The aim of this work was the evaluation of QuEChERS extraction method for polycyclic aromatic hydrocarbon (PAH) determination in various types of tea. In the experiment, different kinds of extraction solvents, sorbents and a final method of sample preparation were compared. The final extracts were analysed by gas chromatography-selected ion monitoring-mass spectrometry. The results suggest that acetonitrile extraction, clean up with SAX and final liquid–liquid extraction was the best combination giving the most purified extracts and acceptable compound recoveries for different types of teas. In the study of real samples, compounds belonging to light PAHs were mostly detected, and heavy polycyclic aromatic hydrocarbons, including benzo[a]pyrene, were not identified in any of samples.

The aim of this study was to evaluate the application of quick, easy, cheap, effective, rugged and safe method for simultaneous determination of polycyclic aromatic hydrocarbons and pesticide residues in fresh herbs. In the experiment two extraction solvents and standard types of sorbents were used. The extracts were analyzed using GC–SIM–MS. The results suggest that acetonitrile is more suitable extraction solvent giving more purified samples and better recovery values (71.6 %–116.9 %) with RSD lower than 15 % for most of the compounds. In real samples pesticides were identified in the samples of parsley, tarragon and lovage. In few samples the pesticide levels exceeded the MRL established by EU.

This paper reports the evaluation of the Quick, Easy, Cheap, Effective, Rugged and Safe (QuEChERS) method for the determination of polycyclic aromatic hydrocarbons (PAHs) in food of animal origin with GC–MS detection. Although in the available literature, there is a lot of information about sample preparation method for PAHs determination in food samples, but the QuEChERS method application for PAHs determination in food of animal origin has not been reported as yet. The results showed that the best recovery ratios 72.4–110.8 % with relative standard deviation lower than 10 % for all determined compounds were received for the method with ethyl acetate as an extraction solvent, primary–secondary amine and C₁₈ sorbents and evaporation to dryness and dissolving the residues in the hexane. The limit of quantification ranged from 0.0003 to 0.0030 mg kg⁻¹ for pyrene and benzo[a]anthracene, respectively. This method was also used for the determination of PAHs in 15 samples of pork ham. In 8 of 15 samples selected, PAHs were identified. It was observed that in 6 cooked ham and one smoked and cooked samples, any PAHs were found. In other samples, which were smoked and roasted, some low concentration of PAHs was detected. In one sample benzo[a]pyrene (0.0015 mg kg⁻¹), in one sample benzo[b]fluoranthene (0.0015 mg kg⁻¹) and in one sample chrysene (0.0024 mg kg⁻¹) were detected. A number of other less harmful PAHs were also determined. There were no exceedances of maximum levels (according to Commission Regulation (EU) No 835/2011) for determined PAHs in any of the analysed samples.