Comparison of soxhlet and microwave-assisted extractions efficiency for the determination of herbicides in soil and maize crop: Cumulative and health risks assessment

IF 4 Q2 FOOD SCIENCE & TECHNOLOGY
eFood Pub Date : 2024-07-01 DOI:10.1002/efd2.177
Sandisiwe Zondo, Precious Mahlambi
{"title":"Comparison of soxhlet and microwave-assisted extractions efficiency for the determination of herbicides in soil and maize crop: Cumulative and health risks assessment","authors":"Sandisiwe Zondo,&nbsp;Precious Mahlambi","doi":"10.1002/efd2.177","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p>The effectiveness of microwave-assisted extraction (MAE) and Soxhlet extraction (SE) was compared for the determination of herbicides (atrazine, 2.4 dichlorophenoxyacetic acid, mesotrione, and glyphosate) in soil and maize crop followed by gas chromatography with flame ionization detector. The recoveries of herbicides in maize and soil were 62%–80% and 70%–81%, respectively, for SE, whereas they were 80%–98% and 85%–101%, respectively, for MAE. The analysis repeatability, represented as relative standard deviations were &lt;20% for all herbicides in both methods. All the herbicides calibration curves showed a good correlation coefficient (<i>R</i><sup>2</sup>) ≥ 0.996, indicating good linearity. The SE limits of detection and quantification ranged between 0.22 and 0.32 µg L<sup>−1</sup>, and between 2.2 and 3.2 µg L<sup>−1</sup>, respectively, whereas they were between 0.1 and 0.29 µg L<sup>−1</sup>, and between 1.0 and 2.9 µg L<sup>−1</sup>, respectively for MAE. These findings showed that MAE method is more accurate and sensitive than SE, thus can be accurately applied for the determination of the assessed herbicides in soil and maize cop. Herbicides concentrations obtained ranged from 2.7 to 20.4 µg L<sup>−1</sup> in maize and from 1.2 to 30.5 µg L<sup>−1</sup> in soil samples. The concentrations obtained in maize were higher than the maximum residue limits suggesting that health effect may occur upon continuous consumption. The herbicides toxicity index further confirmed the possible high toxicity effect of the studied maize crop as it exceeded the threshold value of 1. However, the health risk index was lower than 100% limit and did not exceed the acceptable daily intake of the maize crop in both adult and children indicating no health effect.</p>","PeriodicalId":11436,"journal":{"name":"eFood","volume":"5 4","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":4.0000,"publicationDate":"2024-07-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/epdf/10.1002/efd2.177","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"eFood","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1002/efd2.177","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q2","JCRName":"FOOD SCIENCE & TECHNOLOGY","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

The effectiveness of microwave-assisted extraction (MAE) and Soxhlet extraction (SE) was compared for the determination of herbicides (atrazine, 2.4 dichlorophenoxyacetic acid, mesotrione, and glyphosate) in soil and maize crop followed by gas chromatography with flame ionization detector. The recoveries of herbicides in maize and soil were 62%–80% and 70%–81%, respectively, for SE, whereas they were 80%–98% and 85%–101%, respectively, for MAE. The analysis repeatability, represented as relative standard deviations were <20% for all herbicides in both methods. All the herbicides calibration curves showed a good correlation coefficient (R2) ≥ 0.996, indicating good linearity. The SE limits of detection and quantification ranged between 0.22 and 0.32 µg L−1, and between 2.2 and 3.2 µg L−1, respectively, whereas they were between 0.1 and 0.29 µg L−1, and between 1.0 and 2.9 µg L−1, respectively for MAE. These findings showed that MAE method is more accurate and sensitive than SE, thus can be accurately applied for the determination of the assessed herbicides in soil and maize cop. Herbicides concentrations obtained ranged from 2.7 to 20.4 µg L−1 in maize and from 1.2 to 30.5 µg L−1 in soil samples. The concentrations obtained in maize were higher than the maximum residue limits suggesting that health effect may occur upon continuous consumption. The herbicides toxicity index further confirmed the possible high toxicity effect of the studied maize crop as it exceeded the threshold value of 1. However, the health risk index was lower than 100% limit and did not exceed the acceptable daily intake of the maize crop in both adult and children indicating no health effect.

Abstract Image

比较索氏提取法和微波辅助提取法测定土壤和玉米作物中除草剂的效率:累积风险和健康风险评估
比较了微波辅助萃取(MAE)和索氏提取(SE)对土壤和玉米作物中除草剂(阿特拉津、2.4 二氯苯氧乙酸、甲磺隆和草甘膦)的检测效果,然后采用气相色谱-火焰离子化检测器进行检测。玉米和土壤中除草剂的 SE 回收率分别为 62%-80% 和 70%-81% ,而 MAE 回收率分别为 80%-98% 和 85%-101% 。在这两种方法中,所有除草剂的分析重复性(以相对标准偏差表示)均为 20%。所有除草剂的校准曲线的相关系数(R2)均≥ 0.996,表明线性关系良好。MAE方法的检出限和定量限分别为0.22~0.32 µg L-1和2.2~3.2 µg L-1,而MAE方法的检出限和定量限分别为0.1~0.29 µg L-1和1.0~2.9 µg L-1。这些结果表明 MAE 方法比 SE 方法更准确、更灵敏,因此可用于准确测定土壤和玉米茎叶中的除草剂。玉米和土壤样品中的除草剂浓度分别为 2.7 至 20.4 µg L-1 和 1.2 至 30.5 µg L-1。玉米中的浓度高于最大残留限量,表明连续食用可能会影响健康。除草剂毒性指数进一步证实了所研究的玉米作物可能具有高毒性效应,因为它超过了 1 的阈值。然而,健康风险指数低于 100%的限值,并且没有超过成人和儿童对玉米作物的可接受日摄入量,表明对健康没有影响。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 求助全文
来源期刊
eFood
eFood food research-
CiteScore
6.00
自引率
0.00%
发文量
44
期刊介绍: eFood is the official journal of the International Association of Dietetic Nutrition and Safety (IADNS) which eFood aims to cover all aspects of food science and technology. The journal’s mission is to advance and disseminate knowledge of food science, and to promote and foster research into the chemistry, nutrition and safety of food worldwide, by supporting open dissemination and lively discourse about a wide range of the most important topics in global food and health. The Editors welcome original research articles, comprehensive reviews, mini review, highlights, news, short reports, perspectives and correspondences on both experimental work and policy management in relation to food chemistry, nutrition, food health and safety, etc. Research areas covered in the journal include, but are not limited to, the following: ● Food chemistry ● Nutrition ● Food safety ● Food and health ● Food technology and sustainability ● Food processing ● Sensory and consumer science ● Food microbiology ● Food toxicology ● Food packaging ● Food security ● Healthy foods ● Super foods ● Food science (general)
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
确定
请完成安全验证×
copy
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
右上角分享
点击右上角分享
0
联系我们:info@booksci.cn Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。 Copyright © 2023 布克学术 All rights reserved.
京ICP备2023020795号-1
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术官方微信