Impact of dispersive solid-phase extraction on multi-residue pesticide analysis in honey bees

• Valid and reliable multi-method system for 273 active compounds in honey bee matrix • Sample preparation without dSPE is faster and more cost-effective • Metal beads improve matrix homogenisation • Recovery between 70 and 120% for more than 70% of the active compounds • Most common LOQ: 10 µg/kg (LC), 100 and 200 µg/kg (with and without dSPE) for GC The QuEChERS method is one of the most popular methods to analyse pesticides in food. In recent years, it was also established in the protection of bees, as plant protection products (PPPs) are still involved in bee poisoning incidents. An additional purification step using dispersive solid-phase extraction (dSPE) is often considered necessary to obtain sufficiently pure sample extracts and increase sensitivity. Our aim was to improve the existing QuEChERS method based on honey bees, using 273 active substances and to determine differences between purification with dSPE and without. The results show that 271 substances can be detected using either dSPE, without purification, or both. Pentachlorophenol and dichlobenil were the only substances that were not detectable using both methods. Over 70% of the active substances achieved recoveries between 70 and 120%. However, it turned out that there were more substances that did not reach the limit of acceptable recovery after purification with dSPE. The excellent sensitivity of both methods was demonstrated by the limit of detection and quantification (LOD, LOQ), which coincided in approximately 40% of cases. For the remaining 60% of active substances, LODs and LOQs differed by one calibration point up or down for both methods. Regardless of the method, the most frequent LOQ was 10 µg/kg for LC-MS/MS and the LOQ for GC-MS(/MS) was 100 µg/kg with dSPE and 200 µg/kg without dSPE. We can conclude that by using the improved method further purification steps are not necessarily required to reliably determine the ingredients within our analytical spectrum. In fact, it even turned out that for substances that are sometimes toxic to bees, it is better not to further purify analytical samples. This adapted method saves time and costs in routine laboratory work and can be easily adapted to other analytes or research questions.

Authors

Institutions

Publication Details

Journal
Journal of Chromatography Open
Published
2026-05-01
DOI
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jcoa.2026.100343
Primary Topic
Pesticide Residue Analysis and Safety
Type
article
Field-Weighted Citation Impact
0.00
Controls
|||
ALL TIME
JAN
FEB
MAR
APR
MAY
JUN
JUL
AUG
SEP
OCT
article

Impact of dispersive solid-phase extraction on multi-residue pesticide analysis in honey bees

Silvio Erler, Jens Pistorius, Julia Kehmstedt
Journal of Chromatography Open
Pesticide Residue Analysis and Safety
article

Impact of dispersive solid-phase extraction on multi-residue pesticide analysis in honey bees

Silvio Erler, Jens Pistorius, Julia Kehmstedt
article en

Abstract

• Valid and reliable multi-method system for 273 active compounds in honey bee matrix • Sample preparation without dSPE is faster and more cost-effective • Metal beads improve matrix homogenisation • Recovery between 70 and 120% for more than 70% of the active compounds • Most common LOQ: 10 µg/kg (LC), 100 and 200 µg/kg (with and without dSPE) for GC The QuEChERS method is one of the most popular methods to analyse pesticides in food. In recent years, it was also established in the protection of bees, as plant protection products (PPPs) are still involved in bee poisoning incidents. An additional purification step using dispersive solid-phase extraction (dSPE) is often considered necessary to obtain sufficiently pure sample extracts and increase sensitivity. Our aim was to improve the existing QuEChERS method based on honey bees, using 273 active substances and to determine differences between purification with dSPE and without. The results show that 271 substances can be detected using either dSPE, without purification, or both. Pentachlorophenol and dichlobenil were the only substances that were not detectable using both methods. Over 70% of the active substances achieved recoveries between 70 and 120%. However, it turned out that there were more substances that did not reach the limit of acceptable recovery after purification with dSPE. The excellent sensitivity of both methods was demonstrated by the limit of detection and quantification (LOD, LOQ), which coincided in approximately 40% of cases. For the remaining 60% of active substances, LODs and LOQs differed by one calibration point up or down for both methods. Regardless of the method, the most frequent LOQ was 10 µg/kg for LC-MS/MS and the LOQ for GC-MS(/MS) was 100 µg/kg with dSPE and 200 µg/kg without dSPE. We can conclude that by using the improved method further purification steps are not necessarily required to reliably determine the ingredients within our analytical spectrum. In fact, it even turned out that for substances that are sometimes toxic to bees, it is better not to further purify analytical samples. This adapted method saves time and costs in routine laboratory work and can be easily adapted to other analytes or research questions.

Journal of Chromatography OpenVol. 9
Julius Kühn-Institut (DE), Technische Universität Braunschweig (DE)
Openalex Percentile: Top 10%
Pesticide Residue Analysis and Safety
AI Navigator

Ask Laika to Summarize, Analyze, and Connect papers live on the map.

Summarize Papers & Methodologies

Extract key findings, datasets, and comparative methods across publications.

Benchmark Rankings & Visual Analytics

Rank top research institutions, authors, funders, topics, and journals by Field-Weighted Citation Impact (FWCI) and paper volume with instant charts.

Connect Distant Disciplines

Bridge topological clusters on the map to find hidden collaborative intersections.