Comparison of gas chromatography and immunoassay methods for the detection of atrazine in water and soil.

被引:14
作者
Amistadi, MK [1 ]
Hall, JK [1 ]
Bogus, ER [1 ]
Mumma, RO [1 ]
机构
[1] PENN STATE UNIV,DEPT ENTOMOL,UNIVERSITY PK,PA 16802
关键词
atrazine; lysimeter leachates; soil cores; immunoassay; gas chromatography;
D O I
10.1080/03601239709373116
中图分类号
X [环境科学、安全科学];
学科分类号
08 ; 0830 ;
摘要
Leachate and soil samples collected from different tillage systems were analyzed for atrazine using gas chromatography (GC) and an enzyme-linked immunosorbent assay (ELISA) based on magnetic particle technology. Solid-phase extraction (SPE) was used to concentrate atrazine residues in leachate samples and soil extracts before GC analysis. Atrazine concentrations determined by GC ranged from 0.1 to 600 mu g L-1 for water samples and from 1.0 to 700 mu g kg(-1) for soil samples. Atrazine concentrations in 92 leachate samples as determined by ELISA were well-correlated (R = 0.97) with GC levels over the entire concentration range. Soil samples (215) were prepared and analyzed by three combinations of extraction/detection methods: 1) conventional extraction for GC/detection by GC analysis; 2) conventional extraction for GC/detection by ELISA analysis; 3) extraction for ELISA using a commercially available field kit/detection by ELISA analysis. Methanol (MeOH) in water was the common extractant. Although the initial comparison of soil extracts between the two different systems (Method 1 versus Method 3) was favorable (R = 0.97), two-thirds of the samples contained levels below the lower threshold for atrazine detection by both methods and some extracts were perceived to provide unfavorable substrate conditions (> 10% MeOH). Elimination of these data points reduced the correlation value (R = 0.77). To determine possible sources of variability, the extraction and detection methods were examined separately. In a comparison of extraction methods (Method 2 versus Method 3), ELISA analysis of kit extracts underestimated (R = 0.71) atrazine levels compared to those conventionally extracted, suggesting that differences in extraction time between methods may have accounted for reduced kit efficiency. Where detection methods (Method 1 versus Method 2) were compared on specific extracts (< 10% MeOH), good agreement (R = 0.99) was achieved between ELISA and GC values, illustrating that control of extractant concentration is critical in using this assay for atrazine detection in soil.
引用
收藏
页码:845 / 860
页数:16
相关论文
共 15 条
[1]   DETERMINATION OF ATRAZINE RESIDUES IN WATER AND SOIL BY ENZYME-IMMUNOASSAY [J].
BUSHWAY, RJ ;
PERKINS, B ;
SAVAGE, SA ;
LEKOUSI, SJ ;
FERGUSON, BS .
BULLETIN OF ENVIRONMENTAL CONTAMINATION AND TOXICOLOGY, 1988, 40 (05) :647-654
[2]   ENZYME-IMMUNOASSAY FOR THE DETERMINATION OF ATRAZINE RESIDUES IN SOIL [J].
GOH, KS ;
HERNANDEZ, J ;
POWELL, SJ ;
GARRETSON, C ;
TROIANO, J ;
RAY, M ;
GREENE, CD .
BULLETIN OF ENVIRONMENTAL CONTAMINATION AND TOXICOLOGY, 1991, 46 (01) :30-36
[3]   ATRAZINE SOIL RESIDUE ANALYSIS BY ENZYME-IMMUNOASSAY - SOLVENT EFFECT AND EXTRACTION EFFICIENCY [J].
GOH, KS ;
HERNANDEZ, J ;
POWELL, SJ ;
GREENE, CD .
BULLETIN OF ENVIRONMENTAL CONTAMINATION AND TOXICOLOGY, 1990, 45 (02) :208-214
[4]   COMPARISON OF AN ENZYME-IMMUNOASSAY AND GAS-CHROMATOGRAPHY MASS-SPECTROMETRY FOR THE DETECTION OF ATRAZINE IN SURFACE WATERS [J].
GRUESSNER, B ;
SHAMBAUGH, NC ;
WATZIN, MC .
ENVIRONMENTAL SCIENCE & TECHNOLOGY, 1995, 29 (01) :251-254
[5]  
Hayes MC, 1996, J AOAC INT, V79, P529
[6]  
HERZOG DP, 1993, IMMUNOASSAYS ENV CON
[7]  
KARU AE, 1991, ACS SYM SER, V451, P59
[8]   QUANTIFICATION OF CYANAZINE IN WATER AND SOIL BY A MAGNETIC PARTICLE-BASED ELISA [J].
LAWRUK, TS ;
LACHMAN, CE ;
JOURDAN, SW ;
FLEEKER, JR ;
HERZOG, DP ;
RUBIO, FM .
JOURNAL OF AGRICULTURAL AND FOOD CHEMISTRY, 1993, 41 (05) :747-752
[9]  
Muldoon Mark T., 1994, Food and Agricultural Immunology, V6, P357, DOI 10.1080/09540109409354848
[10]  
RUBIO F M, 1991, Food and Agricultural Immunology, V3, P113, DOI 10.1080/09540109109354738