| Literature DB >> 31861155 |
Amine Gizem Canlı1, Bilge Sürücü1, Halil İbrahim Ulusoy1, Erkan Yılmaz2,3, Abuzar Kabir4, Marcello Locatelli5.
Abstract
A sensitive, rapid, reliable, and easily applicable method based on magnetic solid phase extraction (MSPE) combined with HPLC-PDA was developed for monitoring propoxur (PRO) and fenitrothion (FEN) pesticides in environmental water samples. The effect of major experimental variables on the extraction efficiency of both the pesticides was investigated and optimized systematically. For this purpose, a new magnetic material containing decanoic acid on the surface of particles was synthesized and characterized by XRD, FT-IR, SEM, EDX, and TGA analysis in detail. The simultaneous determination of pesticide molecules was carried out by using a Luna Omega C18 column, isocratic elution of acetonitrile (ACN): Water (70:30 v/v) with a flow rate of 1.2 mL min-1. After MSPE, the linear range for pesticide molecules (r2 > 0.9982) was obtained in the range of 5-800 and 10-800 ng mL-1, respectively. The limit of detections (LOD) are 1.43 and 4.71 ng mL-1 for PRO and FEN, respectively while RSDs % are below 3.5%. The applicability of the proposed method in four different environmental samples were also investigated using a standard addition-recovery procedure. Average recoveries at two spiking levels were over the range of 91.3-102.5% with RSD < 5.0% (n = 3). The obtained results show that decanoic acid grafted magnetic particles in MSPE combined with HPLC-PDA is a fast and simple method for the determination of PRO and FEN in environmental water samples.Entities:
Keywords: HPLC; environmental water samples; fenitrothion; magnetic solid phase extraction; propoxur
Mesh:
Substances:
Year: 2019 PMID: 31861155 PMCID: PMC6943547 DOI: 10.3390/molecules24244621
Source DB: PubMed Journal: Molecules ISSN: 1420-3049 Impact factor: 4.411
Figure 1Molecular formulas of the studied pesticides.
Figure 2FT-IR spectrum of the Fe3O4 nanoparticles (A) and decanoic acid modified Fe3O4 nanoparticles (B).
Figure 3XRD patterns of the decanoic acid modified Fe3O4 material.
Figure 4(A) Results of FE-SEM analysis of Fe3O4 nanoparticles, (B) decanoic acid modified Fe3O4 nanoparticles, (C) EDX analysis of decanoic acid modified Fe3O4 nanoparticles, and (D) mapping analysis of decanoic acid modified Fe3O4 nanoparticles.
Figure 5TGA analysis of the decanoic acid modified Fe3O4 nanoparticles.
Figure 6The effect of pH on extraction efficacy (n = 3).
Figure 7Selection of appropriate desorption solvent (n = 3).
Figure 8Optimization for volume of desorption solvent (n = 3).
Figure 9Optimization of adsorption time (n = 3).
Analytical figures of merit of the proposed method.
| Parameter | Before MSPE | After MSPE | ||
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Fenitrothion | Propoxur | Fenitrothion | Propoxur | |
| Linear range | 2.0–20.0 μg mL−1 | 2.0–20.0 μg mL−1 | 5.0–800.0 ng mL−1 | 10.0–800.0 ng mL−1 |
| LOD | 0.57 μg mL−1 | 0.57 μg mL−1 | 1.43 ng mL−1 | 3.15 ng mL−1 |
| LOQ | 1.88 μg mL−1 | 1.88 μg mL−1 | 4.93 ng mL−1 | 9.86 ng mL−1 |
| RSD (%) | 3.8 | 3.6 | 2.9 | 3.2 |
| Slope | 10.218 | 1.473 | 1348.8 | 173.76 |
| (R2) | 0.9972 | 0.9985 | 0.9954 | 0.9908 |
| Preconcentration Factor a | - | - | 125 | 125 |
| Enhancement Factor b | - | - | 132 | 118 |
a Preconcentration factor is defined as the ratio of the initial solution volume (50 mL) to the volume of final solution (400 µL); b Enhancement factor is defined as ratio of slope of calibration before and after MPSE.
Relative recovery values and reproducibility data for propoxur and fenitrothion pesticides in various environmental water samples after MSPE procedure (N:3).
| Sample | Added | Found a
| RSD % | Recovery % | |||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Propoxur | Fenitrothion | Propoxur | Fenitrothion | Propoxur | Fenitrothion | ||
| River water I | - | <LOD | <LOD | - | - | - | - |
| 100.0 | 94.2 ± 2.7 | 103.2 ± 3.4 | 2.8 | 3.3 | 94.2 | 103.2 | |
| 200.0 | 206.1 ± 13.5 | 202.4 ± 8.4 | 6.5 | 4.1 | 103.5 | 101.2 | |
| Lake water II | - | <LOD | <LOD | - | - | - | - |
| 100.0 | 97.9 ± 3.8 | 99.5 ± 2.9 | 3.9 | 2.9 | 97.9 | 99.5 | |
| 200.0 | 192.1 ± 10.5 | 203.7 ± 9.8 | 5.5 | 4.8 | 96.1 | 101.8 | |
| Pond water | - | <LOD | <LOD | - | - | - | - |
| 100.0 | 107.4 ± 3.6 | 95.8 ± 3.9 | 3.4 | 4.0 | 107.4 | 95.8 | |
| 200.0 | 193.4 ± 8.9 | 205.8 ± 8.5 | 4.6 | 4.1 | 96.7 | 102.9 | |
a The average value of five replicates ± standard deviation.
Comparison of the new method with other reported methods.
| Preconcentration Method | Determination Method | Target Molecule | LOD | Linear Range | Applications | Reference |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Quenchers based method | Gas chromatography-flame photometric detector | Fenitrothion | 0.005 μg mL−1 | 0.005–5.0 μg mL−1 | Tomatoes | [ |
| Dispersive solid-phase microextraction | HPLC-UV | Fenitrothion | 0.1 μg L−1 | 0.3–50.0 μg L−1 | Water and fruit samples | [ |
| Electrospun polystyrene nanofibers as solid-phase extraction sorbent | HPLC-DAD | Fenitrothion | 0.07 ng mL−1 | 0.5–50.0 ng mL−1 | Environmental waters | [ |
| Magnetite octadecylsilane nanoparticles | HPLC-UV | Fenitrothion | 0.014 ng mL−1 | 0.03–30 ng mL−1 | Environmental water | [ |
| Magnetic solid-phase extraction | Spectrophotometry | Fenitrothion | 0.5 ng mL−1 | 2–230 ng mL−1 | Environmental and biological samples | [ |
| Magnetic solid-phase extraction | Gas chromatographic determination | Fenitrothion | 3.9 ng mL−1 | 10–50000 ng mL−1 | Fruit juices | [ |
| Magnetic solid-phase extraction | HPLC-UV | Fenitrothion | 0.2–0.8 μg L−1 | 1–100 μg L−1 | Water samples | [ |
| Magnetic solid-phase extraction | HPLC-UV | Propoxur | 0.2 ng g−1 | 1.0 –100.0 ng g−1 | Apple sample | [ |
| Solid-phase extraction | HPLC-UV | Propoxur | 0.05 ng g−1 | 0.2–80.0 ng g−1 | Cucumber and watermelon samples | [ |
| Magnetic solid-phase extraction | HPLC-PDA | Propoxur | 1.43 ng mL−1 | 5–800 ng mL−1 | Environmental waters | This Study |
| 3.15 ng mL−1 | 10–800 ng mL−1 |
Figure 10Chromatogram after magnetic solid-phase extraction (MSPE) for pesticide molecules.