Matrix effects can affect detection limits, precision, and accuracy and lead to signal enhancement or suppression effects in gas chromatography analysis. Analyte protectants, such as shikimic acid and gluconolactone, can imitate the effect of matrix components and reduce the differences in matrix effect between samples. This study aimed to investigate the ability of analyte protectants to enhance gas chromatography detector signals of different oxygenated-polycyclic aromatic hydrocarbons. Addition of 100 μg L-1 shikimic acid and 200 μg L-1 gluconolactone effectively enhanced detector response of the investigated target compounds. Addition of a higher content of analyte protectants did not result in any further enhancement. It was found that between four and eleven consecutive injections of a standard solution with analyte protectants were required to obtain a stable compound response. The long-term signal stability was then maintained with subsequent injections, though an overall negative drift of the system was observed over the sequence of 200 investigated injections. Analysis of the actual sample matrix instead of standards in pure solvent, as presented in this study, could also be a way to minimize the required number of injections. Shikimic acid and gluconolactone were first and foremost able to enhance signals of oxygenated-polycyclic aromatic hydrocarbons with similar functional groups (hydroxyl) in their molecular structure. It can be relevant to consider alternative analyte protectants with different functional groups according to the type of target compounds investigated.

This study aimed to investigate the ability of analyte protectants to enhance GC-MS signals and compensate matrix effects for a range of micropollutants in pure standard, effluent, and influent wastewater samples during analysis and detection. Wastewater samples were prepared for analysis using multilayer solid phase extraction for the purpose of extracting sample components with a broad range of physical-chemical properties. The sample extracts were either spiked or not spiked with target compounds and four analyte protectants: 3-ethoxy-1,2-propanediol, D-sorbitol, gluconolactone, and shikimic acid. In this way, it was possible to evaluate the matrix effects of wastewater samples and compare the use of analyte protectants with the conventional correction method of allocating a best matching internal standard to each target compound. A relation was observed between level of wastewater treatment and matrix effects, with the largest effects observed for influent samples and the smallest effects for effluent samples. Compensation of matrix effects with analyte protectants gave comparable results with the conventional correction method of allocating a best matching internal standard to each of the 13 investigated micropollutants. The best overall compensation was observed using analyte protectants and the internal standard correction method in combination.

In pesticide residues analysis, the drift is the difference between the concentration of two bracketing calibrations in the same batch. According to the SANTE/12682/2019 guideline a criterion of ±30% must be met or positive samples should be reanalyzed. This study aimed to investigate, for the first time, the efficiency of using analyte protectants (Aps) and the sandwich injection approach (SIA) to eliminate the drift between bracketing matrix matched-calibrations taking strawberry as an example. The strawberry samples were prepared according to the citrate-buffered QuEChERS (quick, easy, cheap, effective, rugged, and safe) procedure, followed by solvent exchange from acetonitrile to n-hexane:actone (9:1). Two batches were injected with the same sequence on GC-MS/MS, the only difference was that the first batch was without Aps and the second was with Aps. The sequence of the batch was as follows: blank solvent injection, 5 strawberry matched-calibrations at 0.05 μg/ml, separated by 20 blank strawberry injections after each strawberry matched-calibration injection. The drift was measured by considering the results of the first calibration as 100% and comparing the rest 4 injections with it. After 20 injections, out of the studied 219 pesticides, more than half of the pesticides fell out of criteria when analyte protectants were not used, and by the end of the samples batch 95% of the analytes were out of criteria. Only 8% of the studied analytes were out of criteria for the Aps batch after 20 injections. In the end of the 80 samples batch, 17% were out of criteria. Furthermore, at the end of the protected matrix-matched calibration batch, 90% of the pesticides had an RSD less than 15% in comparison with only 5% of the analytes for the non-protected batch. Moreover, the non-protected batch had an obvious negative drift in comparison with the protected batch. For example, the number of pesticides that had a lower result in the second matrix matched-calibration for the non-protected batch was more than twice the number in the protected batch (194 compared to 91 out of 219 pesticides for both experiments).

Despite nearly 80 years of advancements in gas chromatography (GC), indirect chemical matrix effects (MEs), known as the matrix-induced response enhancement effect, still occur to cause a high bias in the GC analysis of susceptible analytes, unless precautions are taken. Matrix-matched calibration is one common option used in GC to compensate for the MEs, but this approach is usually inconvenient, imprecise, and inefficient. Other options, such as the method of standard additions, surface deactivation techniques, chemical derivatizations, priming the GC, and/or use of internal standards, also have flaws in practice. When methods are accommodating, the use of analyte protectants (APs) can provide the best practical solution to not only overcome MEs, but also to maximize analyte signal by increasing chromatographic and detection efficiencies for the analytes. APs address the source of MEs in every injection by filling active sites in the GC inlet, column, and detector, particularly in GC-MS, rather than the analytes that would otherwise undergo degradation, peak tailing, and/or diminished response due to interactions with the active sites. The addition of an adequate amount of APs (e.g. sugar derivatives) to all calibration standards and final extracts alike often leads to lower detection limits, better accuracy, narrower peaks, and greater robustness than the other options to compensate for MEs in GC. This article consists of a critical review of the scientific literature, proposal of mechanisms and theory, and re-evaluation studies involving APs for the first time in GC-orbitrap and GC-MS/MS with a high-efficiency ion source design. The findings showed that 1 µg each of co-injected shikimic acid and sorbitol in the former case, and 1 µg shikimic acid alone in the latter case, led to high quality results in multi-residue analysis of pesticides and environmental contaminants.

Developing an analysis of multi-pesticide residues for different herbal species-ready applications is a challenge. In the present work, a comprehensive analysis was proposed for rapid detection of 201 pesticides in various medicinal herbs. Samples were extracted and cleaned up with a high throughput pretreatment approach (modified QuEChERS), and then detected by gas chromatograph coupled to an electron impact ionization triple quadrupole mass spectrometer (GC-EI-MS/MS). The clean-up procedure has been optimized using four types of representative medicinal herbs with different primary or secondary metabolites. Moreover, a mixture of analyte protectants (APs) was to improve the peak shape and intensity of some compounds. The performance of the method was validated according to the European Union SANTE/11813/2017 regulatory guidelines. The limit of quantification (LOQ) was determined to be ≤10 ng mL-1, and the recovery was between 70.0%-120.0%, with ≤20% RSD for the majority of pesticides. Sixty samples belonging to different species of medicinal herbs (such radix, flos, cortex, fructus, and seeds) were analyzed to evaluate the applicability of the optimized method. High frequency of chlorpyrifos was found in Citri reticulatae pericarpium, Crataegi fructus and Cuscutae semen samples.

In the analysis of pesticides performed with gas chromatography, the quantitative performance of measurements can be severely compromised by phenomena known as matrix effects. In seeking a solution to the problem of matrix effects, the application of a modifier gas generator (MGG) was investigated in this study, together with analyte protectants and multiple internal standards. Ethylene glycol (EG) was used as modifier gas and matrix effects in GCMS analysis were then evaluated by using the extracts of various food commodities. MGG was used in combination with other known methods of matrix effect compensation and its performance in reducing matrix effects tested. We have found that by combining MGG with conventional analyte protectants, matrix effects were substantially reduced for most of pesticides. Use of EG was especially effective for organophosphate pesticides and those with amino groups. Using this approach, the shortcomings of conventional analyte protectants were remedied. Although neither EG nor analyte protectants could sufficiently reduce the matrix effects for certain classes of pesticides, this limitation could be overcome with the use of multiple internal standards (IS) in the analysis. Finally, it was shown that the method we developed could achieve better analytical performance than the matrix-matched calibration method. Our method was robust with respect to the variation of food matrix components, so its application to real-world analyses would be practical and promising.

This study demonstrated the application of an automated high-throughput mini-cartridge solid-phase extraction (mini-SPE) cleanup for the rapid low-pressure gas chromatography-tandem mass spectrometry (LPGC-MS/MS) analysis of pesticides and environmental contaminants in QuEChERS extracts of foods. Cleanup efficiencies and breakthrough volumes using different mini-SPE sorbents were compared using avocado, salmon, pork loin, and kale as representative matrices. Optimum extract load volume was 300 µL for the 45 mg mini-cartridges containing 20/12/12/1 (w/w/w/w) anh. MgSO4/PSA (primary secondary amine)/C18/CarbonX sorbents used in the final method. In method validation to demonstrate high-throughput capabilities and performance results, 230 spiked extracts of 10 different foods (apple, kiwi, carrot, kale, orange, black olive, wheat grain, dried basil, pork, and salmon) underwent automated mini-SPE cleanup and analysis over the course of 5 days. In all, 325 analyses for 54 pesticides and 43 environmental contaminants (3 analyzed together) were conducted using the 10 min LPGC-MS/MS method without changing the liner or retuning the instrument. Merely, 1 mg equivalent sample injected achieved <5 ng g-1 limits of quantification. With the use of internal standards, method validation results showed that 91 of the 94 analytes including pairs achieved satisfactory results (70-120 % recovery and RSD ≤ 25 %) in the 10 tested food matrices (n = 160). Matrix effects were typically less than ±20 %, mainly due to the use of analyte protectants, and minimal human review of software data processing was needed due to summation function integration of analyte peaks. This study demonstrated that the automated mini-SPE + LPGC-MS/MS method yielded accurate results in rugged, high-throughput operations with minimal labor and data review.

This study demonstrates the application of a novel lipid removal product to the residue analysis of 65 pesticides and 52 environmental contaminants in kale, pork, salmon, and avocado by fast, low pressure gas chromatography - tandem mass spectrometry (LPGC-MS/MS). Sample preparation involves QuEChERS extraction followed by use of EMR-Lipid (\"enhanced matrix removal of lipids\") and an additional salting out step for cleanup. The optimal amount of EMR-Lipid was determined to be 500mg for 2.5mL extracts for most of the analytes. The co-extractive removal efficiency by the EMR-Lipid cleanup step was 83-98% for fatty samples and 79% for kale, including 76% removal of chlorophyll. Matrix effects were typically less than ±20%, in part because analyte protectants were used in the LPGC-MS/MS analysis. The recoveries of polycyclic aromatic hydrocarbons and diverse pesticides were mostly 70-120%, whereas recoveries of nonpolar polybrominated diphenyl ethers and polychlorinated biphenyls were mostly lower than 70% through the cleanup procedure. With the use of internal standards, method validation results showed that 76-85 of the 117 analytes achieved satisfactory results (recoveries of 70-120% and RSD≤20%) in pork, avocado, and kale, while 53 analytes had satisfactory results in salmon. Detection limits were 5-10ng/g for all but a few analytes. EMR-Lipid is a new sample preparation tool that serves as another useful option for cleanup in multiresidue analysis, particularly of fatty foods.

Some steps of the QuEChERS method for the analysis of pesticides with GC-MS/MS in cereals and dried fruits were improved or simplified. For the latter, a mixing vessel with stator-rotor-system proved to be advantageous. The extraction procedure of dried fruits is much easier and safer than the Ultra Turrax and results in excellent validation data at a concentration level of 0.01mg/kg (116 of 118 analytes with recoveries in the range of 70-120%, 117 of 118 analytes with RSD <20%). After qualifying problematic lipophilic pesticides in fat-rich cereals (fat content >7%), predominantly organochlorines showed recoveries of <70% in quantification when the standard QuEChERS method with water was used. A second extraction was carried out analogous to the QuEChERS method, however, without the addition of water. With this simple modification, the problematic lipophilic pesticides, which had been strongly affected by the fat content of the commodities, could be determined with recoveries above 70% even at a concentration level of 0.01mg/kg. Moreover, a GC-MS/MS screening method for 120 pesticides at a concentration level of 0.01mg/kg was established by employing analyte protectants (ethylglycerol, gulonolactone, and sorbitol). The use of only one standardized calibration, made of an apple purée extract in combination with analyte protectants, allowed for a qualitative and quantitative analysis of 120 pesticides in different matrix extracts (tomato, red pepper, sour cherries, dried apples, black currant powder, raisins, wheat flour, rolled oats, wheat germ). The analyte protectants leveled the differences in the matrix-induced protection effect of the analyzed extracts over a wide range. The majority of the pesticides were analyzed with good analytical results (recoveries in the range of 70-120% and RSD <20%).

The matrix enhancement effect in gas chromatography (GC) has been a problem for the last decade and results in unexpected high recovery. Most efforts, including the use of different types of injectors/matrix simplification procedures, and further clean-up associated with removing this effect has focused on equalizing the response of the standard in the solvent and matrix. However, after eliminating the matrix enhancement effect, the sensitivity of GC remained unchanged. But, GC sensitivity can be increased by utilizing this matrix effect originating from a matrix-matched standard. Very few studies have highlighted utilizing the matrix effect but have rather advocated eliminating it. Analyte protectants (3-ethoxy-1,2-propanediol, gulonolactone and sorbitol) have been introduced as an alternative for GC-mass spectroscopy (GC-MS) (not examined for other GC detectors), as they equalize the response without removing the matrix effect, and, hence, increase sensitivity. Versatile applications of analyte protectants are not observed in practice. The European guidelines recommend the use of matrix-matched standard calibration for residue measurements. As a result, numerous applications are available for matrix-matched standards that compensate for the matrix effect. Moreover, the matrices (among them pepper leaf matrix) act as a protectant for thermolabile analytes in some cases. A lower detection limit should be achieved to comply with the maximum residue limits. Therefore, the matrix enhancement effect, which is considered a problem, can play an important role in lowering the detection limit by increasing the transfer of analyte from the injection port to the detector.