Indian Journal of Animal Sciences 95 (2): 107–114, February 2025/Article

[Link]

Multi-residue pesticide analysis in chicken: LC-MS/MS method

development and validation
AISHWARYA S NAIR1, VILAS M VAIDYA1*, RAVINDRA J ZENDE1, SNEHALATA P KAMBLE1,
SMITA S GHULE1 and PRANJALI M DESAI1

Department of Veterinary Public Health and Epidemiology, Mumbai Veterinary College, Parel, Mumbai-400012

Received: 24 May 2024; Accepted: 13 February 2025

ABSTRACT
The presence of pesticide residue in meat has been of great public health significance. In order to address the
existing gap in the literature, a rapid and sensitive method was standardised and validated to detect and quantify
multi-residue pesticides in animal origin food. Thus, a highly sensitive method based on modified QuEChERS
(quick, easy, cheap, effective, rugged and safe) extraction coupled with Liquid Chromatography-Tandem Mass
Spectrometry (LC-MS/MS) analysis has been standardised and validated to determine simultaneously 20 selected
pesticide residues in chicken. The developed method is satisfactory in terms of accuracy (relative recoveries range
between 73.26 to 116%) and sensitivity (limits of detection in the range of 4.41 to 5.86 μg/kg). The method accuracy
and precision (RSD≤20%) complied with performance criteria of the SANTE/11312/2021 analytical quality control
procedure. The application of validated methodology to chicken samples collected from retail shops and farms
of Mumbai, Palghar, Thane, Satara and Pune districts of Maharashtra revealed the presence of trace levels of
carbendazim at concentrations below the Maximum Residue Limit (MRL). The study of pesticide multi residues
should be further explored along with regular monitoring and surveillance to ensure food safety and public health.
Keywords: Chicken, LC-MS/MS, Pesticides, Quechers, Validation

India, with its agrarian economy, relies substantially production, with Indian pesticide industry valued at
on animal husbandry and poultry as key income sources, approximately `260 billion in 2024 and is expected to expand
meeting the nation’s growing food and protein demands to around `440.1 billion by 2033 growing at a compound
(Chatterjee and Raj Kumar 2015). The prevalent use of annual growth rate (CAGR) of 5.72% throughout during
pesticides to control vector-borne diseases in poultry has the period of 2025 to 2033 (IMARC 2024). The majority
led to significant public health concerns. Amongst the of pesticide use is attributed to insecticides, followed by
Indian states, Maharashtra reported to be the highest user herbicides, fungicides and bactericides. Chlorpyrifos
of pesticides (GOI, 2021). Poultry are often indirectly remains one of the most widely used insecticides (Nayak
exposed to pesticides through contaminated feed and water and Solanki 2021). The classification and effects of selected
(Kumar et al. 2013). Prolonged low-dose exposure in both pesticides in the study are enlisted in Table 1.
poultry and humans has been linked to a range of toxic Addressing pesticide residues in food requires rigorous
effects, from skin irritation and nausea to chronic impacts, monitoring and analysis to comply with MRL set by
including cancer, asthma, immunosuppression and International Organizations. Traditional analysis techniques
hormonal disruptions (Khilare et al. 2016). The ingestion have low sensitivity and specificity in complex biological
of pesticides through baits, granules, treated seeds and matrices like chicken. The QuEChERS extraction approach
sprays poses direct risks, affects growth rates and liver combined with LC–MS/MS (Anastassiades et al. 2003,
health of poultry (Khandia et al. 2020). The consumption of Schneider et al. 2015), offers improved accuracy and
pesticide-contaminated meat has non-carcinogenic health sensitivity for detecting pesticide residues across diverse
risks, especially for children (Tongo and Ezemonye 2015). pesticide classes (Vogeser and Parhofer 2007, Hajrulai-
Traditionally, organochlorine pesticides were predominant, Musliu et al. 2021). Hence, the rapid and sensitive LC-
but their environmental persistence has led to a shift toward MS/MS method was developed and validated for multi-
organophosphates, carbamates and pyrethroids (Mitra residue analysis in chicken.
et al. 2011). Currently, India ranks fourth in global pesticide
MATERIALS AND METHODS
Present address: 1Intellectual Property and Technology Sample preparation and storage: A total of 120
Management Unit, ICAR, New Delhi. *Corresponding author samples (60 from Mumbai markets and 60 from farms in
email: vilasvaidya@[Link] Thane, Satara, and Pune districts) were collected in sterile

23
108 AISHWARYA ET AL. [Indian Journal of Animal Sciences 95 (2)

Table 1. Classification and effect of selected pesticides

Group of pesticides Type of action Public health effects
Organophosphate
Profenofos Insecticide and Acaricide Neurotoxic, chronic neurological impairment
Acephate Respiratory distress, neurotoxicity
Chlorpyriphos Developmental neurotoxicity (children)
Phenthoate Insecticide Neurotoxic effects (Tremors)
Phorate Sulfone
Acute and chronic neurotoxic
Phorate Sulfoxide
Insecticide
Imidacloprid Neurotoxic, viz. cognition and motor functions.
Thiamethoxam Insecticide Developmental neurotoxicity (children)
Clothianidin Neurological impairment and teratogenic
Carbendazim Teratogenic
Difenoconazole Hepatotoxicity and thyroid toxicity with chronic exposure
Penconazole Fungicide Endocrine disruption and hepatotoxicity
Triadimefon Teratogenicity
Edifenphos Hepatotoxicity
Indoxacarb Insecticide Neurotoxicity
Flusilazole Fungicide Teratogenicity
Chlorantraniliprole Insecticide Neurotoxicity
Carbamate
Carbofuran Insecticide Cardiotoxicity and neurotoxicity
Thiodicarb Insecticide and Molluscicide Respiratory distress, neurotoxicity
Pyrethroid
Fenpropathrin Insecticide and Acaricide Neurotoxicity

polyethylene bags, labelled and transported to the lab on subjected to extraction. Addition of acidified acetonitrile
ice, stored at -20°C and thawed at room temperature before (10 mL) as extraction solvent, followed by vigorous
analysis. shaking for 1 min on a vortex mixer, followed by end to end
Chemicals and standards: LCMS grade Acetonitrile shaking for 25 min and then incubated at -20℃ for 5 min.
(MeCN), methanol and water were obtained from Subsequently, MgSO4 (4 gm) and NaOAc (1.5 gm) were
Honeywell international Inc. (Germany) whereas NaOAc added to the sample, shaken thoroughly and centrifuged for
(anhydrous sodium acetate), MgSO4 (magnesium sulphate), 5 min at 7000 rpm at 4℃. The resultant supernatant (5 mL)
PSA (Primary Secondary Amine), Formic acid (LC-MS was transferred to 15 mL centrifuge tube for clean-up by
LiChropur) and Ammonium Formate were procured from addition of MgSO4 (750 mg) and PSA (150 mg) and vortex
Merck India Pvt. Ltd. All 20 pesticide standards (% purity) for 2 min. The tubes were centrifuged at 10000 rpm at 4℃
viz. acephate (99.6%), carbendazim (98.7%), chlorpyrifos for 5 min. The supernatant (1 mL) was diluted with water
(98.5%), clothianidin (99.9%), edifenfos (99.4%), (1 mL) and filtered through the 0.22 µm syringe filter and
flusilazole (99.4%), indoxacarb (95%), penconazole analysis was performed by LC-MS/MS.
(99%), phorate sulphone (95%), phorate sulfoxide Liquid chromatography parameters: LC-MS/MS
(98.9%), profenofos (97.2%), thiamethoxam (99.3%), analysis was conducted on an Ultra-High Performance
triadimefon (99%), phenthoate (98.3%), difenoconazole Liquid Chromatography System (Waters ACQUITY
(95.5%), chlorantraniliprole (96.6%), carbofuran (99.8%), UPLC H-class) coupled with a triple quadrupole mass
fenpropathrin (99.2%), imidacloprid (99.7%), methomyl spectrometer (Waters XEVO TQ-S micro) and controlled
(98%) and thiodicarb (98.1%) were purchased from Sigma by Mass Lynx software, version 4.2. Chromatographic
Aldrich. separation was achieved on an ACQUITY UPLC BEH
Preparation of standard solution: Individual 1 mg/mL C18 column (2.1 × 50 mm, 1.7 µm) at 45°C with a 5 µL
stock solution for all 20 selected standards were prepared injection volume, and the auto-sampler was set at 10°C.
in acetonitrile, with calibration standards at 5, 10, 20, 50, The mobile phase included Eluent A (water) and Eluent
100, and 150 µg/kg. B (methanol) with 5 mM ammonium formate and 0.2%
Sample extraction protocol: Extraction was carried formic acid. Gradient elution: 90-10% B (0 min); 10-90%
using method reported by Hajrulai-Musliu et al. (2021) with B (0.0-15.0 min). Data was processed with Target Lynx.
slight modifications. Chicken samples were homogenised MS/MS parameters: The mass spectrometer (Waters
prior to use and 10 gm ±0.1 gm was uniformly spiked with XEVO TQ-S micro) operated in positive ion mode (ESI+),
the pesticide standards and incubated for 10 min before with auto-optimization of MS parameters, viz. MRM

24
February 2025] LC-MS/MS ANALYSIS OF PESTICIDE IN CHICKEN 109

(Multiple Reaction Monitoring) transitions, CV (cone Table 2. Optimized Mass Spectrometric Parameters for selected
voltage) and CE (collision energy) via the IntelliStart tool pesticide standards
with desolvation temperature of 600°C, cone gas (50 L/h), Parent ion Product ion Cone Collision
source temperature (150°C), desolvation gas flow (1000 Name of pesticide
(m/z) (m/z) (V) (V)
L/h) and a capillary voltage (1.5 kV), achieving optimal 125.0034 10 18
peak shapes and signal intensity. Selected compounds had Acephate 183.9043
142.9536 10 10
symmetric peak and the maximum signal intensity with 131.9851 42 30
Carbendazim 192.9043
these values. Nitrogen (≥ 99% purity), generated using a 159.9734 42 16
nitrogen generator (Peak Scientific, Billerica, MA, USA), 97.0000 27 32
Chlorpyrifos 349.9000
was used as ESI source nebulizer. 198.0000 27 20
Method validation: The method was validated per 131.8565 14 14
Clothianidin 249.9129
SANTE/11312/2021 guidelines, evaluating linearity, 168.8915 14 12
accuracy, precision, LOD (limit of detection) and LOQ 110.9486 38 20
Edifenphos 310.9932
(limit of quantification). Linearity was assessed using a 282.9198 38 12
six-point calibration curve (5–150 µg/Kg) on the basis of 165.0310 5 26
Flusilazole 316.1323
matrix-match calibration. The LOQ was set at 10 µg/Kg. 247.0118 5 18
Recoveries and precisions were tested by spiking chicken 149.9277 2 22
Indoxacarb 528.0388
meat at 10, 50, and 100 µg/Kg (n=6) for 20 selected 248.9419 2 16
pesticides. Each pesticide was analysed with two MRM 70.0049 38 14
Penconazole 284.1601
158.9215 38 26
transitions and retention time tolerance (tR) of ±0.1 min for
142.9642 10 10
residue identification. Phorate sulphone 293.0346
230.9311 10 8
RESULTS AND DISCUSSION Phorate
277.0397
96.8865 2 32
sulphoxide 198.9218 2 8
Optimization of MS/MS parameters: A multi-residue
302.7830 44 18
method was developed for the simultaneous detection Profenofos 372.9032
344.7946 44 12
of twenty pesticides in a single run. To optimize analyte 132.0000 22 22
response, individual standards (1 µg/mL) were directly Thiamethoxam 292.0512
211.2000 22 12
infused into the MS/MS detector. For each analyte, two 69.0248 14 20
transitions with the maximum response were selected: Triadimefon 296.1407
198.9793 14 14
highest intensity transition as the quantifier ion and the 78.9879 8 40
other as the qualifier ion. Table 2 enlists the optimized Phenthoate 320.9987
246.9397 8 10
MS/MS parameters. Dwell time was set to achieve 10.23 110.9478 78 58
Difenoconazole 405.9689
points per peak, ensuring good peak shape and an adequate 250.9085 78 24
signal-to-noise ratio (S/N). 111.9231 50 74
Chlorantraniliprole 481.8750
Optimization of LC parameters: Optimizing LC 283.8715 50 12
parameters is crucial for achieving high sensitivity, Carbofuran 222.1371
122.9968 2 20
good resolution and effective ionization with minimal 165.0444 2 10
interference. Various mobile phases were tested, including 97.0000 24 34
combinations of formic acid (0.1%) and ammonium Fenpropathrin 350.1000
125.0000 24 14
salts (10 mM Ammonium Acetate and 5mM Ammonium
Acetate) in water and methanol. The best results, with 175.1000 25 20
Imidacloprid 256.1000
209.1000 25 15
optimal resolution and peak shape were obtained using 5
88.1000 17 16
mM Ammonium Formate with 0.2% formic acid in both Thiodicarb 355.0081
108.1000 17 16
water (aqueous phase) and methanol (organic phase). Xie et
88.0000 10
al. (2015) indicated that adding formic acid improves analyte Methomyl 163.0000
106.0000 10
1010
ionization in ESI+ mode. The gradient program is enlisted
above, with chromatograms shown in Figure 1a and 1b.
Optimization of sample extraction: Optimizing multi- contains around 70% water, additional water was omitted
class, multi-residue pesticide extraction from chicken to prevent interference with analyte partitioning into
meat is a challenge due to matrix complexity and varied acetonitrile (Cutillas and Fernández-Alba 2021). End-to-
pesticide characteristics. Acidified acetonitrile (MeCN) end shaking for 25 min improved the recovery (Hajrulai-
was selected as the extraction solvent (Choi et al. 2015), Musliu et al. 2021). The sample was subjected to 5 min
over MeCN:EtOAc acid (49.5:49.5:1) (Hajrulai-Musliu incubation at -20°C before adding MgSO₄ and NaOAc
et al. 2021), as it provided a cleaner extract, improving minimized heat-induced pesticide degradation. MgSO₄ and
detection in ESI mode and enhanced extraction efficiency PSA were used for cleanup to remove fatty acids and lipids
for polar compounds, viz. acephate as compared to ethyl (Chung and Chan 2010), and the MeCN extract was diluted
acetate (Mastovska and Lehotay, 2004). Since chicken with water (1:1) for analysis.

25
110 AISHWARYA ET AL. [Indian Journal of Animal Sciences 95 (2)

Fig. 1a. Chromatograms of 12 of 20 selected pesticide standards Fig. 1b. Chromatograms of 8 of 20 selected pesticide standards
spiked in blank chicken meat at 100µg/Kg concentration. spiked in blank chicken meat at 100µg/Kg concentration.

Validation of method LOQ below the FSSAI MRL (20 μg/kg) (2020). Although
Linearity: Linearity was assessed at six concentration much lower LOQ was reported by Rahman et al. (2017)
levels for pesticide residues. The solvent linearity using LC-FLD and Wu et al. (2013) using LC-MS/MS.
demonstrated a good correlation within the reported Recovery and precision: Recovery and precision were
concentration range, with a regression coefficient (r²) of evaluated using three different concentrations spiked in
≥ 0.99 for all analytes. Retention times for analytes in chicken samples, with each spike assessed in six replicates.
solvent and matrix-matched standards was in accordance Intra-day recovery and precision were determined by
with the SANTE/11312/2021 guidelines. A matrix- analyzing samples on the same day, while inter-day recovery
matched calibration curve was used for quantification, and precision were assessed over three consecutive days,
to mitigate matrix effects (Cortese et al. 2020). Table 3 also in six replicates. The results of the present study are
shows the retention times, linear ranges, and r² values for presented in Table 4.
each analyte. These findings align with studies by Lee et Average recoveries for all 20 selected pesticides were
al. (2022) and Kang et al. (2020), who reported similar statistically evaluated. Intra-day recoveries ranged from
linearity for insecticides (difenoconazole and flusilazole) 73.26% to 116.72% with RSD values of 0.77% to 13.07%.
and other pesticides (chlorpyrifos, phenthoate, profenofos, Inter-day average recoveries were between 85.93%
triadimefon, edifenphos and penconazole), respectively. and 110.79%, with RSD values from 2.23% to 19.39%.
Limit of Detection and Limit of Quantification: The Lichtmannegger et al. (2015) reported recoveries of 93-
LOD and LOQ were determined at signal-to-noise ratios 100% in pork using GC-MS/MS, consistent with this
of 3 and 10, respectively (Weng et al. 2020). In current study. Lee et al. (2022) reported recoveries of 75-81%
study, LOD values ranged from 4.41 to 5.86 μg/kg, and for 32 pesticides in pork, beef and chicken, also aligning
LOQ values ranged from 9.91 to 11.03 μg/kg, aligning with with these results. Rani et al. (2021) reported recovery of
Wei et al. (2015), who reported LODs of 0.5 to 5 μg/kg. imidacloprid in biological matrices at 88-98% using LC-
Pang et al. (2009) reported higher LOQs for thiamethoxam MS/MS.
(40 μg/kg), clothianidin (24 μg/kg), phorate sulfoxide Robustness: Robustness was assessed by varying
(200 μg/kg) and fenpropathrin (40 μg/kg). Thiodicarb was extraction parameters (shaking time) and instrumental
quantified as methomyl, as it rapidly degraded to methomyl parameters (injection volume and column temperature).
upon fortification into livestock products, consistent with The shaking time was reduced to 20 min, yielding
findings by Rahman et al. (2017). The LOD and LOQ for recoveries of 76.71 to 115% with RSD of 1.32 to 9.74%.
methomyl were 5.41 and 11.0 μg/kg, respectively, with Injection volumes of 3 µL and 7 µL resulted in recoveries

26
February 2025] LC-MS/MS ANALYSIS OF PESTICIDE IN CHICKEN 111

Table 3. Retention time, LOD, LOQ, Regression Coefficient and linear range of selected pesticides
Parameter
Name of Pesticide RT LOD LOQ Linear range
r2
(min) μg/kg μg/kg μg/kg
Acephate 0.81 ± 0.01 4.90 ± 0.18 9.95 ± 0.14 0.998
Carbendazim 2.21 ± 0.01 4.71 ± 0.35 9.91 ± 0.16 0.995
Chlorpyrifos 3.83 ± 0.00 4.58 ± 0.23 10.25 ± 0.16 0.997
Clothianidin 2.35 ± 0.01 5.83 ± 0.62 10.58 ± 0.13 0.992
Edifenphos 3.21 ± 0.00 4.68 ± 0.20 10.56 ± 0.10 0.995
Flusilazole 3.13 ± 0.00 4.70 ± 0.24 11.00 ± 0.16 0.992
Indoxacarb 3.34 ± 0.01 5.73 ± 0.22 10.43 ± 0.23 0.998
Penconazole 3.25 ± 0.00 4.73 ± 0.11 10.78 ± 0.17 0.996
Phorate sulphone 3.17 ± 0.01 4.98 ± 0.45 10.51 ± 0.50 0.991
Phorate sulphoxide 2.77 ± 0.00 4.98 ± 0.11 10.61 ± 0.17 0.995
Profenofos 3.59 ± 0.01 4.86 ± 0.22 10.70 ± 0.22 0.998 5-150
Thiamethoxam 2.25 ± 0.00 4.96 ± 0.38 10.21 ± 0.20 0.990
Triadimefon 3.02 ± 0.01 5.30 ± 0.28 10.56 ± 0.27 0.991
Phenthoate 3.16 ± 0.00 4.41 ± 0.25 10.55 ± 0.66 0.995
Difenoconazole 3.38 ± 0.01 5.00 ± 0.14 10.80 ± 0.26 0.996
Chlorantraniliprole 2.82 ± 0.00 5.08 ± 0.15 10.80 ± 0.25 0.994
Carbofuran 2.68 ± 0.00 5.25 ± 0.22 10.41 ± 0.08 0.991
Fenpropathrin 3.83 ± 0.01 4.61 ± 0.15 10.35 ± 0.15 0.998
Imidacloprid 2.35 ± 0.00 5.86 ± 0.64 10.31 ± 0.22 0.991
Thiodicarb 3.69 ± 0.01 - - -
Methomyl 2.22 ± 0.01 5.41 ± 0.93 11.00 ± 0.20 0.995
RT=retention time, Results are expressed in ± SD, n=6.

Table 4. Inter and intra-day RSD and recoveries of 20 selected pesticides spiked in chicken meat
Spiked concentration Intra- day study Inter- day study
Name of pesticide
(µg/Kg) Recovery (%) RSD (%) Recovery (%) RSD (%)
10 76.48 11.20 86.86 17.32
Acephate 50 102.97 2.37 99.56 3.08
100 73.26 2.56 93.21 18.54
10 90.77 7.09 92.56 9.68
Carbendazim 50 105.42 2.28 101.43 4.15
100 102.72 7.48 99.74 3.05
10 101.41 2.36 92.64 8.57
Chlorpyrifos 50 99.07 2.11 99.72 3.76
100 109.00 1.98 101.08 8.39
10 103.23 8.23 110.79 6.06
Clothianidin 50 115.63 3.70 101.31 12.33
100 107.35 11.34 96.47 9.79
10 104.90 1.09 96.83 8.01
Edifenphos 50 105.28 2.19 102.08 4.73
100 105.30 4.10 102.87 5.71
10 97.41 4.89 95.16 19.39
Flusilazole 50 103.40 4.13 98.55 5.87
100 95.49 13.92 104.23 7.37
10 96.92 2.56 88.09 11.64
Indoxacarb 50 104.10 3.45 99.50 5.64
100 98.38 2.00 95.66 6.21

(Table 4 continued ...)

27
112 AISHWARYA ET AL. [Indian Journal of Animal Sciences 95 (2)

Table 4. Concluded ...

Spiked concentration Intra- day study Inter- day study
Name of pesticide
(µg/Kg) Recovery (%) RSD (%) Recovery (%) RSD (%)
10 105.40 1.72 93.5 12.94
Penconazole 50 102.74 1.81 102.78 3.88
100 105.58 2.30 102.54 5.78
10 107.72 6.41 99.6 18.23
Phorate sulphone 50 117.18 4.94 106.33 6.41
100 104.66 10.82 106.88 2.23
10 100.91 0.77 90.6 9.31
Phorate sulphoxide 50 104.40 4.12 99.84 3.84
100 98.85 2.54 99.70 2.78
10 108.38 4.37 95.5 8.91
Profenofos 50 103.97 4.71 102.55 2.74
100 104.69 3.65 98.78 4.99
10 104.39 7.04 97.03 6.26
Thiamethoxam 50 116.72 3.88 102.7 8.73
100 104.79 8.51 95.51 6.60
10 92.76 3.54 95.13 10.20
Triadimefon 50 102.74 2.15 101.54 4.65
100 99.57 4.73 98.62 4.60
10 97.25 3.73 93.3 17.47
Phenthoate 50 105.23 5.50 102.36 3.36
100 97.20 7.82 105.77 7.19
10 96.25 2.02 88.06 8.73
Difenoconazole 50 101.02 2.35 100.65 4.07
100 100.59 1.43 98.32 5.26
10 98.58 1.37 85.93 12.77
Chlorantraniliprole 50 103.30 3.56 100.27 3.22
100 95.89 6.81 95.59 3.29
10 98.58 1.37 95.56 9.39
Carbofuran 50 106.28 3.34 102.51 3.76
100 100.79 2.99 100.70 2.22
10 100.08 2.79 92.93 8.15
Fenpropathrin 50 99.90 2.98 100.77 2.86
100 110.33 2.11 102.55 7.73
10 107.22 8.29 103.43 11.13
Imidacloprid 50 115.10 3.44 96.77 16.82
100 107.00 9.65 93.27 13.26
10 113.04 7.54 108.03 5.16
Thiodicarb/ Methomyl 50 90.86 13.07 99.06 6.68
100 89.93 8.27 93.53 5.55
RSD=Relative Standard Deviation; n=6

of 86.65 to 106.36% (RSD 2.64% to 12.77%) and 83.16 kg, below the FSSAI (2020) MRL. In contrast, Osaili et
to 110.33% (RSD 2.29 to 9.92%), respectively. Column al. (2023) reported that 83% of chicken samples exceeded
temperature studies at 40°C and 50°C produced recoveries the prescribed MRL for carbamates. All pesticide residues
of 92.94 to 112.50% (RSD 2.59 to 10.32%) and 97.08% in farm samples were below detection limits, and none
to 108.68% (RSD 2.62 to 11.09%), respectively. Retention exceeded MRLs (FSSAI 2020, EU 2010, CODEX 2020).
time of all 20 pesticide standards were within the ±0.1 min These findings align with Lee et al. (2022), who reported
tolerance limit. difenoconazole or flusilazole was not detected in chicken
Method application to field samples: A total of 120 samples using GC-MS/MS, and Gomez-Perez et al. (2014),
samples were analyzed, from local and farms to assess who reported absence of acephate in chicken samples
the method’s applicability for routine pesticide residue analyzed using UHPLC coupled with Orbitrap Mass
analysis. Trace amounts of carbendazim were detected in Spectrometry. Oliveira et al. (2018) also reported absence
one local market sample from Mumbai region at 11.2 μg/ of carbofuran, profenofos and triadimefon in beef samples

28
February 2025] LC-MS/MS ANALYSIS OF PESTICIDE IN CHICKEN 113

using LC-MS and QuEChERS extraction. However, L15:1-72.

Anagnostopoulos et al. (2015) reported two meat samples Food Safety and Standards Authority of India (FSSAI) (2020)
positive for chlorpyrifos when analyzed by LC-MS/MS. Food safety and standards (contaminants, toxins and residues)
A multi-residue method was developed for the second amendment regulations, 2020. Gazette of India:
Extraordinary, Part III: Sec.4
simultaneous detection and quantification of 20 selected
Government of India (GOI), 2021. Directorate of plant protection,
pesticides using Liquid Chromatography-Tandem Mass quarantine and storage. [Link]
Spectrometry and its applicability was tested on 120 Gomez-Perez M L, Romero‐Gonzalez R, Plaza‐Bolanos P, Genin
chicken samples. The findings indicated no risk associated E, Martinez Vidal J L and Garrido Frenich A. 2014. Wide‐
with chicken consumption in the Mumbai and studied areas. scope analysis of pesticide and veterinary drug residues in meat
Continuous surveillance and monitoring using innovative matrices by high-resolution MS: detection and identification
screening methods for detection of pesticide residues in using Exactive‐Orbitrap. Journal of Mass Spectrometry 49(1):
animal-origin food are essential to ensure food safety and 27-36.
safeguard public health. Hajrulai-Musliu Z, Uzunov R, Jovanov S, Jankuloski D,
Stojkovski V, Pendovski L and Sasanya J J. 2021. A new LC–
ACKNOWLEDGMENT MS/MS method for multiple residues/contaminants in bovine
meat. BMC Chemistry 15: 1-21.
The present work was supported by ICAR under Indian Pesticides Market Report (IMARC). 2024. Product type
NAHEP-CAAST project entitled “Centre of Excellence for (Synthetic Pesticides, Biopesticides), Segment (Insecticides,
Advanced Research on Animal Food Safety” implemented Fungicides, Herbicides etc.), Formulation (Dry, Liquid), Crop
at Mumbai Veterinary College, Parel, Mumbai (MAFSU, type (Cereals, Fruits, Vegetables, Plantation crops etc.). State
Nagpur). 2025-2033. Report ID. SR112025A1043.
Kang H S, Kim M, Kim E J and Choe W J. 2020. Determination of
REFERENCES 66 pesticide residues in livestock products using QuEChERS
and GC–MS/MS. Food Science and Biotechnology 29: 1573-
Anagnostopoulos C, Bourmpopoulou A and Miliadis G. 2013.
86.
Development and validation of a dispersive solid phase
Khandia R, Pathe C S, Vishwakarma P, Dhama K and Munjal A.
extraction liquid chromatography-mass spectrometry method
2020. Evaluation of the ameliorative effects of Phyllanthus
with electrospray ionization for the determination of multiclass
niruri on the deleterious insecticide imidacloprid in the
pesticides and metabolites in meat and milk. Journal of
vital organs of chicken embryos. Journal of Ayurveda and
Analytical Letters 46(16): 2526-41.
Anastassiades M, Lehotay S J, Štajnbaher D and Schenck F J. Integrative Medicine 11(4): 495-501.
2003. Fast and easy multiresidue method employing Khilare R S, Khurana Rajesh, Narang G and Jadhav V J. 2016.
acetonitrile extraction/partitioning and “dispersive solid- Occurrence of some organochlorine pesticide residues in
phase extraction” for the determination of pesticide residues poultry feed and meat. Haryana Veterinarian 55(2): 120-4.
in produce. Journal of AOAC International 86(2): 412-431. Kumar S, Sharma A K, Rawat SS, Jain D K and Ghosh S.
Chatterjee R N and Rajkumar U. 2015. An overview of poultry 2013. Use of pesticides in agriculture and livestock animals
and its impact on environment of India. Asian Journal of
production in India. Indian Journal of Animal Health 54(2):
Environmental Science 8(1): 51-57.
89-108.
Lee S H, Kwak S Y, Sarker A, Moon J K and Kim J E. 2022.
Choi S, Kim S, Shin J Y, Kim M and Kim J H. 2015. Development
Optimization of a multi-residue analytical method during
and verification for analysis of pesticides in eggs and egg
determination of pesticides in meat products by GC-MS/
products using QuEChERS and LC–MS/MS. Food Chemistry
MS. Foods 11(19): 2930.
173: 1236-1242. Lichtmannegger K, Fischer R, Steemann F X, Unterluggauer H
Chung S W and Chan B T. 2010. Validation and use of a fast and Masselter S. 2015. Alternative QuEChERS-based modular
sample preparation method and liquid chromatography– approach for pesticide residue analysis in food of animal
tandem mass spectrometry in analysis of ultra-trace levels of origin. Analytical and Bioanalytical Chemistry 407(13): 3727-
98 organophosphorus pesticide and carbamate residues in a 42.
total diet study involving diversified food types. Journal of Mastovska K and Lehotay S J. 2004. Evaluation of common
Chromatography A 1217(29): 4815-24. organic solvents for gas chromatographic analysis and stability
CODEX CX/MRL 2-2020. Maximum residue limits and risk of multiclass pesticide residues. Journal of Chromatography
management recommendations for residues of veterinary A 1040(2): 259-72.
drugs in foods. Mitra A, Chatterjee C and Mandal F B. 2011. Synthetic chemical
Cortese M, Gigliobianco M R, Magnoni F, Censi R and pesticides and their effects on birds. Research Journal
Di Martino P. 2020. Compensate for or minimize matrix Environmental Toxicology 5(2): 81-96.
effects Strategies for overcoming matrix effects in liquid Nayak P and Solanki H. 2021. Pesticides and Indian agriculture—a
chromatography-mass spectrometry technique: a tutorial review. International Journal of Research Granthaalayah
review. Molecules 25(13): 3047. 9(5): 250-263.
Cutillas V and Fernández-Alba A R. 2021. Analysis by LC-MS/ Oliveira F, Pereira E, Gobbi J M, Soto-Blanco B and Melo M M.
MS of polar pesticides in fruits and vegetables using new 2018. Multi-residue method for detection of pesticides
hybrid stationary phase. Methods X 8: 101306. in beef meat using liquid chromatography coupled to
European Commission, 2010. Commission regulation (EU) No mass spectrometry detection (LC-MS) after QuEChERS
37/2010. On pharmacologically active substances and their extraction. Food Additives and Contaminants: Part A 35(1):
classification regarding maximum residue limits in foodstuffs 94-109.
of animal origin. Official Journal of the European Union Osaili T M, Al-Natour M Q, Al-Abboodi A R, Alkarasneh A Y,

29
114 AISHWARYA ET AL. [Indian Journal of Animal Sciences 95 (2)

El Darra N, Khazaal S and Holley R. 2023. Detection and Vogeser M and Parhofer KG. 2007. Liquid chromatography
risk associated with organochlorine, organophosphorus, tandem-mass spectrometry (LC-MS/MS)-technique and
pyrethroid, and carbamate pesticide residues in chicken applications in endocrinology. Experimental and Clinical
muscle and organ meats in Jordan. Food Control 144: 109355. Endocrinology and Diabetes 115(09): 559-70.
Pang G F, Cao Y Z, Fan C L, Jia G Q, Zhang J J, Li X M, Liu Wei H, Tao Y, Chen D, Xie S, Pan Y, Liu Z, Huang L and Yuan
Y M, Shi Y Q, Li Z Y, Zheng F and Lian Y J. 2009. Analysis Z. 2015. Development and validation of a multi-residue
method study on 839 pesticide and chemical contaminant screening method for veterinary drugs, their metabolites
multiresidues in animal muscles by gel permeation and pesticides in meat using liquid chromatography-tandem
chromatography cleanup, GC/MS, and LC/MS/MS. Journal mass spectrometry. Food Additives and Contaminants: Part
of AOAC International 92(3): S1-S72. A 32(5): 686-701.
Rahman M M, Abd El-Aty A M, Kim S W, Lee Y J, Na T W, Park Weng R, Lou S, Pang X, Song Y, Su X, Xiao Z and Qiu J. 2020.
J S, Shin H C and Shim J H. 2017. Simultaneous determination Multi-residue analysis of 126 pesticides in chicken muscle
and identity confirmation of thiodicarb and its degradation by ultra-high-performance liquid chromatography coupled
product methomyl in animal-derived foodstuffs using high- to quadrupole time-of-flight mass spectrometry. Food
performance liquid chromatography with fluorescence chemistry 309: 125503.
detection and tandem mass spectrometry. Journal of
World Health Organization (WHO), 2021. Global insecticide
Chromatography B 1040: 97-104.
uses for vector-borne disease control: a 10-year assessment
Rani M, Sudha S, Singh C and Mishra A. 2021. Development of
(2010–2019).
an analytical method for detection of imidacloprid insecticide
Wu Y, Liu X, Dong F, Xu J, Yan Z, Wu X and Zheng Y.
from biological matrix using LC-MS/MS. Journal of Punjab
Academy of Forensic Medicine and Toxicology 21(1): 220-5. 2013. Simultaneous determination of thiodicarb and its
Schneider M J, Lehotay S J and Lightfield A R. 2015. Validation main metabolite residues in cotton by ultra-performance
of a streamlined multiclass, multiresidue method for liquid chromatography coupled to tandem mass
determination of veterinary drug residues in bovine muscle by spectrometry. Analytical Methods 5(4): 1052-57.
liquid chromatography–tandem mass spectrometry. Analytical Xie J, Peng T, Zhu A, He J, Chang Q, Hu X, Chen H, Fan C,
and Bioanalytical Chemistry 407: 4423-35. Jiang W, Chen M and Li J. 2015. Multi-residue analysis of
Tongo I and Ezemonye L. 2015. Human health risks associated veterinary drugs, pesticides and mycotoxins in dairy products
with residual pesticide levels in edible tissues of slaughtered by liquid chromatography–tandem mass spectrometry using
cattle in Benin City, Southern Nigeria. Toxicology Reports 2: low-temperature cleanup and solid phase extraction. Journal
1117-35. of Chromatography B 1002: 19-29.

30