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 50 条
  • [21] ATRAZINE RESIDUES IN SOIL 2 YEARS AFTER THE ATRAZINE BAN - A COMPARISON OF ENZYME-IMMUNOASSAY WITH HPLC
    DANKWARDT, A
    PULLEN, S
    RAUCHALLES, S
    KRAMER, K
    JUST, F
    HOCK, B
    HOFMANN, R
    SCHEWES, R
    MAIDL, FX
    ANALYTICAL LETTERS, 1995, 28 (04) : 621 - 634
  • [22] CAPILLARY ENZYME-IMMUNOASSAY WITH ELECTROCHEMICAL DETECTION FOR THE DETERMINATION OF ATRAZINE IN WATER
    JIANG, TB
    HALSALL, HB
    HEINEMAN, WR
    GIERSCH, T
    HOCK, B
    JOURNAL OF AGRICULTURAL AND FOOD CHEMISTRY, 1995, 43 (04) : 1098 - 1104
  • [23] Evaluation of a commercial immunoassay for the detection of chlorfenapyr in agricultural samples by comparison with gas chromatography and mass spectrometric detection
    Watanabe, E
    Baba, K
    Eun, H
    Arao, T
    Ishii, Y
    Ueji, M
    Endo, S
    JOURNAL OF CHROMATOGRAPHY A, 2005, 1074 (1-2) : 145 - 153
  • [24] Comparison of two fluorescence immunoassay methods for the detection of endocrine disrupting chemicals in water
    Coille, I
    Reder, S
    Bucher, S
    Gauglitz, G
    BIOMOLECULAR ENGINEERING, 2002, 18 (06): : 273 - 280
  • [25] Comparison of gas chromatography and immunoassay methods in measuring the distribution of dieldrin in rainbow trout tissues.
    Kawar, NS
    Chammas, GI
    Dagher, SM
    ABSTRACTS OF PAPERS OF THE AMERICAN CHEMICAL SOCIETY, 1999, 218 : U103 - U104
  • [26] AN IMMUNOASSAY FOR METOLACHLOR DETECTION IN RIVER WATER AND SOIL
    HALL, JC
    WILSON, LK
    CHAPMAN, RA
    JOURNAL OF ENVIRONMENTAL SCIENCE AND HEALTH PART B-PESTICIDES FOOD CONTAMINANTS AND AGRICULTURAL WASTES, 1992, 27 (05) : 523 - 544
  • [27] The destruction of gas- and water pipelines in gypsum-containingloamy soil.
    Brandt, B.
    NATURWISSENSCHAFTEN, 1920, 8 : 665 - 666
  • [28] Comparison of immunoassay and gas chromatography-mass spectrometry for measurement of polycyclic aromatic hydrocarbons in contaminated soil
    Chuang, JC
    Van Emon, JM
    Chou, YL
    Junod, N
    Finegold, JK
    Wilson, NK
    ANALYTICA CHIMICA ACTA, 2003, 486 (01) : 31 - 39
  • [29] Ultra-sensitive methods for PCR detection of potato wart in soil.
    不详
    CANADIAN JOURNAL OF PLANT PATHOLOGY-REVUE CANADIENNE DE PHYTOPATHOLOGIE, 2005, 27 (01): : 164 - 165
  • [30] Comparison of immunoassay to high-pressure liquid chromatography and gas chromatography mass spectrometry analysis of pesticides in surface water
    Selim, MI
    Achutan, C
    Starr, JM
    Jiang, T
    Young, BS
    IMMUNOCHEMICAL TECHNOLOGY FOR ENVIRONMENTAL APPLICATIONS, 1997, 657 : 234 - 244