Application of micellar liquid chromatography to model ecotoxicity of pesticides. Comparison with immobilized artificial membrane chromatography and n-octanol-water partitioning

The potential of Micellar Liquid Chromatography (MLC) to model ecotoxicological endpoints for a se-ries of pesticides was investigated. To exploit the flexibility in MLC conditions, different surfactants were employed and retention mechanism was tracked and compared to Immobilized Artificial Membrane (IAM) chromatographic retention and n-octanol-water partitioning, logP. Neutral polyoxyethylene (23) lauryl ether (Brij-35), anionic sodium dodecyl sulfate (SDS) and cationic cetyltrimethylammonium bro-mide (CTAB) were used in presence of PBS at pH = 7.40 and acetonitrile as organic modifier when neces-sary. Similarities/ dissimilarities between MLC retention and IAM or logP were investigated by Principal Component Analysis (PCA) and Liner Solvation Energy Relationships (LSER). LSER revealed that hydrogen bonding acidity is the most important factor for differentiation between MLC and IAM or logP. The im-pact of hydrogen bonding is exemplified in the relationships of MLC retention factors with IAM or logP, which necessitate the inclusion of a relevant descriptor. PCA further revealed that MLC retention factors are clustered together with IAM indices and logP within a broader ellipse formed by ecotoxicological endpoints, involving LC50/ EC50 values of six aquatic organisms namely Rainbow Trout, Fathead Minnow, Bluegill Sunfish, Sheepshead Minnow, Eastern Oyster and Water Flea as well as LD50 values of Honey Bee, thus justifying their use to construct relevant models. Satisfactory specific models for individual organ-isms, as well as general fish models, were obtained, in most cases, upon combination of MLC retention factors with Molecular Weight (MW) or/ and hydrogen bond parameters. All models were evaluated and compared to previously reported IAM and logP based models using an external validation data set. Predic-tions with Brij-35 and SDS based models were comparable, although slightly inferior than those obtained with IAM, while they were in all cases better than those obtained with logP. CTAB led to a satisfactory prediction model for Honey Bee, but it was found less suitable for aquatic organisms.(c) 2023 Elsevier B.V. All rights reserved.