Author/Authors :
Pang، نويسنده , , Gou-Fang and Can، نويسنده , , Yan-Zhong and Fan، نويسنده , , Chun-Lin and Zhang، نويسنده , , Jin-Jie and Li، نويسنده , , Xue-Min and Mu، نويسنده , , Jun and Wang، نويسنده , , Daning and Liu، نويسنده , , Sheng-Mei and Song، نويسنده , , Wen-Bin and Li، نويسنده , , Hong-Ping and Wong، نويسنده , , Sue-Sun and Kubinec، نويسنده , , Robert and Tekel، نويسنده , , Jozef and Tahotna، نويسنده , , Sona، نويسنده ,
Abstract :
This paper deals with the different GC–MS analytical conditions adopted by four laboratories in an attempt to confirm the accuracy of the GC–electron-capture detection (ECD) analytical results during the international collaborative study for the establishment of the AOAC Official Method 998. 01. What is especially noted is that two laboratories have conducted comparative analysis of the respective 12 blind samples with both methods of GC–ECD and GC–MS, and the analytical results of the two methods turn out to be basically identical. This fully demonstrates that GC–MS is not only an effective confirmation tool in the analysis of the pyrethroid residues but also of sufficient sensitivity regarding the maximum residue limit of determination prescribed by FAO/WHO. Moreover, its selectivity is better than GC–ECD.
