead to pesticide residues in chrysanthemum flowers, thus constituting a potential threat to human health and adversely affecting international trade.

Because of the potential of pesticide contamination in current agricultural products, many countries and world organizations (e.g., Codex Alimentarius Commission, European Union (EU), United States, Japan, China, Republic of Korea, Canada) have prescribed stringent stipulations for maximum residue limits (MRLs) for pesticides. For instance, there are 162,248 MRL items that cover 465 pesticides in the EU, 39,147 MRL items that cover 351 pesticides in the United States, and 51,600 MRL items that cover 579 pesticides in Japan, and the residue limit level is as low as 10 μg·kg−1, and 10,092 MRLs for 564 pesticides in 376 kinds of food was stipulated in China National standards for food safety. Implementing these laws and regulations has strengthened supervision over pesticides and ensured the standard use of pesticides to protect human health. However, laws and regulations of such a multitude of MRLs pose a new challenging issue for the monitoring and controlling of pesticide residues.

At present, the commonly used pesticide residues pretreatment methods include solid-phase extraction [5], solid-phase microextraction [6], gel permeation chromatography [7], and the QuEChERS [810]. Among them, the QuEChERS method is widely used, but in most studies, there are many kinds of purification materials with a large amount, low purification efficiency, and large matrix effect, which is not conducive to the rapid and accurate analysis of the experiment [11, 12]. Therefore, the selection of suitable purification materials is conducive to the high-throughput treatment of complex matrices. Sin-QuEChERS Nano column is a new type of rapid sample pretreatment purification column developed and optimized based on the QuEChERS method. Based on the basic principle of reversed dispersion solid-phase extraction, multiwalled carbon nanotubes (MWCNTs), PSA, and C18 solid-phase materials are filled into the column tube to achieve one-step purification. MWCNTs have the characteristics of the nanoscale hollow tubular structure and large specific surface area, small dosage, strong adsorption capacity, stability, and durability, which are suitable for the treatment of complex matrices and have better purification and adsorption effect [1315].

In the past 10 years, most pesticide food control laboratories have shifted from GC-MS to GC-MS/MS as the preferred analytical technology for the treatment of GC amenable compounds. The main reason for this change is that the interference of eluting matrix compounds has a negative impact on single-stage GC-MS analysis. In recent years, the demand for nontargeted detection methods of LC and GC combined with full-scan (FS) MS is increasing, so as to better cover the scope of pesticides and detect them more easily. In GC-MS, FS measurement has been realized for decades, but quadrupole (Q), ion trap, nominal mass time of flight (TOF), and early-generation high-resolution TOF instruments lack sensitivity and/or selectivity. The improvement of high-resolution mass spectrometry (HRMS) in resolution and obtaining appropriate selectivity by improving mass resolution provides new opportunities for residue analysis. Initially, GC and Q-TOF instruments were coupled through the atmospheric pressure chemical ionization (APCI) interface to achieve this goal [1618], but recently, a special GC and electron ionization (EI) Orbitrap MS system was introduced. The system combines the peak capacity and chromatographic resolution of gas chromatography with the sub-ppm mass accuracy of the Orbitrap system to provide higher resolution (15,000, 30,000, 60,000, and 120,000 at half-maximum (FWHM) at m/z 200). The collected data are traceable, which is convenient for retrospective analysis and screening of more interested unknown compounds. Compared with the instrument based on APCI, EI is a more general ionization technology. Because multiple ions for quantification and identification can be obtained in one scanning event, the acquisition is also simpler.

In this study, the potential of GC-Orbitrap-MS in nontarget full-scan independent acquisition mode was evaluated for identification and quantitation purposes. A total of 352 pesticides were selected as the target analytical compounds from the 2020 edition of Chinese Pharmacopoeia. An improved QuEChERS method based on Sin-QuEChERS Nano column purification was used [19, 20]. Method validation in chrysanthemum flowers samples was carried out in terms of sensitivity, linearity, ME, and LOQ. Lastly, the validated method and retrospective analysis was applied to a total of 200 chrysanthemum flower samples bought in local pharmacies (Shijiazhuang, China). This method is suitable for the rapid screening and quantitative analysis of multipesticide residues in chrysanthemum flower and provides data and technical support for the safety evaluation of chrysanthemum flowers.

2. Materials and Methods

2.1. Instruments and Reagents

Analytical standards of the 352 pesticides (10 μg·mL−1) were purchased from Alta Scientific Ltd. (Tianjin, China). A total of 352 kinds of pesticide mixed standard stock solution were prepared with acetonitrile at a concentration of 10 μg·mL−1 and stored in the refrigerator at −18°C. HPLC-grade acetonitrile was purchased from Merck (Darmstadt, Germany). HPLC-grade water was from Milford Super Pure Water System (Milford, MA). Two types of traditional QuEChERS purification were purchased from Thermo Fisher Scientific (Massachusetts, USA). QuEChERS purification package (simple matrix), includes 50.0 mg PSA and 150.0 mg MgSO4; QuEChERS purification package (complex matrix), includes 50.0 mg PSA, 150.0 mg MgSO4, 50 mg C18, and 50 mg GCB. We used two kinds of salting-out for the QuEChERS method: an unbuffered salt system, including 6 g MgSO4 and 1.5 g NaCl, and an acetate buffer salt system, including 6 g MgSO4 and 1.5 g sodium acetate, purchased from Thermo Fisher Scientific Inc. (Fair Lawn, NJ). Sin-QuEChERS Nano column, including 2 g Na2SO4, 0.6 g MgSO4, 90 mg PSA, 10 mg C18, and 15 mg MWCNTs, were purchased from China Agricultural University (Beijing, China). All the chrysanthemum flower materials were purchased from local pharmacies (Shijiazhuang, China).

2.2. Sample Extraction Methods

The samples were crushed by FW100 High-Speed Universal Crusher (Tianjin Tester instrument Co. Ltd.) and mixed well. Two grams of chrysanthemum flower powder (±0.01 g) were then added into a 50 ml plug centrifuge tube; 10 ml of water was added for redissolution; the tube was vortexed for 1 min; and then the sample was allowed to fully soak and evenly disperse. Then, 10 ml acetonitrile was added, mixed well, and vortexed for 1 min. Next, an acetate buffer salt system containing 6 g anhydrous MgSO4 and 1.5 g sodium acetate was added; the tube was vortexed for 1 min, put into an ice water bath for 10 min, and centrifuged for 2 min at 4°C, 9,500 r·min−1, and the supernatant was taken for use.

2.3. Sample Purification Methods

  1. Traditional QuEChERS purification: we tested the purification efficiency of two QuEChERS purification packages: one was a simple matrix, including 50.0 mg PSA and 150.0 mg MgSO4, and the other was a complex matrix, including 50.0 mg PSA, 150.0 mg MgSO4, 50 mg C18, and 50 mg GCB. We transferred 2 ml of the extracted supernatant into a QuEChERS purification centrifuge tube, mixed this by oscillation for 1 min, centrifuged it at 9,500 r·min–1 for 3 min, absorbed the supernatant, passed this through a 0.22 μm nylon filter membrane to an injection bottle, and waited for sample analysis by the GC-Orbitrap-MS.

  2. Sin-QuEChERS Nano column purification: we tested the purification efficiency of the Sin-QuEChERS Nano column, including 2 g Na2SO4, 0.6 g MgSO4, 90 mg PSA, 10 mg C18, and 15 mg MWCNTs. The purification column of the Sin-QuEChERS Nano purification tube is vertically inserted into the 50 ml centrifuge tube containing the extract, and the top of the purification column is slowly pressed down so that the upper organic extract in the centrifuge tube passes through the water blocking filter and column filler in the purification column from bottom to top, and finally enters into the Sin-QuEChERS Nano storage tank for about 4 ml of supernatant. After mixing the purified liquid, the supernatant is sucked over a 0.22 μm nylon filter membrane to the injection bottle for analysis by GC-Orbitrap-MS.

By comparing the purification effects, total ions, and recovery rates of these three purification methods, the Sin-QuEChERS Nano column was finally selected as the purification method for method validation and real sample analysis. See Section 3.2 “Selection of Purification Conditions” for the comparison results.

2.4. Preparation of Standard Solution

The mixed standard stock solutions of 352 pesticides were diluted with the blank extract of the matrix, and a series of standard solutions with concentrations of 0.005, 0.02, 0.05, 0.1, and 0.2 μg·ml−1 were prepared. The matrix mixed standard solution was prepared and used immediately.

2.5. Instrument Conditions

We followed and optimized the methods of previous works [21, 22]. A GC-Orbitrap-MS system (Thermo Scientific, Bremen, Germany) consisting of an AI/AS 1310 TriPlus RSH™ autosampler was used. TRACE 1300 Series GC with a hot split/splitless injector, an EI source, and a hybrid quadrupole Orbitrap mass spectrometer with an HCD (higher energy collision-induced dissociation) cell was used.

GC separation was performed on a 30 m × 0.25 mm id, 0.25 μm Thermo Scientific TG-5MS column using the following temperature program: 40°C, 1.5 min; 25°C·min−1 to 90°C, 1.5 min; 25°C·min−1 to 180°C, 0 min; 5°C·min−1 to 280°C, 0 min; and 10°C·min−1 to 310°C, 3 min. Helium 5.0 (99.999%; Linde Gas, Schiedam, The Netherlands) was used as carrier gas at a constant flow of 1 mL·min−1. The transfer line was maintained at 280°C. EI was performed at 70 eV, with the source temperature set at 280°C. FS MS acquisition was done in profile mode using an m/z range of 50–550. The nitrogen gas supply for the C-trap was 5.0 grade (99.999%; Linde Gas). The resolving power was set at 60,000 (FWHM at m/z 200) to ensure high mass accuracy. The automatic gain control (AGC) target was set at 5e6 ions, with the maximum ion injection time set to 25 ms.

2.6. Establishment of Database

In this experiment, 352 pesticide compounds were selected and prepared into 1.0 μg·ml−1 mixed standard solutions. The retention time of the corresponding compounds, the accurate molecular weight, and the chemical formula of the fragment ions were obtained under the full-scan mode. Three fragment ions of each compound were selected to obtain ion information (accurate mass and chemical formula). The data were imported into TraceFinder (4.1) software, and the relevant database was established. The TraceFinder software not only can realize the rapid batch and automatic processing of data but also can set the functions of qualitative, quantitative, and method establishment. According to the established database, it can realize the rapid screening of target substances. The database mainly contains the compounds' names, CAS registration numbers, fragment ion information, retention times, and other information (Table 1).

Table 1.

Information of the 352 pesticides detected in chrysanthemum flower samples by GC-Orbitrap-MS screening.

Pesticides CAS Molecular formula Retention time (min) Quantitative ion (m/z) Qualitative ion (m/z)
1 2
Clopyralid 1702-17-6 C6H3Cl2NO2 6.38 146.96 76.02 111.99
Dichlorvos 62-73-7 C4H7O4PCl2 7.99 184.98 186.97 144.98
Methamidophos 10265-92-6 C2H8NO2PS 8.02 141.00 112.01585 125.98
Thiofanox 39196-18-4 C9H18N2O2S 8.20 115.10 161.09 83.07
Allidochlor 93-71-0 C8H12NOCl 8.27 138.09 132.02 96.08
Dichlobenil 1194-65-6 C7H3Cl2N 8.68 170.96 100.02 172.96
EPTC 759-94-4 C9H19NOS 8.71 128.11 132.08 160.08
Dichlormid 37764-25-3 C8H11Cl2NO 8.72 172.05 108.08 165.98
2,4,6-Trichlorophenol 88-06-2 C6H3OCl3 8.73 195.92 199.92 197.92
3,5-Dichloroaniline 626-43-7 C6H5Cl2N 9.05 160.98 162.98 126.01
O-phthalimide 85-41-6 C8H5NO2 9.15 147.03 103.04 104.03
Mevinphos 7786-34-7 C7H13O6P 9.18 192.02 164.02 127.01
Acephate 30560-19-1 C4H10NO3PS 9.25 136.02 112.02 94.00
Vernolate 1929-77-7 C10H21NOS 9.30 86.06 161.09 146.10
Propham 122-42-9 C10H13NO2 9.37 137.05 179.09 120.08
Etridiazole 2593-15-9 C5H5N2OSCl3 9.40 210.95 212.95 182.92
Pebulate 1114-71-2 C10H21NOS 9.40 128.11 72.04 161.09
cis-1,2,3,6-Tetrahydrophthalimide 1469-48-3 C8H9NO2 9.57 151.06 123.07 122.06
Chloroneb 2675-77-6 C8H8O2Cl2 9.77 190.97 192.96 205.99
Tebuthiuron 34014-18-1 C9H16N4OS 9.86 156.06 89.02 171.08
Fenobucarb 3766-81-2 C12H17NO2 9.93 121.06 91.05 93.07
Pentachlorobenzene 608-93-5 C6HCl5 9.95 247.85 251.85 249.85
Isoprocarb 2631-40-5 C11H15NO2 9.98 121.06 136.09 103.05
Molinate 2212-67-1 C9H17NOS 10.01 126.09 187.10 98.10
Heptenophos 23560-59-0 C9H12CLO4P 10.30 124.00 215.05 200.02
Chlorfenprop-methyl 14437-17-3 C10H10O2Cl2 10.43 165.01 196.03 167.00
Omethoate 1113-02-6 C5H12NO4PS 10.47 156.00 110.01 140.98
Propoxur 114-26-1 C11H15NO3 10.57 110.04 82.04 152.08
Tecnazene 117-18-0 C6HNO2CL4 10.59 200.88 177.91 260.87
Propachlor 1918-16-7 C11H14NOCl 10.61 120.08 176.11 169.03
Diphenylamine 122-39-4 C12H11N 10.70 169.09 167.07 168.08
Ethoprophos 13194-48-4 C8H19O2PS2 10.77 157.96 199.00 200.01
Tributyl phosphate 126-73-8 C12H27O4P 10.78 98.98 155.05 124.10
Cycloate 1134-23-2 C11H21NOS 10.79 154.12 155.13 72.04
2,3,5,6-Tetrachloroaniline 3481-20-7 C6H3Cl4N 10.80 230.90 232.90 157.96
Atrazine-desethyl 6190-65-4 C6H10N5Cl 11.00 172.04 145.01 187.06
Dicrotophos 141-66-2 C8H16NO5P 11.07 127.02 193.03 111.07
Methabenzthiazuron 18691-97-9 C10H11N3OS 11.07 136.02 164.04 135.01
Trifluralin 1582-09-8 C13H16N3O4F3 11.08 264.02 306.07 248.03
Bendiocarb 22781-23-3 C11H13NO4 11.09 151.04 126.03 223.08
Benfluralin 1861-40-1 C13H16F3N3O4 11.12 292.05 276.06 318.11
Sulfotep 3689-24-5 C8H20O5P2S2 11.20 322.02 209.90 173.96
Cadusafos 95465-99-9 C10H23O2PS2 11.25 158.97 130.94 213.02
Tebutam 35256-85-0 C15H23NO 11.27 91.05 190.12 233.18
Promecarb 2631-37-0 C12H17NO2 11.27 135.08 107.09 150.10
Phorate 298-02-2 C7H17O2PS3 11.34 75.03 230.97 260.01
α-Hexachlorocyclohexane 319-84-6 C6H6Cl6 11.95 180.94 145.97 218.91
Atratone 1610-17-9 C9H17N5O 11.61 169.10 154.07 211.14
3,4,5-Trimethacarb 2686-99-9 C11H15NO2 11.69 121.06 91.05 136.09
Dicloran 99-30-9 C6H4Cl2N2O2 11.70 175.97 159.97 207.96
Pentachloroanisole 1825-21-4 C7H3Cl5O 11.72 264.84 238.84 279.86
Ethoxyquin 91-53-2 C14H19NO 11.72 202.12 174.09 203.13
Prometon 1610-18-0 C10H19N5O 11.73 168.09 210.13 225.16
Atrazine 1912-24-9 C8H14ClN5 11.84 200.07 202.07 173.05
Monolinuron 1746-81-2 C9H11ClN2O2 11.89 126.01 152.10 214.05
Propazine 139-40-2 C9H16N5Cl 11.92 214.08 187.06 229.11
Clomazone 81777-89-1 C12H14ClNO2 11.94 204.10 89.04 125.02
Terbumeton 33693-04-8 C10H19N5O 11.95 210.13 169.10 225.16
β-Hexachlorocyclohexane 319-85-7 C6H6Cl6 11.99 180.94 145.97 218.91
Aminocarb 2032-59-9 C11H16N2O2 12.04 151.10 136.08 150.09
Isocarbamid 30979-48-7 C8H15N3O2 12.05 142.06 130.06 113.03
Cyromazine 66215-27-8 C6H10N6 12.06 151.07 165.09 166.10
γ-Hexachlorocyclohexane 58-89-9 C6H6Cl6 12.12 180.94 145.97 218.91
Propetamphos 31218-83-4 C10H20NO4PS 12.12 138.01 193.98 222.03
Cycluron 2163-69-1 C11H22N2O 12.13 198.17 127.09 169.13
Terbuthylazine 5915-41-3 C9H16N5Cl 12.14 186.05 188.05 201.08
Terbufos 13071-79-9 C9H21O2PS3 12.16 230.97 174.91 202.94
Cyanophos 2636-26-2 C9H10NO3PS 12.17 243.01 124.98 109.00
Trietazine 1912-26-1 C9H16N5Cl 12.17 200.07 214.09 229.11
Quintozene 82-68-8 C6NO2Cl5 12.23 213.87 248.84 294.83
Fonofos 944-22-9 C10H15OPS2 12.27 246.03 137.02 108.99
Pyroquilon 57369-32-1 C11H11NO 12.28 173.08 144.08 172.08
Dinoterb 1420-07-1 C10H12N2O5 12.35 225.05 177.04 161.05
Pyrimethanil 53112-28-0 C12H13N3 12.35 198.10 199.11 183.08
Diazinon 333-41-5 C12H21N2O3PS 12.36 179.12 199.06 304.10
Flufenoxuron 101463-69-8 C21H11CLF6N2O3 12.46 331.00 268.04 296.03
Disulfoton 298-04-4 C8H19O2PS3 12.51 88.03 153.01 141.97
Paraoxon-methyl 950-35-6 C8H10NO6P 12.52 230.02 247.02 200.02
Secbumeton 26259-45-0 C10H19N5O 12.52 196.12 169.10 210.13
Aziprotryne 4658-28-0 C7H11N7S 12.53 182.05 139.01 225.08
Dinitramine 29091-05-2 C11H13F3N4O4 12.53 305.09 244.06 261.06
Fenfuram 24691-80-3 C12H11NO2 12.57 201.08 184.05 109.03
δ-Hexachlorocyclohexane 319-86-8 C6H6Cl6 12.61 180.94 145.97 218.91
Mexacarbate 315-18-4 C12H18N2O2 12.63 165.11 164.11 222.14
Isazofos 42509-80-8 C7H13N3O3PSCl 12.66 162.04 161.03 177.01
Chlorothalonil 1897-45-6 C8Cl4N2 12.71 263.88 193.94 228.91
Triallate 2303-17-5 C10H16CL3NOS 12.71 268.03 270.03 142.92
Tebupirimfos 96182-53-5 C13H23N2O3PS 12.82 234.02 261.05 276.07
Musk ambrette 83-66-9 C12H16N2O5 12.83 253.08 251.10 268.10
Oxabetrinil 74782-23-3 C12H12N2O3 12.85 73.03 103.04 114.03
Iprobenfos 26087-47-8 C13H21O3PS 12.87 204.00 171.02 246.05
Fluroxypyr 69377-81-7 C7H5N2O3FCl2 12.92 180.97 208.97 195.96
Pirimicarb 23103-98-2 C11H18N4O2 12.95 238.14 166.10 137.07
Monalide 7287-36-7 C13H18NOCl 12.95 197.06 127.01 239.11
Furmecyclox 60568-05-0 C14H21NO3 12.98 123.04 251.15 124.05
Benoxacor 98730-04-2 C11H11NO2Cl2 12.99 120.04 259.02 261.01
Pentachloroaniline 527-20-8 C6H2Cl5N 13.14 262.86 191.92 229.89
Benfuresate 68505-69-1 C12H16O4S 13.17 163.08 121.06 256.08
Dioxacarb 6988-21-2 C11H13NO4 13.17 121.03 165.05 166.06
Cyprazine 22936-86-3 C9H14N5Cl 13.24 212.07 170.02 226.08
Phosphamidon 13171-21-6 C10H19NO5PCl 13.25 138.09 193.02 264.10
Dichlorprop 120-36-5 C9H8O3Cl2 13.26 161.96 132.96 188.99
Dichlofenthion 97-17-6 C10H13CL2O3PS 13.26 222.94 250.97 279.00
Fenthion 55-38-9 C10H15O3PS2 13.26 222.94 250.97 279.00
Propanil 709-98-8 C9H9NOCl2 13.26 160.98 162.98 219.00
2,4-DB 94-82-6 C10H10O3Cl2 13.26 161.96 125.99 97.99
Chlorthiamid 1918-13-4 C7H5Cl2NS 13.29 169.98 171.98 204.95
Dimethachlor 50563-36-5 C13H18NO2Cl 13.29 197.06 148.08 134.10
Metribuzin 21087-64-9 C8H14N4OS 13.31 198.07 144.05 182.04
Dimethenamid 87674-68-8 C12H18NO2SCl 13.32 154.07 230.04 232.04
Bromobutide 74712-19-9 C15H22NOBr 13.35 119.09 120.08 232.17
Terbucarb 1918-11-2 C17H27NO2 13.44 205.16 177.13 220.18
Malaoxon 1634-78-2 C10H19O7PS 13.46 268.02 194.99 238.98
Vinclozolin 50471-44-8 C12H9Cl2NO3 13.48 178.04 212.00 285.10
Parathion-methyl 298-00-0 C8H10NO5PS 13.49 263.00 124.98 245.99
Chlorpyrifos-methyl 5598-13-0 C7H7Cl3NO3PS 13.50 285.93 287.92 289.92
Transfluthrin 118712-89-3 C15H12O2F4Cl2 13.54 163.02 127.03 335.05
Simetryn 1014-70-6 C8H15N5S 13.56 213.10 155.04 170.05
Fuberidazole 3878-19-1 C11H8N2O 13.57 184.06 156.07 183.06
Tolclofos-methyl 57018-04-9 C9H11O3PSCL2 13.61 264.98 249.96 266.98
Alachlor 15972-60-8 C14H20NO2Cl 13.67 188.11 202.12 160.11
Ametryn 834-12-8 C9H17N5S 13.67 227.12 170.05 185.07
Heptachlor 76-44-8 C10H5CL7 13.72 269.81 100.01 336.85
Prometryn 7287-19-6 C10H19N5S 13.75 241.13 184.07 199.09
Acetochlor 34256-82-1 C14H20NO2Cl 13.76 223.08 162.10 174.10
Paraoxon-ethyl 311-45-5 C10H14NO6P 13.77 275.05 247.02 139.05
Metalaxyl 57837-19-1 C15H21NO4 13.78 160.11 206.12 146.10
Tridiphane 58138-08-2 C10H7OCl5 13.84 186.97 172.96 284.92
Octachlorodipropyl ether 127-90-2 C6H6OCl8 13.89 129.91 108.96 142.92
Prosulfocarb 52888-80-9 C14H21NOS 13.89 128.11 86.06 251.13
Fenpropidin 67306-00-7 C19H31N 13.97 98.10 273.24 258.22
1-naphthylacetamide 86-86-2 C12H11NO 14.05 141.07 142.08 185.08
Dithiopyr 97886-45-8 C15H16NO2F5S2 14.05 306.05 258.05 354.06
Orbencarb 34622-58-7 C12H16NOSCl 14.08 222.09 125.02 100.08
Terbutryn 886-50-0 C10H19N5S 14.08 226.11 185.07 170.05
Spiroxamine 118134-30-8 C18H35NO2 14.11 100.11 126.13 198.15
Methiocarb 2032-65-7 C11H15NO2S 14.15 168.06 153.04 154.04
Fenitrothion 122-14-5 C9H12NO5PS 14.16 260.01 124.98 277.02
Pirimiphos-methyl 29232-93-7 C11H20N3O3PS 14.19 290.07 276.06 305.10
Methiocarb sulfone 2179-25-1 C11H15NO4S 14.22 200.05 197.03 197.03
Ethofumesate 26225-79-6 C13H18O5S 14.22 207.10 161.06 179.07
Linuron 330-55-2 C9H10N2O2Cl2 14.27 159.97 61.05 248.01
Probenazole 27605-76-1 C10H9NO3S 14.33 130.07 103.04 158.06
Noruron 18530-56-8 C13H22N2O 14.34 153.10 193.13 207.15
Quinoclamine 2797-51-5 C10H6NO2Cl 14.37 172.04 144.04 207.01
Dipropetryn 4147-51-7 C11H21N5S 14.38 255.15 222.17 184.07
Malathion 121-75-5 C10H19O6PS2 14.41 124.98 99.01 173.08
Thiobencarb 28249-77-6 C12H16ClNOS 14.44 257.06 100.08 125.02
Diethofencarb 87130-20-9 C14H21NO4 14.51 267.15 225.10 168.03
Phorate sulfoxide 2588-03-6 C7H17O3PS3 14.57 124.93 170.97 199.00
Metolachlor 51218-45-2 C15H22NO2Cl 14.61 162.13 211.08 238.10
Fenpropimorph 67564-91-4 C20H33NO 14.67 128.11 110.10 173.13
Cyanazine 21725-46-2 C9H13ClN6 14.69 225.07 212.06 240.09
Chlorpyrifos 2921-88-2 C9H11CL3NO3PS 14.71 196.92 257.90 313.96
Parathion 56-38-2 C10H14NO5PS 14.73 291.03 155.00 185.99
Flufenacet 142459-58-3 C14H13N3O2F4S 14.79 210.98 136.06 151.08
Rabenzazol 40341-04-6 C12H12N4 14.79 212.11 170.07 195.08
4,4′-Dichlorobenzophenone 90-98-2 C13H8Cl2O 14.80 138.99 110.99 249.99
Triadimefon 43121-43-3 C14H16ClN3O2 14.80 208.03 210.02 181.02
Chlorthal-dimethyl 1861-32-1 C10H6CL4O4 14.86 300.88 298.88 331.90
Dicapthon 2463-84-5 C8H9NO5PSCl 14.86 261.99 124.98 216.00
Isofenphos-oxon 31120-85-1 C15H24NO5P 14.87 200.99 229.03 272.07
Isocarbophos 24353-61-5 C11H16NO4PS 14.90 135.99 230.00 121.03
Tetraconazole 112281-77-3 C13H11Cl2F4N3O 14.92 336.05 136.01 170.98
Isobenzan 297-78-9 C9H4CL8O 15.00 407.78 274.86 310.83
Flurochloridone 61213-25-0 C12H10Cl2F3NO 15.01 174.05 311.01 313.01
Fenson 80-38-6 C12H9O3SCl 15.03 267.99 141.00 269.99
Pyracarbolid 24691-76-7 C13H15NO2 15.13 125.06 217.11 97.03
Dodemorph 1593-77-7 C18H35NO 15.13 154.12 238.22 281.27
Mgk 264 113-48-4 C17H25NO2 15.14, 15.45 164.07 209.14 210.15
Butralin 33629-47-9 C14H21N3O4 15.16 266.11 236.10 220.11
Carbaryl 63-25-2 C12H11NO2 15.16 144.06 115.05 116.06
Diphenamid 957-51-7 C16H17NO 15.21 167.09 165.07 152.06
Pirimiphos-ethyl 23505-41-1 C13H24N3O3PS 15.29 168.06 318.10 333.13
Isodrin 465-73-6 C12H8Cl6 15.36 192.94 361.88 194.93
Aldrin 309-00-2 C12H8CL6 15.36 260.86 290.93 326.91
Isopropalin 33820-53-0 C15H23N3O4 15.36 280.13 238.08 264.13
Cyprodinil 121552-61-2 C14H15N3 15.41 224.12 225.13 208.09
Isofenphos-methyl 99675-03-3 C14H22NO4PS 15.42 199.02 230.99 241.06
Octachlorostyrene 29082-74-4 C8Cl8 15.54 305.81 270.84 379.74
Metazachlor 67129-08-2 C14H16ClN3O 15.56 209.06 133.09 211.06
Dimethametryn 22936-75-0 C11H21N5S 15.58 212.10 185.07 240.13
Pendimethalin 40487-42-1 C13H19N3O4 15.60 252.10 191.07 162.08
Disulfoton-sulfone 2497-6-5 C8H19O4PS3 15.62 153.01 124.98 213.02
Phorate sulfone 2588-04-7 C7H17O4PS3 15.62 199.00 124.98 170.97
Terbufos sulfone 56070-16-7 C9H21O4PS3 15.62 153.01 199.00 263.97
Paclobutrazol 76738-62-0 C15H20ClN3O 15.64 236.06 138.02 167.03
Penconazole 66246-88-6 C13H15N3Cl2 15.64 248.09 160.97 158.98
Chlozolinate 84332-86-5 C13H11NO5Cl2 15.72 186.96 260.98 188.96
Pyrifenox 88283-41-4 C14H12N2OCl2 15.72 262.01 186.96 227.04
Tolylfluanid 731-27-1 C10H13N2O2FS2Cl2 15.75 237.97 181.08 239.96
Fosthiazate 98886-44-3 C9H18NO3PS2 15.80 195.01 166.02 226.98
Phosfolan 947-02-4 C7H14NO3PS2 15.80 139.96 167.99 266.98
Allethrin 584-79-2 C19H26O3 15.84 123.12 91.05 136.09
Isofenphos 25311-71-1 C15H24NO4PS 15.84 213.03 184.99 216.97
Captan 133-06-2 C9H8NO2SCl3 15.85 149.05 105.03 116.91
Fipronil 120068-37-3 C12H4Cl2F6N4OS 15.88 366.94 368.94 212.95
Diclocymet 139920-32-4 C15H18N2OCl2 15.90, 16.38 221.05 172.99 277.11
Quinalphos 13593-03-8 C12H15N2O3PS 15.92 146.05 157.08 173.07
Phenthoate 2597-03-7 C12H17O4PS2 15.93 273.99 121.01 245.99
Triadimenol 55219-65-3 C14H18N3O2Cl 15.94 168.11 112.05 169.12
Dinobuton 973-21-7 C14H18N2O7 16.00 211.03 163.03 205.06
Furalaxyl 57646-30-7 C17H19NO4 16.03 242.12 152.07 146.10
Crotoxyphos 7700-17-6 C14H19O6P 16.06 193.03 127.02 105.07
Procymidone 32809-16-8 C13H11NO2Cl2 16.11 283.02 96.06 255.02
Chlorbenside 103-17-3 C13H10SCl2 16.15 125.02 127.01 267.99
Chlorflurenol-methyl 2536-31-4 C15H11O3Cl 16.22 215.03 152.06 274.04
Chlordane 5103-71-9 C10H6Cl8 16.32, 16.58 372.83 376.82 374.82
Methidathion 950-37-8 C6H11N2O4PS3 16.33 145.01 85.04 147.00
Haloxyfop-methyl 69806-40-2 C16H13ClF3NO4 16.39 375.05 288.00 179.98
Bromophos-ethyl 4824-78-6 C10H12O3PSCl2Br 16.41 300.85 241.87 358.91
Procyazine 32889-48-8 C10H13N6Cl 16.43 210.05 212.05 252.09
Disulfoton-sulfoxide 2497-07-6 C8H19O3PS3 16.61 183.98 124.98 167.98
Tetrachlorvinphos 22248-79-9 C10H9O4PCl4 16.63 328.93 203.93 239.89
Endosulfan 959-98-8 C9H6O3SCl6 16.67, 18.37 236.84 169.97 159.98
Mepanipyrim 110235-47-7 C14H13N3 16.69 222.10 221.09 223.11
Butachlor 23184-66-9 C17H26NO2Cl 16.74 176.11 188.11 160.11
Ditalimfos 5131-24-8 C12H14NO4PS 16.81 242.98 208.97 271.00
TCMTB 21564-17-0 C9H6N2S3 16.87 179.99 166.99 237.97
Trans-nonachlor 39765-80-5 C10H5Cl9 16.90 408.78 404.79 271.81
Chlorfenson 80-33-1 C12H8CL2O3S 16.94 174.96 176.96 301.96
Fenamiphos 22224-92-6 C13H22NO3PS 16.95 303.11 260.05 217.01
Picoxystrobin 117428-22-5 C18H16NO4F3 16.96 303.05 173.06 335.08
Napropamide 15299-99-7 C17H21NO2 17.00 271.16 72.08 115.05
Hexaconazole 79983-71-4 C14H17Cl2N3O 17.06 213.99 231.03 174.97
Flutolanil 66332-96-5 C17H16NO2F3 17.07 173.02 281.07 323.11
Prothiophos 34643-46-4 C11H15O2PS2Cl2 17.18 308.99 238.92 266.95
Isoprothiolane 50512-35-1 C12H18O4S2 17.19 117.99 161.98 290.06
Profenofos 41198-08-7 C11H15BrClO3PS 17.26 338.96 205.91 207.91
Tricyclazole 41814-78-2 C9H7N3S 17.35 189.03 135.01 161.02
Pretilachlor 51218-49-6 C17H26NO2Cl 17.36 162.13 202.12 238.10
Dieldrin 60-57-1 C12H8CL6O 17.44 262.86 81.03 260.86
Oxadiazon 19666-30-9 C15H18N2O3Cl2 17.51 174.96 302.02 344.07
Iprovalicarb 140923-17-7 C18H28N2O3 17.52, 17.82 134.10 116.07 158.12
Carboxin 5234-68-4 C12H13NO2S 17.60 235.07 218.04 143.02
Myclobutanil 88671-89-0 C15H17ClN4 17.60 179.02 150.01 245.06
p,p'-Dichlorodiphenyldichloroethylene 72-55-9 C14H8Cl4 17.64 315.94 247.99 245.99
Buprofezin 69327-76-0 C16H23N3OS 17.68 175.09 171.10 249.11
Imazalil 35554-44-0 C14H14Cl2N2O 17.70 174.95 172.96 158.98
Flusilazole 85509-19-9 C16H15N3F2Si 17.70 233.06 206.05 314.10
Methoprotryne 841-06-5 C11H21N5OS 17.72 256.12 184.07 212.10
Azaconazole 60207-31-0 C12H11N3O2Cl2 17.75 216.98 144.96 174.95
Bupirimate 41483-43-6 C13H24N4O3S 17.79 208.14 193.14 273.10
Imazamethabenz-methyl 81405-85-8 C16H20N2O3 17.82 144.04 176.07 245.09
Kresoxim-methyl 143390-89-0 C18H19NO4 17.83 116.05 131.07 206.08
Metamitron 41394-05-2 C10H10N4O 17.85 174.09 173.08 202.08
Isoxathion 18854-01-8 C13H16NO4PS 17.97 177.02 159.01 313.05
Aramite 140-57-8 C15H23O4SCl 17.98 185.00 175.11 319.08
Nitrofen 1836-75-5 C12H7Cl2NO3 18.02 282.98 284.98 202.02
Endrin 72-20-8 C12H8CL6O 18.09 242.95 280.93 316.90
Endrin aldehyde 7421-93-4 C12H8OCl6 18.09 242.95 280.93 344.90
Ancymidol 12771-68-5 C15H16N2O2 18.12 228.90 107.02 215.08
Perthan 72-56-0 C18H20Cl2 18.15 223.15 178.08 167.09
Chlorfenapyr 122453-73-0 C15H11BRCLF3N2O 18.19 247.05 363.94 361.94
Chloropropylate 5836-10-2 C17H16O3Cl2 18.38 138.99 110.99 251.00
Chlorobenzilate 510-15-6 C16H14O3Cl2 18.38 138.99 251.00 252.99
Fenthion sulfoxide 3761-41-9 C10H15O4PS2 18.51 294.01 278.99 152.98
Diniconazole 83657-24-3 C15H17N3OCl2 18.55 268.00 234.04 165.01
Flamprop-isopropyl 52756-22-6 C19H19NO3FCl 18.63 276.06 105.03 156.00
p,p'-Dichlorodiphenyldichloroethane 72-54-8 C14H10Cl4 18.66 235.01 199.03 165.07
Aclonifen 74070-46-5 C12H9CLN2O3 18.68 264.03 182.06 212.06
o,p'-Dichlorodiphenyltrichloroethane 789-02-6 C14H9Cl5 18.76 235.00 165.07 237.00
Oxadixyl 77732-09-3 C14H18N2O4 18.78 233.09 163.10 132.08
Ethion 563-12-2 C9H22O4P2S4 18.82 230.97 202.94 153.01
Mepronil 55814-41-0 C17H19NO2 19.07 119.05 210.07 269.14
Triazophos 24017-47-8 C12H16N3O3PS 19.22 162.07 257.00 172.09
Azamethiphos 35575-96-3 C9H10ClN2O5PS 19.34 182.99 214.97 323.97
Ofurace 58810-48-3 C14H16NO3Cl 19.39 232.10 186.09 281.08
Carbophenothion 786-19-6 C11H16O2PS3Cl 19.47 341.97 170.97 199.00
Benalaxyl 71626-11-4 C20H23NO3 19.55 148.11 176.11 206.12
Tepraloxydim 149979-41-9 C17H24NO4Cl 19.55 164.07 136.04 108.04
Diofenolan 63837-33-2 C18H20O4 19.56, 19.77 186.07 131.05 225.09
Cyanofenphos 13067-93-1 C15H14NO2PS 19.60 141.01 169.04 185.02
Edifenphos 17109-49-8 C14H15O2PS2 19.60 172.98 186.05 310.02
Quinoxyfen 124495-18-7 C15H8NOFCl2 19.63 306.99 237.06 161.00
Endosulfan sulfate 1031-07-8 C9H6CL6O4S 19.69 271.81 236.84 269.81
Propiconazol 60207-90-1 C15H17Cl2N3O2 19.70, 19.91 172.95 259.03 261.03
Norflurazon 27314-13-2 C12H9N3OF3Cl 19.74 303.04 173.03 302.03
Fenhexamid 126833-17-8 C14H17Cl2NO2 19.79 176.97 178.97 301.06
p,p'-Dichlorodiphenyltrichloroethane 50-29-3 C14H9Cl5 19.84 235.00 199.03 165.07
Trifloxystrobin 141517-21-7 C20H19F3N2O4 19.92 116.05 190.05 186.05
Hexazinone 51235-04-2 C12H20N4O2 20.17 171.09 71.06 128.08
Tebuconazol 107534-96-3 C16H22ClN3O 20.26 250.07 125.02 163.03
Chloridazon 1698-60-8 C10H8ClN3O 20.26 220.03 221.04 222.02
Nuarimol 63284-71-9 C17H12N2OFCl 20.28 235.03 203.06 314.06
Diclofop-methyl 51338-27-3 C16H14Cl2O4 20.39 340.03 254.98 252.98
Triphenyl phosphate 115-86-6 C18H15O4P 20.49 325.06 169.06 233.04
Piperonyl butoxide 51-03-6 C19H30O5 20.62 176.08 161.06 177.09
Oxycarboxin 5259-88-1 C12H13NO4S 20.68 175.01 250.03 267.06
Resmethrin 10453-86-8 C22H26O3 20.70 143.09 128.06 171.08
Zoxamide 156052-68-5 C14H16NO2Cl3 20.83 186.97 258.04 242.01
Mefenpyr-diethyl 135590-91-9 C16H18Cl2N2O4 21.02 271.00 227.01 299.03
Benzoylprop-ethyl 22212-55-1 C18H17NO3Cl2 21.12 105.03 292.03 260.02
Spiromesifen 283594-90-1 C23H30O4 21.14 254.13 231.10 226.13
Endrin ketone 53494-70-5 C12H8OCl6 21.16 314.91 281.93 242.95
Fenamiphos sulfone 31972-44-8 C13H22NO5PS 21.27 292.04 320.07 214.06
Bromuconazole 116255-48-2 C13H12BrCl2N3O 21.31, 22.12 172.95 294.91 174.95
Fenpiclonil 74738-17-3 C11H6N2Cl2 21.32 235.99 201.02 237.99
Phosmet 732-11-6 C11H12NO4PS2 21.37 160.04 104.03 133.03
Bromopropylate 18181-80-1 C17H16O3Br2 21.48 184.94 182.94 338.90
Tetramethrin 7696-12-0 C19H25NO4 21.61 164.07 107.05 123.12
Picolinafen 137641-05-5 C19H12N2O2F4 21.61 238.05 145.03 376.08
Bifenthrin 82657-04-3 C23H22ClF3O2 21.64 181.10 165.07 182.10
Piperophos 24151-93-7 C14H28NO3PS2 21.68 122.10 140.11 320.14
4,4′-Methoxychlor 72-43-5 C16H15O2CL3 21.73 227.11 212.08 228.11
Bifenazate 149877-41-8 C17H20N2O3 21.73 300.15 258.10 196.08
Fenpropathrin 39515-41-8 C22H23NO3 21.83 181.06 209.08 265.07
Etoxazole 153233-91-1 C21H23F2NO2 21.91 300.12 187.11 330.13
Tebufenpyrad 119168-77-3 C18H24N3OCl 21.94 333.16 171.03 276.09
Fenamidone 161326-34-7 C17H17N3OS 21.95 268.09 206.07 238.11
Dicofol 115-32-2 C14H9CL5O 21.98 138.99 199.03 140.99
Metconazole 125116-23-6 C17H22N3OCl 21.99 125.02 145.06 250.11
Fenazaquin 120928-09-8 C20H22N2O 22.00 145.10 117.07 160.12
Tetradifon 116-29-0 C12H6O2SCl4 22.36 226.89 228.89 158.97
Furathiocarb 65907-30-4 C18H26N2O5S 22.54 163.08 194.04 325.13
Phosalone 2310-17-0 C12H15NO4PS2Cl 22.68 182.00 121.04 366.99
Pyriproxyfen 95737-68-1 C20H19NO3 22.88 136.08 226.10 137.08
Mirex 2385-85-5 C10Cl12 22.96 271.81 269.81 331.81
Mefenacet 73250-68-7 C16H14N2O2S 23.04 192.01 136.02 120.08
Cyhalothrin 68085-85-8 C23H19ClF3NO3 23.13, 23.49 141.05 197.03 161.06
Tralkoxydim 87820-88-0 C20H27NO3 23.17 137.04 227.13 283.16
Fenarimol 60168-88-9 C17H12N2OCl2 23.58 251.00 219.03 252.99
Trifenmorph 1420-06-0 C23H23NO 23.65 243.12 228.09 239.09
Azinphos-ethyl 2642-71-9 C12H16N3O3PS2 23.85 132.04 104.05 160.05
Pyrazophos 13457-18-6 C14H20N3O5PS 23.88 221.08 265.09 193.05
Acrinathrin 101007-06-1 C26H21F6NO5 23.90 181.06 208.08 289.07
Fluoroglycofen-ethyl 77501-90-7 C18H13NO7F3Cl 23.96 343.99 223.04 447.03
Fenoxaprop-ethyl 66441-23-4 C18H16NO5Cl 24.25 288.04 182.06 361.07
Bitertanol 55179-31-2 C20H23N3O2 24.59 170.07 168.11 171.08
Spirodiclofen 148477-71-8 C21H24Cl2O4 24.74 259.05 312.03 156.96
Permethrin 61949-76-6 C21H20CL2O3 24.78, 25.03 183.08 163.01 127.03
Pyridaben 96489-71-3 C19H25ClN2OS 24.96 147.12 117.07 309.08
Fluquinconazole 136426-54-5 C16H8N5OFCl2 25.13 340.04 298.02 286.02
Coumaphos 56-72-4 C14H16CLO5PS 25.16 362.01 210.01 225.98
Prochloraz 67747-09-5 C15H16N3O2Cl3 25.28 180.11 265.95 308.00
Butafenacil 134605-64-4 C20H18N2O6F3Cl 25.63 331.01 123.99 179.98
Prallethrin 23031-36-9 C19H24O3 25.83 123.12 81.07 105.07
Cyfluthrin 68359-37-5 C22H18NO3FCl2 25.94, 26.13, 26.26, 26.35 206.06 199.06 163.01
Cypermethrin 52315-07-8 C22H19Cl2NO3 26.51, 26.71, 26.83, 26.93 181.06 163.01 127.03
Boscalid 188425-85-6 C18H12Cl2N2O 26.53 342.03 111.99 139.99
Quizalofop-ethyl 76578-14-8 C19H17CLN2O4 26.75 372.09 243.03 163.01
Flucythrinate 70124-77-5 C26H23F2NO4 26.93, 27.30 157.05 199.09 225.08
Etofenprox 80844-07-1 C25H28O3 27.03 163.11 135.08 164.12
Pyridalyl 179101-81-6 C18H14NO3F3Cl4 27.18 204.06 148.04 176.03
Fenvalerate 51630-58-1 C25H22NO3Cl 28.21, 28.61 419.13 125.02 167.06
Flumioxazin 103361-09-7 C19H15FN2O4 28.25 354.10 259.05 326.11
Pyraclostrobin 175013-18-0 C19H18N3O4Cl 28.34 132.04 104.05 164.07
Tau-fluvalinate 102851-06-9 C26H22ClF3N2O3 28.62, 28.75 250.06 252.06 205.99
Difenoconazole 119446-68-3 C19H17N3O3Cl2 28.95, 29.07 323.02 266.98 264.98
Deltamethrin 52918-63-5 C22H19Br2NO3 29.21, 29.56 171.99 173.99 252.90
Azoxystrobin 131860-33-8 C22H17N3O5 30.02 344.10 372.10 388.09
Dimethomorph 110488-70-5 C21H22ClNO4 30.06 301.06 303.06 387.12

3. Results and Discussion

3.1. Optimization of Extraction Conditions

According to the list of pesticides involved in the 2020 edition of Chinese Pharmacopoeia, combined with pesticides, herbicides, and fungicides that may be used in chrysanthemum flower planting, 352 pesticides were selected as the target analytical compounds. Because it contains many pesticides, including organophosphorus, organochlorine, pyrethroids, triazoles, carbamates, and other insecticides, there are many kinds and polarity differences. At the same time, chrysanthemum flower contains pigments, amino acids, and volatile components, so it is particularly important to choose the appropriate extraction solvent. The QuEChERS method uses acetonitrile as the extraction solvent, which is due to the good solubility, permeability, and versatility of acetonitrile and high extraction efficiency for most pesticides. The results showed that the recovery rate of some pesticides with poor stability was low by adding ordinary salt, which was related to the pH value of the matrix; the recovery of 280 pesticides was between 70% and 120%; 38 pesticides were less than 70%; and 34 pesticides were more than 120%. Because carbamates are sensitive to pH value, they are more stable under acidic conditions and easily to decompose under alkaline conditions. Therefore, adding acetate buffer salt makes the sample extract weak acidic, thus improving the recovery rate of acid-base-sensitive pesticides. The recovery rate of all pesticides is between 70% and 125%.

Using the QuEChERS method, adding the appropriate amount of water is conducive to the full contact between organic solvent and sample, improves the extraction efficiency, and helps achieve better recovery. However, adding too much water will lead to the dissolution of water-soluble pigment and other soluble matrix components. The effects of 0, 10, and 15 ml of water on the recovery of the target were compared, and the extraction efficiency of 10 ml water was higher than that of the other two groups. There were only 34 pesticides with a recovery rate of more than 120% in the nonwater group. Therefore, in this method, 10 ml water was added.

Some organophosphorus pesticides (such as parathion and fenitrothion) are unstable in chemical properties and easy to decompose at high temperatures. Because there is anhydrous MgSO4 in the acetic acid buffer salt system, a lot of heat will be released in the process of water absorption. Therefore, after adding acetic acid buffer salt, we put the centrifuge tube of extracting sample into an ice water bath for 10 min to improve the recovery rate of pesticides with poor thermal stability.

3.2. Selection of Purification Conditions

It is important to select suitable purification adsorption materials for the efficient purification of complex substrates. The ideal purification adsorption material should achieve the purification effect required by the experiment and ensure that it does not adsorb the target analyte in the extraction solvent. In this experiment, the purification effects of QuEChERS purification and Sin-QuEChERS Nano column were compared (Figures 1 and 2). Mixed reference materials (10 μg·kg−1) were added to the chrysanthemum flower sample and then extracted. The extracts were purified by QuEChERS purification (simple matrix), QuEChERS purification (complex matrix), and Sin-QuEChERS Nano column. It can be seen from Figure 1 that the color of samples purified by QuEChERS purification (simple matrix) is dark, the color of samples purified by Sin-QuEChERS Nano column is lighter, and QuEChERS purification (complex matrix) is almost colorless. It can be seen from the total ions in Figure 2 that the samples purified by QuEChERS purification (simple matrix) have more impurities and greater interference, while the samples purified by the Sin-QuEChERS Nano column are less interfered with, and the peak of QuEChERS purification (complex matrix) is less after 25 min, which is due to the adsorption of the target substance with late peak, making it look cleaner. Meanwhile, the recovery rates of target compounds were 72.7–118.9% in QuEChERS purification (simple matrix), 72.8–123.4% with the Sin-QuEChERS Nano column, and 62.4–120.7% by QuEChERS purification (complex matrix). The results showed little difference in the recovery rate between QuEChERS purification (simple matrix) and Sin-QuEChERS Nano column, but the recovery rate of QuEChERS purification (complex matrix) was relatively low. Primary-secondary amine (PSA), which plays the main role in QuEChERS purification (simple matrix), is a weak anion exchange adsorbent. It can effectively remove polar pigments, organic acids, sugars, fatty acids, and other components that are easy to form hydrogen bonds in the sample, but its adsorption capacity is limited. In addition to PSA, QuEChERS purification (complex matrix) also contains graphitized carbon black (GCB). GCB can remove pigments from chrysanthemum flower, such as chlorophyll, radish-like hormone, and sterol, but the strong adsorption force will absorb the target of a benzene ring, which leads to a low recovery rate. In addition to PSA, 15 mg MWCNTs (particle size length: 10–50 μm, outer diameter: 30–60 nm, and specific surface area: 280 m2·g−1) was added to the Sin-QuEChERS Nano column. MWCNTs are nano hollow tubes with high mechanical strength, strong acid-base resistance, stronger adsorption, and purification capacity but do not affect the recovery rate of the target substance [2325]. This experiment shows that the combination of PSA and MWCNTs can effectively remove impurities in the sample, reduce the interference to the target substance, improve the recovery rate of the target substance, and protect the analytical instrument from pollution and damage. At the same time, the high-resolution mass spectrometer can detect low concentration pesticide residues in a complex matrix, so the Sin-QuEChERS Nano column was selected for purification.

Figure 1.

Figure 1

Purification effect maps of chrysanthemum flower samples cleaned up by different purification conditions. (a) QuEChERS purification (simple matrix), (b) QuEChERS purification (complex matrix), and (c) Sin-QuChERS Nano column.

Figure 2.

Figure 2

Total ion current chromatograms of the spiked (10 μg ·kg−1) chrysanthemum flower samples cleaned up by different purification conditions. (a) QuEChERS purification (simple matrix), (b) QuEChERS purification (complex matrix), and (c) Sin-QuChERS Nano column.

3.3. Optimization of Instrument Resolution

As a high-resolution mass spectrometer, Orbitrap mass spectrometer can fully scan acquisition and collect data in the range of m/z 50–550, ensuring the retrospective data analysis. Resolution is an important parameter in high-resolution mass spectrometry. In the presence of matrix interference, the resolution will affect the accuracy of quality measurement. Therefore, the key to qualitative analysis is to choose the appropriate resolution. High resolution can improve the accuracy of mass determination and can effectively identify compounds with very close accurate mass. In the experiment, the content of trifloxystrobin in chrysanthemum flower was 10 μg ·kg−1, which was determined at three different resolutions (15,000, 30,000, and 60,000). In Figure 3, the qualitative ion m/z 186.05251 is the qualitative ion of trifloxystrobin, and m/z 186.06752 is the interference ion. Only when the resolution is 60,000 or above, the two ions with the same mass can be clearly distinguished. At the same time, the accurate qualitative and quantitative analysis can be carried out, and the screening accuracy will be greatly improved; the quality accuracy is less than 2.0 ppm; and the high sensitivity can still be maintained, so it fully meets the requirements of pesticide residue detection in chrysanthemum flower. Also, the accurate mass number and deviation, retention time window, isotopic distribution, and isotopic abundance information were used simultaneously in this method to realize the rapid and accurate screening of target substances.

Figure 3.

Figure 3

Effect of different resolutions ((a) 15,000, (b) 30,000, and (c) 60,000) on the quality accuracy of the qualitative ion (m/z 186.05251) of trifloxystrobin in chrysanthemum flower.

3.4. Matrix Effect

Matrix effects (MEs) are very common in GC-MS/MS and should be assessed at the method validation stage. MEs were estimated via the ratio of the calibration curve slopes of matrix to solvent. Studies recommend that MEs can be ignored when the ME values are in the range of 0.9–1.1 [15]. If the ME cannot be ignored, using a matrix-matched standard is the most effective way to compensate for MEs.

The MEs in this study are listed in Table S1. The MEs of the Sin-QuEChERS Nano method were in the range of 1.01–1.86; the MEs of the QuEChERS (simple matrix) and QuEChERS (complex matrix) method ranged between 1.05 and 2.38 and between 1.08 and 2.89, respectively. As for the matrix suppression or enhancement effect, QuEChERS (simple matrix) was the strongest, while Sin-QuEChERS nano was the weakest. This indicated that the Sin-QuEChERS Nano method reduced the matrix effect more efficiently than QuEChERS (simple matrix) and QuEChERS (complex matrix).

3.5. Linear Range, Limit of Detection, Limit of Quantitation, and Recovery

The blank matrix standard solution is prepared according to the pretreatment method; the standard curve was drawn with the mass concentration of the compound as abscissa and the corresponding peak area as ordinate. The linear range of 352 compounds was 0.5–200 μg ·kg−1, and the correlation coefficient (R) was greater than 0.99. The LODs and LOQs of the method were investigated by adding blank samples. The LODs were three times the signal-to-noise ratio (S/N = 3), and the LOQs were 10 times the signal-to-noise ratio (S/N = 10). The mixed standard solutions of 352 compounds were added to the negative samples of chrysanthemum flower at the levels of 10, 50, and 100 μg·kg−1, respectively, and each level was repeated six times. The results showed that the detection limits of 352 pesticides were 0.3–3 μg·kg−1, and the quantification limits were 1–10.0 μg·kg−1, which met the requirements of pesticide residue detection [26]. The average recovery rates of 352 compounds at three levels were 73.2–110.3%, 72.8–112.6%, and 77.6–123.4%, respectively. The average RSDs of 352 compounds at three levels were 3.2–9.6%, 4.0–9.7%, and 4.0–11.3%, respectively. The results showed that the method could be used for the determination of pesticide residues in chrysanthemum flower. The correlation coefficients, limits of detection, limits of quantitation, spiked recovery rates, and relative standard deviations of 352 compounds in chrysanthemum flower are shown in Table S1.

3.6. Determination of Actual Samples

Two hundred samples were analyzed by the established method. Among them, 137 samples were detected with pesticide residues, and the chemical substances with a high detection rate were profenofos, procymidone, metalaxyl, chlorfenapyr, difenoconazole, dimethomorph, cypermethrin, tebuconazole, propiconazole, and pyrimethanil, among others (Table 2). Figure 4 is the mass spectrum of profenofos in the standard and chrysanthemum flower positive samples. The fragment ions (338.96369, 205.91286, and 207.91063) can be detected, and the ion ratio is highly matched. The results show that the method was also suitable for detecting 352 pesticide residues in chrysanthemum flowers, such as calendula and chamomile. The results showed that the nontarget rapid screening method established in this study could rapidly screen potential pesticide residues in chrysanthemum flower with high throughput.

Table 2.

Chemical substances with high detection rate detected in chrysanthemum samples.

Number Pesticides Number of detected samples Detection rate Value range (μg/kg)
1 Profenofos 50 31.5 0.12–40.8
2 Procymidone 18 14.5 0.10–177.9
3 Metalaxyl 36 24.5 0.29–108.9
4 Chlorfenapyr 48 26.0 0.25–35.7
5 Difenoconazole 39 19.5 0.27–40.5
6 Dimethomorph 33 16.5 0.18–280.4
7 Cypermethrin 42 21.0 6.2–199.6
8 Tebuconazol 29 14.5 0.45–76.8
9 Propiconazol 36 18.5 0.15–49.5
10 Pyrimethanil 44 22.0 1.2–110.4

Figure 4.

Figure 4

Mass spectrum of profenofos in the standard (a) and chrysanthemum flower positive samples (b).

3.7. Retrospective Analysis

GC-Orbitrap-MS often collects the full spectrum, which can collect data more comprehensively. The data collection has no relationship with the number of compounds in the database, so the data can be reviewed and reanalyzed to expand the target range. In the analysis of samples, we added the retention time, molecular formula, accurate relative molecular weight, and CAS number of new compounds pentachlorobenzonitrile, simazine, and simetone into 352 databases and verified them with actual samples. It was found that the linearity of these three compounds in each matrix was greater than 0.99, the average recovery rates were 72.8–123.4%, and the average RSD values were 3.2–11.3% at three levels (10, 50, and 100 μg·kg−1, respectively), which met the requirements of detection. Among 200 chrysanthemum flower samples, 5 chrysanthemum flower samples were detected with pentachlorobenzonitrile with a detection value range of 0.048–0.22 mg·kg−1; 3 chrysanthemum flower samples were detected with simetone, with a detection value range of 0.032–0.051 mg·kg−1; and no samples were detected with simazine. Retrospective analyses can expand and analyze target compounds without recollecting data, which is flexible and is convenient for high-throughput screening and quantitative analysis of pesticide residues. It is the development direction of chrysanthemum flower risk monitoring technology in the future.

4. Conclusion

The work presented a method that had been developed and validated for the simultaneous determination of 352 pesticide residues in chrysanthemum flower by GC-Orbitrap-MS, which was established based on the purification of the Sin-QuEChERS Nano column. The Sin-QuEChERS Nano column simplifies the pretreatment process and effectively improves the purification efficiency. After systematic validation for linearity, precision, accuracy, stability, and matrix effects, the developed method was successfully applied for qualitative confirmation and quantitative detection of 352 pesticide residues in 200 chrysanthemum flower samples bought from local pharmacies. No saturation phenomena were experienced in any case. The developed and validated method has proved to be robust and appropriate in sensitivity, mass accuracy, and quantification in full-scan mode and provide good results in the analysis of real samples. These good results show the advantages of full-scan analysis, which is applicable to other compounds that do not appear in selective and retrospective evaluation and easier range management than GC-MS/MS. This method has the advantages of simple pretreatment, high purification efficiency, high throughput, and accurate analysis. It can effectively reduce the amount of standard substances in the detection of multipesticide residues in chrysanthemum flowers, which provides technical support for rapid screening and analysis of potential pesticide residues in the chrysanthemum flower.

Acknowledgments

This work was supported by the Program of Traditional Chinese Medicine Scientific Research foundation in Hebei Administration of Traditional Chinese Medicine (2019091, Hebei, China), the Project of Basic Scientific Research of Provincial Universities (JYZ2020003), Excellent Young Teacher Fundamental Research (YQ2020009), and Doctoral Foundation (BSZ2018008) of Hebei University of Chinese Medicine.

Contributor Information

Yuanyuan Wang, Email: wangyy0830@iccas.ac.cn.

Qiang Li, Email: liqiang@nepp.com.cn.

Data Availability

The data used to support the findings of this study are available from the corresponding author upon request.

Conflicts of Interest

The authors declare that they have no potential conflicts of interest.

Authors' Contributions

Yuanyuan Wang and Zhijuan Meng contributed equally to this work.

Supplementary Materials

Supplementary Materials

Table S1 is included in the supplementary file.

References

  • 1.Lin L.-Z., Harnly J. M. Identification of the phenolic components of chrysanthemum flower (chrysanthemum morifolium ramat) Food Chemistry . 2010;120(1):319–326. doi: 10.1016/j.foodchem.2009.09.083. [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  • 2.Chu Q., Fu L., Guan Y., Ye J. Determination and differentiation of flos Chrysanthemum based on characteristic electrochemical profiles by capillary electrophoresis with electrochemical detection. Journal of Agricultural and Food Chemistry . 2004;52(26):7828–7833. doi: 10.1021/jf048933s. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 3.Wu Y., Wang X., Xue J., Fan E. Plant phenolics extraction from flos chrysanthemi: response surface methodology based optimization and the correlation between extracts and free radical Scavenging activity. Journal of Food Science . 2017;82(11):2726–2733. doi: 10.1111/1750-3841.13916. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 4.Wu J., Wei H., Xue J. Degradation of imidacloprid in chrysanthemi flos and soil. Bulletin of Environmental Contamination and Toxicology . 2012;88(5):776–780. doi: 10.1007/s00128-012-0547-5. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 5.Shamsipur M., Yazdanfar N., Ghambarian M. Combination of solid-phase extraction with dispersive liquid–liquid microextraction followed by GC–MS for determination of pesticide residues from water, milk, honey and fruit juice. Food Chemistry . 2016;204:289–297. doi: 10.1016/j.foodchem.2016.02.090. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 6.Abdulra’uf L. B., Tan G. H. Chemometric approach to the optimization of HS-SPME/GC-MS for the determination of multiclass pesticide residues in fruits and vegetables. Food Chemistry . 2015;177:267–273. doi: 10.1016/j.foodchem.2015.01.031. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 7.Zhu B., Xu X., Luo J., et al. Simultaneous determination of 131 pesticides in tea by on-line GPC-GC-MS/MS using graphitized multi-walled carbon nanotubes as dispersive solid phase extraction sorbent. Food Chemistry . 2019;276:202–208. doi: 10.1016/j.foodchem.2018.09.152. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 8.Golge O., Kabak B. Evaluation of QuEChERS sample preparation and liquid chromatography-triple-quadrupole mass spectrometry method for the determination of 109 pesticide residues in tomatoes. Food Chemistry . 2015;176:319–332. doi: 10.1016/j.foodchem.2014.12.083. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 9.He J., Zhang B., Zhang H., et al. Monitoring of 49 pesticides and 17 mycotoxins in wine by QuEChERS and UHPLC-MS/MS analysis. Journal of Food Science . 2019;84(9):2688–2697. doi: 10.1111/1750-3841.14695. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 10.Huang Y., Shi T., Luo X., et al. Determination of multi-pesticide residues in green tea with a modified QuEChERS protocol coupled to HPLC-MS/MS. Food Chemistry . 2019;275:255–264. doi: 10.1016/j.foodchem.2018.09.094. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 11.Garcia C. V., Gotah A. Application of QuEChERS for determining xenobiotics in foods of animal origin. Journal of Analytical Methods in Chemistry . 2017;2017:13. doi: 10.1155/2017/2603067.2603067 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 12.Mekonnen B., Siraj J., Negash S. Determination of pesticide residues in food premises using QuECHERS method in Bench-Sheko Zone, Southwest Ethiopia. BioMed Research International . 2021;2021:13. doi: 10.1155/2021/6612096.6612096 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 13.González-Curbelo M., Herrera-Herrera A. V., Hernández-Borges J., Rodríguez-Delgado M. Analysis of pesticides residues in environmental water samples using multiwalled carbon nanotubes dispersive solid-phase extraction. Journal of Separation Science . 2013;36(3):556–563. doi: 10.1002/jssc.201200782. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 14.Han Y., Zou N., Song L., et al. Simultaneous determination of 70 pesticide residues in leek, leaf lettuce and garland chrysanthemum using modified QuEChERS method with multi-walled carbon nanotubes as reversed-dispersive solid-phase extraction materials. Journal of Chromatography B . 2015;1005:56–64. doi: 10.1016/j.jchromb.2015.10.002. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 15.Zhao P., Wang L., Zhou L., Zhang F., Kang S., Pan C. Multi-walled carbon nanotubes as alternative reversed-dispersive solid phase extraction materials in pesticide multi-residue analysis with QuEChERS method. Journal of Chromatography A . 2012;1225:17–25. doi: 10.1016/j.chroma.2011.12.070. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 16.Lu X.-Y., Ouyang Y.-Q., Zeng W.-Y., et al. Effect of pretreatment on detection of 37 pesticide residues in chrysanthemum indicum. Journal of Analytical Methods in Chemistry . 2021;2021:12. doi: 10.1155/2021/8854025.8854025 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 17.Tan P., Xu L., Wei X.-C., et al. Rapid screening and quantitative analysis of 74 pesticide residues in Herb by retention index combined with GC-QQQ-MS/MS. Journal of Analytical Methods in Chemistry . 2021;2021:11. doi: 10.1155/2021/8816854.8816854 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 18.Zhou G.-W., Li Y.-M., Liu C.-N., Ren H.-M., Li H.-Y. Rapid simultaneous determination of 43 pesticide residues in schizonepeta tenuifolia by gas chromatography mass spectrometry. International Journal of Analytical Chemistry . 2021;2021:10. doi: 10.1155/2021/8934998.8934998 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 19.Chen J.-N., Lian Y.-J., Zhou Y.-R., et al. Determination of 107 pesticide residues in Wolfberry with acetate-buffered salt extraction and Sin-QuEChERS nano column purification coupled with ultra performance liquid chromatography tandem mass spectrometry. Molecules . 2019;24(16) doi: 10.3390/molecules24162918. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 20.Li Y., An Q., Zhang C., Pan C., Zhang Z. Comparison of Sin-QuEChERS nano and d-SPE methods for pesticide multi-residues in lettuce and Chinese chives. Molecules . 2020;25(15) doi: 10.3390/molecules25153391. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 21.Meng Z., Li Q., Cong J., et al. Rapid screening of 350 pesticide residues in vegetable and fruit juices by multi-plug filtration cleanup method combined with gas chromatography-electrostatic field orbitrap high resolution mass spectrometry. Foods . 2021;10(7) doi: 10.3390/foods10071651. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 22.Tienstra M., Mol H. G. J. Application of gas chromatography coupled to quadrupole-orbitrap mass spectrometry for pesticide residue analysis in cereals and feed ingredients. Journal of AOAC International . 2018;101(2):342–351. doi: 10.5740/jaoacint.17-0408. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 23.Moreno-González D., Alcántara-Durán J., Addona S. M., Beneito-Cambra M. Multi-residue pesticide analysis in virgin olive oil by nanoflow liquid chromatography high resolution mass spectrometry. Journal of Chromatography A . 2018;1562:27–35. doi: 10.1016/j.chroma.2018.05.053. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 24.Saito-Shida S., Hamasaka T., Nemoto S., Akiyama H. Multiresidue determination of pesticides in tea by liquid chromatography-high-resolution mass spectrometry: comparison between orbitrap and time-of-flight mass analyzers. Food Chemistry . 2018;256:140–148. doi: 10.1016/j.foodchem.2018.02.123. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 25.Wang Z., Cao Y., Ge N., et al. Wide-scope screening of pesticides in fruits and vegetables using information-dependent acquisition employing UHPLC-QTOF-MS and automated MS/MS library searching. Analytical and Bioanalytical Chemistry . 2016;408(27):7795–7810. doi: 10.1007/s00216-016-9883-3. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 26.Cheng Z., Zhang X., Geng X., et al. A target screening method for detection of organic pollutants in fruits and vegetables by atmospheric pressure gas chromatography quadrupole-time-of-flight mass spectrometry combined with informatics platform. Journal of Chromatography A . 2018;1577:82–91. doi: 10.1016/j.chroma.2018.09.043. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]

Associated Data

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

Supplementary Materials

Supplementary Materials

Table S1 is included in the supplementary file.

Data Availability Statement

The data used to support the findings of this study are available from the corresponding author upon request.


Articles from Journal of Analytical Methods in Chemistry are provided here courtesy of Wiley

RESOURCES