Enhancing MRM Experiments in GC/MS/MS Using APGC

Significance of the Topic

Modern food safety testing demands highly sensitive and selective methods for multi-residue pesticide analysis. Traditional GC-MS/MS with electron ionization often produces extensive fragmentation, leading to low molecular ion abundance, potential false positives, and limited sensitivity for non-polar, thermally stable pesticides. Atmospheric pressure gas chromatography (APGC) integrated with a Xevo TQ-S tandem quadrupole mass spectrometer offers a soft ionization approach that enhances molecular ion formation, improving both selectivity and detection limits on a single platform.

Objectives and Study Overview

The study aimed to assess the performance of APGC coupled to the Waters Xevo TQ-S for quantitative analysis of 25 pesticides with diverse chemical properties. A direct comparison with conventional electron ionization GC-MS/MS was conducted to evaluate gains in sensitivity, selectivity, and robustness under food testing laboratory conditions.

Methodology and Instrumentation

Sample Preparation:

• Fortified extracts of apple, orange, tomato, and carrot prepared via QuEChERS (AOAC Official Method).

GC Conditions:

• Instrument: Agilent 7890A GC with splitless injection (1 μL at 280 °C).
• Column: DB-5MS, 30 m × 0.25 mm × 0.25 μm.
• Oven Program: 70 °C (1 min), ramp 25 °C/min to 150 °C, ramp 10 °C/min to 300 °C (3 min).
• Carrier Gas: Helium at 2 mL/min; transfer line 310 °C.

MS and APGC Conditions:

• Waters Xevo TQ-S tandem quadrupole mass spectrometer.
• APCI corona pin current: 1.8 μA; cone voltage 25–40 V; cone gas N2 at 170 L/h; source offset 50 V.
• Make-up gas: N2 at 320 mL/min; collision energies optimized per MRM transition.
• Data acquisition: MassLynx v4.1 with TargetLynx Application Manager.

Main Results and Discussion

Selective MRM Transitions and Fragmentation:
APGC produced abundant [M+H]+ molecular ions for most pesticides, enabling more specific precursor-product ion pairs. In contrast, EI spectra showed extensive fragmentation and low molecular ion signal. For example, chlorpyrifos APGC spectrum featured [M+H]+ as base peak, improving selectivity.
Interference Reduction:
Using APGC-specific transitions prevented cross-interference between structurally similar analytes such as heptachlor epoxide B and oxychlordane that co-elute and share fragment ions under EI conditions.
Sensitivity and Linearity:
Calibration in solvent (0.1–100 ppb) yielded r2 > 0.99 for most compounds. Limits of quantification in fortified fruit and vegetable extracts ranged from 0.02 to 2 ppb. Minimal matrix effects were observed, allowing dilution strategies that reduce interferences and instrument maintenance.

Benefits and Practical Applications

• Single MS platform for both GC- and LC-amenable pesticides simplifies laboratory workflows.
• Soft ionization enhances molecular ion visibility, boosting selectivity and lowering false positives.
• High sensitivity supports regulatory compliance at sub-ppb levels, enabling lower injection volumes and extended maintenance intervals.
• Robust performance in routine food testing laboratories handling diverse sample matrices.

Future Trends and Potential Applications

Adoption of APGC-tandem quadrupole systems is likely to expand across food safety, environmental monitoring, and clinical analyses requiring volatile or semi-volatile compound quantification. Future developments may include high-throughput automation, integration with high-resolution MS for non-target screening, and further miniaturization of APGC sources to enhance throughput and reduce sample consumption.

Conclusion

APGC coupled to the Waters Xevo TQ-S provides a versatile, sensitive, and selective approach for multi-residue pesticide analysis in complex food matrices. The soft ionization mechanism yields abundant molecular ions, improves MRM specificity, and meets stringent regulatory requirements while streamlining laboratory operations.

Reference

• Amendola L, Botre F, Carollo AS, Longo D, Zoccolillo L. Anal Chim Acta. 2002;461:97.
• Shen C, Cao X, Shen W, Jiang Y, Zhao Z, Wu B, Yu K, Liu H, Lian H. Talanta. 2011;84:141.
• Guo Q, Deng M, Yu B, Tan L. J AOAC Int. 2010;93:295.
• Húškova R, Matisová E, Hrouzková S, vorc L. J Chromatogr A. 2009;1216:6326.
• Dong J, Pan Y, Lv J, Sun J, Gong X, Li K. Chromatographia. 2011;74:109.
• Jover E, Bayona JM. J Chromatogr A. 2002;950:213.
• Horning EC, Carroll DI, Dzidic I. Clin Chem. 1977;23:13.
• Portolés T, Cherta L, Beltran J, Hernández F. J Chromatogr A. 2012;1260:183.
• Lehotay SJ, Maštovská K, Lightfield AR. J AOAC Int. 2005;88:615.
• Waters White Paper. Addressing Chemical Diversity and Expanding Analytical Capabilities with APGC. 2010.
• Shah D, Yang J, Fujimoto G, Mullin L, Burgess J. Waters Application Note. 2012;720004403en.
• Vestergren R, Ullah S, Cousins IT, Berger U. J Chromatogr A. 2012;1237:64.
• Xia X, Wang Y, Wang X, Li Y, Zhong F, Li X, Huang Y, Ding S, Shen J. J Chromatogr A. 2013;1292:96.