1 Matrix-matched calibration for the quantitative analysis of pesticides

ed
2 in food: selection of the best calibration model

3 José Manuel Veiga-del-Baño a, José Oliva a, Miguel Ángel Cámara a, Pedro Andreo-

iew
4 Martínez a *, Miguel Motas b

5 a Department of Agricultural Chemistry, Faculty of Chemistry, University of Murcia, Campus of

6 Espinardo, 30100 Murcia, Spain.

v
7 b Department of Toxicology, Faculty of Veterinary, University of Murcia, Campus of Espinardo, 30100

re
8 Murcia, Spain.

10
er
*Corresponding author: Pedro Andreo-Martínez. E-mail: pam11@um.es

11
pe
12

13
ot

14
tn

15

16
rin

17

18
ep

19

20
Pr

21

This preprint research paper has not been peer reviewed. Electronic copy available at: https://ssrn.com/abstract=4786309
 22 Abstract

ed
23 In this study, an automated package was developed to calculate the best calibration

24 model for matrix-matched calibration in food pesticide analysis. The algorithm

iew
25 development in the package is based on three requirements for routine food pesticide

26 analysis; good working range fitness for samples with high Maximum Residue Limits

27 (MRLs), detection capability for pesticide analysis with MRLs close to the limit of

28 quantitation and a simple working range problem detection model. The requirements are

v
29 combined in a simple scoring system above 100.

re
30 The package has been tested in the analysis of pesticides of pepper and wheat flour. The

31 results show that the package can be used for different pesticides in a quick and visual
er
32 way, and also allows evaluation of matrix effects between different matrix calibrations.

33 For the pesticide tested with the package, the weighted linear calibration gave the best
pe
34 score over the simple linear calibration and the second order calibration.

35

36 Keywords: Automation; Calibration; Detection capability; Foods; Good of fitness;

ot

37 Pesticides;
tn

38

39
rin

40

41
ep

42

43
Pr

44

This preprint research paper has not been peer reviewed. Electronic copy available at: https://ssrn.com/abstract=4786309
 45 Introduction

ed
46 Pesticides are widely used in agriculture to protect livestock and crops, with more than

47 4.0 million tonnes used annually worldwide to control a wide range of pests [1]. In this

iew
48 sense, around 333,000 tonnes of pesticides were used in 2021, with more than 400 new

49 pesticides on the market [2].

50 The widespread use of pesticides on crops requires the monitoring of pesticide residues

51 to ensure food quality and safety. For this reason, Maximum Residue Limits (MRLs)

v
52 have been set by various regulations around the world to prevent toxicity problems

re
53 associated with excessive use of pesticides [3]. In the European Union (EU), for

54 instance, the European Commission's (EC) consolidated version of Regulation 396/2005

er
55 sets MRLs for a range of foodstuffs [4, 5].

56 The development of appropriate methods to assess food safety in accordance with the
pe
57 requirements of international quality standards is one of the main objectives in pesticide

58 analysis [6]. In order to determine as many pesticides as possible in the most cost-

59 effective way and with the least amount of effort, multi-residue methods (MRMs) are
ot

60 required. Until now, pesticides have usually been determined by classical analytical
tn

61 methods such as gas chromatography (GC) and liquid chromatography (LC) coupled

62 with mass spectrometry (MS), and the most widely used pesticide residue extraction

63 method in routine laboratories today is the method with the acronym "Quick, Easy,
rin

64 Cheap, Effective, Rugged, and Safe" (QuEChERS). The QuEChERS method involves

65 two steps, the first being an initial extraction with different salt formulations to drive the
ep

66 separation of the organic extraction solvent and water. The second, where an aliquot of

67 the organic phase goes through a clean-up process in dispersive solid phase extraction
Pr

68 (d-SPE) using different sorbents to remove the matrix component prior to injection by

69 chromatographic analysis [7].

This preprint research paper has not been peer reviewed. Electronic copy available at: https://ssrn.com/abstract=4786309
 70 The extraction method in QuEChERS has been subject to certain variations and

ed
71 modifications to cover a wide range of products, such as the addition of water (for

72 spices, flour and other dehydrated matrices) or the addition of a buffer method when

73 analysing pH-sensitive pesticides as suggested by EN 15662 [8].

iew
74 The clean-up approaches aim to reduce the Matrix Effect (ME) in the variability of

75 foods that can be analysed, such as foods with chlorophyll or carotenoids and other

76 natural colours (e.g. spices), fat or lipid content (e.g. nuts), essential oils and flavonoids

v
77 (e.g. herbs), etc [9]. These ME lead to analytical problems that affect in the accuracy of

re
78 the results and can be seen in the recovery of pesticides by reducing or increasing the

79 acceptable value for the purpose of validation from 70% to 120% [6, 10].

80
er
One of the most common approaches to reducing ME methods is the matrix-matched

81 calibration (MMC) [11]. Some of its advantages include the wide range of matrices that
pe
82 can be used [9, 10, 12, 13], its use in GC and LC, and its use in conjunction with other

83 applications such as the use of internal standards [14].

84 The use of MMC is widely described for calibration purposes [15, 16], and used in
ot

85 different fields of instrumental analysis [17-19], but especially in MS for the effects on
tn

86 the ionisation efficiency of the compounds to be studied by the co-presence of different

87 organic compounds together with the compounds to be analysed, causing suppression or

88 enhancement of the analyte signal, affecting the reproducibility and trueness of the
rin

89 result [20].

90 In the analysis of pesticides, the use of MMC is an option recommended by various

ep

91 guides and standards for pesticides [14] and has been widely studied in different and

92 complex samples analysed by GC or LC [21-24] as a suitable option for the use in the
Pr

93 routine laboratories, thus ensuring the requirements of precision, recovery and

94 uncertainty in the SANTE 11312/2021 [6] guideline for pesticide analysis. However,

This preprint research paper has not been peer reviewed. Electronic copy available at: https://ssrn.com/abstract=4786309
 95 although there are many studies on the influence of the matrix on pesticide analysis and

ed
96 quantification errors [25], there is no information on the selection of appropriate

97 calibration functions. Although the influence of this factor is not expected to be

98 significant for the overall uncertainty of pesticide analysis, as the most important

iew
99 contributing factors are precision and recovery [26], it is necessary to choose a

100 calibration model that minimises this contribution, or to quickly visualise which factors

101 influence the use of one model or another in routine analysis. In addition, for pesticide

v
102 analysis, it is necessary that the calibration model allows the most accurate

re
103 quantification of concentrations close to the first calibration point for those pesticides

104 with very low MRLs such as carbofuran [sum of carbofuran (including any carbofuran

105
er
formed from carbosulfan, benfuracarb or furathiocarb) and 3-OH-carbofuran expressed

106 as carbofuran] with an MRL of 0.002 mg/kg in tomatoes, while at the same time
pe
107 quantifying other pesticides with much higher MRLs at the upper end of the calibration

108 range (e.g. famoxadone with an MRL of 2 mg/kg in tomatoes). In this case, the

109 algorithm used becomes very important.

ot

110 Although the software of commercial chromatographs has many numerical and
tn

111 graphical tools, there is no way to simultaneously compare the calibration models of

112 different pesticides, nor the influence of their use on the parameters that can influence

113 the quantification of results, such as detection capability or goodness of fit, in routine
rin

114 validation based on the SANTE [6] requirements.

115 Therefore, an R package, which is publicly available on GitHub

ep

116 (https://github.com/chemaveba/ChemACal), was created to evaluate and select the

117 better calibration model using different tools and a scoring system based on the SANTE
Pr

118 and ISO requirements for these pesticides analysed for use in validation, and to reduce

119 the quantification error in routine analysis used in different MME calibrations through

This preprint research paper has not been peer reviewed. Electronic copy available at: https://ssrn.com/abstract=4786309
 120 numerical and graphical analysis. To evaluate the package, 23 pesticides were analysed

ed
121 by LC and GC using pepper as a matrix line. This package was also used to detect

122 MME between pepper and wheat flour in the pesticides analysed by GC.

iew
123

124 2. Material and methods

125 2.1. R package

v
126 The R package was developed using the RStudio IDE Desktop 2023.09.0 tool, and R

re
127 4.2.2 was used to analyse the data and generate the graphs [27]. This software is free

128 and can be used in both desktop and cloud versions. RStudio allows to create scripts and
er
129 use loops with code written in R. The R package ChemACal (chemical analytical

130 calibration) can be used to automate by loop all pesticides analysed by GC-MS/MS and
pe
131 LC-MS/MS simultaneously. An example of the loop can be provided on request to the

132 authors.

133 2.2. ChemACal package

ot

134 The proposed workflow for the analysis of the calibration data is a sequential process
tn

135 consisting of three steps (Figure 1). In step 1, data are exported from the commercial

136 software coupled to the chromatography system. In step 2, the R package needs two
rin

137 different data sets with the information to evaluate the calibration. The data must be

138 imported in csv, xlsx or other type of format. In the first dataset it is necessary to

139 include different columns with the names of all the pesticides and in the second dataset
ep

140 all the calibration data with two columns for each pesticide named in the first dataset.

141 The first column of the second data set contains the concentration information and the
Pr

142 second column the instrumental response (area) for each concentration. As a safety

143 measure, for each pair of values of concentration and instrumental response, it is

This preprint research paper has not been peer reviewed. Electronic copy available at: https://ssrn.com/abstract=4786309
 144 assessed whether the number of concentration data is the same as the response and if

ed
145 not, it is moved to the next pesticide.

v iew
re
er
146
pe
147 Figure 1. ChemACal sequential process.

148 Step 3, described in sections 2.2.1 and 2.2.2, is the evaluation and scoring algorithm

149 used in the package.

ot

150 2.2.1. Algorithm for evaluation of linearity and calibration model

tn

151 There are several alternatives to evaluate linearity based on graphical (residual plot,

152 linearity plot), statistical test (ANOVA, ANOVA-LOF, Mandel, significance of the
rin

153 quadratic term) or numerical parameters (R2, QC or quality coefficient) in the

154 instrumental analysis [15, 28-32], since their use is appropriate for the evaluation of the
ep

155 calibration model, taking into account their advantages and disadvantages.

156 The algorithm used focused on evaluating, on the one hand, the God of Fitness (GOF)
Pr

157 in all the range of calibration and, on the other hand, the Capability of Detection (COD)

158 of each calibration model. According to section 6.2.1 in the UNE-CEN/TS 17061 [14]

This preprint research paper has not been peer reviewed. Electronic copy available at: https://ssrn.com/abstract=4786309
 159 of use of the simplest acceptable calibration, the linear, the weighted linear and the

ed
160 second order models were calculated.

161 Several assumptions used in routine pesticide analysis have been made, such as that the

iew
162 calibration standard is injected only once, and for this the simplest weight (w) used was

163 1/x, where x is the concentration at each point of the calibration.

164 Equation 1 shows the algorithm used to evaluate the GOF based in the residual standard

v
165 deviation (Sy) according to Mandel GOF indicated in the ISO 8466-1 [33] and the ISO

re
166 8466-2 [34], but expressed as relative residuals (Syrel) [30]. On the other hand, Equation

167 2 to 5 show the algorithm for evaluating the detection capability based on ISO 11843-2

168 [35] and ISO 8466-2 [34].

er
yi ― yi 2
∑N
i=1 [ ]
169 Syrel = 100 × 𝑦 Equation 1
pe
N―p

170 Where N is the number of calibration points, p is the point for calculating the degree of

171 freedom; 2 for linear cases and 3 for second-order calibration. The yi represents the
ot

172 experimental response and yi the response applied the model of calibration and 𝑦 is the

173 average response for transformation to relative Sy.

tn

174 The Equation 2 shows the COD of each calibration model.

rin

𝑆𝑦 1 2
𝑥
175 COD = δ × 𝑏
× 1+𝑁+𝑆 Equation 2 (linear case)
𝑥𝑥

176 Where δ is the value of the non-centrality parameter with N-2 degrees of freedom and a
ep

177 relative error of 5%, b is the slope for the calibration model, 𝑥 is the mean concentration

178 for the calibration points expressed by Equation 3, and Sxx is the sum of the squared
Pr

179 deviations of the calibration points expressed by Equation 4.

180 Equation 3 shows the mean concentration for the calibration points

This preprint research paper has not been peer reviewed. Electronic copy available at: https://ssrn.com/abstract=4786309
 2
181 Sxx = ∑N
i=1 𝑤𝑖(𝑥𝑖 ― 𝑥) Equation 3

ed
182 Equation 4 shows the sum of the squared deviations of the calibration points.

∑N
i=1 𝑤𝑖 × 𝑥𝑖
183 𝑥= Equation 4

iew
𝐹

184 In the case of linear calibration without weight the value of wi is 1, and F is the number

185 of calibration points. If the weight 1/x is used, wi is 1/xi and the value of F is ∑N
i=1 𝑤𝑖.

v
186 Equation 5 shows the COD of each calibration model in the second order case.

re
𝑆𝑦
187 COD = δ × 𝑏𝑠 ×
∑N 2 2 ∑N 2
2 i=1 𝑥𝑖 i=1 𝑥𝑖
(𝑥 ― 𝑥2) × 𝑄𝑥4 + (𝑥2 ― ) × 𝑄𝑥𝑥 ― 2 × (𝑥 ― 𝑥) × (𝑥2 ― ) × 𝑄𝑥3
188 1+
1
+ 𝑁er 𝑁 Equation 5
𝑁 2
𝑄𝑥4 × 𝑄𝑥𝑥 ―(𝑄𝑥3)

189 (second order case)

pe
190 Where bs is the second order slope, in this case is b+cx, and the terms Qxx, Qx3 and Qx4

191 are intermediate values as defined in section 4 of ISO 8466-2 [34].

192 2.2.2. Algorithm for scoring of calibration model

ot

193 The algorithm used to score the best calibration model is based on a simple scoring
tn

194 system where 30 points are given for the minimum COD calculated and the other 30

195 points for the minimum Syrel or GOF obtained. The other 40 points are allocated to the
rin

196 model based on the Mandel test as defined in ISO 8466-1 [33], giving priority to linear

197 calibrations over second order calibrations [as defined by UNE-CEN/TS-17061 [14]]. A

198 schematic summary of this fact is given in Figure 2.

ep
Pr

This preprint research paper has not been peer reviewed. Electronic copy available at: https://ssrn.com/abstract=4786309
 ed
iew
199

200 Figure 2. Scoring used to evaluate the best model of calibration.

v
201 To assist in the selection of the best calibration model, a difference DS2 of the sums of

re
202 squared deviations is calculated from the residual standard deviation according to

203 Equation 6. er
204 𝐷𝑆2 = (N ― 2) × 𝑆2𝑦𝑙 ― (N ― 3) × 𝑆2𝑦𝑠 Equation 6
pe
205 Where Syl is the residual standard deviation in the linear case (linear and linear

206 weighted) and Sys is the residual standard deviation in the second order calibration.

207 By applying an F-test [33] to the value of DS2 and Sys, the calibration function can be
ot

208 estimated: it is linear in the working range examined. If it is concluded that it is not
tn

209 linear, a check shall be made whether there is a maximum or minimum within the

210 working range by application of Equation 7.

rin

𝑏
211 𝑥∗ = ― 2𝑐 Equation 7

212 Where x* must be between the first and last calibration point. The terms b and c refer to
ep

213 the second order calibration coefficient (y=a+bx+cx2).

214
Pr

215

10

This preprint research paper has not been peer reviewed. Electronic copy available at: https://ssrn.com/abstract=4786309
 216 2.2.3. Algorithm for matrix effect

ed
217 Equation 8 shows the matrix effect between the MMC used. The ME was calculated

218 from slopes of calibration curves of the different matrices used [36] and evaluated

iew
219 according to the established range of low (<20%), moderate (20-50%) and high (>50%)

220 [21].

𝑆𝑙𝑜𝑝𝑒 𝑚𝑎𝑡𝑟𝑖𝑥 2
221 𝑀𝐸(%) = 100 × (𝑆𝑙𝑜𝑝𝑒 𝑚𝑎𝑡𝑟𝑖𝑥 1 ―1) Equation 8

v
222 Where slope matrix 1 is the slope in the calibration model selected for the MMC used as

re
223 reference (in this case of pepper) and slope matrix 2 is the slope in the same calibration

224 model used to evaluate the ME (in this case of wheat flour).
er
225 2.3. Pesticide analysis
pe
226 The QuEChERS extraction, based on the E1 extraction of UNE [37], used 10 grams for

227 pepper and 5 grams for wheat flour in a 50 ml polypropylene tube without addition of

228 water. Then 10 ml of acetonitrile was added and the mixture was shaken for 1 minute.
ot

229 After shaking, the salt extraction kit was added and the mixture was centrifuged at 3000

230 rpm for 5 minutes. A clean-up based on C2 EN 15662 of UNE [37] clean-up using PSA
tn

231 was performed on the organic aliquot obtained and finally it was centrifuged again at

232 3000 rpm for 5 minutes to obtain the final aliquot for GC-MS/MS and LC-MS/MS
rin

233 analysis.

234 A total of 10 pesticides were analysed by GC-MS/MS in pepper and wheat flour
ep

235 matrices using an Agilent 7890 (Santa Clara, USA) GC system coupled to a 7000A

236 quadrupole tandem mass spectrometer. The chromatographic separation was performed

237 on a RESTEK RTx-5MS column (30 m, 0.25 mm, i.d., 0.5 µm). Helium was used as the
Pr

238 carrier gas at a constant flow rate of 1.2 mL/min, while argon was used as the collision

11

This preprint research paper has not been peer reviewed. Electronic copy available at: https://ssrn.com/abstract=4786309
 239 gas. The oven temperature was adjusted as follows: the initial temperature was set at 70

ed
240 °C for 2 min, then increased to 150 °C at a rate of 25 °C min-1, to 200 °C at 3 °C min-1

241 with a hold time of 1 min, and finally to 280 °C at 10 °C min-1 with a hold time of 10

242 min. The total run time was 45 min. The temperatures of the transfer line and ion source

iew
243 were set at 280 °C and 250 °C respectively. The mass spectrometer was operated in

244 multiple reaction monitoring (MRM) mode with three mass transitions. The calibration

245 range used for pepper and wheat flour was between 3 and 100 ng/ml.

v
246 A total of 13 pesticides were analysed by LC-MS/MS in pepper matrix using an Agilent

re
247 liquid chromatography system (Santa Clara, USA) coupled to a 6470 triple quadrupole

248 tandem mass spectrometer. The chromatographic separation was performed on a

er
249 Poroshell C18 column (150 mm, 2.1 mm i.d., 2.7 μm) (Agilent, USA) with a flow rate

250 of 0.1 ml at 40 ºC. The elution solvents used were water 5 mM ammonium formate with
pe
251 0.01% formic acid (A) and methanol 5 mM ammonium formate with 0.01% formic acid

252 (B). The gradient elution was performed as follows: 40% solvent B for 0-5 min,

253 changing to 60% solvent B for 6-12 min and finishing with 100% solvent B for 17-20
ot

254 min. Pesticides were analysed using programmed MRM in positive and negative modes
tn

255 simultaneously. Ion source parameters included optimised drying gas temperature,

256 drying gas flow rate, nebuliser pressure, sheath gas temperature and flow rate, capillary

257 voltage, nozzle voltage and high and low radiofrequency voltage. The calibration range
rin

258 in paprika was between 1 and 50 ng/ml.

259 MRM transitions and retention times for the pesticides tested are given in
ep

260 Supplementary Table S1.

261
Pr

262 3. Results and discussion

12

This preprint research paper has not been peer reviewed. Electronic copy available at: https://ssrn.com/abstract=4786309
 263 3.1. Evaluation of the calibration data

ed
264 GC-MS/MS and LC-MS/MS data calibration exported and processed by the doEvalCal

265 function are shown in Table 1 and 2. Table 2 shows only the information calculated by

iew
266 Equations 1 to 6 and the score obtained, but other information such as the regression

267 equation, the coefficient of determination and the minimum response for the first

268 calibration point are shown for comparison with the commercial software used by the

269 chromatograph.

v
re
270 Table 1. Results applying doEvalCal function to matrix-matched calibration by GC-

271 MS/MS.

Compound
er
Model
Linear
COD
2.27
GOF
1.5
SCORE
43
Chlorpropham
Linear-Weighted 0.53 1.5 86
pe
Second-order 1.43 0.8 41
Linear 3.13 2.1 33
Fenpropathrin Linear-Weighted 0.645 2.3 77
Second-order 0.805 0.5 54
Linear 4.6 3.1 9
endimethalin Linear-Weighted 0.964 3.5 65
ot

Second-order 0.719 0.4 80

Linear 7.83 4.9 33
Cypermethrin Linear-Weighted 1.7 5.5 75
tn

Second-order 1.97 1 56
Linear 2.98 2 64
Cyproconazole Linear-Weighted 0.766 2 66
Second-order 1.87 1.1 42
rin

Linear 1.7 1.1 84

Cyprodinil Linear-Weighted 0.801 1.2 78
Second-order 2.08 1.2 40
Linear 3.12 2.2 75
ep

Dimethomorph Linear-Weighted 1.03 2.2 75

Second-order 2.98 1.8 40
Linear 0.996 0.6 92
Fludioxonil Linear-Weighted 0.714 0.7 76
Second-order 1.32 0.8 38
Pr

Linear 2.63 1.7 85

Iprodione Linear-Weighted 1.28 1.7 80
Second-order 3.15 1.8 40

13

This preprint research paper has not been peer reviewed. Electronic copy available at: https://ssrn.com/abstract=4786309
 Linear 5.22 3.3 41
Pyriproxyfen Linear-Weighted 1.25 3.6 82

ed
Second-order 2.81 1.5 43
272 COD: Capability of detection in ng/ml; GOF: Good of Fitness in percentage; Score: Scoring after

273 applying the evaluation of Figure 2.

iew
274

275 Table 2. Results applying doEvalCal function to matrix-matched calibration by LC-

276 MS/MS.

v
Compound Model COD GOF SCORE

re
Linear 2.31 4.2 61
Mandipropamid
Linear-Weighted 0.835 4.2 100
Second-order 2.78 4.3 38
er Linear 1.35 2.5 82
Spirotetramat (sum) Linear-Weighted 0.563 2.8 77
Second-order 1.56 2.5 41
Linear 2.94 5.1 82
Spirotetramat enol Linear-Weighted 1.2 5.4 78
pe
Second-order 3.59 5.8 36
Linear 2.79 5 53
Acetamiprid Linear-Weighted 0.753 5.3 93
Second-order 2.8 4.1 38
Linear 1.08 2 82
ot

Boscalid Linear-Weighted 0.425 2.3 76

Second-order 1.31 2.2 37
Linear 2.8 5.1 49
tn

Chlorantraniliprole Linear-Weighted 0.973 5.4 88

Second-order 1.79 3.3 46
Linear 3.41 6 15
Fenhexamid Linear-Weighted 0.926 7.2 73
rin

Second-order 0.824 1.5 80

Linear 3.77 6.6 53
Metaflumizone Linear-Weighted 1.16 7.3 91
Second-order 2.88 5.2 42
Linear
ep

0.653 1.2 88
Pyraclostrobin Linear-Weighted 0.382 1.5 74
Second-order 0.836 1.4 40
Linear 2.55 4.4 43
Spinosad Linear-Weighted 0.732 5 83
Pr

Second-order 1.17 2.1 49

Linear 3.7 6.4 60
Spirodiclofen
Linear-Weighted 1.28 6.6 99

14

This preprint research paper has not been peer reviewed. Electronic copy available at: https://ssrn.com/abstract=4786309
 Second-order 4.81 7.2 35
Linear 3.16 5.9 62

ed
Spiromesifen Linear-Weighted 1.22 6.8 96
Second-order 3.79 5.9 40
Linear 5.77 10.3 50
Thiacloprid Linear-Weighted 1.46 10.9 91

iew
Second-order 3.91 7.7 41
277 COD: Capability of detection in ng/ml; GOF: Good of Fitness in percentage; Score: Scoring after

278 applying the evaluation of Figure 2.

279 Tables 1 and 2 show that the model with the best score in most of the pesticide is in the

v
280 linear weighted calibration mainly due to a minimum COD and a good GOF, which

re
281 ensures that values can be quantified close to the limit of quantification and that the

282 fitness is adequate over the entire working range studied.

283
er
On the other hand, the GOF results do not show that the use of a second-order

284 calibration is always an improvement over a linear calibration. Clear examples of such
pe
285 cases are cyprodinil, dimetomorph in GC-MS/MS or mandipropamid and spirotetramat

286 in LC-MS/MS, where there are cases where the second-order values are higher than the

287 linear case. For example, spriodiclofen has a second-order GOF value of 7.2 versus 6.6
ot

288 in the linear weighted case. The same situation is repeated for the calculation of COD,

289 where the linear-weighted calibration generally gives a better COD than the linear or
tn

290 second-order calibration, e.g. boscalid, acetamiprid or pyraclostrobin. The combination

291 of the two factors, GOF and COD, together with minimal model error, gives the best
rin

292 results in the linear-weighted calibration compared to the second-order calibration. This

293 confirms the statement in the UNE-CEN/TS-17061 [14] standard that the use of linear
ep

294 calibration models is preferable to more complex models such as second order models.

295 The linear calibration versus the linear-weighted calibration, although the GOF is
Pr

296 similar, e.g. spiromesifen has a GOF value of 5.9 in the linear case versus 6.8 in the

15

This preprint research paper has not been peer reviewed. Electronic copy available at: https://ssrn.com/abstract=4786309
 297 linear-weighted case, always gives better results in COD with the linear-weighted

ed
298 calibration (1.22 versus 3.66 ng/ml).

299 3.2. Graphical visualization

iew
300 The package has two graphical tools. The first allows filtering by type of calibration and

301 by COD limit, i.e. if the pesticide analysed must have at least a limit of quantification of

302 0.005 mg/kg, it is necessary to have a COD limit of 0.003 mg/L in the calibration data.

v
303 The doGrafXcrit function allows a quick visualisation of the number of compounds that

re
304 satisfy this condition, as shown in Figure 3.

er
pe
ot
tn
rin

305

306 Figure 3. Visualization of compounds for a type of calibration and COD limit.
ep

307 Figure 3 also shows that the linear calibration does not meet the COD limit of 0.003

308 µg/ml for 57% of the compounds. So, a priori, it would not be the best calibration to use

309 for the pesticides analysed. To be able to visualise which is the best calibration by
Pr

310 comparing the different calibrations, a new graphical tool is needed. The visualisation of

16

This preprint research paper has not been peer reviewed. Electronic copy available at: https://ssrn.com/abstract=4786309
 311 all the information obtained by the doEvalCal function is realised by the doGrafBcal

ed
312 function. This function is used to obtain data from GOF (Equations 1 to 3), COD

313 (Equations 4 to 6), the calculated score and the instrumental response of the first point

314 of calibration. The graphical results are grouped by type of calibration and with a radius

iew
315 in the bubble chart depending on the value of COD.

316 Figure 4 shows three colours for the type of calibration: purple for linear calibration,

317 green for weighted calibration and yellow for second order calibration. This graph

v
318 allows all the information and compound names to be displayed interactively, e.g.

re
319 thiacloprid appears with all this information but for all the circles can be conveniently

320 displayed. er
pe
ot
tn
rin

321
ep

322 Figure 4. Visualization of all the information interactively.

Pr

323 Figure 4 also quickly shows that the linear weighted calibration (green bubbles) has the

324 best results (x-axis) and the bubbles with less radius (better COD). The worst

17

This preprint research paper has not been peer reviewed. Electronic copy available at: https://ssrn.com/abstract=4786309
 325 calibration is the linear calibration for a worst COD and therefore a low value in the

ed
326 score. The two bubbles with the two worst GOF values (values above 9 on the y-axis)

327 correspond to the compound thiacloprid. The thiacloprid in the linear-weighted

328 calibration has a higher GOF value (10.9), but with a COD of 0.0015 µg/ml it is

iew
329 sufficient to meet the limit of 0.003 µg/ml, which would not be met in the linear

330 calibration with a value of 0.0058 µg/ml.

331 Figure 5 shows the graphical option doGraphME. This option allows the visualisation of

v
332 the pesticides classified according to their matrix effect (low, medium and high). For the

re
333 pesticides analysed with different MME calibrations (pepper and wheat flour), the

334 results of Figure 5 show that only cyprodinil has a high matrix effect (>100) and the rest
er
335 of the pesticides have a low matrix effect.
pe
ot
tn
rin

336
ep

337 Figure 5. Matrix effect in pesticides analyzed with two different MME calibration.

338
Pr

339

18

This preprint research paper has not been peer reviewed. Electronic copy available at: https://ssrn.com/abstract=4786309
 340 4. Conclusions

ed
341 The results of this study showed that the new R package could be used to select the best

342 calibration in pesticide analysis where many pesticides could be analysed. Using the

iew
343 package, the best model calibration obtained was the linear-weighted calibration, where

344 the better evaluation was based on good GOF and COD values compared to other

345 models evaluated as the classical linear calibration and the second-order calibration.

v
346 This package was also found to be suitable for testing matrix effects against different

re
347 types of matrix calibration.

348 All information can be quickly visualised through data sets or various graphical tools

349 implemented in the package.

er
350
pe
351 5. Declaration of Competing Interest

352 The authors declare that this research did not receive any specific grant from funding
ot

353 agencies in the public, commercial, or not-for-profit sectors.

354
tn

355 6. Funding
rin

356 This research did not receive any specific grant from funding agencies in the public,

357 commercial, or not-for-profit sectors.

ep

358

359
Pr

360

361

19

This preprint research paper has not been peer reviewed. Electronic copy available at: https://ssrn.com/abstract=4786309
 362 7. References

ed
363 [1] B. Liu, Y. Fan, H. Li, W. Zhao, S. Luo, H. Wang, B. Guan, Q. Li, J. Yue, Z. Dong, Y. Wang, L.
364 Jiang, Control the Entire Journey of Pesticide Application on Superhydrophobic Plant
365 Surface by Dynamic Covalent Trimeric Surfactant Coacervation, 31 (2021) 2006606.
366 https://doi.org/10.1002/adfm.202006606

iew
367 [2] Eurostat, Pesticide sales. Available on:
368 https://ec.europa.eu/eurostat/databrowser/view/aei_fm_salpest09/default/table?lan
369 g=en, 2023.
370 [3] J.M. Veiga-del-Baño, J.J. Cuenca-Martínez, P. Andreo-Martínez, M.Á. Cámara, J. Oliva, M.
371 Motas, Uncertainty and associated risks in the analysis of pesticides in homogeneous
372 paprika samples, Food Chem., 429 (2023) 136963.
373 https://doi.org/10.1016/j.foodchem.2023.136963

v
374 [4] EC, Regulation (EC) No 396/2005 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 23
375 February 2005 on maximum residue levels of pesticides in or on food and feed of plant

re
376 and animal origin and amending Council Directive 91/414/EEC Text with EEA relevance.
377 Available online: https://eur-lex.europa.eu/legal-
378 content/EN/ALL/?uri=celex%3A32005R0396, (2005).
379 [5] P. Kuchheuser, M. Birringer, Pesticide residues in food in the European Union: Analysis of
380 notifications in the European Rapid Alert System for Food and Feed from 2002 to 2020,
er
381 Food Control, 133 (2022) 108575. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.foodcont.2021.108575
382 [6] SANTE, Guidance SANTE 11312/2021 – Analytical quality control and method validation
383 procedures for pesticide residues analysis in food and feed. Available on:
384 https://www.accredia.it/en/documento/guidance-sante-11312-2021-analytical-
pe
385 quality-control-and-method-validation-procedures-for-pesticide-residues-analysis-in-
386 food-and-feed/, (2021).
387 [7] M. Anastassiades, S.J. Lehotay, D. štajnbaher, Quick, Easy, Cheap, Effective, Rugged, and
388 Safe (QuEChERS) approach for the determination of pesticide residues, 4th European
389 Pesticide Residues Workshop (EWPR). Book of Abstracts, p. 51. Rome, (2002).
390 [8] ECS, European Standard EN 15662. Foods of plant origin-Determination of pesticide
ot

391 residues using GC-MS and/or LC-MS/MS following acetonitrile extraction/partitioning

392 and clean-up by dispersive SPE-QuEChERS-method. European Committee for
393 Standardization. Available on:
tn

394 http://www.chromnet.net/Taiwan/QuEChERS_Dispersive_SPE/QuEChERS_%E6%AD%9
395 0%E7%9B%9F%E6%96%B9%E6%B3%95_EN156622008_E.pdf, (2008).
396 [9] E. Rutkowska, B. Łozowicka, P. Kaczyński, Three approaches to minimize matrix effects in
397 residue analysis of multiclass pesticides in dried complex matrices using gas
398 chromatography tandem mass spectrometry, Food Chem., 279 (2019) 20-29.
rin

399 https://doi.org/10.1016/j.foodchem.2018.11.130
400 [10] R.D. Damale, A. Dutta, N. Shaikh, A. Pardeshi, R. Shinde, K.D. Babu, N.N. Gaikwad, K.
401 Banerjee, Multiresidue analysis of pesticides in four different pomegranate cultivars:
402 Investigating matrix effect variability by GC-MS/MS and LC-MS/MS, Food Chem., 407
403 (2023) 135179. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.foodchem.2022.135179
ep

404 [11] L. Cuadros-Rodrı́guez, A.M. Garcı́a-Campaña, E. Almansa-López, F.J. Egea-González, M.

405 Lourdes Castro Cano, A. Garrido Frenich, J.L. Martı́nez-Vidal, Correction function on
406 biased results due to matrix effects: Application to the routine analysis of pesticide
407 residues, Anal. Chim. Acta, 478 (2003) 281-301. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0003-
Pr

408 2670(02)01508-8
409 [12] Y. Fu, J. Zhang, J. Qin, X. Dou, J. Luo, M. Yang, Representative matrices for use in matrix-
410 matched calibration in gas chromatography-mass spectrometry for the analysis of

20

This preprint research paper has not been peer reviewed. Electronic copy available at: https://ssrn.com/abstract=4786309
 411 pesticide residues in different types of food-medicine plants, J. Food Compost. Anal.,
412 111 (2022) 104617. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jfca.2022.104617

ed
413 [13] J. Zhao, J. Pu, X. Wu, B. Chen, Y. He, Y. Zhang, B. Han, Evaluation of the matrix effect of pH
414 value and sugar content on the analysis of pesticides in tropical fruits by UPLC-MS/MS,
415 Microchem. J., 168 (2021) 106375. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.microc.2021.106375
416 [14] UNE-CEN/TS-17061, Foodstuffs - Guidelines for the calibration and quantitative
417 determination of pesticide residues and organic contaminants using chromatographic

iew
418 methods (Endorsed by Asociación Española de Normalización in October of 2019.).
419 Available on: https://www.normadoc.com/spanish/une-cen-ts-17061-2019.html,
420 (2019).
421 [15] L. Cuadros-Rodrı́guez, L. Gámiz-Gracia, E.M. Almansa-López, J.M. Bosque-Sendra,
422 Calibration in chemical measurement processes. II. A methodological approach, TrAC,
423 Trends Anal Chem, 20 (2001) 620-636. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0165-9936(01)00111-

v
424 X
425 [16] ISO, ISO Guide 33:2015. Reference materials. Good practice in using reference materials.
426 Available on: https://www.iso.org/standard/46212.html, (2015).

re
427 [17] J.T. Sloop, S.C. Allen, J.A. Carter, G.L. Donati, B.T. Jones, Matrix-matched two-point
428 calibration based on the standard dilution analysis method, Microchem. J., 160 (2021)
429 105740. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.microc.2020.105740
430 [18] R.B. Hoff, G. Rübensam, L. Jank, F. Barreto, M.d.C. Ruaro Peralba, T.M. Pizzolato, M. Silvia
431 Díaz-Cruz, D. Barceló, Analytical quality assurance in veterinary drug residue analysis
432
er
methods: Matrix effects determination and monitoring for sulfonamides analysis,
433 Talanta, 132 (2015) 443-450. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.talanta.2014.08.046
434 [19] J. Zrostlı́ková, J. Hajšlová, J. Poustka, P. Begany, Alternative calibration approaches to
pe
435 compensate the effect of co-extracted matrix components in liquid chromatography–
436 electrospray ionisation tandem mass spectrometry analysis of pesticide residues in
437 plant materials, Journal of Chromatography A, 973 (2002) 13-26.
438 https://doi.org/10.1016/S0021-9673(02)01196-2
439 [20] M.G. Ikonomou, A.T. Blades, P. Kebarle, Investigations of the electrospray interface for
440 liquid chromatography/mass spectrometry, Analytical Chemistry, 62 (1990) 957-967.
ot

441 https://doi.org/10.1021/ac00208a012
442 [21] M.A. Carrera, L.M. Sánchez, M.M. Morales, A.R. Fernández-Alba, M.D. Hernando, Method
443 optimisation for large scope pesticide multiresidue analysis in bee pollen: A pilot
444 monitoring study, Food Chem., 436 (2024) 137652.
tn

445 https://doi.org/10.1016/j.foodchem.2023.137652
446 [22] P. Parrilla Vázquez, C. Ferrer, M.J. Martínez Bueno, A.R. Fernández-Alba, Pesticide residues
447 in spices and herbs: Sample preparation methods and determination by
448 chromatographic techniques, TrAC, Trends Anal Chem, 115 (2019) 13-22.
449 https://doi.org/10.1016/j.trac.2019.03.022
rin

450 [23] J.F. Huertas-Pérez, Q. Baslé, M. Dubois, X. Theurillat, Multi-residue pesticides

451 determination in complex food matrices by gas chromatography tandem mass
452 spectrometry, Food Chem., 436 (2024) 137687.
453 https://doi.org/10.1016/j.foodchem.2023.137687
ep

454 [24] K. Pszczolińska, N. Shakeel, H. Barchanska, A simple approach for pesticide residues
455 determination in green vegetables based on QuEChERS and gas chromatography
456 tandem mass spectrometry, J. Food Compost. Anal., 114 (2022) 104783.
457 https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jfca.2022.104783
458 [25] S. Uclés, A. Lozano, A. Sosa, P. Parrilla Vázquez, A. Valverde, A.R. Fernández-Alba, Matrix
Pr

459 interference evaluation employing GC and LC coupled to triple quadrupole tandem

460 mass spectrometry, Talanta, 174 (2017) 72-81.
461 https://doi.org/10.1016/j.talanta.2017.05.068

21

This preprint research paper has not been peer reviewed. Electronic copy available at: https://ssrn.com/abstract=4786309
 462 [26] A. Valverde, A. Aguilera, A. Valverde-Monterreal, Practical and valid guidelines for realistic
463 estimation of measurement uncertainty in multi-residue analysis of pesticides, Food

ed
464 Control, 71 (2017) 1-9. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.foodcont.2016.06.017
465 [27] M. Aria, C. Cuccurullo, Bibliometrix: An R-tool for comprehensive science mapping
466 analysis, Informetrics, 11 (2017) 959-975. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.joi.2017.08.007
467 [28] F. Raposo, Evaluation of analytical calibration based on least-squares linear regression for
468 instrumental techniques: A tutorial review, TrAC, Trends Anal Chem, 77 (2016) 167-

iew
469 185. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.trac.2015.12.006
470 [29] B.A. Logue, E. Manandhar, Percent residual accuracy for quantifying goodness-of-fit of
471 linear calibration curves, Talanta, 189 (2018) 527-533.
472 https://doi.org/10.1016/j.talanta.2018.07.046
473 [30] P. Vankeerberghen, J. Smeyers-Verbeke, The quality coefficient as a tool in decisions
474 about the quality of calibration in graphite furnace atomic absorption spectrometry,

v
475 Chemometrics Intellig. Lab. Syst., 15 (1992) 195-202. https://doi.org/10.1016/0169-
476 7439(92)85009-R
477 [31] W. Huber, On the use of the correlation coefficient r for testing the linearity of calibration

re
478 functions, Accreditation and Quality Assurance, 9 (2004) 726.
479 https://doi.org/10.1007/s00769-004-0854-6
480 [32] D.L. Massart, B.G. Vandeginste, L.M.C. Buydens, P.J. Lewi, J. Smeyers-Verbeke, S. De Jong,
481 Handbook of Chemometrics and Qualimetrics: Part A, Elsevier Science Inc., NY, USA,
482 1997. https://doi.org/10.1021/ci980427d
483
er
[33] ISO, ISO 8466-1:2021. Water quality — Calibration and evaluation of analytical methods —
484 Part 1: Linear calibration function. Available on:
485 https://www.iso.org/standard/77139.html, (2021).
pe
486 [34] ISO, ISO 8466-2:2001. Water quality. Calibration and evaluation of analytical methods and
487 estimation of performance characteristics Part 2: Calibration strategy for non-linear
488 second-order calibration functions. Available on:
489 https://www.iso.org/standard/34816.html, (2001).
490 [35] ISO, ISO 11843-2:2000. Capability of detection. Part 2: Methodology in the linear
491 calibration case. Available on: https://www.iso.org/standard/20186.html, (2000).
ot

492 [36] A. Lozano, Ł. Rajski, S. Uclés, N. Belmonte-Valles, M. Mezcua, A.R. Fernández-Alba,

493 Evaluation of zirconium dioxide-based sorbents to decrease the matrix effect in
494 avocado and almond multiresidue pesticide analysis followed by gas chromatography
495 tandem mass spectrometry, Talanta, 118 (2014) 68-83.
tn

496 https://doi.org/10.1016/j.talanta.2013.09.053
497 [37] UNE, UNE-EN 15662:2019. Foods of plant origin - Multimethod for the determination of
498 pesticide residues using GC- and LC-based analysis following acetonitrile
499 extraction/partitioning and clean-up by dispersive SPE - Modular QuEChERS-method.
500 Available on: https://www.une.org/encuentra-tu-norma/busca-tu-
rin

501 norma/norma?c=N0061576, (2019).

502
ep
Pr

22

This preprint research paper has not been peer reviewed. Electronic copy available at: https://ssrn.com/abstract=4786309