Issue

Vol. 37 No. 2 (2025): Vol 37 Issue 2, 2025

Copyright (c) 2025 Pratik Singh, Arvind Maurya, Priyanka Gopi, Prof (Dr) Jasjeet Kaur, Dr. Sanjeev Kanojiya, Dr. Prateek Pandya

Creative Commons License

This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License.

Optimization of QuEChERS for High-Sensitivity Pesticide Detection in Simulated Biological Matrices Using UPLC-MS/MS

https://doi.org/10.14233/ajchem.2025.33063
Pratik Singh
Amity Institute of Forensic Sciences, Amity University, Noida-201313, India
https://orcid.org/0000-0003-3369-1349
Arvind Kumar Maurya
Sophisticated Analytical Instrument Facility & Research, CSIR-Central Drug Research Institute, Lucknow-226031, India; Academy of Scientific and Innovative Research (AcSIR), Ghaziabad-201002, India
https://orcid.org/0009-0005-7543-8634
Priyanka Gopi
Amity Institute of Forensic Sciences, Amity University, Noida-201313, India
https://orcid.org/0000-0002-4341-7637
Jasjeet Kaur
Department of Chemistry, Shaheed Rajguru College of Applied Sciences for Women (University of Delhi), Delhi-110096, India
https://orcid.org/0000-0002-9740-8410
Sanjeev Kanojiya
Sophisticated Analytical Instrument Facility & Research, CSIR-Central Drug Research Institute, Lucknow-226031, India; Academy of Scientific and Innovative Research (AcSIR), Ghaziabad-201002, India
https://orcid.org/0000-0003-2831-2797
Prateek Pandya
Amity Institute of Forensic Sciences, Amity University, Noida-201313, India
https://orcid.org/0000-0001-7257-3754

Corresponding Author(s) : Prateek Pandya

prateekpandya@gmail.com

Asian Journal of Chemistry, Vol. 37 No. 2 (2025): Vol 37 Issue 2, 2025

Abstract

This study presents an analytical method for detection and identification of pesticides in simulated biological matrices, i.e., simulated gastric fluid (SGF) and simulated urine sample (SUS). The approach combines the QuEChERS (quick, easy, cheap, effective, rugged and safe) sample preparation technique with ultra-performance liquid chromatography-tandem mass spectrometry (UPLC-MS/MS) for pesticide analysis. A modified QuEChERS extraction protocol was developed to enhance pesticide recovery, improving both accuracy and reproducibility in pesticide quantification in seven different concentrations ranging from 2.5 ng/mL to 160 ng/mL. This combined methodology offers a robust tool for the precise detection and characterization of pesticide residues in biological fluids, with promising applications in toxicological analysis and forensic investigations. The developed method demonstrates the ability to reliably detect low concentrations of pesticide residues, establishing a strong foundation for comprehensive pesticide detection in complex biological matrices. As a supporting analysis, the molecular docking simulations were employed to explore the interaction dynamics of selected pesticides with key proteins unique to each matrix–pepsin (PEP) in SGF and Tamm-Horsfall (THF) protein in SUS. These simulations revealed the binding affinities and interaction strengths of the pesticides, providing further insight into their stability and persistence within different biological environments. This molecular perspective enhances the interpretation of pesticide residue behaviour, complementing the analytical results and deepening our understanding of pesticide dynamics in biological systems.

Keywords

Tetramethrin Dimethoate Pesticides Molecular docking Modified QuEChERS UPLC-MS/MS
Singh, P., Maurya, A. K., Gopi, P., Kaur, J., Kanojiya, S., & Pandya, P. (2025). Optimization of QuEChERS for High-Sensitivity Pesticide Detection in Simulated Biological Matrices Using UPLC-MS/MS. Asian Journal of Chemistry, 37(2), 431–438. https://doi.org/10.14233/ajchem.2025.33063
Download Citation
Endnote/Zotero/Mendeley (RIS)
BibTeX
References
  1. E. Morillo and J. Villaverde, Sci. Total Environ., 586, 576 (2017); https://doi.org/10.1016/j.scitotenv.2017.02.020
  2. F.P. Carvalho, Food Energy Secur., 6, 48 (2017); https://doi.org/10.1002/fes3.108
  3. W. Boedeker, M. Watts, P. Clausing and E. Marquez, BMC Public Health, 20, 1875 (2020); https://doi.org/10.1186/s12889-020-09939-0
  4. L.G. Sultatos, J. Toxicol. Environ. Health, 43, 271 (1994); https://doi.org/10.1080/15287399409531921
  5. B.N. Okolonkwo, C.F. Amadi and O.E. Chimekagbe, Genet. Mol. Biol., 27 (2022); https://doi.org/10.9734/ajbgmb/2022/v12i230290
  6. A.M. Badr, Environ. Sci. Pollut. Res. Int., 27, 26036 (2020); https://doi.org/10.1007/s11356-020-08937-4
  7. S. Mukherjee and R.D. Gupta, J. Toxicol., 2020, 1 (2020); https://doi.org/10.1155/2020/3007984
  8. M. Patel and P. Patil, IOSR J. Agric. Vet. Sci., 9, 55 (2016); https://doi.org/10.9790/2380-0910015560
  9. M. Galadima, S. Singh, A. Pawar, S. Khasnabis, D.S. Dhanjal, A.G. Anil, P. Rai, P.C. Ramamurthy and J. Singh, Environ. Adv., 5, 100105 (2021); https://doi.org/10.1016/j.envadv.2021.100105
  10. A. Ahamad and Kumar, J. Hazard. Mater. Adv., 10, 100284 (2023); https://doi.org/10.1016/j.hazadv.2023.100284
  11. Y. Hu, J. Wang and Y. Wu, Anal. Methods, 11, 5337 (2019); https://doi.org/10.1039/C9AY01506J
  12. P.M. Dennis, Pathology, 21, 69 (1997); https://doi.org/10.1016/S0031-3025(16)36534-5
  13. H. Musarurwa, L. Chimuka, V.E. Pakade and N.T. Tavengwa, J. Food Compos. Anal., 84, 103314 (2019); https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jfca.2019.103314
  14. M. González-Curbelo, B. Socas-Rodríguez, A.V. Herrera-Herrera, J. González-Sálamo, J. Hernández-Borges and M. Rodríguez-Delgado, Trends Analyt. Chem., 71, 169 (2015); https://doi.org/10.1016/j.trac.2015.04.012
  15. T. Rejczak and T. Tuzimski, Open Chem., 13, 000010151520150109 (2015); https://doi.org/10.1515/chem-2015-0109
  16. R. Perestrelo, P. Silva, P. Porto-Figueira, J.A.M. Pereira, S. Medina, C. Silva and J.S. Câmara, Anal. Chim. Acta, 1070, 1 (2019); https://doi.org/10.1016/j.aca.2019.02.036
  17. S.J. Lehotay, Methods Mol. Biol., 747, 65 (2011); https://doi.org/10.1007/978-1-61779-136-9_4
  18. I.R. Pizzutti, J.V. Dias, A. Kok, C.D. Cardoso and G.M.E. Vela, J. Braz. Chem. Soc., (2016); https://doi.org/10.5935/0103-5053.20160012
  19. A. Lawal and K.H. Low, Chemistry, 8, 693 (2021); https://doi.org/10.18596/jotcsa.845578
  20. J. Wang, V. Yadav, A.L. Smart, S. Tajiri and A.W. Basit, Mol. Pharm., 12, 966 (2015); https://doi.org/10.1021/mp500809f
  21. A. Stolarz, A. Alonso, W. De Bolle, S. Richter, C. Quetel, E. Ponzevera, H. Kühn, A. Verbruggen and R. Wellum, Preparation of Simulated Urine Samples containing Certified Uranium for the NUSIMEP 4 Campaign, Ec.Europa.Eu (2015).
  22. N. Sarigul, F. Korkmaz and I. Kurultak, Sci. Rep., 9, 20159 (2019); https://doi.org/10.1038/s41598-019-56693-4
  23. M.S. Gualdesi, J. Esteve-Romero, M.C. Briñón and M.A. Raviolo, J. Pharm. Biomed. Anal., 78-79, 52 (2013); https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jpba.2013.01.027
  24. J. Eberhardt, D. Santos-Martins, A.F. Tillack and S. Forli, J. Chem. Inf. Model., 61, 3891 (2021); https://doi.org/10.1021/acs.jcim.1c00203
  25. O. Trott and A.J. Olson, J. Comput. Chem., 31, 455 (2010); https://doi.org/10.1002/jcc.21334
  26. P. Singh, P. Gopi, M.S.S. Rani, S. Singh and P. Pandya, J. Mol. Recognit., 37, e3076 (2024); https://doi.org/10.1002/jmr.3076
  27. Dassault Systemes, Biovia Discovery Studio Comprehensive Modeling and Simulations for Life Sciences. In: Dassault Systemes (2023).
  28. BIOVIA, Dassault Systèmes BIOVIA, Discovery Studio Modeling Environment, Release 2017, Dassault Systèmes San Diego (2017).
  29. Scientific Working Group, J. Anal. Toxicol., 37, 452 (2013); https://doi.org/10.1093/jat/bkt054
Read More
Author biographies is not available.
Download
PDF
Statistic
Read Counter : 0 Download : 0