Advertisement

Environmental Science and Pollution Research

, Volume 24, Issue 9, pp 7880–7888 | Cite as

Determination of glyphosate in surface water with high organic matter content

  • Vahur Toss
  • Ivo Leito
  • Sergei Yurchenko
  • Rene Freiberg
  • Anneli Kruve
Evidence based environmental policy making

Abstract

In this paper, we investigate the sample preparation and analysis process in order to achieve adequate results for surface water collected from rivers that flow through swamps and are consequently rich in organic matter. We show that matrix effects in glyphosate determination can be reduced by optimizing sample volume, liquid chromatography (LC) mobile phase buffer concentration and pH as well as gradient speed. Also, aspects of derivatization procedure (borate buffer concentration, fluorenylmethyloxycarbonyl chloride concentration) and their influence on accuracy are considered in detail. We encountered a cross-talk effect in the mass spectra, interfering with quantization during analysis, which was removed by optimizing MS parameters. As a result it was demonstrated that isotope-labelled internal standard with just one 13C atom is sufficient for the analysis.

All these aspects were found to strongly impact the accuracy of the glyphosate determination but have received little or no attention in earlier works. We propose a reliable solid phase extraction and LC/ESI/MS/MS method for determination of glyphosate in organic-rich waters and demonstrate that LoD can be decreased by about two times using an ESI nebulizer with a modified design.

Keywords

Glyphosate Matrix effect Mass spectrometry Electrospray ionization Derivatization 

Notes

Acknowledgements

This work has been supported by the grant No. 8373 from the Estonian Science Foundation, by PUT 34 from the Estonian Research Council, by the Estonian National Research and Infrastructure development programme of measure 2.3 “Promotion of development activities and innovation” (Regulation No. 34) funded by the Estonian Enterprise foundation and by the institutional research grant IUT21-2 from the Estonian Ministry of Education and Science.

References

  1. Alder L, Luderitz S, Lindtner K, Stan HJ (2004) The ECHO technique–the more effective way of data evaluation in liquid chromatography–tandem mass spectrometry analysis. J Chromatogr A 1058:67–79CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. Benijts T, Dams R, Lambert W, De Leenheer A (2004) Countering matrix effects in environmental liquid chromatography–electrospray ionization tandem mass spectrometry water analysis for endocrine disrupting chemicals. J Chromatogr A 1029(1–2):153–159CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. Berg T, Strand DH (2011) 13C labelled internal standards—A solution to minimize ion suppression effects in liquid chromatography–tandem mass spectrometry analyses of drugs in biological samples? J Chromatogr A 1218(52):9366–9374CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. Bester K, Bordin G, Rodriguez A, Schimmel H, Pauwels J, Van Vyncht G (2001) How to overcome matrix effects in the determination of pesticides in fruit by HPLC-ESI-MS-MS Fresenius J Anal Chem 371(4):550–555.Google Scholar
  5. Chin C, Zhang ZP, Karnes HT (2004) A study of matrix effects on an LC/MS/MS assay for olanzapine and desmethyl olanzapine. J Pharmaceut Biomed 35(5):1149–1167CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. Choi BK, Gusev AI, Hercules DM (1999) Postcolumn introduction of an internal standard for quantitative LC-MS analysis. Anal Chem 71(18):4107–4110CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. EFSA (2015) EFSA Risk assessment: Glyphosate. European Food Safety Autority, Parma (Italy) 2015. Available:http://www.efsa.europa.eu/sites/default/files/corporate_publications/files/efsaexplainsglyphosate151112en.pdf (Last accessed 13.12.2015).
  8. Ghanem A, Bados P, Kerhoas L, Dubroca J, Einhorn J (2007) Glyphosate and AMPA analysis in sewage sludge by LC-ESI-MS/MS after FMOC derivatization on strong anion-exchange resin as solid support. Anal Chem 79(10):3794–3801CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. Gosetti F, Mazzucco E, Zampieri D, Gennaro MC (2010) Signal suppression/enhancement in high-performance liquid chromatography tandem mass spectrometry. J Chromatogr A 1217(25):3929–3937CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. Hanke I, Singer H, Hollender J (2008) Ultratrace-level determination of glyphosate, aminomethylphosphonic acid and glufosinate in natural waters by solid-phase extraction followed by liquid chromatography-tandem mass spectrometry: performance tuning of derivatization, enrichment and detection. Anal Bioanal Chem 391(6):2265–2276CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. IARC (2015) IARC Monographs Volume 112: evaluation of five organophosphate insecticides and herbicides. World Health Organisation, International Agency for Research on Cancer, Lyon (France), 2015. Available from https://www.iarc.fr/en/media-centre/iarcnews/pdf/MonographVolume112.pdf (Last accessed: 13.12.2015).
  12. Ibáñez M, Pozo OJ, Sancho JV, López FJ, Hernández F (2005) Residue determination of glyphosate, glufosinate and aminomethylphosphonic acid in water and soil samples by liquid chromatography coupled to electrospray tandem mass spectrometry. J Chromatogr A 1081(2):145–155CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. Karlsson KM, Spoof LEM, Meriluoto JAO (2005) Quantitative LC-ESI-MS analyses of microcystins and nodularin-R in animal tissue—Matrix effects and method validation. EnvironToxicol 20:381–389Google Scholar
  14. Kawai S, Uno B, Tomita M (1991) Determination of glyphosate and its major metabolite aminomethylphosphonic acid by high-performance liquid chromatography after derivatization with p-toluenesulphonyl chloride. J Chromatogr 540:411–415CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. Kloepfer A, Quintana JB, Reemtsma T (2005) Operational options to reduce matrix effects in liquid chromatography-electrospray ionization-mass spectrometry analysis of aqueous environmental samples. J Chromatogr A 1067:153–160CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. Kowal S, Balsaa P, Werres F, Schmidt TC (2009) Determination of the polar pesticide degradation product N,N-dimethylsulfamide in aqueous matrices by UPLC-ESI-MS/MS. Anal Bioanal Chem 395:1787–1794CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. Kruve A, Künnapas A, Herodes K, Leito I (2008) Matrix effects in pesticide multi-residue analysis by liquid chromatography-mass spectrometry. J Chromatogr A 1187(1–2):58–66CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. Kruve A, Leito I, Herodes K (2009) Combating matrix effects in LC/ESI/MS: The extrapolative dilution approach. Anal Chim Acta 651(1):75–80CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. Kruve A, Herodes K, Leito I (2010) Optimization of electrospray interface and quadrupole ion trap mass spectrometer parameters in pesticide liquid chromatography/electrospray ionization mass spectrometry analysis. Rapid Commun Mass Sp 24(7):919–926CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. Kruve A, Auling R, Herodes K, Leito I (2011) Study of liquid chromatography/electrospray ionization mass spectrometry matrix effect on the example of glyphosate analysis from cereals. Rapid Commun Mass Sp 25(21):3252–3258CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. Kruve A, Leito I, Herodes K, Laaniste A, Lõhmus R (2012) Enhanced nebulization efficiency of electrospray mass spectrometry: improved sensitivity and detection limit. J Am Soc Mass Spectr 23(12):2051–2054CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. Küsters M, Gerhartz M (2010) Enrichment and low-level determination of glyphosate, aminomethylphosphonic acid and glufosinate in drinking water after cleanup by cation exchange resin. J Sep Sci 33(8):1139–1146Google Scholar
  23. Lee SJ, Park S, Choi JY, Shim JH, Shin EH, Choi JH, Kim ST, Abd El-Aty AM, Jin JS, Bae DW, Shin SC (2009) Multiresidue analysis of pesticides with hydrolyzable functionality in cooked vegetables by liquid chromatography tandem mass spectrometry. Biomed Chromatogr 23(7):719–731CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. Liang HR, Foltz RL, Meng M, Bennett P (2003) Ionization enhancement in atmospheric pressure chemical ionization between target drugs and stable-isotope-labeled internal standards in quantitative liquid chromatography/tandem mass spectrometry. Rapid Commun Mass Sp 17:2815–2821CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. Licea-Perez H, Wang S, Szapacs ME, Yang E (2008) Development of a highly sensitive and selective UPLC/MS/MS method for the simultaneous determination of testosterone and 5α-dihydrotestosterone in human serum to support testosterone replacement therapy for hypogonadism. Steroids 73(6):601–610CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. Lundgren LN (1986) A new method for the determination of glyphosate and (aminomethyl) phosphonic acid residues in soils. J Agric Food Chem 34:535–538CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. Magnusson B, Örnemark U (1998) Eurachem guide: the fitness for purpose of analytical methods—a laboratory guide to method validation and related topics, 2nd ed. Eurachem, Teddington, available from www.eurachem.org
  28. Manini P, Andreoli R, Mutti A (2006) Application of liquid chromatography-mass spectrometry to biomonitoring of exposure to industrial chemicals. Toxicol Lett 162:202–210CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. Mei H, Hsieh YS, Nardo C, Xu XY, Wang SY, Ng K, Korfmacher WA (2003) Investigation of matrix effects in bioanalytical high-performance liquid chromatography/tandem mass spectrometric assays: application to drug discovery. Rapid Commun Mass Sp 17:97–103CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. Morin LP, Mess JN, Furtado M, Garofolo F (2011) Reliable procedures to evaluate and repair crosstalk for bioanalytical MS/MS assays. Bioanalysis 3(3):275–283CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  31. Niessen WM, Manini P, Andreoli R (2006) Matrix effects in quantitative pesticide analysis using liquid chromatography-mass spectrometry. Mass Spectrom Rev 25(6):881–899CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  32. Oss M, Kruve A, Herodes K, Leito I (2010) Electrospray ionization efficiency scale of organic compounds. Anal Chem 82(7):2865–2872CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  33. Patsias J, Papadopoulou A, Papadopoulou-Mourkidou E (2001) Automated trace level determination of glyphosate and aminomethyl phosphonic acid in water by on-line anion-exchange solid-phase extraction followed by cation-exchange liquid chromatography and post-column derivatization. J Chromatogr 932:83–90CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  34. Pizzutti IR, de Kok A, Hiemstra M, Wickert C, Prestes OD (2009) Method validation and comparison of acetonitrile and acetone extraction for the analysis of 169 pesticides in soya grain by liquid chromatography-tandem mass spectrometry. J Chromatogr A 1216(21):4539–4552CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  35. Qian KQ, Tang T, Shi T, Wang F, Li J, Cao Y (2009) Residue determination of glyphosate in environmental water samples with high-performance liquid chromatography and UV detection after derivatization with 4-chloro-3,5-dinitrobenzotrifluoride. Anal Chim Acta 635(2):222–226CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  36. Sanchis J, Kantiani LM, Rubio F, Ginebreda A, Fraile J, Garrido T, Farre M (2012) Determination of glyphosate in groundwater samples using an ultrasensitive immunoassay and confirmation by on-line solid-phase extraction followed by liquid chromatography coupled to tandem mass spectrometry. Anal Bioanal Chem 402(7):2335–2345CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  37. Sancho JV, Pozo OJ, López FJ, Hernández F (2002) Different quantitation approaches for xenobiotics in human urine samples by liquid chromatography/electrospray tandem mass spectrometry. Rapid Commun Mass Sp 16:639–645CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  38. Stahnke H, Reemtsma T, Alder L (2009) Compensation of matrix effects by postcolumn infusion of a monitor substance in multiresidue analysis with LC-MS/MS. Anal Chem 81:2185–2192CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  39. Stahnke H, Kittlaus S, Kempe G, Alder A (2012) Reduction of matrix effects in liquid chromatography–electrospray ionization–mass spectrometry by dilution of the sample extracts: how much dilution is needed? Anal Chem 84(3):1474–1482CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  40. Stalikas CD, Konidari CN (2001) Analytical methods to determine phosphonic and amino acid group-containing pesticides. J Chromatogr A 907(1–2):1–19CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  41. Taylor PJ (2005) Matrix effects: the Achilles heel of quantitative high-performance liquid chromatography-electrospray-tandem mass spectrometry. Clin Biochem 38(4):328–334CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  42. Van De Steene JC, Mortier KA, Lambert WE (2006) Tackling matrix effects during development of a liquid chromatographic-electrospray ionisation tandem mass spectrometric analysis of nine basic pharmaceuticals in aqueous environmental samples. J Chromatogr A 1123(1):71–81CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  43. Van Eeckhaut A, Lanckmans K, Sarre S, Smolders I, Michotte Y (2009) Validation of bioanalytical LC- MS/MS assays: evaluation of matrix effects. J Chromatogr B Analyt Technol Biomed Life Sci 877(23):2198–2207CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  44. Villagrasa M, Guillamón M, Eljarrat E, Barceló D (2007) Matrix effect in liquid chromatography–electrospray ionization mass spectrometry analysis of benzoxazinoid derivatives in plant materia. J Chromatogr A 1157:108–114CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  45. Vreeken RJ, Speksnijder P, Bobeldijk-Pastorova I, Noij THM (1998) Selective analysis of the herbicides glyphosate and aminomethylphosphonic acid in water by on-line solid-phase extraction-high-performance liquid chromatography-electrospray ionization mass spectrometry. J Chromatogr A 794(1):187–199CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  46. Zrostlikova J, Hajslova J, Poustka J, Begany P (2002) Alternative calibration approaches to compensate the effect of co–extracted matrix components in liquid chromatography–electrospray ionisation tandem mass spectrometry analysis of pesticide residues in plant materials. J Chromatogr A 973(1–2):13–26CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer-Verlag Berlin Heidelberg 2017

Authors and Affiliations

  • Vahur Toss
    • 1
  • Ivo Leito
    • 1
  • Sergei Yurchenko
    • 2
  • Rene Freiberg
    • 3
  • Anneli Kruve
    • 1
  1. 1.Institute of ChemistryUniversity of TartuTartuEstonia
  2. 2.Institute of Veterinary Medicine and Animal SciencesEstonian University of Life SciencesTartuEstonia
  3. 3.Institute of Agricultural and Environmental SciencesEstonian University of Life SciencesTartuEstonia

Personalised recommendations