HPLC and HPCE analysis of microcystins RR, LR and YR present in cyanobacteria and water by using immunoaffinity extraction

Aguete, E.C; Gago-Martı́nez, Ana; Leão, José Manuel; Rodríguez-Vázquez, J.A.; Ménard, Cathie; Lawrence, James F.

doi:10.1016/s0039-9140(02)00610-0

Cited by 52 publications

(34 citation statements)

References 13 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…The routine analysis of aqueous samples for microcystins requires a sample pretreatment. A variety of techniques have been reported for this purpose, including solvent extraction, solid-phase extraction (SPE) using immunosorbents [12,13] or reversed-phase sorbents [14] and solid-phase microextraction (SPME) [15,16]. Sample treatment using SPE is mainly an off-line procedure, which is tedious, time consuming and poorly reproducible at trace levels.…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

A fully automated system with on-line micro solid-phase extraction combined with capillary liquid chromatography–tandem mass spectrometry for high throughput analysis of microcystins and nodularin-R in tap water and lake water

Shan

Shi

Dou

et al. 2011

Journal of Chromatography A

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

A fully automated system with on-line micro solid-phase extraction combined with capillary liquid chromatography–tandem mass spectrometry for high throughput analysis of microcystins and nodularin-R in tap water and lake water

Shan

Shi

Dou

et al. 2011

Journal of Chromatography A

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

“…Microcystins are a family of hepatotoxins produced mainly by several species of commonly occurring cyanobacteria such as Microcystis, Anabaena and Oscillatoria (Carmichael, 1992(Carmichael, , 1994Aguete et al, 2003;de Figueiredo et al, 2004). These hepatotoxins were involved in many cases of animal poisoning and human health problem in several countries worldwide (Codd et al, 1997;Fastner et al, 1998;Yu, 1989;Sivonen and Jones, 1999).…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Optimization of an effective extraction procedure for the analysis of microcystins in soils and lake sediments

Chen

Lin

Gan

et al. 2006

Environmental Pollution

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

“…Several attempts have been made to utilize antibodies (immunoaffinity column) to clean-up and/or concentrate microcystins in environmental and food samples [31][32][33][34][35]. Lawrence and Menard [33] in one algal sample consistently resulted in 30% -60% recovery rate regardless of spiking (1 -4 μg toxin/g algae) or the amount of sample passed through 25 -100 mg cartridges.…”

Section: Comparison With Antibody-based Assaysmentioning

confidence: 99%

The Effects of Sample Matrices on Immunoassays to Detect Microcystin-LR in Water

Cruz

Lynch²,

Dionysiou³

2012

JEP

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Immunoassays are widely used biochemical techniques to detect microcystins in environmental samples. The use of immunoassays for the detection of microcystins is vulnerable to matrix components and other interferents. This study is an evaluation of the effects of interfering substances commonly found in drinking and ambient water samples using commercially-available immunoassay kits for microcystin toxins. The microplate and strip test immunoassay formats were tested in the study. For the microplate ELISA, the following were found to inhibit microcystin-LR (MC-LR) detection: 250 μg/mL Ca 2+ or Mg 2+ , 0.01% ascorbic acid, 0.1% EDTA chelating agent, 0.05 M glycine-HCl, pH 3. The following exhibited no effect: sodium chloride (NaCl, 1% to 4%) and sodium thiosulfate (0.001% and 0.01%), 0.01 to 0.1 M phosphate buffers (PB), pH 7 and 0.067 M PB at pH 5, 6, 7 and 8. Overall, up to 50 μg/mL of standard and reference natural organic matter (NOM) from various sources did not interfere in the assay system (without MC-LR) but diminished the detection of MC-LR at varying degrees. This is the first study evaluating standard and reference humic and fulvic acids from various sources in immunoassays for microcystins. The strip test also showed variable effects on MC-LR detection in the presence of NOM. This assay format was also sensitive to varying pHs and ionic strengths. MC-LR binding was inhibited at low pH (0.05 M glycine-HCl, pH 3), whereas, 0.067 M PB with pH 6, 7 and 8 can yield false positive results. Lower ionic strength of 0.01 M PB, pH 7 showed no interference in MC-LR binding whereas higher ionic strengths can interfere with MC-LR detection. NaCl at 3% and 4% can interfere with the analysis giving false positive results. Mg 2+ at 50 and 250 μg/mL showed no effect on the analysis while the same concentration of Ca 2+ can yield false positive results. The performance in marine, brackish and hard waters should be tested given the potential sensitivity to salinity. Results of this study may assist in the further refinement of existing assays and the development of practical antibody-based methods to clean-up samples and detect cyanotoxins in water.

show abstract

HPLC and HPCE analysis of microcystins RR, LR and YR present in cyanobacteria and water by using immunoaffinity extraction

Cited by 52 publications

References 13 publications

A fully automated system with on-line micro solid-phase extraction combined with capillary liquid chromatography–tandem mass spectrometry for high throughput analysis of microcystins and nodularin-R in tap water and lake water

A fully automated system with on-line micro solid-phase extraction combined with capillary liquid chromatography–tandem mass spectrometry for high throughput analysis of microcystins and nodularin-R in tap water and lake water

Optimization of an effective extraction procedure for the analysis of microcystins in soils and lake sediments

The Effects of Sample Matrices on Immunoassays to Detect Microcystin-LR in Water

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About