Hostname: page-component-74656f9884-54qdv Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2026-11-09T18:35:35.740Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Comparison of Solid Phase Extraction Techniques for Herbicides

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  12 June 2017

Melissa B. Riley  and
Renee J. Keese
Melissa B. Riley
Affiliation:
Dep. Plant Path. Physiol., 120 Long Hall, Clemson University, Clemson, SC 29634-0377
Renee J. Keese
Affiliation:
Dep. Plant Path. Physiol., 120 Long Hall, Clemson University, Clemson, SC 29634-0377
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

Solid phase extraction (SPE) procedures were used to determine the recoveries of herbicides typically used in containerized ornamental plant production from water samples. Recoveries from C18 cartridges and disks were compared for each of 12 herbicides with variations in elution solvent and volume of elution solvent tested. Recoveries for nine of the herbicides from the cartridges and disks using acetone as an elution solvent were not affected by SPE matrix. Fluazifop recovery was greater with the disks, while napropamide and oxadiazon recoveries were greater with cartridges. Both cartridges and disks yielded low recoveries (23 to 47%) of benefin and prodiamine. Changing the elution solvent from acetone to acetonitrile resulted in 10% improvement for the recovery of benefin and a three- to four-fold increase in recovery of prodiamine. Acetonitrile decreased recoveries of napropamide, oryzalin, oxadiazon, oxyfluorfen, and pendimethalin from cartridges. For the disks, oxyfluorfen, prodiamine, and trifluralin had increased recovery, while fluazifop, oxadiazon, and simazine had decreased recovery with acetonitrile as the elution solvent. Increasing the amount of acetone eluting solvent increased the recovery of prodiamine and oxyfluorfen while decreasing the recovery of fluazifop, pendimethalin, simazine, and trifluralin. Binding capacities of oryzalin on cartridges and disks averaged 13.2 and 7.8 mg, respectively. The advantage of the disk lies in the greater volume of water that can be processed, while the higher cost and greater variability are disadvantages. Cartridge extraction yielded good recoveries with lower standard deviations, and used less organic solvent. Selection of an SPE extraction method depends upon the herbicides under evaluation, expected levels, and the water volume being processed. Both SPE techniques offer advantages over traditional liquid-liquid extraction methods such as reduced requirements for organic solvent and sample preparation.

Keywords

benefin, N-butyl-N-ethyl-2,6-dinitro-4-(trifluoromethyl) benzenaminefluazifop, (+)-2-[4-[[5-(trifluoromethyl)-2-pyridinyl]oxy]phenoxy] propanoic acidisoxaben, N-[3-(1-ethyl-1-methylpropyl)-5-isoxazolyl]-2,6-dimethoxybenzamidemetolachlor, 2-chloro-N-(2-ethyl-6-methylphenyl)-N-(2-methoxy-1-methylethyl)acetamidenapropamide, N,N-diethyl-2-(1-naphthalenyloxy) propanamideoryzalin, 4-(dipropylamino)-3,5-dinitrobenzenesulfonamideoxadiazon, 3-[2,4-dichloro-5-(1-methylethoxy)-phenyl]-5-(1,1-dimethylethyl)-1,3,4-oxadiazol-2-(3H)-oneoxyfluorfen, 2-chloro-1-(3-ethoxy-4-nitrophenoxy)-4-(trifluoromethyl) benzenependimethalin, N-(-ethylpropyl)-3,4-dimethyl-2,6-dinitrobenzenamineprodiamine, 2,4 dinitro-N 3,N 3-dipropyl-6-(trifluoromethyl)-1,3-benzenediaminesimazine, 6-chloro-N,N′-diethyl-,3,5-triazine-2,4-diaminetrifluralin, 2,6-dinitro-N,N-dipropyl-4-(trifluoromethyl) benzenamineOrnamental nurserieswaterC18 disksC18 cartridgesSPEbinding capacities

Information

Type
Soil, Air, and Water
Information
Weed Science , Volume 44 , Issue 3 , September 1996 , pp. 689 - 693
Copyright
Copyright © 1996 by the Weed Science Society of America 

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

Article purchase

Temporarily unavailable

References

Literature Cited

1. Barcelo, D., Durand, G., Bouvot, V., and Nielen, M. 1993. Use of extraction disks for trace enrichment of various pesticides from river water and simulated seawater samples followed by liquid chromatography-rapid-scanning UV visible and thermospray-mass spectrometry detection. Environ. Sci. Technol. 27: 271–277.Google Scholar
2. Balinova, A. 1993. Solid-phase extraction followed by high-performance liquid chromatographic analysis for monitoring herbicides in drinking water. J. Chromatogr. 643: 203–207.Google Scholar
3. Berchielli-Robertson, D. L., Gilliam, C.H., and Fare, D. C. 1990. Competitive effects of weeds on the growth of container-grown plants. HortScience 25: 77–79.Google Scholar
4. Bryan, B. Membranes can save time and solvent while boosting purity. 1994. Today's Chemist at Work 3: 39–43.Google Scholar
5. Camper, N. D., Whitwell, T., Keese, R. J., and Riley, M. B. 1994. Herbicide levels in nursery containment pond water and sediments. J. Environ. Hort. 12: 8–12.Google Scholar
6. Davi, L. M., Baldi, M., Penazzi, L., and Liboni, M. 1992. Evaluation of the membrane approach to solid-phase extractions of pesticide residues in drinking water. Pestic. Sci. 25: 63–67.Google Scholar
7. Font, G., Manes, J., Molto, J. C., and Pico, Y. 1993. Solid-phase extraction in multi-residue pesticide analysis of water. J. Chromatogr. 642: 135–161.Google Scholar
8. Gilliam, C. H., Foster, W. J., Adrain, J. L., and Shumack, R. L. 1990. A survey of weed control costs and strategies in container production nurseries. J. Environ. Hort. 8: 133–135.Google Scholar
9. Gilliam, C. H., Fare, D. C., and Beasley, A. 1992. Nontarget herbicide losses from application of granular Ronstar to container nurseries. J. Environ. Hort. 10: 175–176.Google Scholar
10. Hagen, D. F., Markell, C. G., Schmitt, G. A., and Blevins, D. D. 1990. Membrane approach to solid phase extractions. Anal. Chim. Acta. 236: 157–164.Google Scholar
11. Holland, P. T., McNaughton, D. E., and Malcolm, C. P. 1994. Multiresidue analysis of pesticides in wines by solid-phase extraction. J. AOAC Int. 77: 79–86.Google Scholar
12. Keese, R. J., Camper, N. D., Whitwell, T., Riley, M. B., and Wilson, P. C. 1994. Herbicide runoff from ornamental container nurseries. J. Environ. Qual. 23: 320–324.Google Scholar
13. Mahnken, G. E., Skroch, W. A., and Sheets, T. J. 1994. Loss of simazine and metolachlor in surface runoff water from a container ornamental production site. Proc. Weed Sci. Soc. Am. 34: 111.Google Scholar
14. Riley, M. B., Keese, R.J., Camper, N. D., Whitwell, T., and Wilson, P.C. 1994. Pendimethalin and oxyfluorfen residues in pond water and sediment from container plant nurseries. Weed Technol. 8: 299–303.Google Scholar
15. Simpson, N. 1992. Solid-phase extraction—disposable chromatography. Am. Laboratory 24: 37–43.Google Scholar
16. Wells, M. J. M., and Michael, J. L. 1987. Reversed-phase solid-phase extraction for aqueous environmental sample preparation in herbicide residue analysis. J. Chromat. Sci. 25: 345–350.Google Scholar
17. Wells, M. J. M., Riemer, D. D., and Well-Knecht, M. C. 1994. Development and optimization of a solid-phase extraction scheme for determination of the pesticides metribuzin, atrazine, metolachlor and esfenvalerate in agricultural runoff water. J. Chromat. 659: 337–348.Google Scholar