| Literature DB >> 34313833 |
Jonathan Credo1, Amy Chandos2, Camilla Checinski3, Frank A von Hippel4, Jani C Ingram3.
Abstract
Yuma County, Arizona, is a large agricultural hub of the USA located in the southwestern corner of Arizona on the USA-Mexico border. Year-round use of agrichemicals at a massive scale along with the influx of aquatic contaminants in the Colorado River led to significant levels of environmental pollution and hence exposure risks for people and wildlife. Although hair is a recognized biomarker for metal exposure, there is no universal hair preparation protocol. This study evaluated two digestion methods for metal quantitation using inductively coupled plasma-mass spectrometry (ICP-MS) and three methods for mercury quantitation using cold vapor-atomic absorption spectroscopy (CV-AAS), both employing certified reference materials. The "overnight" and "heating" digestion methods were suitable for ICP-MS, while only the heating method was suitable for CV-AAS. These validated methods will be useful for a variety of human and wildlife assessments of toxic metal(loid) exposure.Entities:
Keywords: Agrichemical exposure; CV-AAS; ICP-MS; Rodent animal model; Sample preparation
Mesh:
Year: 2021 PMID: 34313833 PMCID: PMC8316233 DOI: 10.1007/s10661-021-09292-8
Source DB: PubMed Journal: Environ Monit Assess ISSN: 0167-6369 Impact factor: 2.513
Fig. 1Study region in Yuma County, Arizona. Rodent collection sites are denoted by yellow circles. Map insert shows location of Yuma County, AZ
Summary of the three hair digestion methods used for Hg analysis by a Perkin-Elmer FIMS 100 CV-AAS
| Protocol name | Sample weight (mg) | Chemical digest | Heating | Dilution and filtration |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Heating | 30–40 | 1400 μL HCl + 75 μL H2O2 | 90 min 100 ºC isotherm | Diluted to 15 mL with NP, filtered |
| Overnight | 30–40 | 1400 μL HCl + 75 μL H2O2 | 12 h overnight digest + 90 min 100 ºC isotherm | Diluted to 15 mL with NP, filtered |
| Potassium Permanganate | 500 | 5 mL HCl, 2 mL 5% (w/v) KMnO4, 30 mL distilled water | 24 h digest + 120 min 80 ºC water bath | Diluted to 50 mL with distilled water, filtered, 5 drops 10% hydroxylamine and antifoaming agent |
Fig. 2Comparison of the effect of washing rodent hair samples on Hg concentration as evaluated by CV-AAS. Samples labeled “UW” represent unwashed hair samples and samples labeled “W” represent washed hair samples. The legend at the bottom denotes the different digestion method (left to right—“heating,” “overnight,” “potassium permanganate”). Standard deviation is represented as capped bars for each sample
Summary of the two hair digestion methods used for elemental analysis by a Thermo-Fisher X-Series II ICP-MS
| Protocol name | Sample weight (mg) | Chemical digest | Heating | Dilution and filtration |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Heating | 30–40 & 200 | 1500 μL HNO3 + 80 μL H2O2 | 90 min 100 ºC isotherm | Diluted to 15 mL with NP, filtered |
| Overnight | 30–40 & 200 | 1500 μL HNO3 + 80 μL H2O2 | 12 h overnight digest + 90 min 100 ºC isotherm | Diluted to 15 mL with NP, filtered |
Fig. 3Comparison of effect of hair washing on rodent hair samples as evaluated by ICP-MS. Both the heating and overnight digestion methods were compared again, because both had comparable recoveries for ICP-MS analysis on washed samples. Samples labeled “UW” represent unwashed hair samples and samples labeled “W” represent washed hair samples. The legend at the bottom denotes the different digestion method (left is heating and right is overnight). Standard deviation is represented as capped bars for each sample
Comparison of the two digestion methods, each with two approximate masses of CRM used, evaluated by ICP-MS. The elements and isotopes compared are displayed at the top of table. The second row shows the true reported value and uncertainty, 95% confidence with coverage factor k = 2, of the CRM in μg/g. This is followed by the digestion method average reported value in μg/g. The final rows show percent error based on the reported value compared to the true value
| Element | 65 Cu | 75 As | 111 Cd | 206 Pb | 207 Pb | 208 Pb | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| True (μg/g) (uncertainty) | 33 (4) | 0.044 (0.006) | 0.125 (0.007) | 2.14 (0.20) | 2.14 (0.20) | 2.14 (0.20) | |
| Method average (μg/g) | Overnight 20 mg | 33.481 | 0.036 | 0.105 | 2.045 | 2.133 | 2.091 |
| Overnight 200 mg | 20.800 | 0.025 | 0.063 | 1.554 | 1.624 | 1.597 | |
| Heating 20 mg | 31.602 | 0.038 | 0.105 | 3.885 | 4.067 | 3.991 | |
| Heating 200 mg | 18.929 | 0.023 | 0.066 | 1.577 | 1.652 | 1.624 | |
| Method percent error (%) | Overnight 20 mg | 9.51–15.45 | 4.08–27.10 | 11.23–20.65 | 5.41–12.61 | 8.86–9.93 | 7.76–10.66 |
| Overnight 200 mg | 28.28–43.78 | 35.27–50.81 | 46.33–52.02 | 19.89–33.58 | 16.31–30.62 | 17.68–31.75 | |
| Heating 20 mg | 8.97–14.59 | 0.40–23.69 | 11.22–20.64 | 66.02–100.25 | 73.78–109.62 | 70.55–105.72 | |
| Heating 200 mg | 34.73–48.84 | 39.00–53.64 | 43.67–49.64 | 18.71–32.60 | 14.86–29.41 | 16.28–30.59 |
Comparison of the three Hg digestion methods evaluated by CV-AAS. Average reported value in μg/g is displayed at the top, followed by the true value and uncertainty, 95% confidence with coverage factor k = 2, of the CRM. The final row is a percent error calculated by comparing the average reported value to the true value of the CRM
| Method | Heating | Overnight | Potassium permanganate |
|---|---|---|---|
| True (μg/g) (uncertainty) | 0.365 (0.028) | 0.365 (0.028) | 0.365 (0.028) |
| Average (μg/g) | 0.294 | 0.082 | 0.097 |
| Percent Error (%) | 12.9–25.3 | 75.8–79.3 | 71.2–75.3 |