Suppr超能文献

气相色谱法与免疫分析法用于检测水和土壤中阿特拉津的比较

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

作者信息

Amistadi M K, Hall J K, Bogus E R, Mumma R O

机构信息

Dept. of Agronomy, Pennsylvania State University, University Park 16802, USA.

出版信息

J Environ Sci Health B. 1997 Nov;32(6):845-60. doi: 10.1080/03601239709373116.

Abstract

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 micrograms L-1 for water samples and from 1.0 to 700 micrograms 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.

摘要

采用气相色谱法(GC)和基于磁性颗粒技术的酶联免疫吸附测定法(ELISA),对从不同耕作系统采集的渗滤液和土壤样品中的莠去津进行了分析。在GC分析之前,采用固相萃取(SPE)法对渗滤液样品和土壤提取物中的莠去津残留进行浓缩。GC测定的水样中莠去津浓度范围为0.1至600微克/升,土壤样品中莠去津浓度范围为1.0至700微克/千克。ELISA测定的92个渗滤液样品中的莠去津浓度与整个浓度范围内的GC水平具有良好的相关性(R = 0.97)。制备了215个土壤样品,并通过三种提取/检测方法组合进行分析:1)用于GC分析的常规提取/GC检测;2)用于GC分析的常规提取/ELISA检测;3)使用市售现场试剂盒进行ELISA提取/ELISA检测。水中的甲醇(MeOH)是常用的萃取剂。尽管两种不同系统(方法1与方法3)之间土壤提取物的初步比较结果良好(R = 0.97),但三分之二的样品中两种方法检测到的莠去津水平均低于检测下限,并且一些提取物被认为提供了不利的底物条件(> 10% MeOH)。剔除这些数据点后,相关值降低(R = 0.77)。为了确定可能的变异性来源,分别对提取和检测方法进行了检查。在提取方法比较(方法2与方法3)中,试剂盒提取物的ELISA分析与常规提取的莠去津水平相比被低估(R = 0.71),这表明方法之间提取时间的差异可能导致试剂盒效率降低。在特定提取物(< 10% MeOH)上比较检测方法(方法1与方法2)时,ELISA和GC值之间达成了良好的一致性(R = 0.99),这说明在使用该测定法检测土壤中的莠去津时,控制萃取剂浓度至关重要。

文献AI研究员

20分钟写一篇综述,助力文献阅读效率提升50倍。

立即体验

用中文搜PubMed

大模型驱动的PubMed中文搜索引擎

马上搜索

文档翻译

学术文献翻译模型,支持多种主流文档格式。

立即体验