Chinese Journal of Chromatography ›› 2022, Vol. 40 ›› Issue (11): 988-997.DOI: 10.3724/SP.J.1123.2022.08023
• Articles • Previous Articles Next Articles
WANG Pan, MA Jiping(), LI Shuang, CHENG Jiawen, ZOU Zongyue
Received:
2022-08-28
Online:
2022-11-08
Published:
2022-11-10
Contact:
MA Jiping
Supported by:
CLC Number:
WANG Pan, MA Jiping, LI Shuang, CHENG Jiawen, ZOU Zongyue. Determination of four fungicides in water by magnetic solid phase extraction-ultrahigh performance liquid chromatography-tandem mass spectrometry using covalent organic framework material[J]. Chinese Journal of Chromatography, 2022, 40(11): 988-997.
Analyte | tR/min | Precursor ion (m/z) | Product ions (m/z) | Declustering potentials/V | Collision energies/eV |
---|---|---|---|---|---|
TBZ | 5.36 | 201.2 | 175.0*, 131.1 | 72, 72 | 33, 45 |
FBZ | 5.55 | 185.1 | 156.1*, 92.1 | 84, 84 | 38, 43 |
MBC | 4.84 | 192.0 | 160.0*, 132.8 | 59, 68 | 28, 44 |
IPT | 6.60 | 290.4 | 189.0*, 231.0 | 46, 46 | 17, 31 |
Table 2 Mass spectrometry parameters for the four fungicides
Analyte | tR/min | Precursor ion (m/z) | Product ions (m/z) | Declustering potentials/V | Collision energies/eV |
---|---|---|---|---|---|
TBZ | 5.36 | 201.2 | 175.0*, 131.1 | 72, 72 | 33, 45 |
FBZ | 5.55 | 185.1 | 156.1*, 92.1 | 84, 84 | 38, 43 |
MBC | 4.84 | 192.0 | 160.0*, 132.8 | 59, 68 | 28, 44 |
IPT | 6.60 | 290.4 | 189.0*, 231.0 | 46, 46 | 17, 31 |
Fig. 3 (a) TEM image of Fe3O4@TpBD, (b) X-ray diffraction patterns of Fe3O4@TpBD and TpBD, (c) FT-IR spectra of Fe3O4, TpBD and Fe3O4@TpBD, (d) N2 adsorption-desorption isotherms of TpBD and Fe3O4@TpBD, (e) magnetic hysteresis loop of Fe3O4@TpBD, and (f) zeta potential patterns of Fe3O4@TpBD
Fig. 5 Effects of (a) the magnetic ratio of Fe3O4@TpBD, (b) material dosage, (c) pH, (d) adsorption time, (e) ammonia volume fraction in eluent, (f) eluent volume, (g) elution time, and (h) NaCl content on the extraction efficiency of the four fungicides (n=3)
Analyte | Linear equation | r2 | Linear range/ (ng/L) | LOD/ (ng/L) | LOQ/ (ng/L) |
---|---|---|---|---|---|
TBZ | y=231.41x-809.83 | 0.9991 | 3-1200 | 0.07 | 0.23 |
FBZ | y=95.48x+16.98 | 0.9987 | 3-1200 | 0.28 | 0.92 |
MBC | y=219.86x-555.99 | 0.9997 | 3-1200 | 0.14 | 0.47 |
IPT | y=974.98x+675.58 | 0.9996 | 3-1200 | 0.06 | 0.20 |
Table 3 Linear equations, correlation coefficients (r2), linear ranges, LODs, and LOQs for the four fungicides
Analyte | Linear equation | r2 | Linear range/ (ng/L) | LOD/ (ng/L) | LOQ/ (ng/L) |
---|---|---|---|---|---|
TBZ | y=231.41x-809.83 | 0.9991 | 3-1200 | 0.07 | 0.23 |
FBZ | y=95.48x+16.98 | 0.9987 | 3-1200 | 0.28 | 0.92 |
MBC | y=219.86x-555.99 | 0.9997 | 3-1200 | 0.14 | 0.47 |
IPT | y=974.98x+675.58 | 0.9996 | 3-1200 | 0.06 | 0.20 |
Analyte | Spiked/ (ng/L) | Recovery/ % | RSDs(n=6) | |
---|---|---|---|---|
Intra-day/% | Inter-day/% | |||
TBZ | 15 | 106.3 | 8.7 | 10.8 |
150 | 103.1 | 6.4 | 4.7 | |
600 | 93.0 | 5.4 | 4.4 | |
FBZ | 15 | 97.3 | 2.8 | 5.6 |
150 | 90.3 | 8.6 | 6.6 | |
600 | 106.8 | 5.2 | 8.4 | |
MBC | 15 | 102.9 | 10.0 | 11.7 |
150 | 93.4 | 9.2 | 12.1 | |
600 | 91.5 | 6.6 | 15.7 | |
IPT | 15 | 79.0 | 9.9 | 9.8 |
150 | 107.5 | 6.7 | 9.7 | |
600 | 105.8 | 7.1 | 7.8 |
Table 4 Recoveries and precisions of the four fungicides (n=6)
Analyte | Spiked/ (ng/L) | Recovery/ % | RSDs(n=6) | |
---|---|---|---|---|
Intra-day/% | Inter-day/% | |||
TBZ | 15 | 106.3 | 8.7 | 10.8 |
150 | 103.1 | 6.4 | 4.7 | |
600 | 93.0 | 5.4 | 4.4 | |
FBZ | 15 | 97.3 | 2.8 | 5.6 |
150 | 90.3 | 8.6 | 6.6 | |
600 | 106.8 | 5.2 | 8.4 | |
MBC | 15 | 102.9 | 10.0 | 11.7 |
150 | 93.4 | 9.2 | 12.1 | |
600 | 91.5 | 6.6 | 15.7 | |
IPT | 15 | 79.0 | 9.9 | 9.8 |
150 | 107.5 | 6.7 | 9.7 | |
600 | 105.8 | 7.1 | 7.8 |
Analyte | Spiked/ (ng/L) | Tap water | Reservoir water | |||
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
Found/ (ng/L) | Recovery (RSD)/% | Found/ (ng/L) | Recovery (RSD)/% | |||
TBZ | 0 | ND | ND | |||
15 | 14.9 | 99.5 (11.8) | 13.5 | 89.8 (3.7) | ||
150 | 130.2 | 86.8 (3.4) | 115.7 | 77.1 (10.1) | ||
600 | 651.7 | 108.6 (3.6) | 529.3 | 88.2 (11.0) | ||
FBZ | 0 | ND | ND | |||
15 | 15.5 | 103.2 (11.2) | 13.1 | 87.5 (10.8) | ||
150 | 158.2 | 105.5 (6.5) | 124.1 | 82.8 (9.5) | ||
600 | 702.6 | 117.1 (2.7) | 570.2 | 95.0 (5.1) | ||
MBC | 0 | ND | 27.5 | |||
15 | 13.1 | 87.5 (8.9) | 17.8 | 119.1 (5.1) | ||
150 | 135.6 | 90.4 (16.7) | 132.7 | 88.5 (2.6) | ||
600 | 579.5 | 96.0 (11.5) | 529.2 | 88.2 (3.6) | ||
IPT | 0 | ND | ND | |||
15 | 12.7 | 85.0 (13.4) | 12.0 | 80.1 (8.9) | ||
150 | 146.6 | 97.7 (4.2) | 120.0 | 80.0 (3.7) | ||
600 | 660.3 | 110.0 (9.7) | 550.4 | 91.7 (15.1) |
Table 5 Analytical results for the four fungicides in real water samples (n=3)
Analyte | Spiked/ (ng/L) | Tap water | Reservoir water | |||
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
Found/ (ng/L) | Recovery (RSD)/% | Found/ (ng/L) | Recovery (RSD)/% | |||
TBZ | 0 | ND | ND | |||
15 | 14.9 | 99.5 (11.8) | 13.5 | 89.8 (3.7) | ||
150 | 130.2 | 86.8 (3.4) | 115.7 | 77.1 (10.1) | ||
600 | 651.7 | 108.6 (3.6) | 529.3 | 88.2 (11.0) | ||
FBZ | 0 | ND | ND | |||
15 | 15.5 | 103.2 (11.2) | 13.1 | 87.5 (10.8) | ||
150 | 158.2 | 105.5 (6.5) | 124.1 | 82.8 (9.5) | ||
600 | 702.6 | 117.1 (2.7) | 570.2 | 95.0 (5.1) | ||
MBC | 0 | ND | 27.5 | |||
15 | 13.1 | 87.5 (8.9) | 17.8 | 119.1 (5.1) | ||
150 | 135.6 | 90.4 (16.7) | 132.7 | 88.5 (2.6) | ||
600 | 579.5 | 96.0 (11.5) | 529.2 | 88.2 (3.6) | ||
IPT | 0 | ND | ND | |||
15 | 12.7 | 85.0 (13.4) | 12.0 | 80.1 (8.9) | ||
150 | 146.6 | 97.7 (4.2) | 120.0 | 80.0 (3.7) | ||
600 | 660.3 | 110.0 (9.7) | 550.4 | 91.7 (15.1) |
Analysis method | Sample pretreatment materials | Analytes | Matrices | Pretreatment time/min | LODs | Ref. |
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
MSPE-HPLC-UV | Fe3O4@COF | TBZ, MBC, ABZ, 2-ABZ, ABZSO | fruits and juice | >26 | 2.5-2.9 μg/L | [ |
SPME-HPLC-UV | MWCNTs-COOH | TBZ, MBC, TM | river and wastewater | >35 | 0.3-1.5 μg/L | [ |
MSPE-HPLC-UV | Ni/CTF-SO3H | TBZ, MBC | fruits, vegetables and juices | >5 | 1.23-7.05 μg/kg | [ |
MISPE-HPLC-FLD | molecularly imprinted monolithic column | MBC, TBZ, FBZ | citrus | >60 | 0.03-9.68 μg/L | [ |
SPE-HPLC-FLD | SiO2@NiO | MBC, TBZ | fruit and vegetable | >5 | 2.9-7.5 μg/kg | [ |
SPE-UHPLC-MS/MS | HLB cartridge | IPT | field paddy water | >50 | 0.0015 μg/L | [ |
MSPE-HPLC-FLD | benzenesulfonic acid- modified Fe3O4@SiO2 | MBC, TBZ | fruits and juice | >5 | 0.14-0.55 μg/kg | [ |
MSPE-UHPLC-MS/MS | Fe3O4@TpBD | TBZ, MBC, FBZ, IPT | tap and reservoir water | 5 | 0.06-0.28 ng/L | this work |
Table 6 Comparison of the present method with the reported methods for the determination of fungicides
Analysis method | Sample pretreatment materials | Analytes | Matrices | Pretreatment time/min | LODs | Ref. |
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
MSPE-HPLC-UV | Fe3O4@COF | TBZ, MBC, ABZ, 2-ABZ, ABZSO | fruits and juice | >26 | 2.5-2.9 μg/L | [ |
SPME-HPLC-UV | MWCNTs-COOH | TBZ, MBC, TM | river and wastewater | >35 | 0.3-1.5 μg/L | [ |
MSPE-HPLC-UV | Ni/CTF-SO3H | TBZ, MBC | fruits, vegetables and juices | >5 | 1.23-7.05 μg/kg | [ |
MISPE-HPLC-FLD | molecularly imprinted monolithic column | MBC, TBZ, FBZ | citrus | >60 | 0.03-9.68 μg/L | [ |
SPE-HPLC-FLD | SiO2@NiO | MBC, TBZ | fruit and vegetable | >5 | 2.9-7.5 μg/kg | [ |
SPE-UHPLC-MS/MS | HLB cartridge | IPT | field paddy water | >50 | 0.0015 μg/L | [ |
MSPE-HPLC-FLD | benzenesulfonic acid- modified Fe3O4@SiO2 | MBC, TBZ | fruits and juice | >5 | 0.14-0.55 μg/kg | [ |
MSPE-UHPLC-MS/MS | Fe3O4@TpBD | TBZ, MBC, FBZ, IPT | tap and reservoir water | 5 | 0.06-0.28 ng/L | this work |
|
Viewed | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Full text 118
|
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Abstract 143
|
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||