## 3 Results
### Comparison with QuEChERS  
QuEChERS method was applied for comparison with the proposed methodology. The calculated recoveries at 0.1 ug/g concentration level are graphically presented in Figure 7. Carbendazim, chlorpyrifos, difenoconazole, flonicamid, and thiamethoxam showed higher recovery values using the QuEChERS methodology, while abamectin, imazalli, pyriproxyfen, spinosyn A, spinosyn D, and thiabendazole showed higher recoveries using the proposed methodology. No statistically significant differences were observed for the majority of the analytes (74%). Similar results have been reported by [PERSON] et al. [34] in experiments comparing MAE and QuEChERS methods for the extraction of pesticides from grapes.  
Even though QuEChERS is a standard non-labor-intensive process for residue analysis that requires minimum usage of chemical solvents and is considered a fast and environmentally friendly method, MAE proves to be faster. MAE accelerates sample preparation owing to its automation, offering the possibility of the simultaneous extraction of 14 samples in the microwave oven, within a single step. The reported data are in accordance with the results reported by [PERSON] et al. [34] and [PERSON] et al. [32].  
\begin{table}
\begin{tabular}{c c c c c c c c c c} \hline \hline \multirow{2}{*}{**Compounds**} & \multicolumn{2}{c}{**Accuracy**} & \multicolumn{5}{c}{**Repeatability**} & \multicolumn{5}{c}{**Reproducibility**} \\ \cline{2-11}  & \multicolumn{5}{c}{**Recoveries (\%)**} & \multicolumn{5}{c}{**RSD (\%)**} & **Recoveries (\%)** & **RSD (\%)** & **LOQ** & **LOD** \\ \cline{2-11}  & **0.01 ug/g** & **0.03 ug/g** & **0.1 ug/g** & **1 ug/g** & **0.03 ug/g** & **0.1 ng/g** & **0.1 ug/g** & **0.1 ng/g** & **0.1 ng/g** & **(ng/g)** & **(ng/g)** \\ \hline imazalli & 120 & 80 & 89 & 75 & 17 & 19 & 90 & 17 & 0.010 & 0.008 \\ \hline indoxacarb & - & 100 & 80 & 86 & 16 & 5 & 87 & 25 & 0.03 & 0.012 \\ \hline kresoxym-methyl & 114 & 89 & 85 & 87 & 11 & 4 & 86 & 20 & 0.010 & 0.011 \\ \hline lambda-cylindricaln & - & 107 & 78 & 74 & 10 & 5 & 67 & 16 & 0.030 & 0.015 \\ \hline methoxyfenzo & 106 & 93 & 91 & 94 & 11 & 4 & 95 & 11 & 0.010 & 0.011 \\ \hline myclobutanil & 101 & 93 & 85 & 83 & 12 & 11 & 90 & 15 & 0.010 & 0.007 \\ \hline penconazole & 114 & 89 & 84 & 80 & 10 & 3 & 85 & 13 & 0.010 & 0.006 \\ \hline pirimicarb & 105 & 85 & 86 & 86 & 17 & 12 & 83 & 13 & 0.010 & 0.008 \\ \hline pyracolostrobin & - & 92 & 83 & 85 & 16 & 14 & 90 & 19 & 0.030 & 0.009 \\ \hline pyrimethanil & 94 & 82 & 81 & 79 & 20 & 14 & 86 & 16 & 0.010 & 0.007 \\ \hline pyriproxyfen & - & 101 & 90 & 92 & 19 & 15 & 81 & 11 & 0.030 & 0.013 \\ \hline spinosyn A & - & 96 & 91 & 74 & 18 & 20 & 79 & 18 & 0.030 & 0.011 \\ \hline spinosyn D & - & 97 & 90 & 70 & 9 & 5 & 72 & 17 & 0.030 & 0.014 \\ \hline spirodiclofen & - & 86 & 83 & 85 & 15 & 11 & 75 & 11 & 0.030 & 0.014 \\ \hline tau-fluvalinate & - & 91 & 89 & 70 & 14 & 9 & 89 & 24 & 0.03 & 0.011 \\ \hline tebuconazole & 116 & 92 & 81 & 82 & 16 & 3 & 87 & 17 & 0.010 & 0.007 \\ \hline tebufenzoide & 115 & 93 & 93 & 94 & 9 & 7 & 96 & 13 & 0.010 & 0.011 \\ \hline tebufenpyrad & - & 100 & 85 & 86 & 10 & 13 & 83 & 16 & 0.030 & 0.011 \\ \hline thiabendazole & 97 & 88 & 89 & 78 & 16 & 11 & 92 & 17 & 0.010 & 0.010 \\ \hline thiacloprid & 102 & 92 & 87 & 89 & 11 & 4 & 88 & 11 & 0.010 & 0.007 \\ \hline thiamethoxam & 104 & 87 & 91 & 90 & 13 & 18 & 94 & 5 & 0.010 & 0.008 \\ \hline trifoxystrobin & - & 96 & 80 & 86 & 10 & 16 & 88 & 16 & 0.030 & 0.011 \\ \hline \hline \end{tabular}
\end{table}
Table 1: _Cont._