Simplifying Polar Pesticides Within a Single Analysis

Feb 15, 2018 | Blogs, Food / Beverage | 0 comments

Glyphosate is a polar pesticide widely used as a garden herbicide. It is an ingredient in the world’s bestselling weed killer, which farmers consider one of their best solutions to their super weed problems.

However, the chemical has become one of the most controversial topics as concerns about health implications increase. What’s more, lack of rigorous testing methods has also drawn criticism. Yet, regulators across seem to have differing opinions on these issues and its widely used in farming is still authorized.

Many contemporary methods fail to address reproducibility and sensitivity. Consequently, labs are seeking even more efficient and robust analytical testing methods to help identify as many polar pesticides in food, feed, and environment, within in a single analysis.  

There are 2 constraints you need to know need when evaluating glyphosate testing methods:

  1. While ion chromatography has been shown to be beneficial for separation, there are downsides. The need for a suppressor is detrimental to MS analysis and the inefficiency of having to change inlet systems on a mass spectrometers systems that heavily work in reverse-phase LC.
  2. Previous analytical strategies, especially for LC-MS/MS analysis, have required laborious and often time-consuming derivatization of glyphosate and its metabolites to allow the polar nature of the compounds to be identified more easily under reverse-phase LC-MS conditions.

The good news? SCIEX has teamed up with NofaLab, a Rotterdam-based contract testing laboratory to develop a non-derivatized method.

This new method, is based on ion chromatography and optimized on the SCIEX 6500+ QTRAP® LC-MS/MS System, has high sensitivity, linearity, and reproducibility for food, feed, and water samples.

Download a content pack to learn more about this robust and sensitive method and how you can stay ahead of your glyphosate analysis. The content pack includes:

  • Comprehensive tech note which details the performance of this method
  • Recorded webinar from Wim Broer at Nofalab Laboratories
  • Overview flyer


What are the differences between EPA methods 533 and 537.1?

With the risk of per- and polyfluoroalkyl substances (PFAS) contamination and accumulation in humans and wildlife on the rise, it is important to continuously improve and demonstrate capabilities for accurate and precise low-level quantification in research and...

Rescheduling a Schedule I substance, and the Delta-8 controversy

Did you know that in the US, drugs and other chemicals are classified into 5 distinct categories depending on the drug’s acceptable medical use and its potential for abuse or dependency?  Drugs federally classified as Schedule I substances by the US Drug Enforcement Administration (DEA) are considered to have the highest potential for abuse and for creating severe psychological and/or physical dependence. In addition to heroin, LSD and MDMA (ecstasy), cannabis is classified as a Schedule I substance in the Controlled Substance Act of 1970, which means it has no approved medical usage.

The pros and cons of using solid phase extraction and direct injection methods for PFAS testing

US Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) and Department of Defense (DoD) methods for testing per- and polyfluoroalkyl substances (PFAS) in drinking water require using solid phase extraction (SPE). SPE has been used extensively in environmental contaminant analysis both for concentrating large sample volumes (improving method sensitivity) and removing matrix interferences (sample cleanup).

Posted by


Submit a Comment