Figures index

From

Development and Validation of Multi-Residue Analysis of 82 Pesticides in Grapes and Pomegranate as per the Requirements of the European Union (EU) and Codex Alimentarius Using GC-MS/MS with Compound Based Screening

Gouri Satpathy, Yogesh Kumar Tyagi, Rajinder Kumar Gupta

American Journal of Food Science and Technology. 2014, 2(2), 53-61 doi:10.12691/ajfst-2-2-2
  • Figure 1. Comparison of recovery (%) obtained from different solvent extract of grapes
  • Figure 2. Comparison of recovery (%) obtained from different weight of dSE of grapes ((A)100 mg of each PSA and GCB(B) 50 mg of each PSA and GCB,(C) 40 mg of each PSA and GCB (D) 30 mg of each PSA and GCB (E) 40 mg PSA and 20 mg GCB (F) 40 mg PSA and 10 mg GCB
  • Figure 3. Peak of trifluralin and d-BHC at 0.001 mg kg-1 with RT (min), area and signal/noise ratio (both in counts per second)
  • Figure 4. The RT-windows (segments) of spiked grapes (82 pesticides in 109 segments)
  • Figure 5. The CBS window for GC-MS/MS-MRM optimization (retention time, scan time, qualifier and quantifier ions and collision energy)
  • Figure 6. Spiked grapes sample with 28 pesticides at 0.005 mgkg-1 level
  • Figure 7. Calibration curve (0.005 to 0.1 mg kg-1) of edifenphos (grapes) and alachlor (pomegranates) by GC-MS/MS
  • Figure 8. Precision of different group of pesticides in grapes (n = 5); α-HCH, edifenphos, bifenthrin, permethrine I, penconazole, ethion, α-endosulfan and feniramol