Next Article in Journal
Evaluation of Antibacterial Activity of Thiourea Derivative TD4 against Methicillin-Resistant Staphylococcus aureus via Destroying the NAD+/NADH Homeostasis
Next Article in Special Issue
Assessment of the Prediction Power of Forced Ageing Methodology on Lager Beer Aldehyde Evolution during Maritime Transportation
Previous Article in Journal
Fluorescent Molecular Rotors Based on Hinged Anthracene Carboxyimides
Previous Article in Special Issue
Effect of Koji on Flavor Compounds and Sensory Characteristics of Rice Shochu
 
 
Journal Notice:

The Editorial Office has been made aware of an issue related to the validity of one of the two peer review reports collected by the Academic Editor supervising the processing of this article. Given that, as per MDPI peer review policy, we require a minimum of two valid review reports for each submitted article, the Editorial Office and the Editorial Board have decided to conduct a post-publication peer review in order to ensure that this publication fully conforms with MDPI’s Editorial Process policy (https://www.mdpi.com/editorial_process). The process of this post-publication peer review consists of recruiting one new reviewer to evaluate the manuscript and provide a review report to the original Academic Editor. The Academic Editor will then consider if post-publication modification to this publication is necessary and will work with the authors as per MDPI’s Update policy (https://www.mdpi.com/ethics#_bookmark30). Once this process is completed, the Editorial Office will provide a further update.

The Editorial Office and MDPI regret that such a measure has become necessary and find it important to emphasize that the authors were not aware of the irregularity in the review process and are therefore not responsible for this additional retrospective evaluation.

Font Type:
Arial Georgia Verdana
Font Size:
Aa Aa Aa
Line Spacing:
Column Width:
Background:
Article

SPE–UPLC–MS/MS for Determination of 36 Monomers of Alkylphenol Ethoxylates in Tea

Tea Research Institute, Chinese Academy of Agricultural Sciences, Hangzhou 310008, China
*
Authors to whom correspondence should be addressed.
Molecules 2023, 28(7), 3216; https://doi.org/10.3390/molecules28073216
Submission received: 28 February 2023 / Revised: 31 March 2023 / Accepted: 31 March 2023 / Published: 4 April 2023

Abstract

:
Alkylphenol ethoxylates (APEOs) represent a non-ionic surfactant widely used as adjuvants in pesticide formulation, which is considered to cause an endocrine-disrupting effect. In the current study, we established a detection method for the APEOs residue in tea based on solid-phase extraction (SPE) for the simultaneous analysis of nonylphenol ethoxylates (NPEOs) and octylphenol ethoxylates (OPEOs) by UPLC–MS/MS. In the spiked concentrations from 0.024 to 125.38 μg/kg for 36 monomers of APEOs (nEO = 3–20), the recoveries of APEOs range from 70.3–110.7% with RSD ≤ 16.9%, except for OPEO20 (61.8%) and NPEO20 (62.9%). The LOQs of OPEOs and NPEOs are 0.024–6.27 and 0.16–5.01 μg/kg, respectively. OPEOs and NPEOs are detected in 50 marketed tea samples with a total concentration of 0.057–12.94 and 0.30–215.89 µg/kg, respectively. The detection rate and the range of the monomers of NPEOs are generally higher than those of OPEOs. The current study provides a theoretical basis for the rational use of APEOs as adjuvants in commercial pesticide production.

1. Introduction

Tea (Camellia sinensis L.) is the second most popular non-alcoholic beverage because of its special flavor and rich active ingredients [1]. Metabolites such as amino acids, flavonoids, alkaloids, tannins, phenols, and glycosides are beneficial to humans [2,3]. Pesticides are applied to control tea pests and diseases in order to guarantee the quality of tea and minimize crop loss. Pesticide adjuvants enhance the efficacy of active ingredients, and among them, surfactants represent the main category [4]. Customers’ focus is mostly on pesticide residues in tea, whereas the tea quality and safety related to adjuvant exposure do not attract significant attention. In fact, pesticide adjuvants account for 1–99% of pesticides, and they may cause a potential health threat to humans, through carcinogenicity, teratogenicity, mutagenicity, and endocrine disruption [4].
Alkylphenol ethoxylates (APEOs) are non-ionic surfactants widely applied to industrial products, such as pulp and paper, textiles, coatings, agricultural pesticides, lube oils, fuels, metals, and plastics, and about 60% of APEOs are discharged into the aquatic environment [5,6]. APEOs consist of a hydrophobic carbon chain and an ethylene oxide chain of 1–50 units, but typical products generally contain 9–10 units [7,8]. Nonylphenol (NP) and octylphenol (OP) are the degradation products of NPEOs and OPEOs in the environment, and they are more toxic and remain in the environment more persistently [8]. The distribution of APEOs and metabolites is very broad, and they are found in environmental media, such as sediments, water, paddy soil, and suspended and settling particles, and have been found in many countries, including Japan, the USA, Turkey, China, South Africa, Spain, Portugal, and other European countries [9,10,11,12,13,14,15,16,17]. In addition, APEOs were detected in food products, including seafood, pork, fruit juice, beehive samples, and vegetables [18,19,20,21,22]. APEOs and metabolites are known to be endocrine-disrupting chemicals (EDC) [23]. The negative effects on endocrine and reproductive systems are thought to be due to the ability of APEOs and their metabolites to: (1) mimic the effect of endogenous hormones, (2) antagonize the effect of endogenous hormones, (3) disrupt the synthesis and metabolism of endogenous hormones, and (4) disrupt the synthesis and metabolism of hormone receptors [24]. Therefore, the use of such compounds in production has been banned or strictly monitored in the European Union [25], and it is forbidden to use more than 0.1% content in biocide formulations there [25].
APEOs have superior surface properties and low cost, and they are used in commercial pesticide formulations to improve spray efficacy and increase the systematic movement of pesticides in plants and animals [9,20]. In agriculture, frequently spraying pesticides containing surfactants and applying sewage and sludge as fertilizers may result in APEOs contamination of crops [25,26,27,28]. APEOs may accumulate in the human body via food containing APEOs. It was reported that APEOs and their metabolites were found in the human subcutaneous adipose tissue ranging from 6 to 80 ng/g Fw; moreover, OP (0.08 ng/mL), OPEO1 (0.07 ng/mL), and OPEO2 (0.16 ng/mL) were detected in human breast milk [29,30]. Metabolites of APEOs were also traced in urine [31].
Visual chromatograms achieve the purpose of monitoring APEOs [32]. Gas chromatography (GC) and liquid chromatography (LC) are usually coupled to mass spectrometry to analyze APEOs [30]. Nevertheless, when APEOs contain more than five ethoxylation units, their volatility and thermal stability become poor, requiring derivatization for GC–MS analysis [33]. LC–MS/MS was developed to analyze APEOs, providing better selectivity and lower detection limits [34]. Matrices of leaf vegetables and beehive samples were successfully analyzed by LC–MS/MS [19,20]. NPEO2–20 and OPEO2–20 in leafy vegetables (cabbage, lettuce, and spinach) were determined with recoveries of 72.8–122.6% and LOQs of 0.18–1.75 µg/kg [19]. NPEO3–13 and OPEO3–13 in beehive matrices (honey, pollen, and wax) were measured, with recoveries from 75 to 111% [20].
In this study, we developed a method for analyzing APEOs with between 3 and 20 ethoxylation units (nEO = 3–20) in a tea matrix, and the investigated residue provides a theoretical basis for further risk assessment of the intake of APEOs via tea consumption. Moreover, the current study provides proper guidance for the rational use of APEOs as adjuvants in pesticide production.

2. Results and Discussion

2.1. UPLC–MS/MS Conditions Optimization

The MRM method produces characteristic fragment ions by optimizing cone voltage and collision energy in the positive mode with the ESI source. Based on the relationship between MS–MS ions, the fragmentation path for the collision-induced dissociation (CID) method was used to quantitatively generate daughter ions, as shown in Table S1. Selecting an ammonium acetate solution as a mobile phase was beneficial for the ionization of monomers of OPEOs and NPEOs by adding ammonium ions and forming [M + NH4]+ or [M + 2NH4]2+ ions, which was monitored using mass spectrometry. Supplementary Materials Figure S1 shows the results of full-scan mass spectra of OPEOs and NPEOs. The mass spectrum for a series of monomers exhibits a difference of 44 or 22 mass units. Monomers with ethoxylation units in OPEO (9–10), OPEO (16), NPEO (4), NPEO (9–10), and NPEO (14) are 3–15, 9–20, 3–10, 3–15, and 6–20, respectively. When the number of ethoxylation units is at least 13 (n ≥ 13), [M + NH4]+ and [M + 2NH4]2+ ions simultaneously exist, while at n ≥ 15, the ionic abundance of [M + 2NH4]2+ is close to or exceeds the ionic abundance of [M + NH4]+. Finally, OPEO16–20 and NPEO16–20 binding to two ammonium ions were selected, except NPEO17 and NPEO19 due to interfering ions near these two ions, as shown in Figure S2. The monitored ammonium adducts of APEOs are shown in Table S1. The retention time of monomers of OPEOs and NPEOs ranges from 6.11 to 5.97 min and 6.34 to 6.77 min, respectively. The retention time decreases with the number of ethoxylation units.

2.2. Optimization of Extraction and Clean-Up

The tea matrix is so complex that many active substances are extracted, which may interfere with the analysis of target compounds [35]. Optimizing the extraction and purification methods may help effectively reduce the interference with other components and improve the extraction efficiency of the target. In this study, Oasis HLB was selected to filter impurities and enrich target components. The Oasis HLB absorbent is a macroporous copolymer composed of hydrophilic N-vinylpyrrolidone and lipophilic divinylbenzene; the π–π ring of benzene can interact with the phenyl group of the surfactant. This polymeric phase exhibits great loading capacity, and its chemical properties are stable when drying the column [36,37]. Considering the properties of APEOs, the HLB column is suitable for extracting APEOs [36,38,39].
A standard solution of APEOs was added to a blank tea sample in three duplicates, several groups of different variables were set at a certain stage in the extraction and clean-up process, and the best treatment group was selected by comparing the recovery rate and RSD. The results show that the components of the leaching solution greatly influence the results. Compared with the methanol–water mixed solution containing 1%, 3%, 5%, and 10% NH3·H2O with recoveries of 86–121%, 71–103%, 57–91%, and 55–102%, respectively, the solution containing 1% NH3·H2O exhibits the highest recovery (Figure 1). The methanol–water volume ratio in the leaching solution is optimized (Figure 2). The recoveries of APEOs of methanol–water volume ratio with 4:6 (v/v), 5:5 (v/v), 6:4 (v/v), and 7:3 (v/v) are 79–112%, 86–109%, 65–92%, and 19–66%, respectively. When the methanol–water volume ratio is 4:6 (v/v) and 5:5 (v/v), the recovery rate is higher than 6:4 (v/v) and 7:3 (v/v), which may be caused by the poor interaction between HLB and APEOs at a methanol–water volume ratio of 6:4 (v/v) and 7:3 (v/v); hence, the target compounds are washed out when the sample passes through cartridges [7]. Considering the cost, we chose the methanol–water 4:6 (v/v) mixed solution. The content of dichloromethane in the methanol for the elution was set at 5%, 25%, 50%, and 80%, and the recoveries of APEOs were 80–90%, 75–90%, 80–90%, and 80–110%, respectively (Figure 3a,b). The mixture of methanol and dichloromethane alters the polarity of the solution [7]. The elution volume is 2, 3, 4, and 5 mL, and the recoveries all range from 80% to 100%, and RSD% is less than 15% (Figure 4a,b). Using smaller amounts of organic solvents effectively saves experimental time and cost. Therefore, 2 mL of methanol containing 5% dichloromethane was chosen for the elution.

2.3. Method Validation

APEOs standards were accurately weighed and dissolved in acetonitrile with 2.00 × 105 μg/kg and further diluted to use. It is difficult to obtain the monomer of APEOs, and the monomer in the available standard does not have clear purity. For quantitative analysis, we need to clarify the proportional distribution of monomers in the standard [37]. The mass response of all monomers of NPEOs or OPEOs was obtained by using MS, and the mass response of homologs as a whole was added; the ratio of the monomer response to the total response, representing the ratio of the monomer content in the standard, was calculated, and details are given in Section 3.5. This method of conversion to percentage is normalized [24,40]. As represented in Figure 5, the proportion of each monomer in standard solutions for OPEOs and NPEOs ranges from 0.05–12.5% and from 0.3–10.00%, respectively.
Monomers of APEOs were measured using HPLC–MS/MS (Figure S3). The validation of analytical methods was carried out using parameters linearity, the coefficient of determination (R2), recoveries, relative standards (RSDs), and the limit of quantitation (LOQ). Tea samples without target components were prepared for matrix-matching standard curves to evaluate the linearity and R2. Blank tea samples were spiked with three levels and repeated five times to calculate recoveries and RSDs, determining precision and accuracy. The lowest spiked concentrations were treated as LOQ.
The precision and accuracy were verified by measuring recoveries of spiked OPEOs and NPEOs in tea. The validation parameters of the developed method are listed in Table S2. The three levels of spiked concentrations of APEO3–20 in tea range from 0.024 to 125.38 μg/kg. Except for OPEO20 and NPEO20, the recoveries of the rest monomers are more than 70%. The R2 ranges from 0.9949 to 0.9999 for OPEOs with RSDs 1.5–14.5%, and from 0.9978 to 0.9999 for NPEOs with RSDs 2.0–16.9%. The LOQ of OPEOs and NPEOs is 0.024–6.27 μg/kg and 0.16–5.01 μg/kg, respectively. The selectivity and sensitivity of the method were satisfying for detecting APEOs.
As described in Table 1, the present method has obvious advantages. Sediments were extracted to analyze APEO3–12 using the Oasis HLB column, and the results show that recoveries of APEO6–12 are 78–92%, but APEO3–5 is merely 60% [41]. Absolute extraction recoveries of APEO2–20 in the water sample via the SPE method combined with LC–MS/MS range from 37 to 69% [40]. In addition, many research reports mainly focused on the number of ethoxylation units of 15 or less (nEO ≤ 15) [20,36,42,43,44]. The matrix is more complex in this study, and the number of APEOs monomers is larger than in previous studies [36,40,41,42,43,44].

2.4. Residues in Marketed Tea Samples

APEO3–20 in marketed tea samples was determined, and the concentration levels are illustrated in Figure 6. The residues of OPEOs monomers range from 0.003 to 1.94 µg/kg, but OPEO14–20 is not detected. The total concentration of OPEOs is between 0.057 and 12.94 µg/kg. The monomers with the highest detection concentration are OPEO9, OPEO10, and OPEO11. These values match the detection results of OPEOs in the leafy vegetable samples. The sum residues of OPEO2–20 in leaf vegetables was 0–8.67 µg/kg, and the highest detection monomers were OPEO10, and OPEO11 [19], while it was up to 398 µg/kg in beeswax [20]. The detection frequencies are between 6.0% and 40.0% (average 25.2%), and OPEO3–4 and OPEO7–11 account for more than 28.0%, among which, OPEO9 has the highest frequency. OPEOs are detected in 21 tea samples, but NPEOs are detected in 49 samples. Almost all tea samples are contaminated by APEOs, and APEOs were detected in all vegetable samples and beehive samples [19,20]. Considering other parameters, including concentration, detection frequency, and the number of detected monomers, there are more NEPOs than OPEOs. The total determined concentration of NPEOs is from 0.30 to 215.89 µg/kg, and the concentration of each monomer is from 0.009 to 37.26 µg/kg. NPEO3–19 is detected with detection frequencies of 2.0–98.0% (average 55.1%), and nine components, i.e., NPEO3–4 and NPEO6–12, account for more than 70%. The total concentration of NPEOs in tea is higher than in leaf vegetables and honey, but much lower than in beeswax [19,20]. In market tea samples, the concentration and detection rate of NPEOs are higher than for OPEOs. The total concentration of NPEOs was higher than that of OPEOs in market vegetables, which might also originate from the more frequent use of NPEOs in production than OPEOs [19].

3. Materials and Methods

3.1. Reagents, Chemicals, and Materials

OPEO (9–10), OPEO (16), NPEO (4), NPEO (9–10), and NPEO (14) were purchased from Beijing Zhenxiang Technology Co., Ltd (Beijing, China). These five standards were all composed of homologous monomers. Two adjacent monomers in the same standard differed by one ethoxylation unit. The standards were expressed by NPEO (X) or OPEO (X), where (X) represented the average number of ethoxylation units. The Oasis HLB cartridge (3 cc, 60 mg) was purchased from Waters Corporation (Milford, MA, USA). LC–MS grade acetonitrile and methanol were provided by Merck KGaA. LC–MS (Darmstadt, Germany) grade ammonium acetate was purchased from ANPEL Technologies (Shanghai) Inc (Shanghai, China). Analytic grade methanol and dichloromethane were purchased from Jiangsu Yonghua Chemical Reagent. Analytic grade NaCl was purchased from Guangzhou Jinhua Chemical Regent CO. (Jinhua, China), Ltd. Standard stock solutions of OPEO (9–10), OPEO (16), NPEO (4), NPEO (9–10), and NPEO (14) with a total concentration of 2.00 × 105 µg/L were prepared by accurately weighing the standard compounds and dissolving in LC–MS grade acetonitrile, respectively, and they were stored in the dark at −20 °C. Working standard solutions were obtained with LC–MS grade methanol by further dilution of all stock solutions with concentrations of 1.00 × 104, 5.00 × 103, 1.00 × 103, 500, 100, 50.0, and 10.0 µg/L.

3.2. Blank Tea Samples

The production of green tea accounts for over 60% of the total tea production in China [45]. Therefore, we chose green tea as a representative for method validation. The blank tea sample was made at an organic tea factory, and it was processed according to the extraction and the instrumental analysis method described in Section 3.3 and Section 3.4 to ensure that it was not contaminated or that its response in mass spectra was negligible. The blank tea sample was ground into powder and stored separately in the dark at −20 °C. In the experiment, the treatment conditions of the blank sample was completely consistent with other detected samples, and no additional reagent was added.

3.3. Sample Collection and Preparation

A total of 50 tea samples were randomly collected from the market. The tea samples were pulverized with a stainless-steel grinder and then frozen for preservation at −20 °C for further analysis.
In the current study, the process of extraction was based on a modified SPE method, and the method derived from the Chinese national standard for the determination of APEOs in textiles [46]. To start, 2 g of each tea sample was soaked in 2 mL of pure water and 8 mL of methanol for 30 min. After vortexing for 1 min and centrifugation at 8000 rpm for 5 min, 2 mL of supernatant was transferred into a 10 mL centrifuge tube and thoroughly mixed with 2 mL of water. Then, it was immediately transferred to the Oasis HLB column pre-activated with 2 mL of methanol and 4 mL of water, and then 8 mL of methanol and water with a volume ratio of 6:4 containing 1% NH3·H2O was added through the HLB column. Then, the column was drained and eluted with 2 mL methanol containing 5% dichloromethane. The flow rate was controlled at 1 mL/min. Eluent was collected and rotary-evaporated completely. Finally, the residue was dissolved with 1 mL methanol and filtered into vials for further analysis by UPLC–MS/MS.

3.4. Instrumental Analysis

APEOs were analyzed by UPLC–MS/MS using Waters ACQUITY UPLC® H-Class equipped with Waters Xevo® TQ-S Micro (Waters Corporation, Milford, MA, USA ), and the system was run by Masslynx 4.1 software. The chromatograph was performed for installation of ACQUITY UPLC® BEH C18 chromatographic column (1.7 µm 2.1 × 100 mm), and the column oven temperature was set at 40 °C. The flow rate was maintained at 0.25 mL/min. The mobile phases A and B were 2 mmol ammonium acetate in water and acetonitrile, respectively. The solvent gradient was set as follows: 0–1 min, 60–50% A; 1–4 min, 50–15% A; 4–8 min, 15–1% A; 8–8.7 min, 1–1% A; and 8.7–9.2 min, 1–60% A. An ESI probe in the positive ion mode with the multiple reaction monitoring (MRM) mode was used in the mass spectrometer. The parameters for detecting target components were set as follows: capillary voltage: 0.2 kV; degassing temperature: 350 °C; degassing flow rate: 650 L/h; cone follow rate: 50 L/h; ion source temperature: 150 °C; injection volume: 5 μL.

3.5. Statistical Analysis

All statistical analyses were processed using Microsoft Excel and Origin 2019.
Individual monomers of NPEOs and OPEOs in samples were evaluated by the following formulas, which referred to the report of DeArmond et al. [40].
X = A x A s × C s × p n × V
p n = a n V n
a n = A n A n × M n ( M n × A n A n )
In the formulas, X is the residual concentration of the monomer of OPEOs and NPEOs in samples. Ax and As represent the peak area of samples and working standard solutions, respectively. V denotes the samples’ volume. pn stands for the ratio of each monomer after mixing two or three homologous standards. Vn is the corresponding constant volume of working standard solutions. an indicates the percentage distribution of the monomer in one of the standards. An is the peak area of the monomer in working standard solutions, and Mn is the corresponding relative molecular mass.

4. Conclusions

In this paper, we established a SPE–UPLC–MS/MS analytical method to determine APEO3–20 (total 36 monomers) residues. The selectivity and sensitivity of the method were satisfying for detecting APEOs in tea. The linearity is in the detection range, with an R2 of 0.9949–0.9999. The recoveries of APEO3–20 are 61.8–110.7%, with RSD 1.5–16.9%, and the range of LOQ is 0.024–6.27 μg/kg. A total of 50 market tea samples were collected to determine APEOs, and 49 samples were contaminated. OPEO3–13 and NPEO3–19 are detected with a total concentration of 0.057–12.9 µg/kg and 0.30–215.89 µg/kg, respectively. The detected rate of OPEO3–13 and NPEO3–19 is 6.0–40.0% (average 25.2%) and 2.0–98.0% (average 55.1%), respectively. The number of detectable monomers of NPEOs (nEO = 3–19) is higher than OPEOs (nEO = 3–13). Metabolites of APEOs, including OPEO1–2, NPEO1–2, NP, and OP, must be carefully treated in marketed tea samples. The risk assessment of dietary intake in tea soups should also be further determined.

Supplementary Materials

The following supporting information can be downloaded at: https://www.mdpi.com/article/10.3390/molecules28073216/s1, Table S1: Mass spectrometric parameters for monitoring OPEO3–20 and NPEO3–20; Table S2. Validated parameters of APEO3–20 in spiked tea samples. Figure S1: Full-scan mass spectra of (A) OPEO (9–10) (nEO = 3–15), (B) OPEO (16) (nEO = 9–20), (C) NPEO (4) (nEO = 9–11), (D) NPEO (9–10) (nEO = 3–15), and (E) NPEO (14) (nEO = 6–20) in 5 mg/kg standards; Figure S2. Chromatograms of (A) NPEO17 and NPEO19 combined two ammonium ions, and (B) NPEO17 and NPEO19 combined one ammonium ion; Figure S3. Multiple reaction-monitoring chromatograms of HPLC–MS/MS for blank tea samples spiked at the middle concentration of OPEOs and NPEOs.

Author Contributions

Q.L.: methodology, software, validation, formal analysis, and writing—original draft preparation. Y.Q.: writing—reviewing and editing. H.S.: supervision. X.W.: supervision. M.Y.: supervision. X.Z.: supervision. L.Z.: project administration and writing—reviewing and editing. F.L.: conceptualization, supervision, and writing—reviewing and editing. All authors have read and agreed to the published version of the manuscript.

Funding

This research was supported by the Special Project on Basic Work of Science and Technology (2013FY110100-2) and the National Key Research and Development Programme of China (2022YFD1600803).

Institutional Review Board Statement

Not applicable.

Data Availability Statement

All data are included in this article.

Conflicts of Interest

The authors declare no conflict of interest.

Sample Availability

Samples of the compounds APEO3–20 are available from the authors.

References

  1. Wu, Y.; An, Q.; Li, D.; Kang, L.; Zhou, C.; Zhang, J.; Pan, C. Multi-residue analytical method development and risk assessment of 56 pesticides and their metabolites in tea by chromatography tandem mass spectroscopy. Food Chem. 2021, 375, 131819. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  2. Al-Zalabani, A.H.; Wesselius, A.; Yu, E.Y.-W.; Brandt, P.V.D.; Grant, E.J.; White, E.; Skeie, G.; Liedberg, F.; Weiderpass, E.; Zeegers, M.P. Tea consumption and risk of bladder cancer in the Bladder Cancer Epidemiology and Nutritional Determinants (BLEND) Study: Pooled analysis of 12 international cohort studies. Clin. Nutr. 2022, 41, 1122–1130. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  3. Rizwan, K.; Majeed, I.; Bilal, M. Phytochemistry and diverse pharmacology of genus mimosa: A review. Biomolecules 2022, 12, 83. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  4. Jiang, D.; Cheng, Z.; Chen, X.; Dong, F.; Xu, J.; Liu, X.; Wu, X.; Pan, X.; An, X.; Zheng, Y. Occurrences of eight common-used pesticide adjuvants in ten vegetable species and implications for dietary intake in North China. Food Chem. 2021, 347, 128984. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  5. Kovarova, J.; Blahova, J.; Divisova, L.; Svobodova, Z. Alkylphenol ethoxylates and alkylphenols--update information on occurrence, fate and toxicity in aquatic environment. Pol. J. Vet. Sci. 2013, 16, 763–772. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  6. Shiu, R.F.; Jiang, J.J.; Kao, H.Y.; Fang, M.D.; Liang, Y.J.; Tang, C.C.; Lee, C.L. Alkylphenol ethoxylate metabolites in coastal sediments off southwestern Taiwan: Spatiotemporal variations, possible sources, and ecological risk. Chemosphere 2019, 225, 9–18. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  7. Traverso-Soto, J.M.; Lara-Martín, P.A.; León, V.M.; González-Mazo, E. Analysis of alcohol polyethoxylates and polyethylene glycols in marine sediments. Talanta 2013, 110, 171–179. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  8. McLaren, D.E.; Rawlins, A.J. Occurrence of alkylphenols and alkylphenol ethoxylates in North Sea sediment samples collected across oil and gas fields. Mar. Pollut. Bull. 2022, 178, 113655. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  9. Venkatesan, A.K.; Halden, R.U. National inventory of alkylphenol ethoxylate compounds in U.S. Sewage sludges and chemical fate in outdoor soil mesocosms. Environ. Pollut. 2013, 174, 189–193. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  10. Hiroo, Y.; Shunsuke, K.; Toshitaka, H.; Masahito, S. Distribution and geochemical behaviour of anionic surfactants determined as ethyl violet active substances in Lake Biwa, Japan. Water Environ. J. 2015, 29, 221–227. [Google Scholar]
  11. Zhang, Z.; Ren, N.; Kannan, K.; Nan, J.; Liu, L.; Ma, W.; Qi, H.; Li, Y. Occurrence of endocrine-disrupting phenols and estrogens in water and sediment of the Songhua River, northeastern China. Arch. Environ. Contam. Toxicol. 2014, 66, 361–369. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  12. Chokwe, T.B.; Okonkwo, J.O.; Sibali, L.L.; Ncube, E.J. Alkylphenol ethoxylates and brominated flame retardants in water, fish (carp) and sediment samples from the Vaal river, South Africa. Environ. Sci. Pollut. Res. 2015, 22, 11922–11929. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  13. Céspedes, R.; Lacorte, S.; Ginebreda, A.; Barceló, D. Occurrence and fate of alkylphenols and alkylphenol ethoxylates in sewage treatment plants and impact on receiving waters along the Ter River (Catalonia, NE Spain). Environ. Pollut. 2008, 153, 384–392. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  14. Rocha, M.J.; Cruzeiro, C.; Reis, M.; Pardal, M.A.; Rocha, E. Pollution by endocrine disruptors in a southwest European temperate coastal lagoon (Ria de Aveiro, Portugal). Environ. Monit. Assess. 2016, 188, 101. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  15. Ringbeck, B.; Weber, T.; Bury, D.; Kasper-Sonnenberg, M.; Pälmke, C.; Brüning, T.; Koch, H.M.; Kolossa-Gehring, M. Nonylphenol (np) exposure in germany between 1991 and 2021: Urinary biomarker analyses in the German environmental specimen bank (esb). Int. J. Hyg. Environ. Health 2022, 245, 114010. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  16. Nishio, E.; Ichiki, Y.; Tamura, H.; Morita, S.; Watanabe, K.; Yoshikawa, H. Isolation of bacterial strains that produce the endocrine disruptor, octylphenol diethoxylates, in paddy fields. Biosc. Biotech. Bioch. 2002, 66, 1792–1798. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  17. Mahalakshmi, R.; Pugazhendhi, A.; Brindhadevi, K.; Ramesh, N. Analysis of alkylphenol ethoxylates (APEOs) from tannery sediments using LC-MS and their environmental risks. Process Biochem. 2020, 97, 37–42. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  18. Chiu, T.S.; Hsieh, C.Y.; Miaw, C.L.; Lin, C.N.; Chang, T.C.; Yen, C.H.; Chiou, M.T. Alkylphenol polyethoxylate derivatives in groundwater and blood samples collected from pig herds in Taiwan. J. Vet. Med. Sci. 2014, 76, 971–975. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  19. Jiang, Z.J.; Cao, X.L.; Li, H.; Zhang, C.; Abd El-Aty, A.M.; Jin, F.; Shao, H.; Jin, M.J.; Wang, S.S.; She, Y.X.; et al. Fast determination of alkylphenol ethoxylates in leafy vegetables using a modified quick, easy, cheap, effective, rugged, and safe method and ultra-high performance supercritical fluid chromatography-tandem mass spectrometry. J. Chromatogr. A 2017, 1525, 161–172. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  20. Chen, J.; Mullin, C.A. Determination of nonylphenol ethoxylate and octylphenol ethoxylate surfactants in beehive samples by high performance liquid chromatography coupled to mass spectrometry. Food Chem. 2014, 158, 473–479. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  21. Ferrara, F.; Ademollo, N.; Delise, M.; Fabietti, F.; Funari, E. Alkylphenols and their ethoxylates in seafood from the Tyrrhenian Sea. Chemosphere 2008, 72, 1279–1285. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  22. Viñas, P.; Pastor-Belda, M.; Torres, A.; Campillo, N.; Hernández-Córdoba, M. Use of oleic-acid functionalized nanoparticles for the magnetic solid-phase microextraction of alkylphenols in fruit juices using liquid chromatography-tandem mass spectrometry. Talanta 2016, 151, 217–223. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  23. Wang, D.; Lou, J.; Yuan, J.; Xu, J.; Fan, X. Laccase immobilization on core-shell magnetic metal-organic framework microspheres for alkylphenol ethoxylate compound removal. J. Environ. Chem. Eng. 2021, 9, 105000. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  24. Sonnenschein, C.; Soto, A.M. An updated review of environmental estrogen and androgen mimics and antagonists. J. Steroid Biochem. 1998, 65, 143–150. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  25. Schinkel, L.; Lara-Martín, P.A.; Giger, W.; Hollender, J.; Berg, M. Synthetic surfactants in Swiss sewage sludges: Analytical challenges, concentrations and per capita loads. Sci. Total Environ. 2022, 808, 151361. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  26. Acir, I.H.; Guenther, K. Endocrine-disrupting metabolites of alkylphenol ethoxylates—a critical review of analytical methods, environmental occurrences, toxicity, and regulation. Sci. Total Environ. 2018, 635, 1530–1546. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  27. Li, B.X.; Pang, X.Y.; Zhang, P.; Lin, J.; Li, X.X.; Liu, Y.; Li, H.; Liu, F.; Mu, W. Alcohol ethoxylates significantly synergize pesticides than alkylphenol ethoxylates considering bioactivity against three pests and joint toxicity to Daphnia magna. Sci. Total Environ. 2018, 644, 1452–1459. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  28. Bokern, M.; Raid, P.; Harms, H. Toxicity, uptake and metabolism of 4-n-nonylphenol in root cultures and intact plants under septic and aseptic conditions. Environ. Sci. Pollut. Res. 1998, 5, 21–27. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  29. Ferrara, F.; Ademollo, N.; Orrù, M.A.; Silvestroni, L.; Funari, E. Alkylphenols in adipose tissues of Italian population. Chemosphere 2011, 82, 1044–1049. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  30. Ademollo, N.; Ferrara, F.; Delise, M.; Fabietti, F.; Funari, E. Nonylphenol and octylphenol in human breast milk. Environ. Int. 2008, 34, 984–987. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  31. Chen, M.; Zhu, P.; Xu, B.; Zhao, R.; Qiao, S.; Chen, X.; Tang, R.; Wu, D.; Song, L.; Wang, S.; et al. Determination of nine environmental phenols in urine by ultra-high-performance liquid chromatography-tandem mass spectrometry. J. Anal. Toxicol. 2012, 36, 608–615. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  32. Zhou, S.; Guo, J.; Zou, Y.; Wang, L.; Kaw, H.Y.; Quinto, M.; Meng, L.Y.; Dong, M. Fast removal of phenolic compounds from water using hierarchical porous carbon nanofibers membrane. J. Chromatogr. A 2022, 1685, 463624. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  33. Khan, S.; Iqbal, S. Design, synthesis, in silico testing, and in vitro evaluation of thiazolidinone-based benzothiazole derivatives as inhibitors of α-amylase and α-glucosidase. Pharmaceuticals 2022, 15, 1164. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  34. Loyo-Rosales, J.E.; Rice, C.P.; Torrents, A. Octyl and nonylphenol ethoxylates and carboxylates in wastewater and sediments by liquid chromatography/tandem mass spectrometry. Chemosphere 2007, 68, 2118–2127. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  35. Wu, C.C. Multiresidue method for the determination of pesticides in oolong tea using QuEChERS by gas chromatography-triple quadrupole tandem mass spectrometry. Food Chem. 2017, 229, 580–587. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  36. Wiest, L.; Giroud, B.; Assoumani, A.; Lestremau, F.; Vulliet, E. A multi-family offline SPE LC-MS/MS analytical method for anionic, cationic and non-ionic surfactants quantification in surface water. Talanta 2021, 232, 122441. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  37. Fontanals, N.; Galià, M.; Cormack, P.A.; Marcé, R.M.; Sherrington, D.C.; Borrull, F. Evaluation of a new hypercrosslinked polymer as a sorbent for solid-phase extraction of polar compounds. J. Chromatogr. A 2005, 1075, 51–56. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  38. Kong, X.J.; Wei, X.; Wang, N.; Bu, Y.Q.; Shan, Z.J. A review on the environmental behavior of the polyoxyethylene type nonionic surfactants adjuvants in pesticides. J. Agric. Resour. Environ. 2017, 34, 197–206. [Google Scholar]
  39. Staples, C.A.; Klecka, G.M.; Naylor, C.G.; Losey, B.S. C8- and C9-alkylphenols and ethoxylates: I. Identity, physical characterization, and biodegradation pathways analysis. Hum. Ecol. Risk Assess. 2008, 14, 1007–1024. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  40. DeArmond, P.D.; DiGoregorio, A.L. Rapid liquid chromatography-tandem mass spectrometry-based method for the analysis of alcohol ethoxylates and alkylphenol ethoxylates in environmental samples. J. Chromatogr. A 2013, 1305, 154–163. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  41. Vega-Morales, T.; Sosa-Ferrera, Z.; Santana-Rodríguez, J.J. Determination of alkylphenol polyethoxylates, bisphenol-a, 17α-ethynylestradiol and 17β-estradiol and its metabolites in sewage samples by SPE and LC/MS/MS. J. Hazard. Mater. 2010, 183, 701–711. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  42. Andreu, V.; Ferrer, E.; Rubio, J.L.; Font, G.; Picó, Y. Quantitative determination of octylphenol, nonylphenol, alkylphenol ethoxylates and alcohol ethoxylates by pressurized liquid extraction and liquid chromatography-mass spectrometry in soils treated with sewage sludges. Sci. Total Environ. 2007, 378, 124–129. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed] [Green Version]
  43. Vega-Morales, T.; Sosa-Ferrera, Z.; Santana-Rodríguez, J.J. Development and optimisation of an on-line solid phase extraction coupled to ultra-high-performance liquid chromatography-tandem mass spectrometry methodology for the simultaneous determination of endocrine disrupting compounds in wastewater samples. J. Chromatogr. A 2012, 1230, 66–76. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  44. Ciofi, L.; Ancillotti, C.; Chiuminatto, U.; Fibbi, D.; Pasquini, B.; Bruzzoniti, M.C.; Rivoira, L.; Bubba, M.D. Fully automated on-line solid phase extraction coupled to liquid chromatography-tandem mass spectrometry for the simultaneous analysis of alkylphenol polyethoxylates and their carboxylic and phenolic metabolites in wastewater samples. Anal. Bioanal. Chem. 2016, 408, 3331–3347. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  45. Wang, Q.; Wang, D.; Li, Z.; Wang, Y.; Yang, Y.; Liu, M.; Li, D.; Sun, G.; Zeng, B. Concentrations, leachability, and health risks of mercury in green tea from major production areas in China. Ecotoxicol Environ Saf. 2022, 232, 113279. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  46. State Administration for Market Regulation and Standardization Administration (China). Textiles–Determination of surfactant–Alkyphenols and Alkylphenol Ethoxylates. Available online: https://openstd.samr.gov.cn/bzgk/gb/newGbInfo?hcno=22CC306762497933A6EC5EEF88B511F0 (accessed on 25 February 2023).
Figure 1. Effect of the ammonia content in the leaching solvent on APEOs.
Figure 1. Effect of the ammonia content in the leaching solvent on APEOs.
Molecules 28 03216 g001
Figure 2. Effect of the methanol–water volume ratio in the leaching solvent on the recoveries of APEOs.
Figure 2. Effect of the methanol–water volume ratio in the leaching solvent on the recoveries of APEOs.
Molecules 28 03216 g002
Figure 3. Effect of the dichloromethane content in the elution solution on OPEOs (a) and NPEOs (b) recoveries.
Figure 3. Effect of the dichloromethane content in the elution solution on OPEOs (a) and NPEOs (b) recoveries.
Molecules 28 03216 g003
Figure 4. Effect of the elution solution volume on OPEOs (a) and NPEOs (b) recoveries.
Figure 4. Effect of the elution solution volume on OPEOs (a) and NPEOs (b) recoveries.
Molecules 28 03216 g004
Figure 5. The proportion of each monomer in (A) OPEO3–20 and (B) NPEO3–20.
Figure 5. The proportion of each monomer in (A) OPEO3–20 and (B) NPEO3–20.
Molecules 28 03216 g005
Figure 6. Concentrations of (A) OPEOs and (B) NPEOs in marketed tea samples.
Figure 6. Concentrations of (A) OPEOs and (B) NPEOs in marketed tea samples.
Molecules 28 03216 g006
Table 1. Comparison of the present method with other reported methods on APEO analysis.
Table 1. Comparison of the present method with other reported methods on APEO analysis.
AnalyteMatrixEnrichmentOptimisation of ExtractionDetectionRecovery (%)Ref.
APEO3–13Beehive samplesQuEChERSLC–MS74–111[20]
OPEO7–11WaterSPECartridgesLC–MS/MS58.7–68.4
(absolute recovery)
[36]
APEO2–20WaterSPECartridges
Elution solvents
HPLC–MS/MS37–69
(absolute recovery)
[40]
APEO1–12SewageSPECartridges
pH and ionic strength
Sample volume
Wash step
Elution solvents
LC–MS/MS60–108[41]
APEO1–15Soil
sludge
PLE *–SPESolventsLC–APCI–MS89–102[42]
APEO1–8SewageSPESample volume
pH
Wash step
Elution solvents
LC–MS/MS74–106[43]
APEO1–8WastewaterOn-line SPESorbents
Loading volume
Elution solvents
LC–MS/MS50–120[44]
APEO3–20TeaSPEElution solvents
Wash step
Elution solvents volume
LC–MS/MS70.3–110.7
(APEO20 61.8%–62.9%)
This work
* PLE: pressurized liquid extraction.
Disclaimer/Publisher’s Note: The statements, opinions and data contained in all publications are solely those of the individual author(s) and contributor(s) and not of MDPI and/or the editor(s). MDPI and/or the editor(s) disclaim responsibility for any injury to people or property resulting from any ideas, methods, instructions or products referred to in the content.

Share and Cite

MDPI and ACS Style

Lin, Q.; Qin, Y.; Sun, H.; Wang, X.; Yang, M.; Zhang, X.; Zhou, L.; Luo, F. SPE–UPLC–MS/MS for Determination of 36 Monomers of Alkylphenol Ethoxylates in Tea. Molecules 2023, 28, 3216. https://doi.org/10.3390/molecules28073216

AMA Style

Lin Q, Qin Y, Sun H, Wang X, Yang M, Zhang X, Zhou L, Luo F. SPE–UPLC–MS/MS for Determination of 36 Monomers of Alkylphenol Ethoxylates in Tea. Molecules. 2023; 28(7):3216. https://doi.org/10.3390/molecules28073216

Chicago/Turabian Style

Lin, Qin, Yujie Qin, Hezhi Sun, Xinru Wang, Mei Yang, Xinzhong Zhang, Li Zhou, and Fengjian Luo. 2023. "SPE–UPLC–MS/MS for Determination of 36 Monomers of Alkylphenol Ethoxylates in Tea" Molecules 28, no. 7: 3216. https://doi.org/10.3390/molecules28073216

Article Metrics

Back to TopTop