Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in

Comparative Study Between VWD and FLD Detector in HPLC System for Azoxystrobin Quantification in Water

  • Original
  • Published:
Chromatographia Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

In this study, the efficiency of two detectors—variable wavelength detector (VWD) and fluorescence detector (FLD)—in a liquid chromatograph to quantify azoxystrobin in water was compared. For this, a method was developed in a HPLC-VWD-FLD system using extraction by modified QuEChERS. The detection of azoxystrobin by fluorescence was possible using only a solvent effect, considering that azoxystrobin does not naturally fluoresce. Analytical curves were constructed using matrix-matched calibration, where a low matrix effect was verified in both detectors. In the linearity analysis of the analytical curves, the values of coefficient of determination ​​found for the detectors were 0.9989 and 0.9983 for VWD and FLD, respectively. The relative standard error for the VWD detector was 6.96%, while for the fluorescence detector, it was 5.49%. The limit of detection (LOD) and the limit of quantification (LOQ) were, respectively, 0.33 and 0.68 mg L−1 (VWD) and 0.18 and 0.37 mg L−1 (FLD). The QuEChERS method, originally developed for the extraction of pesticides in food, was adapted for the extraction of azoxystrobin in water, demonstrating efficiency in the process, with precision values ​​lower than 20% and accuracy between 83.58 and 112.88%, within the criteria established by MAPA and Document Nº SANTE/11312/2021. Therefore, it is concluded that both detectors are suitable for the analysis of azoxystrobin in water; however, there is a greater sensitivity for the fluorescence detector, since lower detection and quantification limit values ​​were observed, in addition to a lower standard relative error (RSE).

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Log in via an institution

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Institutional subscriptions

Fig. 1
Fig. 2
Fig. 3

Similar content being viewed by others

Data Availability

All data generated or analyzed during this study are included in this published article.

References

  1. Brondi SHG, de Macedo AN, Vicente GHL, Nogueira ARA (2011) Evaluation of the QuEChERS method and gas chromatography-mass spectrometry for the analysis pesticide residues in water and sediment. Bull Environ Contam Toxicol 86:18–22. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00128-010-0176-9

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  2. Somashekar KM, Mahima MR, Manjunath KC (2015) Contamination of water sources in Mysore city by pesticide residues and plasticizer—a cause of health concern. Aquatic Procedia 4:1181–1188. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.aqpro.2015.02.150

    Article  Google Scholar 

  3. Balkan T, Yılmaz Ö (2022) Method validation, residue and risk assessment of 260 pesticides in some leafy vegetables using liquid chromatography coupled to tandem mass spectrometry. Food Chem 384:132516. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.foodchem.2022.132516

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  4. Shao Y, Wang M, Cao J et al (2023) A method for the rapid determination of pesticides coupling thin-layer chromatography and enzyme inhibition principles. Food Chem 416:135822. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.foodchem.2023.135822

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  5. de Saath KC, O, Fachinello AL, (2018) Crescimento da Demanda Mundial de Alimentos e Restrições do Fator Terra no Brasil. Rev Econ Sociol Rural 56:195–212. https://doi.org/10.1590/1234-56781806-94790560201

    Article  Google Scholar 

  6. ANVISA (2019) Programa de Análise de Resíduos de Agrotóxicos em Alimentos—PARA: Relatório das Amostras Analisadas no período de 2017–2018. Brasília

  7. Gomes HDO, Menezes JMC, da Costa JGM et al (2020) A socio-environmental perspective on pesticide use and food production. Ecotoxicol Environ Safety 197:110627. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ecoenv.2020.110627

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  8. Wang M, Zhao L, Niu Y et al (2023) Magnetic deep eutectic solvent-based dispersive liquid–liquid microextraction for determination of strobilurin fungicides in water, juice, and vinegar by high-performance liquid chromatography. Food Chem X. 18:100711. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.fochx.2023.100711

    Article  CAS  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  9. Wang S, Kong C, Wu N et al (2022) H-beta zeolite-based dispersive solid-phase strategy for the multi-residue determination of pesticides. Anal Chim Acta 1227:340327. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.aca.2022.340327

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  10. Brasil (2021) Portaria GM/MS No 888, de 4 de maio de 2021. Ministério da Saúde

  11. World Health Organization (2021) A global overview of national regulations and standards for drinking-water quality, 2nd edn. World Health Organization, Geneva

    Google Scholar 

  12. Lu C, Hou K, Zhou T et al (2023) Characterization of the responses of soil micro-organisms to azoxystrobin and the residue dynamics of azoxystrobin in wheat–corn rotation fields over two years. Chemosphere 318:137918. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.chemosphere.2023.137918

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  13. Marczewska P, Płonka M, Rolnik J, Sajewicz M (2020) Determination of azoxystrobin and its impurity in pesticide formulations by liquid chromatography. J Environ Sci Health B 55:599–603. https://doi.org/10.1080/03601234.2020.1746572

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  14. Noegrohati S, Hernadi E, Asviastuti S (2018) Matrix effect evaluation and method validation of azoxystrobin and difenoconazole residues in red flesh dragon fruit (Hylocereus polyrhizus) matrices using QuEChERS sample preparation methods followed by LC–MS/MS determination. Bull Environ Contam Toxicol 100:821–826. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00128-018-2317-5

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  15. Muhammad N, Zia-ul-Haq M, Ali A et al (2021) Ion chromatography coupled with fluorescence/UV detector: a comprehensive review of its applications in pesticides and pharmaceutical drug analysis. Arab J Chem 14:102972. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.arabjc.2020.102972

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  16. Lin G, Ji R, Yao H et al (2020) Fluorescence detection of multiple kinds of pesticides with multi hidden layers neural network algorithm. Optik 211:164632. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijleo.2020.164632

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  17. Yuan Y-Y, Wang S-T, Liu S-Y et al (2020) Green approach for simultaneous determination of multi-pesticide residue in environmental water samples using excitation-emission matrix fluorescence and multivariate calibration. Spectrochim Acta Part A Mol Biomol Spectrosc 228:117801. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.saa.2019.117801

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  18. Chen M, Zhao Z, Lan X et al (2015) Determination of carbendazim and metiram pesticides residues in reapeseed and peanut oils by fluorescence spectrophotometry. Measurement 73:313–317. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.measurement.2015.05.006

    Article  Google Scholar 

  19. Almeida J, Macedo R, Da Cunha A et al (2023) Determination of trifloxystrobin in soy grape juice and natural water by photo-induced fluorescence and high-performance liquid chromatography. J Braz Chem Soc. https://doi.org/10.21577/0103-5053.20230080

    Article  Google Scholar 

  20. Flores JL, Díaz AM, Fernández De Córdova ML (2007) Determination of azoxystrobin residues in grapes, musts and wines with a multicommuted flow-through optosensor implemented with photochemically induced fluorescence. Anal Chim Acta 585:185–191. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.aca.2006.11.076

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  21. Guo X, Wang K, Chen G-H et al (2017) Determination of strobilurin fungicide residues in fruits and vegetables by nonaqueous micellar electrokinetic capillary chromatography with indirect laser-induced fluorescence: CE and CEC. Electrophoresis 38:2004–2010. https://doi.org/10.1002/elps.201700060

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  22. MAPA (2011) Manual de garantia da qualidade analítica. MAPA/ACS, Brasília

  23. EC (2021) Analytical Quality Control and Method Validation Procedures for Pesticide Residues Analysis in Food and Feed SANTE 11312/2021

  24. Anastassiades M, Lehotay SJ (2003) Fast and easy multiresidue method employing acetonitile extraction_partitioning and “dispersive solid-phase extraction” for the determination of pesticide residues in produce. J AOCA Int 86:412–431

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  25. Abdel Ghani SB, Hanafi AH (2016) QuEChERS method combined with GC-MS for pesticide residues determination in water. J Anal Chem 71:508–512. https://doi.org/10.1134/S1061934816050117

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  26. Danzer K, Currie LA (1998) Guidelines for calibration in analytical chemistry. Part I. Fundamentals and single component calibration (IUPAC Recommendations 1998). Pure Appl Chem 70:993–1014. https://doi.org/10.1351/pac199870040993

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  27. Barbosa PGA, Martins FICC, Lima LK et al (2018) Statistical analysis for quality adjustment of the analytical curve for determination of pesticide multiresidue in pineapple samples. Food Anal Methods 11:466–478. https://doi.org/10.1007/s12161-017-1017-9

    Article  Google Scholar 

  28. Bazilio FS, Bomfim MVJ, Almeida RJ, Abrantes SMP (2014) Intralaboratory validation of an analytical method for determining the migration of bis(2-ethylhexyl) adipate from packaging to fat foods. Accred Qual Assur 19:195–204. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00769-014-1055-6

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  29. de Gomes HO, da Cardoso RS, da Costa JGM et al (2021) Statistical evaluation of analytical curves for quantification of pesticides in bananas. Food Chem 345:128768. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.foodchem.2020.128768

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  30. Coly A (1994) Fluorimetric determination of aromatic pesticides in technical formulations. Effects of solvent and of ultraviolet photolysis. Talanta 41:1475–1480. https://doi.org/10.1016/0039-9140(94)E0021-I

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  31. Coly A, Aaron J-J (1998) Fluorimetric analysis of pesticides: methods, recent developments and applications. Talanta 46:815–843. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0039-9140(97)00366-4

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  32. Hassoon S, Schechter I (2000) In situ fluorimetric determination of pesticides on vegetables. Anal Chim Acta 405:9–15. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0003-2670(99)00747-3

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  33. Lawrence JF, Frei RW (1974) Fluorimetric derivatization for pesticide residue analysis. J Chromatogr A 98:253–270. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0021-9673(00)84786-X

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  34. Muhammad N, Hussian I, Ali A et al (2022) A comprehensive review of liquid chromatography hyphenated to post-column photoinduced fluorescence detection system for determination of analytes. Arab J Chem 15:104091. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.arabjc.2022.104091

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  35. Girame R, Shabeer TPA, Ghosh B et al (2022) Multi-residue method validation and safety evaluation of pesticide residues in seed spices cumin (Cuminum cyminum) and coriander (Coriandrum sativum) by gas chromatography tandem mass spectrometry (GC–MS/MS). Food Chem 374:131782. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.foodchem.2021.131782

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  36. WHO (2017) Guidelines for drinking-water quality. World Health Organization, Geneva

    Google Scholar 

  37. Pano-Farias NS, Ceballos-Magaña SG, Muñiz-Valencia R, Gonzalez J (2017) Validation and assessment of matrix effect and uncertainty of a gas chromatography coupled to mass spectrometry method for pesticides in papaya and avocado samples. J Food Drug Anal 25:501–509. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jfda.2016.09.005

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  38. Ferreira JA, Ferreira JMS, Talamini V et al (2016) Determination of pesticides in coconut ( Cocos nucifera Linn.) water and pulp using modified QuEChERS and LC–MS/MS. Food Chem 213:616–624. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.foodchem.2016.06.114

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  39. Guedes JAC, Silva RDO, Lima CG et al (2016) Matrix effect in guava multiresidue analysis by QuEChERS method and gas chromatography coupled to quadrupole mass spectrometry. Food Chem 199:380–386. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.foodchem.2015.12.007

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  40. Prestes O, Friggi C, Adaime M, Zanella R (2009) QuEChERS - Um método moderno de preparo de amostra para determinação multirresíduo de pesticidas em alimentos por métodos cromatográficos acoplados à espectrometria de massas. Quim Nova 32:1620–1634. https://doi.org/10.1590/S0100-40422009000600046

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

Download references

Acknowledgements

The authors are grateful to the Fundação Cearense de Apoio ao Desenvolvimento—BPI/FUNCAP (Grant number BP4-00172-00105.01.00/20) for financial support of this research.

Funding

The authors have not disclosed any funding.

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Departamento de Química Biológica, Universidade Regional do Cariri, R. Cel. Antonio Luis 1161, Crato, CE, 63105000, Brasil

    Hiago de Oliveira Gomes, Ellen Cristine Lopes da Silva Bento, Clenel Robson Feitosa dos Santos, Roseni da Silva Cardoso, Carliane de Oliveira de Souza, Ligia Claudia Castro de Oliveira, José Galberto Martins da Costa & Raimundo Nonato Pereira Teixeira

  2. Instituto Federal de Educação, Ciência e Tecnologia do Ceará, Campus Jaguaribe, R. Pedro Bezerra de Menezes S/N, Jaguaribe, CE, 63475000, Brasil

    Hiago de Oliveira Gomes

  3. Departamento de Físico-Química e Química Analítica, Universidade Federal do Ceará, R. Humberto Monte S/N, Fortaleza, CE, 60455700, Brasil

    Ronaldo Ferreira do Nascimento

Authors
  1. Hiago de Oliveira Gomes
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Ellen Cristine Lopes da Silva Bento
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  3. Clenel Robson Feitosa dos Santos
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  4. Roseni da Silva Cardoso
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  5. Carliane de Oliveira de Souza
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  6. Ligia Claudia Castro de Oliveira
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  7. José Galberto Martins da Costa
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  8. Ronaldo Ferreira do Nascimento
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  9. Raimundo Nonato Pereira Teixeira
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Contributions

HdOG: conceptualization, methodology, formal analysis, investigation, writing—original draft, writing—review and editing. ECLdSB: writing—original draft, investigation. CRFdS: formal analysis, investigation. RdSC: methodology, formal analysis. CdOdS: formal analysis, investigation. LCCdO: resources, data curation. JGMdC: resources, visualization, supervision. RFdN: writing—review and editing, validation, project administration. RNPT: conceptualization, supervision, writing—review and editing, visualization, project administration, funding acquisition.

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Hiago de Oliveira Gomes.

Ethics declarations

Conflict of Interest

The authors declare that they have no known competing financial interests or personal relationships that could have appeared to influence the work reported in this paper.

Ethics Approval

Ethics approval was not required for this study.

Informed Consent

Informed consent is not applicable.

Additional information

Publisher's Note

Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.

Rights and permissions

Springer Nature or its licensor (e.g. a society or other partner) holds exclusive rights to this article under a publishing agreement with the author(s) or other rightsholder(s); author self-archiving of the accepted manuscript version of this article is solely governed by the terms of such publishing agreement and applicable law.

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

de Oliveira Gomes, H., da Silva Bento, E.C.L., dos Santos, C.R.F. et al. Comparative Study Between VWD and FLD Detector in HPLC System for Azoxystrobin Quantification in Water. Chromatographia 86, 605–615 (2023). https://doi.org/10.1007/s10337-023-04274-z

Download citation

  • Received:

  • Revised:

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s10337-023-04274-z

Keywords

Search

Navigation