| Literature DB >> 31739625 |
Abdul Kaium1,2, Junli Cao1,3, Xingang Liu1, Jun Xu1, Fengshou Dong1, Xiaohu Wu1, Yongquan Zheng1.
Abstract
In this study, a useful analytical method was developed and validated for measuring the residues of dimethyl disulphide (DMDS) in cucumbers and soil by gas chromatography-tandem mass spectrometry (GC-MS/MS). The dissipation dynamics and residual levels of DMDS in cucumber and soil were also studied in Shandong, Jilin, and Hebei provinces by using this method. Dichloromethane was selected and used as the extraction solvent to extract the target pesticide from the soil and cucumber samples. The soil and cucumber samples were cleaned up by the combination of multiwalled carbon nanotubes (MWCNT) and biochar. The average recoveries of the DMDS in cucumbers and soil were in the range of 84-101.5%, with relative standard deviations (RSD) of 0.7-4.9%, when they spiked at 0.05, 0.5, and 5 mg/kg DMDS respectively. The limit of quantification (LOQ) of this method was 0.05 mg/kg. First-order and second-order kinetic equations were used to fit dissipation data. Results show that the half-lives of DMDS in the soil at Shandong, Jilin, and Hebei were 1.63-4.47 days, 1.96-6.49 days, and 1.35-2.51 days, respectively. The final residues of DMDS were less than 0.05 mg/kg in cucumbers and 0.36 mg/kg in the soil. The dissipation rates of DMDS in different soils were different. The method provides a basis for the risk assessment of DMDS in cucumber and soil.Entities:
Keywords: cucumber; dimethyl disulphide (DMDS); gas chromatography-mass spectrometry; soil
Mesh:
Substances:
Year: 2019 PMID: 31739625 PMCID: PMC6888082 DOI: 10.3390/ijerph16224493
Source DB: PubMed Journal: Int J Environ Res Public Health ISSN: 1660-4601 Impact factor: 3.390
Figure 1The chemical structure of dimethyl disulphide (DMDS).
Atmospheric and soil physicochemical parameters of three experimental field sites.
| Experimental Sites | Climate | Average Annual Rainfall (mm) | Average Annual Temperature (°C) | Soil Type | Organic-Matter (%) | Soil pH |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Shandong | semi-humid monsoon | 900–750 | 13 | Brown soil | 2 | 7.15 |
| Jilin | temperate monsoon | 400–600 | 17 | Sandy loam | 3.40 | 7.3 |
| Hebei | temperate monsoon | 400–800 | 11 | Clay | 1.80 | 6.5 |
Calibration equation and linear regression parameters of calibration curves of DMDS in solvent and matrices.
| Matrix | Calibration Equation | Coefficient ( | LOD | LOQ | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Dichloromethane | 0.9996 | - | 0.012 | 0.05 | |
| Cucumber | 0.9956 | 0.041 | 0.015 | 0.05 | |
| Soil | 0.9953 | 0.49 | 0.015 | 0.05 |
Figure 2Chromatograms of the (A) DMDS standard, (B) soil spiked at 0.5 mg/kg, (C) cucumber spiked at 0.5 mg/kg, (D) DMDS residue in soil on the 1st day after application in the Hebei location.
Figure 3Comparison of recoveries of DMDS in soil samples (0.5 mg/kg) with (A) different extraction solvents, (B) different extraction methods, (C) different water bath time and temperature, (D) different cleanup sorbents.
Average recoveries and relative standard deviations (RSD) of cucumber and soil samples (n = 5).
| Matrix | Spiking | Spiking | Spiking | |||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Mean Recovery | RSD | Mean Recovery | RSD | Mean Recovery | RSD | |
| Cucumber | 83.98 | 6.5 | 90.28 | 0.5 | 101.51 | 3.8 |
| Soil | 74.07 | 4.9 | 84.33 | 0.7 | 98.69 | 4.8 |
Figure 4Dissipation dynamics of DMDS in the soil of three different experimental sites of China: (A) according to the first-order kinetic equation in 2015, (B) according to the second-order kinetic equation in 2015, (C) according to the first-order kinetic equation in 2016, (D) according to the second-order kinetic equation in 2016.
The regression equation and half-life for DMDS dissipated in soil.
| Time | Locality | First-Order Kinetic Equation | Second-Order Kinetic Equation | ||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Regression Equation | Coefficient | Half-Life | Regression Equation | Coefficient | Half-Life | ||
| 2015 | Shandong | y = 0.96249e−0.15433x | 0.9498 | 4.47 | y = 0.98888/(1 + 0.2702x) | 0.8943 | 3.70 |
| Jilin | y = 7.86281e−0.22474x | 0.9720 | 3.07 | y = 8.5319/(1 + 0.5096x) | 0.958 | 1.96 | |
| Hebei | y = 1.74864e−0.32911x | 0.9757 | 2.10 | y = 1.8531/(1 + 0.6463x) | 0.9334 | 1.55 | |
| 2016 | Shandong | y = 3.64191e−0.27719x | 0.9628 | 2.49 | y = 3.9897/(1 + 0.614x) | 0.9441 | 1.63 |
| Jilin | y = 4.1209e−0.10624x | 0.9430 | 6.49 | y = 4.20337/(1 + 0.1799x) | 0.8679 | 5.56 | |
| Hebei | y = 3.66312e−0.51003x | 0.9618 | 1.35 | y = 4.05637/(1 + 0.3984x) | 0.9604 | 2.51 | |