Geraldine Dardar, the plaintiff in the trial court, appeals a final judgment in favor of Southard Distributors of Tampa, challenging the trial court’s refusal to excuse certain prospective jurors for cause. We affirm.

Dardar moved to excuse three prospective jurors for cause. The trial court denied the request. Dardar then used two of her three peremptory challenges to strike two of the challenged prospective jurors. The third challenged person was seated on the jury.

*1113The issue for this court’s determination is whether the trial court committed reversible error in forcing Dardar to use peremptory challenges on two prospective jurors who arguably should have been excused for cause. We find that Dardar failed to preserve this issue for appeal because she did not request additional peremptory challenges. See Reilly v. State, 557 So.2d 1365 (Fla. 1990); Moore v. State, 525 So.2d 870 (Fla. 1988); Hill v. State, 477 So.2d 553 (Fla. 1985).

Dardar argues that her attorney did request additional peremptory challenges.* We disagree. The fourth district recently has observed: “In order to preserve error in the court’s denial of a challenge for cause, an additional challenge must first be sought and denied. It is insufficient for counsel to simply take exception to the court’s ruling on the request to strike for cause.” Dobek v. Ans, 560 So.2d 328 (Fla. 4th DCA 1990).

Accordingly, we affirm the final judgment.