| Literature DB >> 31052245 |
Shizhuang Weng1, Shuan Yu2, Ronglu Dong3, Jinling Zhao4, Dong Liang5.
Abstract
Pesticide residue detection is a hot issue in the quality and safety of agricultural grains. A novel method for accurate detection of pirimiphos-methyl residues in wheat was developed using surface-enhanced Raman spectroscopy (SERS) and chemometric methods. A simple pretreatment method was conducted to extract pirimiphos-methyl residue from wheat samples, and highly effective gold nanorods were prepared for SERS measurement. Raman peaks assignment was calculated using density functional theory. The Raman signal of pirimiphos-methyl can be detected when the concentrations of residue in wheat extraction solution and contaminated wheat is as low as 0.2 mg/L and 0.25 mg/L, respectively. Quantification of pirimiphos-methyl was performed by applying regression models developed by partial least squares regression, support vector machine regression and random forest with principal component analysis using different preprocessed methods. As for the contaminated wheat samples, the relative deviation between gas chromatography-mass spectrometry value and predicted value is in the range of 0.10%-6.63%, and predicted recovery is 94.12%-106.63%, ranging from 23.93 mg/L to 0.25 mg/L. Results demonstrated that the proposed SERS method is an effective and efficient analytical tool for detecting pirimiphos-methyl in wheat with high accuracy and excellent sensitivity.Entities:
Keywords: chemometric methods; pirimiphos-methyl; surface-enhanced Raman spectroscopy; wheat
Mesh:
Substances:
Year: 2019 PMID: 31052245 PMCID: PMC6539293 DOI: 10.3390/molecules24091691
Source DB: PubMed Journal: Molecules ISSN: 1420-3049 Impact factor: 4.411
Figure 1UV–visible spectra of GNRs solutions with addition of AgNO3 (0.008 M) at 80, 90, 100, 110, 120 and 130 µL in growth solution. The inset shows a SEM image of GNRs with a longitudinal LSPR band at 785 nm.
Figure 2(A): Calculated Raman spectra of pirimiphos-methyl using DFT, and the inset is molecular structure of pirimiphos-methyl; (B): Raman spectra of pirimiphos-methyl powder (a) and SERS spectra of acetone (b), pirimiphos-methyl in acetone solution (25 mg/L) (c), wheat extraction solutions (d) and pirimiphos-methyl in wheat extraction solutions (25 mg/L) (e).
Peak assignment for calculated and experimental Raman peaks of pirimiphos-methyl (cm−1).
| Calculated Raman Peaks | Experimental Raman Peaks | Assignment |
|---|---|---|
| 566, 604, 780, 820, 884, 972, 1004, 1100, 1180,1348, 1564, 1580, 1636, 1396, 1420 | 574, 653, 829, 854, 959, 992, 1339, 1596, 1635, 1372, 1439 | stretching vibration of pyrimidine ring |
| 636 | 631 | stretching vibration of P=S |
| 940 | 932 | stretching vibration of C−C |
| 1052 | stretching vibration of P−O−CH3 | |
| 1076 | 1076 | stretching vibration of P−O−CH3 |
| 1204 | formation vibration of CH3 | |
| 1244 | asymmetrical stretching vibration of N−CH2 | |
| 1492 | stretching vibration of C−N | |
| 1508 | 1515 | formation vibration of CH3 |
Figure 3SERS spectra of wheat extract solution with pirimiphos-methyl residue of 25, 10, 5, 2.5, 1, 0.5, 0.2 and 0.1 mg/L (a–h).
Figure 4Intensity variation of peaks at 574, 631, 991, 1076 and 1372 cm−1 from twenty samples containing 2.5 mg/L pirimiphos-methyl.
Predicted results of regression models developed with three preprocessed spectra for pirimiphos-methyl concentrations in wheat extraction (units: mg/L).
| Methods | Number of Latent Variables | Original Spectra | 1st Derivative | 2nd Derivative | |||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| RMSEC | RMSEP | RMSEC | RMSEP | RMSEC | RMSEP | ||
| PLSR | 23 | 0.3067 | 0.4012 | 0.2502 | 0.3221 | 0.3333 | 0.4109 |
| SVR | 0.0084 | 0.0272 | 0.0086 | 0.0193 | 0.0092 | 0.0359 | |
| RF | 0.1581 | 0.1906 | 0.2192 | 0.3833 | 0.3679 | 0.8653 | |
| PCA+PLSR | 9 | 0.0051 | 0.0096 | 0.0092 | 0.0221 | 0.0053 | 0.0142 |
| PCA+SVR | 0.0094 | 0.0147 | 0.0095 | 0.0157 | 0.0092 | 0.0160 | |
| PCA+RF | 0.6737 | 1.6748 | 0.6225 | 1.6801 | 0.6410 | 1.6641 | |
Figure 5Predicted error of the optimal regression model for wheat extraction solution with residue of different concentration ((A): calibration set, (B): validation set).
Figure 6Spectra of pirimiphos-methyl residues in the wheat samples of 23.93, 15.85, 11.72, 9.05, 7.36, 4.75, 3.49, 1.45, 0.91 and 0.25 mg/L (a–j) with the proposed extraction method.
Predicted results of contaminated wheat with pirimiphos-methyl using SERS, PLSR and PCA.
| Actual Value by GC-MS (mg/L) | Predicted Values by SERS | Relative Deviation (%) | Recovery (%) | Error (mg/L) | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Mean Value (mg/L) | Standard Deviation (mg/L) | ||||
| 23.93 | 22.71 | 0.112 | 5.10 | 94.90 | 1.22 |
| 23.86 | 22.67 | 0.111 | 4.99 | 95.01 | 1.19 |
| 22.54 | 21.76 | 0.102 | 3.46 | 96.54 | 0.78 |
| 20.34 | 20.36 | 0.105 | 0.10 | 100.10 | −0.02 |
| 18.57 | 17.78 | 0.103 | 4.25 | 95.75 | 0.79 |
| 15.85 | 16.13 | 0.105 | 1.77 | 101.77 | −0.28 |
| 14.43 | 14.31 | 0.103 | 0.83 | 99.17 | 0.12 |
| 13.35 | 13.27 | 0.099 | 0.60 | 99.40 | 0.08 |
| 12.11 | 11.89 | 0.097 | 1.82 | 98.18 | 0.22 |
| 11.79 | 11.34 | 0.095 | 3.82 | 96.18 | 0.45 |
| 11.72 | 11.04 | 0.093 | 5.80 | 94.20 | 0.68 |
| 10.91 | 10.76 | 0.091 | 1.37 | 98.63 | 0.15 |
| 10.47 | 10.37 | 0.090 | 0.96 | 99.04 | 0.1 |
| 10.35 | 10.23 | 0.087 | 1.16 | 98.84 | 0.12 |
| 10.23 | 10.27 | 0.079 | 0.39 | 100.39 | −0.04 |
| 9.05 | 9.65 | 0.074 | 6.63 | 106.63 | −0.6 |
| 9.03 | 8.95 | 0.071 | 0.89 | 99.11 | 0.08 |
| 9.01 | 8.96 | 0.072 | 0.55 | 99.45 | 0.05 |
| 8.76 | 8.35 | 0.068 | 4.68 | 95.32 | 0.41 |
| 7.50 | 7.23 | 0.069 | 3.60 | 96.40 | 0.27 |
| 6.56 | 6.34 | 0.058 | 3.35 | 96.65 | 0.22 |
| 6.13 | 5.92 | 0.059 | 3.43 | 96.57 | 0.21 |
| 5.45 | 5.24 | 0.048 | 3.85 | 96.15 | 0.21 |
| 4.75 | 4.55 | 0.042 | 4.21 | 95.79 | 0.2 |
| 4.56 | 4.34 | 0.041 | 4.82 | 95.18 | 0.22 |
| 3.87 | 3.75 | 0.041 | 3.10 | 96.90 | 0.12 |
| 3.49 | 3.54 | 0.043 | 1.43 | 101.43 | −0.05 |
| 3.31 | 3.18 | 0.042 | 3.93 | 96.07 | 0.13 |
| 3.01 | 2.88 | 0.039 | 4.32 | 95.68 | 0.13 |
| 2.37 | 2.23 | 0.037 | 5.91 | 94.09 | 0.14 |
| 2.47 | 2.36 | 0.036 | 4.45 | 95.55 | 0.11 |
| 1.45 | 1.37 | 0.033 | 5.52 | 94.48 | 0.08 |
| 1.38 | 1.27 | 0.029 | 7.97 | 92.03 | 0.11 |
| 1.36 | 1.37 | 0.031 | 0.74 | 100.74 | −0.01 |
| 1.23 | 1.17 | 0.028 | 4.88 | 95.12 | 0.06 |
| 0.91 | 0.96 | 0.027 | 5.49 | 105.49 | −0.05 |
| 0.79 | 0.75 | 0.34 | 5.06 | 94.94 | 0.04 |
| 0.67 | 0.66 | 0.027 | 1.49 | 98.51 | 0.01 |
| 0.51 | 0.48 | 0.010 | 5.88 | 94.12 | 0.03 |
| 0.25 | 0.24 | 0.011 | 4.00 | 96.00 | 0.01 |
Figure 7Comparison of the values measured by GC-MS (actual value) and SERS (predicted value).