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
[11]   DETERMINATION OF WEATHERED ATRAZINE RESIDUES IN SOIL BY ENZYME-IMMUNOASSAY AND HPLC - AN EVALUATION STUDY [J].
SCHEWES, R ;
WUST, S ;
LEPSCHYVONGLEISSENTHALL, J ;
MAIDL, FX ;
SUSS, A ;
HOCK, B ;
FISCHBECK, G .
ANALYTICAL LETTERS, 1994, 27 (03) :487-494
[12]  
Stearman G. K., 1993, Journal of Soil Contamination, V2, P331, DOI 10.1080/15320389309383447
[13]  
STEARMAN GK, 1993, B ENVIRON CONTAM TOX, V51, P588, DOI 10.1007/BF00192177
[14]   ENZYME-LINKED-IMMUNOSORBENT-ASSAY COMPARED WITH GAS-CHROMATOGRAPHY MASS-SPECTROMETRY FOR THE DETERMINATION OF TRIAZINE HERBICIDES IN WATER [J].
THURMAN, EM ;
MEYER, M ;
POMES, M ;
PERRY, CA ;
SCHWAB, AP .
ANALYTICAL CHEMISTRY, 1990, 62 (18) :2043-2048
[15]   Evaluation of an ELISA kit for the detection of metribuzin in stream water [J].
Watts, DW ;
Novak, JM ;
Pfeiffer, RL .
ENVIRONMENTAL SCIENCE & TECHNOLOGY, 1997, 31 (04) :1116-1119