High-sensitive separate determination of the group of triazine pesticides in drinking water by the method of high performance liquid chromatography with tandem mass-spectrometrical detection

Cover Page

Cite item

Full Text

Abstract

Introduction. The modern highly sensitive methods of controlling substances that affect humans in real environmental conditions are necessary to adequately assess the quality and chemical safety of drinking water, including pesticides used in agriculture for the destruction of weeds and pests.

The aim of the work was to improve the sensitivity of existing techniques for the determination of triazine pesticides in their joint presence to control drinking and bottled water.

Material and methods. The studies were performed using a chromatography mass-spectrometric system including a liquid chromatography with tandem mass-spectrometric triple quadrupole detector.

Results. The influence of various factors on the extraction of triazine pesticides from water has been studied, the chromatographic and detection conditions have been optimized. Linearity in the range of 0.1 - 10 μg / dm3 is proved. The limits of detection and quantitative determination of triazine pesticides in drinking water are established in accordance with hygienic standards.

Discussion. The procedure allows separate determination of triazine pesticides when they are co-located in concentrations at and below the corresponding MPC values in drinking and bottled water. The method allows reliably determining the target compounds without the use of hard-to-reach deuterated reference materials. To improve the reliability of the method, as an internal standard it is recommended to use one of the compounds studied, which is not a widely used pesticide, for example, propazine, with mandatory control of the initial matrix for its content.

Conclusion. A highly sensitive method for the separate determination of a group of triazine pesticides (simazine, atrazine, propazine, prometrin, metribuzin, metamitron) was developed with their joint presence in drinking water with sensitivity at or below the corresponding hygienic standards.

About the authors

P. P. Kochetkov

Centre for Strategic Planning and Management of Biomedical Health Risks

Author for correspondence.
Email: noemail@neicon.ru
Russian Federation

Alla G. Malysheva

Centre for Strategic Planning and Management of Biomedical Health Risks

Email: allagmalysheva@yandex.ru
ORCID iD: 0000-0003-3112-0980

MD, Ph.D., DSci., professor, leading researcher of the Laboratoty of the ecological and hygienic assessment and prediction of substance toxicity of the Centre for Strategic Planning and Management of Biomedical Health Risks of the Ministry of Health of the Russian Federation (Centre
for Strategic Planning, Moscow, 119121, Russian Federation.

e-mail: allagmalysheva@yandex.ru

Russian Federation

V. V. Glebov

Peoples’ Friendship University of Russia

Email: noemail@neicon.ru
Russian Federation

R. I. Mihajlova

Centre for Strategic Planning and Management of Biomedical Health Risks

Email: noemail@neicon.ru
Russian Federation

References

  1. The Federal law N 109-FZ of July 19, 1997 “On the safe handling of pesticides and agrochemicals”. (in Russian)
  2. The Order of the Ministry of Agriculture of the Russian Federation N 357 of July 10, 2007 “On Approval of the Procedure for State Registration of Pesticides and Agrochemicals”. (in Russian)
  3. The decision of the Board of the Eurasian Economic Commission N 149 of November 10, 2015 “On Amendments to the Customs Union Commission Decision N 299” 28 May 2010». (in Russian)
  4. Methodological instructive regulations MI-1.2.3365-16 from 04.07.2016 “Assessment of mutagenic activity of pesticides”. Moscow: Federal Center for Hygiene and Epidemiology of Rospotrebnadzor; 2016. 49 p. (in Russian)
  5. Parry J.M. Assessing the potential mutagenicity of pesticides. Scand J Work Environ Health. 2005; 31 Suppl 1: 123–8. Available at: http://www.sjweh.fi/show_abstract.php?abstract_id=908
  6. Booth E.D., Rawlinson P.J., Maria Fagundes P., Leiner K.A. Regulatory requirements for genotoxicity assessment of plant protection product active ingredients, impurities, and metabolites. Environ Mol Mutagen. 2017; 58: 325–44. https://doi.org/ https://doi.org/10.1002/em.22084
  7. Dearfield K.L., Gollapudi B.B., Bemis J.C., Benz R.D., Douglas G.R., Elespuru R.K. et al. Next generation testing strategy for assessment of genomic damage: A conceptual framework and considerations. Environ Mol Mutagen. 2017; 58 (5): 264–83. https://doi.org/10.1002/em.22045
  8. Turkez H., Arslan M.E., Ozdemir O. Genotoxicity testing: progress and prospects for the next decade. Expert Opin Drug Metab Toxicol. 2017; 13 (10): 1089–98. https://doi.org/10.1080/17425255.2017.1375097
  9. Kirkland D., Kasper P., Martus H.J., Müller L., van Benthem J., Madia F. et al. Updated recommended lists of genotoxic and non-genotoxic chemicals for assessment of the performance of new or improved genotoxicity tests. Mutat Res Genet Toxicol Environ Mutagen. 2016; 795: 7–30. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.mrgentox.2015.10.006
  10. Watanabe T., Hanasaki Y., Hirayama T., Fukui S. Mutagenicity of nitro- and amino-substituted phenazines in Salmonella typhimurium. Mutat Res. 1989; 225 (3): 75–82.
  11. Ambrus A., Hamilton D.J., Kuiper H.A., Racke K.D. Significance of impurities in the safety evaluation of crop protection products (IUPAC Technical Report). Pure Appl Chem. 2003; 75 (7): 937–73. https://pdfs.semanticscholar.org/6612/f32b011da238a771309fbaa6e7965f503583.pdf
  12. Benomyl (AGP:CP/324). FAO specifications for plant protection products; 1995. http://www.fao.org/agriculture/crops/thematic-sitemap/theme/pests/lpe/lpe-b/en/.
  13. Fishbein L. Overview of potential mutagenic problems posed by some pesticides and their trace impurities. Environ Health Perspect. 1978; 27: 125–31. https://doi.org/10.1289/ehp.7827125.
  14. Nitrosamines and Pesticides: A Special Report on the Occurrence of Nitrosamines as Terminal Residues Resulting From Agricultural Use of Certain Pesticides. Pure Appl Chem. 1980; 52 (2): 499–526. https://doi.org/10.1351/pac198052020499
  15. Bontoyan W.R., Law M.W., Wright Jr D.P. Nitrosamines in agricultural and home-use pesticides. J Agric Food Chem. 1979; 27 (3): 631–5. https://doi.org/10.1021/jf60223a009
  16. Ilyushina N., Egorova O., Masaltsev G., Averianova N. Genotoxicity studies of technical products of benzoylcyclohexane-1,3-dione derivative pesticide. Gigiena i sanitariya [Hygiene and Sanitation, Russian journal]. 2018; 97 (6): 509–13. https://doi.org/10.18821/0016-9900-2018-97-6-509-513 (in Russian)
  17. Ilyushina N., Averianova N., Masaltsev G., Revazova YU. Comparative investigation of genotoxic activity of glyphosate technical products in the micronucleus test in vivo. Toksikologicheskiy vestnik. 2018; 151 (4): 24–8. (in Russian)
  18. European commission directorate-general for health and food safety. Final Renewal report for the active substance PENDIMETHALIN finalised in the Standing Committee on Plants, Animals, Food and Feed at its meeting on 18 May 2017 in view of the renewal of the approval of PENDIMETHALIN as active substance in accordance with Regulation (EC) No 1107/2009SANTE/11656/2016.
  19. California environmental protection agency. Summary of toxicology data. Pendimethalin. T15092.
  20. Health Effects Division EPA USA. Pendimethalin registration eligibility decision document. Review. 1997. 53 p.
  21. The Joint FAO/WHO Meeting on Pesticide Residues (JMPR). Pesticide residues in food 2016. FAO plant production and protection paper 229.
  22. Rue J.C., Kim K.-R. Evaluation of genetic toxicity of synthetic chemicals (VII) – a synthetic selective herbicide pendimethalin. J Environ Toxicol. 2013; 18 (2): 121–9.
  23. The State Catalogue of Pesticides and Agrochemicals Permitted for Application on the Territory of the Russian Federation, the date of reference 22.11.2018. (in Russian)
  24. Vighi M., Matthies M., Solomon K.R. Critical assessment of pendimethalin in terms of persistence, bioaccumulation, toxicity, and potential for long-range transport. J Toxicol Environ Health B Crit Rev. 2017; 20 (1): 1–21. https://doi.org/10.1080/10937404.2016.1222320
  25. Hamel A., Roy M., Proudlock R. The bacterial reverse mutation test. Chapter 4. In: Proudlock R., ed. Genetic Toxicology Testing. A Laboratory Manual. 2016: 79–138. https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/book/9780128007648.
  26. Mortelmans K., Zeiger E. The Ames Salmonella/microsome mutagenicity assay. Mutat Res. 2000; 455: 29–60. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0027-5107(00)00064-6.
  27. OECD, test 471:1997, IDT. Bacterial reverse mutation test.
  28. Maron D.M., Ames B.N. Revised methods for the Salmonella mutagenicity test. Mutat Res. 1983; 113: 173–215. https://doi.org/10.1016/0165-1161(83)90010-9.
  29. Methodological instructive regulation «Methods for the primary detection of genetic activity of environmental pollutants using bacterial test systems». Moscow: Interdepartmental Scientific and Technical Council on Complex Problems of Environmental Protection and Rational Use of Natural Resources under the State Committee for Science and Technology; 1985. 33 p. (in Russian)
  30. Guidelines on short-term methods for detection of mutagenic and cancerogenic chemicals. A Co-Publishing of United Nations Environment Programme, International Labour Organization and World Health Organization. Moscow: Meditsina; 1989: 26–38. (in Russian)
  31. Abilev S.K. Identification and prediction of mutagenic activity of chemical compounds of the environment. Autoabstract of Diss. Moscow; 2003. 50 р. http://abilev.narod.ru/publications.htm. (in Russian)
  32. Guidelines on Assessment of the toxicity and hazards of chemicals and their mixtures for human health (Р 1.2.3156-13). Moscow: Federal Center for Hygiene and Epidemiology of Rospotrebnadzor; 2014. 639 p. (in Russian)
  33. OECD Test No. 474: Mammalian Erythrocyte Micronucleus Test; 2014.
  34. Guidelines. Assessment of mutagenic activity of environmental factors in cells of different mammalian organs using the micronucleus method. Moscow: Interdepartmental Scientific Council on Human Ecology and Environmental Hygiene of the Russian Federation; 2001. 22 p (in Russian)
  35. Kirkland D.J. Statistical evaluation of mutagenicity test data: recommendations of the UK Environmental Mutagen Society. Environ Health Perspect. 1994; 102 (Suppl 1): 43–7.
  36. McCullagh P., Nelder J.A. Generalized linear models. CRC Monographs on Statistics & Applied Probability 37. Second Edition. London, New York: Chapman and Hall; 1983. 261 p. https://doi.org/10.1002/bimj.4710290217
  37. McDonald J.H. Cochran–Mantel–Haenszel test for repeated tests of independence. Handbook of Biological Statistics (3rd ed.). Sparky House Publishing: Baltimore, Maryland; 2014: 94–100. http://www.biostathandbook.com/cmh.html
  38. Atwood D., Paisley-Jones C. Pesticides Industry Sales and Usage 2008 – 2012 Market Estimates. U.S. Environmental Protection Agency Washington, DC 2046; 2017.
  39. Ahmad I., Ahmad M. Fresh water fish, Channa punctatus, as a model for pendimethalin genotoxicity testing: A new approach toward aquatic environmental contaminants. Environ Toxicol. 2016; 31 (11): 1520–9. https://doi.org/10.1002/tox.22156
  40. Aboulila А.А., Belal E.B., Metwaly M.M., El-Ramady H.R. Degenotoxicity of Pendimethalin Contaminated Clay Soil by Pseudomonas resinovorans Using Anatomical, Cytogenetic and Biochemical Analysis in Vicia faba Plants. International. Int J Curr Res Biosci Plant Biol. 2016; 3 (2): 38–53. DOI: http://dx.doi.org/10.20546/ijcrbp.2016.302.005.
  41. Dimitrov B.D., Gadeva P.G., Benova D.K., Bineva M.V. Comparative genotoxicity of the herbicides Roundup, Stomp and Reglone in plant and mammalian test systems. Mutagenesis. 2006; 21 (6): 375–82. https://doi.org/10.1093/mutage/gel044
  42. Ahmad I., Ahmad A., Ahmad M. Binding properties of pendimethalin herbicide to DNA: multispectroscopic and molecular docking approaches. Phys Chem Chem Phys. 2016; 18 (9): 6476–85. https://doi.org/10.1039/c5cp07351k
  43. Hou L., Lee W.J., Rusiecki J., Hoppin J.A., Blair A., Bonner M.R. et al. Pendimethalin Exposure and Cancer Incidence Among Pesticide Applicators. Epidemiology. 2006; 17 (3): 302–7. https://doi.org/10.1097/01.ede.0000201398.82658.50
  44. Bonner M.R., Freeman L., Hoppin J.A., Koutros S., Sandler D.P., Lynch C.F. et al. Occupational Exposure to Pesticides and the Incidence of Lung Cancer in the Agricultural Health Study. Environ Health Perspect. 2017; 125 (4): 544–51. https://doi.org/10.1289/EHP456

Supplementary files

Supplementary Files
Action
1. JATS XML
Download

Copyright (c) 2024 Kochetkov P.P., Malysheva A.G., Glebov V.V., Mihajlova R.I.


СМИ зарегистрировано Федеральной службой по надзору в сфере связи, информационных технологий и массовых коммуникаций (Роскомнадзор).
Регистрационный номер и дата принятия решения о регистрации СМИ: серия ПИ № ФС 77 - 37884 от 02.10.2009.