title: Limit of detection and limit of quantification development procedures for organochlorine pesticides analysis in water and sediment matrices.
abstract: BACKGROUND
  Reliable values for method validity of organochlorine pesticides determination were investigated, in water by solid phase extraction and in sediment by Soxhlet extraction, followed by gas chromatography equipped with an electron capture detector. Organochlorine pesticides are categorized as Persistent Organic Pollutants. Hence, critical decisions to control exposure to these chemicals in the environment are based on their levels in different media; it is important to find valid qualitative and quantitative results for these components. In analytical chemistry, internal quality procedures are applied to produce valid logical results.
  
  
  RESULTS
  In this study, 18 organochlorine pesticides were targeted for analysis and determination in water and river sediment. Experiments based on signal-to-noise ratio, calibration curve slope and laboratory fortified blank methods were conducted to determine the limits of qualification and quantification. The data were compared with each other. The limitation values, following Laboratory Fortified Blank, showed significant differences in the signal-to-noise ratio and calibration curve slope methods, which are assumed in the results for the sample concentration factor to be 1,000 times in water and 10 times in sediment matrices. The method detection limit values were found to be between 0.001 and 0.005 μg/L (mean of 0.002 ± 0.001) and 0.001 and 0.005 μg/g (mean of 0.001 ± 0.001). The quantification limits were found to be between 0.002 and 0.016 μg/L (mean of 0.006 ± 0.004) and 0.003 and 0.017 μg/g (mean of 0.005 ± 0.003 μg/L) for water and sediment, respectively, based on the laboratory fortified blank method. Because of different slopes in the calibration methods, it was also found that the limitation values for some components from the internal standard were higher than from external standard calibration, because in the latter a factor for injection efficiency is applied for calibration.
  
  
  CONCLUSIONS
  Technically, there are differentiations between detection limits for quality and quantity from component to component, resulting from noise, response factors of instruments and matrix interference. However, the calculation method is the cause of differentiation for each component of the different methods. The results show that for no matter what component, the relationship between these levels in different methods is approximately: Signal to Noise : Calibration Slope = 1:10. Therefore, due to different methods to determine LOD and LOQ, the values will be different. In the current study, laboratory fortified blank is the best method, with lower limitation values for Soxhlet and solid phase extraction of OCPs from sediment and water, respectively.
authors.affiliation: School of Chemical Sciences and Food Technology, Faculty of Science and Technology, Universiti Kebangsaan of Malaysia, Bangi, Malaysia. mpauzi@ukm.my.
authors.forename: Naghmeh
authors.initials: N
authors.lastname: Saadati
authors.forename: Md Pauzi
authors.initials: MP
authors.lastname: Abdullah
authors.forename: Zuriati
authors.initials: Z
authors.lastname: Zakaria
authors.forename: Seyedeh Belin Tavakoli
authors.initials: SB
authors.lastname: Sany
authors.forename: Majid
authors.initials: M
authors.lastname: Rezayi
authors.forename: Houshang
authors.initials: H
authors.lastname: Hassonizadeh
references.citation: Environ Int. 2006 Jul;32(5):616-23
references.pmid: 16533533
references.citation: J Chromatogr A. 2008 Oct 24;1208(1-2):25-33
references.pmid: 18789449
references.citation: Environ Monit Assess. 2009 Jan;148(1-4):421-35
references.pmid: 18288582
references.citation: Environ Int. 2005 May;31(4):523-34
references.pmid: 15788193
references.citation: Chemosphere. 2009 Oct;77(5):663-72
references.pmid: 19709715
references.citation: J Hazard Mater. 2006 Sep 1;137(1):68-75
references.pmid: 16540236
references.citation: Chemosphere. 2008 May;72(1):21-4
references.pmid: 18397799
references.citation: Chem Cent J. 2012 Nov 07;6(1):130
references.pmid: 23130650
references.citation: J Chromatogr A. 2011 Aug 19;1218(33):5555-67
references.pmid: 21742333
references.citation: Environ Pollut. 2005 Feb;133(3):415-29
references.pmid: 15519717
references.citation: Chemosphere. 2008 Aug;73(1 Suppl):S186-92
references.pmid: 18485446
references.citation: J Sep Sci. 2006 Jan;29(1):66-80
references.pmid: 16485711
references.citation: J Environ Sci (China). 2009;21(3):366-72
references.pmid: 19634450
references.citation: Chemosphere. 2009 May;75(5):580-587
references.pmid: 19285335
references.citation: Chemosphere. 2012 Jan;86(3):286-92
references.pmid: 22123529
references.citation: J Hazard Mater. 2009 Oct 30;170(2-3):989-97
references.pmid: 19535203
references.citation: J Chromatogr A. 2003 Jan 3;983(1-2):225-36
references.pmid: 12568385
references.citation: Chemosphere. 2006 Dec;65(11):1949-58
references.pmid: 16919310
references.citation: Sci Total Environ. 2008 Feb 15;390(2-3):507-13
references.pmid: 18006042
references.citation: Chemosphere. 2009 May;75(5):588-594
references.pmid: 19237185
references.citation: Talanta. 2012 Dec 15;102:79-87
references.pmid: 23182578
references.citation: Chemosphere. 2008 Jul;72(8):1181-7
references.pmid: 18479726
references.citation: Environ Pollut. 2010 Mar;158(3):913-20
references.pmid: 19892449
references.citation: J Environ Sci (China). 2007;19(2):194-9
references.pmid: 17915728
references.citation: Chemosphere. 2005 Dec;61(11):1594-606
references.pmid: 15982717
references.citation: Chemosphere. 2009 Nov;77(9):1191-8
references.pmid: 19819519
references.citation: J Environ Sci (China). 2009;21(10):1386-92
references.pmid: 19999993