| Literature DB >> 29113074 |
Ming-Li Ye1, Yan Zhu2.
Abstract
In this study, diethylenetriamine-functional magneticEntities:
Keywords: diethylenetriamine-functional magnetic core-shell polymer modified graphene oxide (DETA-MPs-GO); fungicides; magnetic solid-phase extraction (MSPE); synergistic adsorption mechanism; ultra-performance liquid chromatography-high resolution mass spectrometry (UPLC-HRMS)
Mesh:
Substances:
Year: 2017 PMID: 29113074 PMCID: PMC5713302 DOI: 10.3390/ijms18112333
Source DB: PubMed Journal: Int J Mol Sci ISSN: 1422-0067 Impact factor: 5.923
Figure 1Transmission electron microscopy (TEM) images of: (a) magnetic Fe3O4 microspheres; (b) magnetic core-shell polymer (Fe3O4@poly(GMA-co-DVB)); (c) DETA-MPs; (d) DETA-MPs-GO; (e) Fourier-transformed infrared spectroscopy (FTIR); and (f) X-ray diffraction (XRD) spectra of synthesized materials. EDTA-MPs: diethylenetriamine-functional magnetic core-shell polymer, GO: graphene oxide.
Figure 2Selected ion monitor (SIM) chromatograms of carbendazim using different columns: (a) C18 column; (b) C8 column; and (c) Waters High Strength Silica (HSS) T3 column.
Figure 3SIM chromatogram of nine target fungicides at 10.0 μg/L. NL: normalized level, FTMS: Fourier-transformed mass spectrometry, ESI: electrospray ionization, MS: mass spectrometry, DDMS: data-dependent mass spectrometry.
The molecular formula, exact mass, mass deviation, and retention time of nine target fungicides.
| Compounds | Retention time (min) | Molecular Formula | Ionization Mode | Theoretical Value of Exact Mass (Da) | Experiment Value of Exact Mass (Da) | Mass Deviation (ppm) |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 1.97 | C9H9N3O2 | [M + H]+ | 192.07675 | 192.07632 | −2.23 | |
| 4.67 | C12H13N3 | [M + H]+ | 200.11822 | 200.11786 | −1.80 | |
| 4.70 | C12H14N4O4S2 | [M + H]+ | 343.05292 | 343.05240 | −1.52 | |
| 5.13 | C15H21NO4 | [M + H]+ | 280.15433 | 280.15393 | −1.43 | |
| 5.50 | C21H22ClNO4 | [M + H]+ | 388.13101 | 388.13052 | −1.26 | |
| 5.51 | C15H16Cl3N3O2 | [M + H]+ | 376.03809 | 376.03702 | −2.85 | |
| 5.94 | C14H16ClN3O2 | [M + H]+ | 294.10038 | 294.09973 | −2.21 | |
| 6.28 | C13H11Cl2NO2 | [M + H]+ | 284.02396 | 284.02338 | −2.04 | |
| 6.50 | C19H17Cl2N3O3 | [M + H]+ | 406.07197 | 406.07132 | −1.60 |
Figure 4Extraction and desorption parameter optimization; each experiment was performed in sextuplicates: (a) extraction solvent; (b) adsorbent usage amount; (c) pH effect; (d) desorption solvent.
Absolute matrix effect, expressed as the ratio in percentage obtained with a spiked matrix versus neat solvent standards (1.0 μg/kg, n = 6).
| Compound | Matrix | Average Peak Area | Absolute Matrix Effect (B/A) (%) | |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Standard Solution (A) | Post-Spiked (B) | |||
| apple | 3.14 × 106 | 3.01 × 106 | 95.9 | |
| orange | 3.11 × 106 | 99.0 | ||
| grape | 2.97 × 106 | 94.6 | ||
| apple | 2.81 × 105 | 2.61 × 105 | 92.9 | |
| orange | 2.49 × 105 | 88.6 | ||
| grape | 2.53 × 105 | 90.0 | ||
| apple | 1.28 × 106 | 1.19 × 106 | 93.0 | |
| orange | 1.23 × 106 | 96.1 | ||
| grape | 1.18 × 106 | 92.2 | ||
| apple | 2.26 × 106 | 2.01 × 106 | 88.9 | |
| orange | 1.98 × 106 | 87.6 | ||
| grape | 2.08 × 106 | 92.0 | ||
| apple | 1.45 × 106 | 1.37 × 106 | 94.5 | |
| orange | 1.33× 106 | 91.7 | ||
| grape | 1.35 × 106 | 93.1 | ||
| apple | 1.29 × 104 | 1.20 × 104 | 93.0 | |
| orange | 1.18 × 104 | 91.5 | ||
| grape | 1.23 × 104 | 95.3 | ||
| apple | 2.94 × 105 | 2.83 × 105 | 96.3 | |
| orange | 2.85 × 105 | 96.9 | ||
| grape | 2.78 × 105 | 94.6 | ||
| apple | 8.25 × 105 | 7.14 × 105 | 86.6 | |
| orange | 7.19 × 105 | 87.2 | ||
| grape | 7.13 × 105 | 86.4 | ||
| apple | 2.65 × 106 | 2.42 × 106 | 91.2 | |
| orange | 2.39 × 106 | 90.3 | ||
| grape | 2.44 × 106 | 92.0 | ||
Validation parameters obtained for the nine target fungicides in fruits.
| Compounds | Linear Equation | Linearity Range (μg/L) | LODs 1 (μg/kg) | LOQs 2 (μg/kg) | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Y = 1.01 C + 0.091 | 0.1–100.0 | 0.9996 | 0.03 | 0.09 | |
| Y = 1.12C + 0.062 | 0.1–100.0 | 0.9994 | 0.06 | 0.18 | |
| Y = 0.94C + 0.045 | 0.1–100.0 | 0.9998 | 0.01 | 0.09 | |
| Y = 0.98C + 0013 | 0.1–100.0 | 0.9999 | 0.06 | 0.18 | |
| Y = 0.85C + 0.126 | 0.5–100.0 | 0.9996 | 0.10 | 0.30 | |
| Y = 1.05C + 0.315 | 1.0–500.0 | 0.9995 | 0.30 | 0.90 | |
| Y = 0.81C − 0.094 | 0.1–100.0 | 0.9993 | 0.03 | 0.09 | |
| Y = 0.99C − 0.003 | 0.1–100.0 | 0.9995 | 0.01 | 0.03 | |
| Y = 1.12C + 0.211 | 0.5–100.0 | 0.9996 | 0.10 | 0.30 |
1 LODs: limits of detection, 2 LOQs: limits of quantitation.
Accuracy and precision of nine fungicides in three blank representative fruit samples spiked at three different concentrations by the developed method (n = 6, ± s).
| Compounds | Average Recovery, % (RSD 1, %) | ||||||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Apple | Orange | Grape | |||||||
| 1.0 μg/kg | 40.0 μg/kg | 80.0 μg/kg | 1.0 μg/kg | 40.0 μg/kg | 80.0 μg/kg | 1.0 μg/kg | 40.0 μg/kg | 80.0 μg/kg | |
| 96.6 (8.2) | 105.2 (2.1) | 98.1 (1.4) | 90.1 (7.1) | 93.2 (4.2) | 96.4 (2.5) | 96.2 (5.3) | 102.3 (1.8) | 99.3 (1.8) | |
| 95.2 (5.3) | 103.2 (1.2) | 101.5 (0.9) | 89.4 (3.5) | 90.8 (2.3) | 90.2 (2.0) | 96.3 (3.2) | 98.9 (1.0) | 103.6 (0.8) | |
| 90.2 (6.2) | 94.5 (1.1) | 96.2 (1.0) | 87.1 (6.3) | 91.2 (2.5) | 94.7 (1.6) | 92.5 (4.8) | 96.2 (2.3) | 98.7 (1.6) | |
| 95.3 (6.8) | 96.7 (3.1) | 97.5 (2.3) | 93.4 (6.8) | 95.3 (3.7) | 95.8 (2.4) | 94.2 (5.2) | 97.8 (2.9) | 99.1 (1.4) | |
| 90.8 (6.9) | 92.5 (2.6) | 92.6 (1.8) | 85.6 (6.2) | 88.3 (2.8) | 89.5 (1.9) | 92.5 (4.7) | 94.6 (3.2) | 97.8 (1.9) | |
| 88.1 (7.2) | 92.2 (3.2) | 90.3 (2.1) | 85.6 (7.8) | 87.2 (4.2) | 89.6 (3.1) | 91.4 (6.2) | 93.6 (2.8) | 90.3 (1.6) | |
| 93.1 (5.2) | 99.3 (4.2) | 98.2 (2.4) | 86.9 (6.4) | 92.4 (4.0) | 95.3 (3.5) | 93.4 (5.4) | 98.8 (3.6) | 105.2 (2.1) | |
| 86.3 (4.7) | 89.6 (2.8) | 90.2 (1.2) | 85.6 (5.6) | 89.5 (3.2) | 91.3 (2.3) | 86.5 (3.8) | 89.8 (2.1) | 92.6 (1.0) | |
| 85.2 (7.5) | 88.1 (4.5) | 91.2 (3.2) | 84.9 (6.2) | 86.7 (5.1) | 93.5 (3.2) | 89.7 (6.4) | 89.5 (6.2) | 93.3 (3.1) | |
1 RSD: relative standard deviation.
Frequency, mean, minimum (min.), and maximum (max.) levels of the nine target fungicides detected in the analyzed fruit samples.
| Compound | Frequency (%) | Concentration Detected (μg/kg) | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Range (min.–max.) | Mean | ||
| 79.0 | 0.41–314.0 | 22.6 | |
| 39.5 | 0.32–45.2 | 3.35 | |
| 34.6 | 0.56–618 | 57.1 | |
| 3.7 | 0.53–2.4 | 1.2 | |
| 49.4 | 0.40–693.0 | 56.9 | |
| 6.2 | 6.17–1060 | 287.7 | |
| 32.1 | 0.41–321.0 | 56.9 | |
| 0 | - | - | |
| 42.0 | 0.42–121.6 | 13.3 | |
Figure 5(a) Selected ion monitoring (SIM) chromatogram and (b) dd-MS2 spectra of a positive grape sample. RT: retention time.
Figure 6(a) Detection ratios of nine fungicides in 81 fruit samples; (b) detection concentrations of fungicides in 81 fruit samples.
Scheme 1Synthesis process of diethylenetriamine-functional magnetic core-shell polymer modified graphene oxide (DETA-MPs-GO). GMA: glycidyl methacrylate, DVB: divinylbenzene, EDC: N-ethyl-N-(3-(dimethylamino)propyl)carbodiimide, NHS: N-hydroxysuccinimide.