2005
DOI: 10.2116/analsci.21.219
|View full text |Cite
|
Sign up to set email alerts
|

Quantitative Analysis of 17β-Estradiol in River Water by Fluorometric Enzyme Immunoassay Using Biotinylated Estradiol

Abstract: The effects of endocrine disruption caused by a wide variety of anthropogenic and natural chemicals in the environment have been studied with respect to interaction with natural hormone system. In this way, endocrine disrupting chemicals (EDCs) were suspected of influencing the reproductive system of wild life and humans.

Help me understand this report

Search citation statements

Order By: Relevance

Paper Sections

Select...
2
1

Citation Types

0
3
0

Year Published

2010
2010
2024
2024

Publication Types

Select...
4
1

Relationship

0
5

Authors

Journals

citations
Cited by 5 publications
(3 citation statements)
references
References 29 publications
(24 reference statements)
0
3
0
Order By: Relevance
“…Different extraction protocols, using Soxhlet extraction (Petrovic et al, 2001) sonication, supercritical fluid extraction (SFE), accelerated solvent extraction (ASE) (Petrovic et al, 2001) or microwave-assisted extraction (MAE), have been established for these compounds, before application of any of these analysis instruments as shown in Table 1. Generally, a complete chromatographic separation is achieved on a C18 column when applied on HPLC or LC-MS. (Tanaka et al, 2004) Solid phase extraction/ELISA (Matsumoto et al, 2005) molecularly imprinted polymer/HPLC (Le Noir et al, 2007) Gas chromatography-mass spectrometry (Kosjek et al, 2007) Pre Pre-column TMS/GC-MS (Zou et al, 2007) The advantage of using HPLC over GC is avoiding two steps occur in GC; the enzymatic hydrolysis step and the derivatization step. The enzymatic hydrolysis step is significant in GC for the immunoassay analysis of conjugated and unconjugated estrogens and progestogens, and the derivatization step that usually precedes a subsequent GC analysis is avoided (Petrovic et al, 2001).…”
Section: Extraction and Detection Of E2mentioning
confidence: 99%
See 2 more Smart Citations
“…Different extraction protocols, using Soxhlet extraction (Petrovic et al, 2001) sonication, supercritical fluid extraction (SFE), accelerated solvent extraction (ASE) (Petrovic et al, 2001) or microwave-assisted extraction (MAE), have been established for these compounds, before application of any of these analysis instruments as shown in Table 1. Generally, a complete chromatographic separation is achieved on a C18 column when applied on HPLC or LC-MS. (Tanaka et al, 2004) Solid phase extraction/ELISA (Matsumoto et al, 2005) molecularly imprinted polymer/HPLC (Le Noir et al, 2007) Gas chromatography-mass spectrometry (Kosjek et al, 2007) Pre Pre-column TMS/GC-MS (Zou et al, 2007) The advantage of using HPLC over GC is avoiding two steps occur in GC; the enzymatic hydrolysis step and the derivatization step. The enzymatic hydrolysis step is significant in GC for the immunoassay analysis of conjugated and unconjugated estrogens and progestogens, and the derivatization step that usually precedes a subsequent GC analysis is avoided (Petrovic et al, 2001).…”
Section: Extraction and Detection Of E2mentioning
confidence: 99%
“…Although studies in the UK have did not detect estrogenic compounds in drinking water (Harries et al, 1996;Harries et al, 1997), they were detected in raw domestic sewage discharged into rivers (Desbrow et al, 1998;Rujiralai et al, 2011) and waste water in South Korea in ranges of 1.2-10.7 ng L -1 (Ra et al, 2011), China (Liu et al, 2011;Lu et al, 2011;Zhou et al, 2011), The Netherlands (Belfroid et al, 2006), Italy (Pojana et al, 2004;Pojana et al, 2007), Germany (Körner et al, 2001;Matsumoto et al, 2005;Hintemann et al, 2006) and was also detected in the drinking water in some parts of USA (Caldwell et al, 2009), as summurized in Table 2. 4.63 μg/kg Crucian (Zou et al, 2007) 0.08 mg/g Tilapia (Jiang et al, 2009) 4.7 μg/kg Greasy-back shrimp (Zou et al, 2007) 0.0783 mg/g Prawn (Jiang et al, 2009) 26.4-77.1 ng/L Surface water (Hintemann et al, 2006) 4.1 × 10 3 ng/L Sewage 12 ng/L Effluent from (STP) (Rujiralai et al, 2011) Nd Waste water (Liu et al, 2011) 1.2-10.7 ng/L WWTP (Ra et al, 2011) 75.2 ng/L bottled mineral water, Germany (Wagner & Oehlmann, 2009) 0.8-150 ng/L Water, Netherlands (Vethaak et al, 2005) 0.06-67 pM River water, Japan (Matsumoto et al, 2005) 1-191 ng/L effluents from sewage treatment plants (Pojana et al, 2004) Sediment 200 pg/g Fresh water sediment (Petrovic et al, 2001) 0.3 μg/kg Lake Temsah (Elnwishy et al, 2012) 0.9-2.6 ng/g River sediment (Gong et al, 2011) 3.1-289 μg/kg Sediment (Pojana et al, 2004) Big animals 4-28 ng/g Cattle Manure (Andaluri et al, 2011) 104-262 μg/kg Dairy cattle feces (Wei et al, 2011) 45-926 μg/kg Beef cattle f...…”
Section: Global Detected Levels Of E2 and Estrogenic Residuesmentioning
confidence: 99%
See 1 more Smart Citation