Display options
Share it on

Front Chem. 2020 Dec 02;8:615594. doi: 10.3389/fchem.2020.615594. eCollection 2020.

Development of Fluorescence Polarization Immunoassay for Imidacloprid in Environmental and Agricultural Samples.

Frontiers in chemistry

Liangliang Zhou, Jiachuan Yang, Zhexuan Tao, Sergei A Eremin, Xiude Hua, Minghua Wang

Affiliations

  1. Department of Pesticide Science, State & Local Joint Engineering Research Center of Green Pesticide Invention and Application, Ministry of Education, College of Plant Protection, Nanjing Agricultural University, Nanjing, China.
  2. Chemical Faculty, M.V. Lomonosov Moscow State University, Moscow, Russia.

PMID: 33344425 PMCID: PMC7738439 DOI: 10.3389/fchem.2020.615594

Abstract

A fluorescence polarization immunoassay (FPIA) for the determination of imidacloprid (IMI) was developed with advantages of simple operation and short assay time. The haptens of IMI, acetamiprid (ACE), and thiamethoxam (THI) were conjugated with fluorescein isothiocyanate ethylenediamine (EDF) and 4'-Aminomethyl fluorescein (AMF), respectively, to prepare six fluorescence tracers. The conjugation of IMI hapten and EDF (IMI-EDF) was selected to develop the FPIA due to the largest fluorescent polarization value increase in the presence of anti-IMI monoclonal antibody. Under the optimum condition, the limit of detection, 50% inhibition concentration and detection range of the FPIA were 1.7, 4.8, and 1.7-16.3 μg/L, respectively. The cross-reactivities (CRs) with the analogs of IMI were negligible except for imidaclothiz with CR of 79.13%. The average recovery of spiked paddy water, corn and cucumber samples were 82.4-118.5% with the RSDs of 7.0-15.9%, which indicated the FPIA had good accuracy. Thus, the developed FPIA was a potential tool for the rapid and accurate determination of IMI in agricultural and environmental samples.

Copyright © 2020 Zhou, Yang, Tao, Eremin, Hua and Wang.

Keywords: fluorescence polarization immunoassay; fluorescent tracers; high throughput detection; imidacloprid; pesticide residue

Conflict of interest statement

The authors declare that the research was conducted in the absence of any commercial or financial relationships that could be construed as a potential conflict of interest.

References

  1. Pest Manag Sci. 2009 Feb;65(2):122-8 - PubMed
  2. Sci Total Environ. 2019 Nov 20;692:1291-1303 - PubMed
  3. Environ Sci Pollut Res Int. 2018 Sep;25(26):26617-26624 - PubMed
  4. J Agric Food Chem. 2003 Mar 26;51(7):1823-30 - PubMed
  5. Food Chem. 2020 May 1;311:126055 - PubMed
  6. J Agric Food Chem. 2003 Feb 26;51(5):1107-14 - PubMed
  7. Anal Bioanal Chem. 2008 Jul;391(5):1499-507 - PubMed
  8. Food Chem. 2021 Jan 15;335:127609 - PubMed
  9. J Agric Food Chem. 2002 May 22;50(11):3116-21 - PubMed
  10. Biosens Bioelectron. 2014 Jun 15;56:231-6 - PubMed
  11. Talanta. 2013 Nov 15;116:33-8 - PubMed
  12. Chemosphere. 2020 Sep;254:126837 - PubMed
  13. J Agric Food Chem. 2001 May;49(5):2159-67 - PubMed
  14. J Chromatogr A. 2003 Jun 27;1003(1-2):189-95 - PubMed
  15. Pestic Biochem Physiol. 2020 Jun;166:104562 - PubMed
  16. Anal Chim Acta. 2011 Dec 5;708(1-2):123-9 - PubMed
  17. Anal Chim Acta. 2009 Apr 20;639(1-2):83-9 - PubMed
  18. J Agric Food Chem. 2013 Oct 2;61(39):9347-55 - PubMed
  19. Talanta. 2017 Jan 1;162:495-504 - PubMed
  20. Anal Chim Acta. 2015 Jun 30;881:82-9 - PubMed
  21. J Pharm Biomed Anal. 2018 Sep 10;159:326-330 - PubMed
  22. Biomed Pharmacother. 2018 Jan;97:518-527 - PubMed
  23. Talanta. 2012 Nov 15;101:85-90 - PubMed

Publication Types