| Literature DB >> 35663459 |
Yanbo Zeng1, Fengqin Chang1, Qi Liu1, Lizeng Duan1, Donglin Li1, Hucai Zhang1.
Abstract
Water quality and safety are vital to the ecological environment, social development, and ecological susceptibility. The extensive use and continuous discharge of antibiotics have caused serious water pollution; antibiotics are widely found in freshwater, drinking water, and reservoirs; and this pollution has become a common phenomenon and challenge in global water ecosystems, as water polluted by antibiotics poses serious risks to human health and the ecological environment. Therefore, the antibiotic content in water should be identified, monitored, and eliminated. Nevertheless, there is no single method that can detect all different types of antibiotics, so various techniques are often combined to produce reliable results. This review summarizes the sources of antibiotic pollution in water, covering three main aspects: (1) wastewater discharges from domestic sewage, (2) medical wastewater, and (3) animal physiology and aquaculture. The existing analytical techniques, including extraction techniques, conventional detection methods, and biosensors, are reviewed. The electrochemical biosensors have become a research hotspot in recent years because of their rapid detection, high efficiency, and portability, and the use of nanoparticles contributes to these outstanding qualities. Additionally, the comprehensive quality evaluation of various detection methods, including the linear detection range, detection limit (LOD), and recovery rate, is discussed, and the future of this research field is also prospected.Entities:
Year: 2022 PMID: 35663459 PMCID: PMC9159860 DOI: 10.1155/2022/5091181
Source DB: PubMed Journal: J Anal Methods Chem ISSN: 2090-8873 Impact factor: 2.594
Figure 1Research publications on antibiotic detection in water in the last decade (2011–2020). Source: Web of Science (https://www.webofknowledge.com).
Antibiotic concentrations in waters.
| Country/region | Category | Concentration (ng/mL) | Reference |
|---|---|---|---|
| Musi River, South India | Ciprofloxacin | 6.59–5.53 × 103 | [ |
| Ofloxacin | 1.55–318.1 | ||
| Enrofloxacin | 2.57–123.4 | ||
| Norfloxacin | 16.14–217.5 | ||
| Pefloxacin | 0.74–44.34 | ||
| Difloxacin | 0.47–37.74 | ||
| Lomefloxacin | 3.59–10.32 | ||
|
| |||
| Han River, South Korea | Oxytetracycline | 1.236 | [ |
| Tetracycline | 2.093 | ||
| Chlorotetracycline | 0.793 | ||
|
| |||
| Wangyu River, China | Tetracyclines | 1.082–15.310 | [ |
| Quinolones | 0.225–1.325 | ||
| Sulfonamides | NA–0.888 | ||
| Macrolides | 0.012–0.017 | ||
|
| |||
| Msunduzi River, South Africa | Nalidixic acid | 23.504 | [ |
| Vietnam | Sulfamethazine | 19 | [ |
| Mozambique | Sulfamethoxazole | 53.8 | [ |
| Kenya | Sulfamethoxazole | 38.9 | [ |
| Croatia | Sulfamerazine | 11 | [ |
|
| |||
| Lake Poyang, China | Sulfadiazine | 5.62 × 10−2 | [ |
| Oxytetracycline | 4.87 × 10−2 | ||
| Doxycycline | 3.97 × 10−2 | ||
Figure 2Schematic procedure of the dispersive liquid-liquid microextraction technique (the image is from [39]).
Summary of liquid chromatography-based conventional methods for the detection of antibiotics.
| Conventional methods | Analytes | LOQ | LOD (ng/mL) | Reference | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Lower limit | Upper limit | ||||
| HPLC-RLS | Enoxacin | NA | NA | 5.1 | [ |
| Ofloxacin | NA | NA | 3.1 | ||
| Lomefloxacin | NA | NA | 4.2 | ||
| Gatifloxacin | NA | NA | 3.8 | ||
| Sparfloxacin | NA | NA | 17.5 | ||
|
| |||||
| HPLC-DAD | Sulfonamide | NA | NA | 0.54∼3.67 | [ |
| LC-MS/MS | Macrolide | 3.0 ng/L | 40.0 ng/L | 10−3∼1.5 × 10−2 | [ |
| HPLC-UV | Fluoroquinolones | NA | NA | 0.3∼1.4 | [ |
| HPLC-FLD | Fluoroquinolones | NA | NA | 1.4 × 10−4∼6.1 × 10−4 | [ |
HPLC-RLS: high-performance liquid chromatography-tandem resonance light scattering; DAD: diode array detector; UV: ultraviolet detection; FLD: fluorescence detector; LC‐MS/MS: liquid chromatography with tandem mass spectrometry; LOQ: limit of quantification (upper and lower limits of the method are extremes of the linear range of the method); NA: not available.
Figure 3Several modification strategies and electrochemical techniques for drug analysis (the image is from [93]).
Summary of optical/electrochemical biosensors for the detection of antibiotics.
| Biosensor | Sensor type | Bioreceptor | Analytes | LOQ (ng/mL) | LOD | Reference | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Lower limit | Upper limit | ||||||
| Optical biosensors | Fluorescent biosensors | Aptamer | Ampicillin | 0.1 | 100 | 0.07 | [ |
| Aptamer | Oxytetracycline | 25 | 1000 | 25 | [ | ||
| Aptamer | Kanamycin | 0.242 | 9.68 | 0.155 | [ | ||
| Aptamer | Streptomycin | NA | NA | 31.7 | [ | ||
| Colorimetric biosensors | Aptamer | Kanamycin | 9.7 × 10−3 | 2.42 | 4.85 × 10−3 | [ | |
| Enzyme | Oxytetracycline | 23 | 4.6 × 102 | 12 | [ | ||
| Enzyme | Tetracycline | 44.4 | 444 | 20 | |||
| Enzyme | Doxycycline | 23.1 | 462 | 22.2 | |||
| Aptamer | Streptomycin | NA | NA | 42.5 | [ | ||
| Aptamer | Chloramphenicol | 0.323 | 38.76 | 0.14 | [ | ||
| Chemiluminescent biosensors | Aptamer | Kanamycin | NA | NA | 0.03 | [ | |
| Aptamer | Streptomycin | NA | NA | 0.33 | |||
| Aptamer | Chloramphenicol | 0.01 | 0.20 | 0.01 | [ | ||
| Surface plasmon resonance biosensors | Antibody | Amoxicillin | 0.1 | 2.0 | 0.022 | [ | |
| Antibody | Fluoroquinolone | NA | NA | 0.07 | [ | ||
| — | Erythromycin | 4.99 × 103 | 4.99 × 104 | 290 | [ | ||
|
| |||||||
| Electrochemical biosensors | Amperometric biosensors | Aptamer | Kanamycin | NA | NA | 4.23 × 10−2 | [ |
| Aptamer | Streptomycin | NA | NA | 2.62 × 10−2 | |||
| Aptamer | Oxytetracycline | 10 | 75 | 1.125 | [ | ||
| Photoelectrochemical biosensors | Aptamer | Chloramphenicol | 3.23 × 10−4 | 32.3 | 0.7 × 10−4 | [ | |
| Impedimetric biosensors | Aptamer | Penicillin | 0.1 | 200 | 0.057 | [ | |
| Aptamer | Ampicillin | 3.49 × 10−2 | 3.49 × 104 | NA | [ | ||
| Aptamer | Kanamycin A | 4.84 | 4.84 × 106 | NA | |||
| Aptamer | Penicillin | 0.1 | 200 | 0.057 | [ | ||
| Antibody | Tetracycline | 0.08 | 1.0 | 0.0321 | [ | ||
| Antibody | Tetracycline | 4.44 × 10−6 | 444 | 1.69 × 10−6 | [ | ||
| Aptamer | Ampicillin | 6.3 | 900 | NA | [ | ||
A general comparison of different methods used for antibiotic analysis.
| Method | Advantage | Disadvantage | Reference |
|---|---|---|---|
| Conventional detection methods | (1) They can be used routinely to identify and quantify antibiotics | (1) Matrix effects lead to inaccurate results | [ |
|
| |||
| Biosensor methods | (1) The detection is fast and efficient | (1) The detection accuracy is not as high as the instrument | [ |