Advertisement

Analytical and Bioanalytical Chemistry

, Volume 378, Issue 1, pp 171–182 | Cite as

Elemental fingerprint analysis of barley (Hordeum vulgare) using inductively coupled plasma mass spectrometry, isotope-ratio mass spectrometry, and multivariate statistics

  • Søren Husted
  • Birgitte F. Mikkelsen
  • Jacob Jensen
  • Niels Erik Nielsen
Original Paper

Abstract

Inductively coupled plasma mass spectrometry (ICP–MS) and isotope-ratio mass spectrometry (IR-MS) have been used to examine the multi-elemental composition and 15N/14N and 13C/12C isotope ratios of three spring barley (Hordeum vulgare) genotypes (Orthega, Barke, and Bartok) grown in three typical Danish agricultural soils (North Jutland, West Jutland, and East Zealand) differing in soil fertility. The aim of the study was to examine whether it was possible to generate a unique elemental fingerprint of individual barley genotypes irrespective of the elemental imprint plants had received from soils differing in fertility and agricultural practice. Multivariate statistics were used to analyze the elemental fingerprints of the barley genotypes at different times during a full growing season from early tillering to full maturity of the barley grains. Initially, 36 elements were analyzed in the plant samples but this number was subsequently reduced to 15 elements: B, Ba, C, Ca, Cu, Fe, K, Mg, Mn, N, Na, P, S, Sr, and Zn. These elements exceeded the limit of detection (LOD) for all genotypes, soil types, and plant growth stages and for these elements the accuracy was better than 90% compared with apple leaf certified reference material (CRM). Principal component analysis (PCA) separated multi-elemental data in accordance with soil type when plants of similar physiological age were compared, whereas this separation disappeared if plants of all ages were compared simultaneously. Isotope ratios (δ15N) of plants also proved to be a highly accurate property for classification of samples according to soil type. In contrast, the differences in δ13C were too small to enable such classification. The differences in δ15N among soils were so pronounced that separation of samples according to the physiological age of plants became redundant. However, δ15N and the multi-elemental analysis revealed no differences between the three barley genotypes, indicating that the influence of soil chemistry and possibly also climate and agricultural practice was too large to allow an unique elemental fingerprint for the genotypes. This finding was substantiated by analyzing the multi-elemental composition of grain from two additional genotypes (Otira and Barthos) grown at the north and east locations, respectively. PCA showed not only that the elemental fingerprints of these two genotypes were similar to those of the others, but also that the soil in which the plant had been growing could be accurately predicted on the basis of the PCA scores from the genotypes Orthega, Barke, and Bartok. Similar conclusions could be drawn using δ15N data.

Keywords

Cultvars Geographic origin Elemental fingerprint analysis Multi-element analysis ICP–MS IR-MS Principal component analysis 

Notes

Acknowledgements

The research was conducted in the Centre for HPLC–ICP–MS Analysis of Trace Metal Speciation in Biological and Environmental Matrices (CHIME; http://www.chime.kvl.dk), supported by grants from the Danish Research Agency (Programme for Expensive Equipment, contract 2017–00–0008), The Danish Agricultural and Veterinary Research Council (contract 53–00–0234), the Strategic Research Fund of The Royal Veterinary and Agricultural University, DK, and The Research Fund to Improve Crop Production, Kemira, DK. Fruitfull discussions with Peter E. Holme and the technical assistance of Bente Broeng and Hanne Nancke-Krogh are gratefully acknowledged.

References

  1. 1.
    Parcerisa J, Rafecas M, Castellote A, Codony R, Farran A, Garcia J, Lopez A, Romero A, Boatella J (1994) Food Chem 50:245–249Google Scholar
  2. 2.
    Larcher R, Nicolini G (2001) Ital J Food Sci 13:233–241Google Scholar
  3. 3.
    Rebolo S, Pena R, Latorre MB, Garcia S, Botana A, Herrero C (2000) Anal Chim Acta 417:211–220CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. 4.
    Baxter MJ, Crews HM, Dennis MJ, Goodall I, Anderson D (1997) Food Chem 60:443–450Google Scholar
  5. 5.
    Taylor V, Longrich H, Greenough J (2003) J Agric Food Chem 51:856–860CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  6. 6.
    Marcos A, Fisher A, Rea G, Hill SJ (1998) J Anal At Spectrum 13:521–525CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. 7.
    Fernandez-Caceres PL, Martin MJ, Pablos F, Gonzalez AG (2001) J Agric Food Chem 49:4775–4779CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  8. 8.
    Latorre M, Pena R, Pita C, Botona S, Garcia C, Herrero C (1999) Food Chem 66:163–268CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. 9.
    Angerosa F, Breas O, Contento S, Guillou C, Reniero F, Sada E (1999) J Agric Food Chem 47:1013–1017CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  10. 10.
    Nikdel S, Nagdy S, Attaway JA (1988) Trace metals: defining geographic origin and detecting adulteration of orange juice. In: Nagdy S, Attaway JA, Rhodes ME (eds) Adulteration of fruit juice beverages. Marcel Dekker, pp 81–103Google Scholar
  11. 11.
    Peters CA (2002) Forensic Sci Commun 4:1–7Google Scholar
  12. 12.
    Gelinas Y, Lafond J, Schmit JP (1997) Biol Trace Elem Res 59:63–74PubMedGoogle Scholar
  13. 13.
    Wyrzykowska B, Szymczyk K, Ichichashi H, Falandysz J, Skwarzec B, Yamasaki S (2001) J Agric Food Chem 49:3425–3431CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  14. 14.
    Gundersen V, Bechmann I, Beherens A, Sturup S (2000) J Agric Food Chem 48:6094–6102CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  15. 15.
    Gundersen V, McCall D, Bechmann IE (2001) J Agric Food Chem 49:3808–3815CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  16. 16.
    Bibak A, Sturup S, Haahr V, Gundersen P, Gundersen V (1999) J Agric Food Chem 47:2678–2684CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  17. 17.
    Anderson K, Magnuson B, Tschrigi M, Smith B (1999) J Agric Food Chem 47:1568–1575CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  18. 18.
    Branch S, Burke S, Evans P, Fairman B, Briche C (2003) J Anal At Spectrum 18:17–22CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. 19.
    Zadoks J, Shang T, Konzak C (1974) Weed Res 14:415–421Google Scholar
  20. 20.
    Reuter DJ, Robinson JB, Peverill KJ, Price GH, Lambert MJ (1999) Guidelines for collecting, handling and analysing plant materials. In: Reuter DJ, Robinson JB, Dutkiewicz C (eds) Plant analysis, an interpretation manual. CSIRO pp 55–70Google Scholar
  21. 21.
    Lichtenthaler HK, Wellburn AR (1983) Biochem Soc Trans 11:591–592Google Scholar
  22. 22.
    Lindsay W, Norvell W (1978) Soil Sci Soc Am J 42:421–428Google Scholar
  23. 23.
    Martens H, Høy M, Westad F, Folkenberg D, Martens M (2001) Chemom Intell Lab Syst 58:151–170CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. 24.
    Oaks A, Stulen I, Jones K, Winspear MJ, Santosh M, Boesel IL (1980) Planta 148:477–484Google Scholar
  25. 25.
    Gawalko EJ, Garrett RG, Nowicki TW (2001) J AOAC Int 84:1953–1963PubMedGoogle Scholar
  26. 26.
    Mills HA, Jones JB, (1996) Plant analysis handbook II—a practical sampling, preparation, analysis, and interpretation guide. MicroMacro Publishing, Athens, GAGoogle Scholar
  27. 27.
    Jones J (1998) Plant nutrition manual. CRC Press, Boca Raton, p 149Google Scholar
  28. 28.
    Marschner H (1995) Mineral nutrition of higher plants. Academic Press, London p 889Google Scholar
  29. 29.
    Handley L, Scrimgeour C (1997) Adv Eco Res 27:133–212Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer-Verlag 2003

Authors and Affiliations

  • Søren Husted
    • 1
  • Birgitte F. Mikkelsen
    • 2
  • Jacob Jensen
    • 2
  • Niels Erik Nielsen
    • 2
  1. 1.Center for HPLC and ICP–MS Analysis of Environmental and Biological Matrices (CHIME)The Royal Veterinary and Agricultural UniversityCopenhagenDenmark
  2. 2.Plant Nutrition and Soil Fertility LaboratoriesThe Royal Veterinary and Agricultural UniversityCopenhagenDenmark

Personalised recommendations