View More View Less
  • 1 Ss. Cyril and Methodius University, Blvd. Aleksandar Makedonski nn, 1000 Skopje, Republic of Macedonia
Open access

This study presents the development and validation of a new reversed-phase high-performance liquid chromatography (RP-HPLC) method for simultaneous determination of captan, folpet, and metalaxyl residues in table grape samples with ultraviolet–diode array detection (UV–DAD). Successful separation and quantitative determination of analytes was carried out on LiChrospher 60 RP-select B (250 × 4 mm, 5 μm) analytical column. Mixture of acetonitrile–0.1% formic acid in water (65:35, v/v) was used as a mobile phase, with flow rate of 1 mL/min, constant column temperature at 25 °C, and UV detection at 220 nm. The target residues were extracted with acetone by ultrasonication, followed by a cleanup using liquid–liquid extraction (LLE) and solid-phase extraction (SPE). The obtained values for multiple correlation coefficients (R2 > 0.90), relative standard deviation (RSD) of retention times, peak areas and heights (RSD ≤ 2.25%), and recoveries ranging from 90.55% to 105.40%, with RSD of 0.02% to 5.37%, revealed that the developed method has a good linearity, precision, and accuracy for all analytes. Hence, it is suitable for routine determination of investigated fungicides in table grape samples.

Abstract

This study presents the development and validation of a new reversed-phase high-performance liquid chromatography (RP-HPLC) method for simultaneous determination of captan, folpet, and metalaxyl residues in table grape samples with ultraviolet–diode array detection (UV–DAD). Successful separation and quantitative determination of analytes was carried out on LiChrospher 60 RP-select B (250 × 4 mm, 5 μm) analytical column. Mixture of acetonitrile–0.1% formic acid in water (65:35, v/v) was used as a mobile phase, with flow rate of 1 mL/min, constant column temperature at 25 °C, and UV detection at 220 nm. The target residues were extracted with acetone by ultrasonication, followed by a cleanup using liquid–liquid extraction (LLE) and solid-phase extraction (SPE). The obtained values for multiple correlation coefficients (R2 > 0.90), relative standard deviation (RSD) of retention times, peak areas and heights (RSD ≤ 2.25%), and recoveries ranging from 90.55% to 105.40%, with RSD of 0.02% to 5.37%, revealed that the developed method has a good linearity, precision, and accuracy for all analytes. Hence, it is suitable for routine determination of investigated fungicides in table grape samples.

Introduction

Viticulture is one of the leading agricultural sectors and has great economic importance for the Republic of Macedonia. Due to the favorable climate, the grapes are characterized by remarkable quality and significant export potential. In Republic of Macedonia, there is a tradition of many years of successful vines cultivation, especially the table grape sorts. The assortment of table grapes includes several classes from very early to very late varieties of table grapes. Besides many other conditions, protecting the vines from diseases is more than necessary to increase the quality grapes production. Due to these reasons, the use of fungicides is inevitable. On the other hand, because fungicides are a potential risk to human health, monitoring of pesticide residues in food especially fruits and vegetables is required.

Table grape was а part of the monitoring for pesticide residues in primary agricultural products of plant origin in Republic of Macedonia for 2013 year. Among the most commonly used fungicides to protect the vines from diseases are captan, folpet, and metalaxyl, and therefore, these fungicides have been covered by the monitoring program.

To ensure the food safety and consumers' health protection, in most countries, maximum residue levels (MRLs) of pesticides in foodstuff have been established. The MRLs of pesticides contained in table grape were set up by the European Union (EU) Regulation (European Commission [EC]) No. 396/2005 [1], and they were estimated at 0.02 mg/kg for captan and folpet, and 2 mg/kg for metalaxyl. In order to monitor food safety, it is highly necessary to develop and employ reliable methods for determination of pesticide residues.

Numerous analytical methods for determining captan, folpet, and metalaxyl residues (in combination with other pesticides) in grape and other fruit and vegetable samples have been published, among which the most widely used chromatographic techniques were gas and liquid chromatography equipped with different detectors [28]. High-performance liquid chromatography (HPLC) coupled with ultraviolet (UV) detector or diode array detector (DAD) [9] was, also, used for the determination of examined pesticides. Pretreatment of samples involves several extraction and purification steps utilizing the following procedures: liquid–liquid extraction (LLE) [9], solid-phase extraction (SPE) [10, 11], matrix solid-phase dispersion (MSPD) [12], micro liquid–liquid extraction (MLLE) [13], dispersive liquid–liquid microextraction (DLLME) [14], and, recently used, a quick, easy, cheap, effective, rugged, and safe (QuEChERS) method [15, 16].

However, the HPLC method for simultaneous determination of captan, folpet, and metalaxyl residues in grape using UV–DAD was not found. Hence, the objective of this paper was to develop method for the simultaneous determination of captan, folpet, and metalaxyl residues in table grape samples using rapid resolution liquid chromatography (RRLC) system coupled with UV–DAD.

Experimental

Equipment and Materials

The chromatographic analysis was performed on an Agilent 1260 Infinity RRLC system equipped with: vacuum degasser (G1322A), binary pump (G1312B), autosampler (G1329B), a thermostatted column compartment (G1316A), UV-VIS diode array detector (G1316B), and ChemStation software. For the better dissolving of the stock solutions and sample preparation, an ultrasonic bath “Elma” was used. The experiments were carried out using LiChrospher 60 RP-select B (125 mm × 4 mm, 5 μm) and LiChrospher 60 RP-select B (250 mm × 4 mm, 5 μm) analytical columns produced by Merck (Germany). Evaporation of samples was enabled with vacuum rotary evaporator Büchi (Switzerland). For the SPE, a vacuum manifold Visiprep (Supelco, Sigma-Aldrich) was employed, and for vortexing of samples, IKA Vortex Genius 3 (Germany) was used.

The Pestanal analytical standards of captan (99.5% purity), folpet (99.7% purity), and metalaxyl (99.8% purity), as well as HPLC-grade acetonitrile, acetone, ethyl acetate, and water were manufactured by Sigma-Aldrich (Germany). Formic acid (98%–100% purity) and sodium sulfate decahydrate (99% purity) were produced by Merck (Germany).

Preparation of Standard Solutions

Stock solutions of captan, folpet, and metalaxyl were prepared by dissolving 0.0100 g, 0.0242 g, and 0.0080 g of the pure analytical standards with acetonitrile in a 25 mL volumetric flask. The solutions were degassed for 15 min in an ultrasonic bath and stored in a refrigerator at 4 °C. Stock solutions were used for fortification of table grape samples and for preparation of standard mixture with the following pesticide concentrations: 2 mg/kg for metalaxyl and 0.02 mg/kg for captan and folpet, in 10 mL volumetric flask by dilution with the mixture of acetonitrile–0.1% formic acid in water (65:35, v/v).

Extraction procedure

Ten different varieties (5 white, 4 red, and 1 pink) of table grape samples were taken from three vine-growing regions in Republic of Macedonia. Blank samples were prepared from table grape that was not treated with tested pesticides. For determination of linearity, precision, and recovery, spiking samples were prepared by fortifying 100 g homogenized table grape sample with three sets of concentrations: 0.014 mg/kg, 0.02 mg/kg, and 0.024 mg/kg (for captan and folpet), and 1.4 mg/kg, 2 mg/kg, and 2.4 mg/kg (for metalaxyl). Unspiked samples were used for blanks. For each concentration level, five samples (n = 5) were prepared.

For determination of a limit of quantification (LOQ), a 100 g homogenized table grape sample was spiked with 0.01 mg/kg of captan and folpet and with 1 mg/kg metalaxyl.

One hundered grams of homogenized sample was measured into a conical flask with stopper, and 150 mL acetone was added. The mixture was ultrasonicated for 60 min. After extraction, the mixture was filtered through a Büchner funnel using double filter paper under vacuum. Approximately 20 mL of acetone was used to wash the flask and filter residues. The extract was transferred into round-bottomed flask and concentrated using a rotary evaporator under vacuum to obtain about 5 mL of extract. After that, the extract was decanted into a separating funnel, 100 mL distilled water and 20 g NaCl were added, and extracted twice with 40 mL ethyl acetate. The extracts were dried over sodium sulfate and evaporated to dryness in a rotary evaporator.

The obtained residue was dissolved with 10 mL mixture of water and methanol (90:10, v/v) and filtered through a Büchner funnel using double filter paper under vacuum followed by SPE. The SPE procedure was carried out using Supelclean ENVI-18 tubes (6 mL, 0.5 g, produced by Supelco, Sigma-Aldrich, Germany). The conditioning of SPE cartridges was performed with 3 mL of methanol, followed by 3 mL of water at a flow rate of 2 mL/min. After that, 9 mL of the sample extract was passed through the cartridges and then washed the tubes with 3 mL of water. Subsequently, the cartridges were dried for 10 min under a vacuum. The retained pesticides were eluted with 3 mL of methanol–ethyl acetate (75:25, v/v). The eluates were evaporated to dryness under the gentle stream of nitrogen. The residues were redissolved with 1 mL of methanol by vortexing for 1 min, then filtered through 0.45 μm Iso-Disc PTFE syringe filters, and transferred into vials for HPLC analysis. The injection volume of each sample was 30 μL.

Matrix effect evaluation

The quantitative measurement of matrix effect (ME) was done by comparing the peak areas from standard solutions (n = 3) of the examined pesticides in solvent (acetonitrile–0.1% formic acid in water [65:35, v/v]) with the peak areas obtained from standard solutions of the same pesticides prepared in blank table grape extract, at the following concentrations: 0.02 mg/kg for captan and folpet and 2 mg/kg for metalaxyl. The ME was calculated using the following equation [17]:
ME%=X2X1/X1100
where X1 is the average area of the pesticide standard in solvent (acetonitrile–0.1% formic acid in water [65:35, v/v]), at a specific concentration, and X2, the average area of the pesticide standard in blank table grape extract, at the same concentration.

By using this formula, it was possible to calculate the positive or negative matrix effect, which is an increase or decrease of the detector response.

Results and Discussion

Captan (N-(trichloromethylthio)cyclohex-4-ene-1,2-dicarboximide, IUPAC) and folpet (N-(trichloromethylthio)phthalimide, IUPAC) belong to N-trihalomethhylthio pesticides, and metalaxyl (methyl N-(2-methoxyacetyl)-N-(2,6-xylyl)-dl-alaninate, IUPAC) is acylalanine (Figure 1) [18].

Figure 1.
Figure 1.

Chemical structures of captan (a), folpet (b), and metalaxyl (c)

Citation: Acta Chromatographica Acta Chromatographica 30, 4; 10.1556/1326.2017.00330

Chromatography Study

In preliminary experiments, two reversed-phase analytical columns with same stationary phases and different length, such as LiChrospher 60 RP-select B (125 mm × 4 mm, 5 μm) and LiChrospher 60 RP-select B (250 mm × 4 mm, 5 μm), were employed. The LiChrospher 60 RP-Select B was chosen because it offers excellent separation properties for basic compounds, but also is suitable for determination of neutral and acidic substances. This sorbent prevents secondary interactions with basic substances, ensures that they are eluted as highly symmetrical peaks, delivers highly reproducible results, and secures the reliability of HPLC method [19]. Also, different mixtures of acetonitrile–water (80%–40% acetonitrile) and acetonitrile–0.1% formic acid in water (80%–40% acetonitrile) as mobile phases in isocratic elution mode were tested.

The investigations show that the better results were given on the longer column LiChrospher 60 RP-select B (250 mm × 4 mm, 5 μm), probably due to its higher efficiency as a result of the higher number of theoretical plates.

The UV spectra (Figure 2) of examined pesticides show that they have absorption maxima around 220 nm. Hence, the chromatographic analysis for their simultaneous determination was carried out at 220 nm.

Figure 2.
Figure 2.

The overlaid UV spectra obtained by comparing the absorption spectra of a pure analytical standard of investigated pesticide and absorption spectra of the same analyte in the grape table sample for captan (a), folpet (b), and metalaxyl (c)

Citation: Acta Chromatographica Acta Chromatographica 30, 4; 10.1556/1326.2017.00330

The best separation of the analytes with symmetrical peak shapes and satisfy purity indexes was achieved under isocratic elution with mobile phase consisted of acetonitrile–0.1% formic acid in water (65:35, v/v) (Figure 3а), flow rate of 1 mL/min, constant column temperature at 25 °C, and UV detection at 220 nm.

Figure 3.
Figure 3.

Chromatograms from standard mixture of metalaxyl (I), captan (II), and folpet (III) at the concentrations that correspond to MRLs (a), unspiked table grape sample (b), and sample of table grape fortified at the concentration equal to MRL for each analyte (c) obtained with the developed method

Citation: Acta Chromatographica Acta Chromatographica 30, 4; 10.1556/1326.2017.00330

The obtained values for column dead time, retention times of components (tR), the calculated values for retention factors (k′), separation factors (α), and resolution (Rs) are given in Table 1. As can be seen from this table, computed values for retention factors (k′) were below 20, which is the highest optimal value for this parameter; for separation factors (α), above 1.2; and for resolution (Rs), above 7, which implies that, under the stipulated chromatographic conditions, high separation of the investigated pesticides was reached [20].

Table 1.

Data for retention times (tR), retention factors (k′), separation factors (α), and resolution (Rs) for the investigated pesticides

CompoundtR (min)kαRs
Dead time0.74
Metalaxyl3.533.771.287.02
Captan4.304.811.277.61
Folpet5.276.12

For quite some time, ultrasonication was the applied procedure for the extraction of many substances, among which are the pesticides [21]. Тhe most commonly used solvent for extraction of pesticide residues was acetone, due to several advantages including high volatility and effectiveness and low toxicity and cost. Also, аcetone is completely miscible with water, thus allowing a good penetration in the aqueous part of the sample [22]. Therefore, the target residues firstly were extracted with acetone by ultrasonication, followed by a cleanup using LLE and SPE before the analysis.

Method validation

Specificity, selectivity, linearity, matrix effect, precision expressed as repeatability of retention time, peak area and peak height, and recovery were examined to assess the validity of the developed method in accordance with EU regulations and EU documents [23, 24].

Specificity and selectivity

To confirm the specificity of the developed method, UV–DAD was used to check the peak purity and analyte peak identity. The purity index for all analytes was greater than 999 (the maximum value for the peak purity index [PPI] should be 1000), which means that the chromatographic peak was not affected by any other compound. In addition, identification of the analytes was done using the values for the retention time and match factor obtained by overlaid spectra of a pure analytical standard (from spectra library) and absorption spectra of the same analyte in the grape samples. The obtained values for match factors (997.857 for captan, 999.923 for folpet, and 999.983 for metalaxyl) confirmed the identity of the analytes. Additionally, on the recommendation of EU [24], to prove selectivity of the method, on Figure 3 are presented chromatograms of standards at the concentrations that correspond to MRLs (a), matrix blank (unspiked grape sample) (b), and sample of table grape fortified at the concentration equal to MRL for each analyte (c).

Linearity

The linearity of the developed method was determined for all compounds separately, with triplicate injections (30 μL) of the spiked standards in the table grape sample matrix in the range from 30% less than MRLs to 20% above (Table 2). The obtained results for multiple correlation coefficients (R2 ≥ 0.90) suggested that the method has a satisfactory linearity for all analytes (Table 2).

Table 2.

Statistical data for linearity of the method

CompoundLinearity range (mg/kg)Regression equationR2
Metalaxyl1.40–2.40ay = 1669.2x + 456.62 by = 206.48x + 163.580.9572 0.9076
Captan0.014–0.024ay = 93519x − 830.49 by = 8998,9x − 48,5030.9032 0.8896
Folpet0.014–0.024ay = 11199x − 108.44 by = 1048.4x − 10.1160.9925 0.9829

Area.

Height.

Matrix effect

The quantitative determination of matrix effect was done using the Eq. (1). Matrix effect represents the noticed effect of an increase (enhancement) or decrease in detector response (a positive or negative matrix effect, respectively) of a pesticide present in a matrix extract compared with the same pesticide present in just solvent [17]. The calculated matrix effect for investigated pesticides exceeded 39% (Table 3) and indicated a significant matrix effect. Captan and metalaxyl showed a significant negative matrix effect, while significant positive matrix effect was noticed for folpet. When matrix effects are significant (i.e., >20%), calibration should be generated using standards prepared in blank matrix extracts (matrix matched standards) [23, 24]. For these reasons, the calibration was conducted this way.

Table 3.

Average matrix effect (%) for investigated pesticides (n = 3)

CompoundConcentration (mg/kg)X1 ± SDX2 ± SDMatrix effect (%)
Metalaxyl23591.21 ± 67.721205.29 ± 24.82−66.4
Captan0.02853.49 ± 5.90512.84 ± 10.15−39.9
Folpet0.02109.87 ± 0.03164.85 ± 8.3050.0

X1 = average peak area of the pesticide standard solution in solvent; X2 = average peak area of the pesticide standard solution in table grape extract.

Limit of quantification

The LOQ for each compound was determined by spiking a table grape sample with 0.01 mg/kg of captan and folpet and with 1 mg/kg metalaxyl, the concentrations of which correspond to 50% of MRL for each compound.

The signal-to-noise ratio (S/N) at the concentration level corresponding to 50% of MRL for each compound (0.01 mg/kg for captan and folpet and 1 mg/kg for metalaxyl) was found to be ≥10 for all examined pesticides. Therefore, the LOQ was estimated to be ≤0.01 mg/kg for captan and folpet and ≤1 mg/kg for metalaxyl in this study. These results are acceptable for determining the pesticide residues, according to the EU rules [24].

Precision

The precision was expressed as repeatability of obtained results from eight successive injections (30 μL) of the spiked table grape samples at MRLs for each of the analytes (Table 4). The computed values of RSD for retention time, peak area, and peak height indicated an excellent precision of the proposed method.

Table 4.

Statistical data for intra-day precision of retention time, peak area, and peak height (n = 8)

Compoundx¯SDRSD (%)
MetalaxylRetention time (min)3.530.0020.06
Peak area3481.8747.371.36
Peak height524.558.221.57
CaptanRetention time (min)4.30.0040.09
Peak area843.237.860.93
Peak height111.380.640.57
FolpetRetention time (min)5.270.0070.13
Peak area108.062.322.15
Peak height9.860.222.25

Accuracy

The accuracy of the method was determined by recovery studies in table grape samples (pesticides free) spiked with the investigated pesticides at three concentation levels (Table 5). The obtained values for recovery and for relative standard deviation were within the following ranges: 90.55%–105.40% and 0.02%–5.37%, respectively. The mean recovery at each fortification level in the range of 70%–120% and relative standard deviation (RSD) ≤20% per level are acceptable according to EU criteria [24]. Consequently, it can be concluded that the proposed method is convenient to determination of the target pesticide residues in table grape.

Table 5.

Results from recovery experiments (n = 5)

CompoundFortification level (mg/kg)Total analyte found (mg/kg ± SD)Recovery (%)RSD (%)
Captan0.0140.0148 ± 0.00068105.404.63
0.020.0181 ± 0.0001590.550.85
0.0240.0251 ± 0.00049104.731.93
Folpet0.0140.0142 ± 0.00012101.430.83
0.020.0195 ± 0.00000597.480.02
0.0240.0243 ± 0.00118101.254.87
Metalaxyl1.401.4489 ± 0.0273103.491.89
21.8779 ± 0.04093.902.16
2.402.4733 ± 0.1328103.055.37

The investigations show that only folpet residues were present in table grape samples. Residues of folpet were found in all samples of red grapes, but they were also in some white grape samples. As can be seen from Table 6, in four samples, including rose grape samples, measurable quantities of the target fungicide residues were not detected. The determined concentration of folpet was below the MRL in three samples, close below MRL in one sample, and, in two samples, was equal to MRL.

Table 6.

The determined concentration of pesticide residues in table grape samples

Sample (n = 3)Type of grapeDetected pesticideDetermined concentration (mg/kg ± SD)RSD (%)
1Whitend
2RedFolpet0.0108 ± 0.00032.79
3WhiteFolpet0.0123 ± 0.0000580.47
4Rosend
5Whitend
6RedFolpet0.0118 ± 0.000151.27
7RedFolpet0.0188 ± 0.0000730.39
8RedFolpet0.0215 ± 0.00083.72
9RedFolpet0.0196 ± 0.000381.94
10Whitend

nd = not detected.

Conclusions

A new, precise, accurate, and reliable method for simultaneous determination of metalaxyl, captan, and folpet residues in table grape samples using RP-HPLC and UV–DAD has been developed and validated. Successful separation and quantification were achieved using isocratic elution with mobile phase consisted of acetonitrile–0.1% formic acid in water (65:35, v/v), flow rate of 1 mL/min, constant column temperature at 25 °C, and UV detection at 220 nm. The run time of analysis under the stipulated chromatographic conditions was about 6 min. The results from the method validation revealed that the proposed method has a satisfactory linearity (R2 > 0.90) and excellent precision of retention times, peak areas, and heights (RSD ≤ 2.25%). The obtained values for recoveries ranging from 90.55% to 105.40%, with RSD of 0.02%–5.37%, revealed that the proposed method is convenient for routine determination of investigated fungicides in table grape samples.

This method was successfully applied to determine the captan, folpet, and metalaxyl residues in table grape samples from ten different varieties (5 white, 4 red, and 1 pink) taken from three vine-growing regions in Republic of Macedonia. The obtained results show that folpet was frequently detected fungicide in the analyzed table grape samples, and found concentrations were less or equal to MRL according to Regulation (EC) No. 396/2005.

References

  • 1.

    Regulation (EC) No. 396/2005 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 23 February 2005 on maximum residue levels of pesticides in or on food and feed of plant and animal origin and amending Council Directive 91/414/EECText with EEA relevance, 2005.

  • 2.

    Zhou X. ; Zang X. H.; Wang D. Y.; Cui P. L.; Wang Z. Chin. J. Anal. Chem. 2009, 37, 41.

  • 3.

    Česnik H. B. ; Gregorčič A.; Bolta Š. V. Journal of Central European Agriculture 2009, 10, 311.

  • 4.

    Alves A. A. R. ; Rodrigues A. S.; Barros E. B. P.; Uekane T. M.; Bizzo H. R.; Rezende C. M. Food Anal. Methods 2014, 7, 1834.

  • 5.

    Cunha S. C. ; Fernandes J. O.; Alves A.; Oliveira M. B. P. P. J. Chromatogr. A 2009, 1216, 119.

  • 6.

    Afify A. E. M. M. R. ; Mohamed M. A.; El-Gammal H. A.; Attallah E. R. J. Food Agric. Environ. 2010, 8, 602.

  • 7.

    Banerjee K. ; Oulkar D. P.; Dasgupta S.; Patil S. B.; Patil S. H.; Savant R.; Adsule P. G. J. Chromatogr. A 2007, 1173, 98.

  • 8.

    Zanella R. ; Munaretto J. S.; Martins M. L. Determination of pesticide multiresidues in apple, pear, and grape using modified QuEChERS and analysis by LC-QTOF MS Agilent Technologies, Inc., 2013, 1.

    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • 9.

    Otero R. R. ; Grande B. C.; Gandara J. S. J. Chromatogr. A 2003, 992, 121.

  • 10.

    Velkoska-Markovska L. ; Petanovska-Ilievska B. Maced. J. Chem. Chem. Eng. 2013, 32, 299.

  • 11.

    Latif A. ; Sherazi S. T. H.; Bhanger M. I. Pak. J. Anal. Environ. Chem. 2011, 12, 76.

  • 12.

    Lian Y. J. ;Pang G. F. ; Shu H. R.; Fan C. L.; Liu Y. M.; Feng J.; Wu Y. P.; Chang Q. Y. J. Agric. Food Chem. 2010, 58, 9428.

  • 13.

    Wang J. F. ; Luan L.; Wang Z. Q.; Jiang S. R.; Pan C. P. Chin. J. Anal. Chem. 2007, 35, 1430.

  • 14.

    Zang X. ; Wang J.; Wang O.; Wang M.; Ma J.; Xi G.; Wang Z. Anal. Bioanal. Chem. 2008, 392, 749.

  • 15.

    Nieto-García A. J. ; Romero-González R.; Garrido Frenich A. Food Addit. Contam. 2014, 31, 1550.

  • 16.

    Satpathy G. ; Tyagi Y. K.; Gupta R. K. Am. J. Food Sci. Technol. 2014, 2, 53.

  • 17.

    Pizzutti I. R. ; de Kok A.; Hiemstra M.; Wickert C.; Prestes O. D. J. Chromatogr. A 2009, 1216, 4539.

  • 18.

    Tomlin C. The Pesticide Manual Incorporating the Agrochemicals Handbook 11th Ed., British Crop Protection Council, Royal Society of Chemistry Cambridge, 1997, pp. 145–146, 518–519, 660–661.

    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • 19.

    ChromBook, Your Guide to a Fascinating World of Chromatography Merck KGaA, Darmstadt, Germany, 2011, pp. 240243.

  • 20.

    Dong M. W. Modern HPLC for Practicing Scientists John Wiley & Sons, Inc., Hoboken, New Jersey, 2006, p. 1746.

  • 21.

    Hollosi L. ; Mittendorf K. Determination of Pesticides in Grapes, Baby Food and Wheat Flour by Automated Online Sample Preparation LC-MS/MS Thermo Fisher Scientific Inc., 2012, 1.

    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • 22.

    Fernandes V. C. ; Domingues V. F.; Mateus N.; Delerue-Matos C. J. Chromatogr. Sci. 2011, 49, 715.

  • 23.

    Document N° SANCO/12495/2011, Method validation and quality control procedures for pesticide residues analysis in food and feed, 2011.

  • 24.

    European Commission , Directorate General Health and Consumer Protection, Guidance document on pesticide residue analytical methods SANCO/825/00 rev. 8.1 2010.

    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • 1.

    Regulation (EC) No. 396/2005 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 23 February 2005 on maximum residue levels of pesticides in or on food and feed of plant and animal origin and amending Council Directive 91/414/EECText with EEA relevance, 2005.

  • 2.

    Zhou X. ; Zang X. H.; Wang D. Y.; Cui P. L.; Wang Z. Chin. J. Anal. Chem. 2009, 37, 41.

  • 3.

    Česnik H. B. ; Gregorčič A.; Bolta Š. V. Journal of Central European Agriculture 2009, 10, 311.

  • 4.

    Alves A. A. R. ; Rodrigues A. S.; Barros E. B. P.; Uekane T. M.; Bizzo H. R.; Rezende C. M. Food Anal. Methods 2014, 7, 1834.

  • 5.

    Cunha S. C. ; Fernandes J. O.; Alves A.; Oliveira M. B. P. P. J. Chromatogr. A 2009, 1216, 119.

  • 6.

    Afify A. E. M. M. R. ; Mohamed M. A.; El-Gammal H. A.; Attallah E. R. J. Food Agric. Environ. 2010, 8, 602.

  • 7.

    Banerjee K. ; Oulkar D. P.; Dasgupta S.; Patil S. B.; Patil S. H.; Savant R.; Adsule P. G. J. Chromatogr. A 2007, 1173, 98.

  • 8.

    Zanella R. ; Munaretto J. S.; Martins M. L. Determination of pesticide multiresidues in apple, pear, and grape using modified QuEChERS and analysis by LC-QTOF MS Agilent Technologies, Inc., 2013, 1.

    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • 9.

    Otero R. R. ; Grande B. C.; Gandara J. S. J. Chromatogr. A 2003, 992, 121.

  • 10.

    Velkoska-Markovska L. ; Petanovska-Ilievska B. Maced. J. Chem. Chem. Eng. 2013, 32, 299.

  • 11.

    Latif A. ; Sherazi S. T. H.; Bhanger M. I. Pak. J. Anal. Environ. Chem. 2011, 12, 76.

  • 12.

    Lian Y. J. ;Pang G. F. ; Shu H. R.; Fan C. L.; Liu Y. M.; Feng J.; Wu Y. P.; Chang Q. Y. J. Agric. Food Chem. 2010, 58, 9428.

  • 13.

    Wang J. F. ; Luan L.; Wang Z. Q.; Jiang S. R.; Pan C. P. Chin. J. Anal. Chem. 2007, 35, 1430.

  • 14.

    Zang X. ; Wang J.; Wang O.; Wang M.; Ma J.; Xi G.; Wang Z. Anal. Bioanal. Chem. 2008, 392, 749.

  • 15.

    Nieto-García A. J. ; Romero-González R.; Garrido Frenich A. Food Addit. Contam. 2014, 31, 1550.

  • 16.

    Satpathy G. ; Tyagi Y. K.; Gupta R. K. Am. J. Food Sci. Technol. 2014, 2, 53.

  • 17.

    Pizzutti I. R. ; de Kok A.; Hiemstra M.; Wickert C.; Prestes O. D. J. Chromatogr. A 2009, 1216, 4539.

  • 18.

    Tomlin C. The Pesticide Manual Incorporating the Agrochemicals Handbook 11th Ed., British Crop Protection Council, Royal Society of Chemistry Cambridge, 1997, pp. 145–146, 518–519, 660–661.

    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • 19.

    ChromBook, Your Guide to a Fascinating World of Chromatography Merck KGaA, Darmstadt, Germany, 2011, pp. 240243.

  • 20.

    Dong M. W. Modern HPLC for Practicing Scientists John Wiley & Sons, Inc., Hoboken, New Jersey, 2006, p. 1746.

  • 21.

    Hollosi L. ; Mittendorf K. Determination of Pesticides in Grapes, Baby Food and Wheat Flour by Automated Online Sample Preparation LC-MS/MS Thermo Fisher Scientific Inc., 2012, 1.

    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • 22.

    Fernandes V. C. ; Domingues V. F.; Mateus N.; Delerue-Matos C. J. Chromatogr. Sci. 2011, 49, 715.

  • 23.

    Document N° SANCO/12495/2011, Method validation and quality control procedures for pesticide residues analysis in food and feed, 2011.

  • 24.

    European Commission , Directorate General Health and Consumer Protection, Guidance document on pesticide residue analytical methods SANCO/825/00 rev. 8.1 2010.

    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
The author instruction is available in PDF.
Please, download the file from HERE.
 
The Open Access statement together with the description of the Copyright and License Policy are available in PDF.
Please, download the file from HERE.
 

 

Senior editors

Editor(s)-in-Chief: Kowalska, Teresa

Editor(s)-in-Chief: Sajewicz, Mieczyslaw

Editors(s) Danica Agbaba (University of Belgrade, Belgrade, Serbia);
Ivana Stanimirova-Daszykowska (University of Silesia, Katowice, Poland),
Monika Waksmundzka-Hajnos (Medical University of Lublin, Lublin, Poland)

Editorial Board

R. Bhushan (The Indian Institute of Technology, Roorkee, India)
J. Bojarski (Jagiellonian University, Kraków, Poland)
B. Chankvetadze (State University of Tbilisi, Tbilisi, Georgia)
M. Daszykowski (University of Silesia, Katowice, Poland)
T.H. Dzido (Medical University of Lublin, Lublin, Poland)
A. Felinger (University of Pécs, Pécs, Hungary)
K. Glowniak (Medical University of Lublin, Lublin, Poland)
B. Glód (Siedlce University of Natural Sciences and Humanities, Siedlce, Poland)
K. Kaczmarski (Rzeszow University of Technology, Rzeszów, Poland)
H. Kalász (Semmelweis University, Budapest, Hungary)
I. Klebovich (Semmelweis University, Budapest, Hungary)
A. Koch (Private Pharmacy, Hamburg, Germany)
Ł. Komsta (Medical University of Lublin, Lublin, Poland)
P. Kus (Univerity of Silesia, Katowice, Poland)
D. Mangelings (Free University of Brussels, Brussels, Belgium)
E. Mincsovics (Corvinus University of Budapest, Budapest, Hungary)
G. Morlock (Giessen University, Giessen, Germany)
J. Sherma (Lafayette College, Easton, PA, USA)
R. Skibiński (Medical University of Lublin, Lublin, Poland)
B. Spangenberg (Offenburg University of Applied Sciences, Germany)
T. Tuzimski (Medical University of Lublin, Lublin, Poland)
Y. Vander Heyden (Free University of Brussels, Brussels, Belgium)
A. Voelkel (Poznań University of Technology, Poznań, Poland)
B. Walczak (University of Silesia, Katowice, Poland)
W. Wasiak (Adam Mickiewicz University, Poznań, Poland)

KOWALSKA, TERESA
E-mail: kowalska@us.edu.pl

SAJEWICZ, MIECZYSLAW
E-mail:msajewic@us.edu.pl

Indexing and Abstracting Services:

  • Science Citation Index
  • Sci Search
  • Research Alert
  • Chemistry Citation Index and Current Content/Physical
  • Chemical and Earth Sciences
  • SCOPUS
  • GoogleScholar
  • Index Copernicus
  • CABI
2020
 
Total Cites
650
WoS
Journal
Impact Factor
1,639
Rank by
Chemistry, Analytical 71/83 (Q4)
Impact Factor
 
Impact Factor
1,412
without
Journal Self Cites
5 Year
1,301
Impact Factor
Journal
0,34
Citation Indicator
 
Rank by Journal
Chemistry, Analytical 75/93 (Q4)
Citation Indicator
 
Citable
45
Items
Total
43
Articles
Total
2
Reviews
Scimago
28
H-index
Scimago
0,316
Journal Rank
Scimago
Chemistry (miscellaneous) Q3
Quartile Score
 
Scopus
393/181=2,2
Scite Score
 
Scopus
General Chemistry 215/398 (Q3)
Scite Score Rank
 
Scopus
0,560
SNIP
 
Days from
58
sumbission
 
to acceptance
 
Days from
68
acceptance
 
to publication
 
Acceptance
51%
Rate

2019  
Total Cites
WoS
495
Impact Factor 1,418
Impact Factor
without
Journal Self Cites
1,374
5 Year
Impact Factor
0,936
Immediacy
Index
0,460
Citable
Items
50
Total
Articles
50
Total
Reviews
0
Cited
Half-Life
6,2
Citing
Half-Life
8,3
Eigenfactor
Score
0,00048
Article Influence
Score
0,164
% Articles
in
Citable Items
100,00
Normalized
Eigenfactor
0,05895
Average
IF
Percentile
20,349
Scimago
H-index
26
Scimago
Journal Rank
0,255
Scopus
Scite Score
226/167=1,4
Scopus
Scite Score Rank
Chemistry (miscellaneous) 240/398 (Q3)
Scopus
SNIP
0,494
Acceptance
Rate
41%

 

Acta Chromatographica
Publication Model Online only
Gold Open Access
Submission Fee none
Article Processing Charge 400 EUR/article
Regional discounts on country of the funding agency World Bank Lower-middle-income economies: 50%
World Bank Low-income economies: 100%
Further Discounts Editorial Board / Advisory Board members: 50%
Corresponding authors, affiliated to an EISZ member institution subscribing to the journal package of Akadémiai Kiadó: 100%
Subscription Information Gold Open Access
Purchase per Title  

Acta Chromatographica
Language English
Size A4
Year of
Foundation
1992
Publication
Programme
2021 Volume 33
Volumes
per Year
1
Issues
per Year
4
Founder Institute of Chemistry, University of Silesia
Founder's
Address
PL-40-007 Katowice, Poland, Bankowa 12
Publisher Akadémiai Kiadó
Publisher's
Address
H-1117 Budapest, Hungary 1516 Budapest, PO Box 245.
Responsible
Publisher
Chief Executive Officer, Akadémiai Kiadó
ISSN 2083-5736 (Online)

Monthly Content Usage

Abstract Views Full Text Views PDF Downloads
May 2021 0 21 27
Jun 2021 0 19 21
Jul 2021 0 41 42
Aug 2021 0 214 145
Sep 2021 0 14 13
Oct 2021 0 10 4
Nov 2021 0 0 0