Research of Qualitative ELISA and GC-MS for Atrazine in Soil

Article Preview

Abstract:

The qualitative ELISA was used for screening out atrazine in soil and positive results were proved with GC-MS. The recoveries 、Precision and the detection limits were estimated in this paper. The average recoveries of ELISA were 96.64%~98.06%,and coefficient of variations were 1.69%~3.36%,the detection limit was 0.04μg/kg, while The average recoveries of GC-MS were 85.78%~87.46%,and coefficient of variations were 4.3%~6.56%,the detection limit was 0.03μg/kg, when the concentrations of 0.5,1.0,5.0μg/kg atrazine standard were add to soil samples. Then three positive samples that filtered by ELISA were proved with GC-MS, and the results were coherent between two methods. The assay found ELISA is a rapid and exact method with good reproducibility for atrazine determination in soil .

You might also be interested in these eBooks

Info:

Periodical:

Advanced Materials Research (Volumes 183-185)

Pages:

990-993

Citation:

Online since:

January 2011

Export:

Price:

Permissions CCC:

Permissions PLS:

Сopyright:

© 2011 Trans Tech Publications Ltd. All Rights Reserved

Share:

Citation:

[1] Wang huanmin; Zhang ziming . New pesticides Manual[M] . Agricultural Publishing House(1989).

Google Scholar

[2] Qiao Xiongwu; Ma Liping; H.E. Chinese J. Chromatography. Vol. 13 (3) (1995), p.170~173.

Google Scholar

[3] REN Jin; JIANG Ke; XU Xiaobai. Chinese J. Chromatography Vol. 22 (2) , (2004), p.147~150.

Google Scholar

[4] LI Wei-jian; NIE Zhi-qiang; CAI Yan-ming; LIU Xiao-wei; WANG Lu; LI Hong. Agro-Environment Sci. Vol. 28(1), (2009), pp.211-215.

Google Scholar

[5] Lucio F C Melo, Carol H Collins, Isabel C S F Jardim. Chromatography J., Vol. 1073(2005), pp.75-81.

Google Scholar

[6] Deng Anping,Franek M. Chinese J. Anal. chem., Vol. 26 (1)(1998), p.29~33.

Google Scholar

[7] Irena Baranowska, Hanna Barchanska, Ramadan A. Abuknesha, Robert G. Price, Agata Stalmacha. Ecotoxicology and Environmental Safety., Vol. 70( 2008), p.341–348.

DOI: 10.1016/j.ecoenv.2007.06.012

Google Scholar