Rapid Detection of Pesticide Residues in Paddy Water Using Surface-Enhanced Raman Spectroscopy

Abstract

Pesticide residue in paddy water is one of the main factors affecting the quality and safety of rice, however, the negative effect of this residue can be effectively prevented and reduced through early detection. This study developed a rapid detection method for fonofos, phosmet, and sulfoxaflor in paddy water through chemometric methods and surface-enhanced Raman spectroscopy (SERS). Residue from paddy water samples was directly used for SERS measurement. The obtained spectra from the SERS can detect 0.5 mg/L fonofos, 0.25 mg/L phosmet, and 1 mg/L sulfoxaflor through the appearance of major characteristic peaks. Then, we used chemometric methods to develop models for the intelligent analysis of pesticides, alongside the SERS spectra. The classification models developed by K-nearest neighbor identified all of the samples, with an accuracy of 100%. For the quantitative analysis, the partial least squares regression models obtained the best predicted performance for fonofos and sulfoxaflor, and the support vector machine model provided optimal results, with a root-mean-square error of validation of 0.207 and a coefficient of determination of validation of 0.99952, for phosmet. Experiments for actual contaminated samples also showed that the above models predicted the pesticide residue values with high accuracy. Overall, using SERS with chemometric methods provided a simple and convenient approach for the detection of pesticide residues in paddy water.

Microbial lipases and their industrial applications: a comprehensive review

“…Presently, the chromatographic and spectroscopic methods are inadequate for the quantification and the determination of pesticidal residues in water and food grains. The estimation and the detection of the triglycerides is a clinically significant parameter and which is correlated to the disorder of heart related problems [ 311 – 313 ]. Another biosensor industrialized for the analysis of methyl-parathion and tributyrin was potentiometric biosensor based on C. rugosa lipase.…”

Application of Microfluidic Chip Technology in Food Safety Sensing

“…In fact, in China, the number of people who develop cancer by eating food containing pesticide residues is increasing by 15% every year [95]. At present, the rapid detection methods of pesticides can be roughly divided into the enzyme inhibition method, spectral detection method and chromatographic detection method, according to the principle [96][97][98]. The traditional instrumental analysis method not only has high sensitivity and selectivity, but also can detect a variety of pesticide residues at the same time, but this method has the problems of large equipment, high detection cost, low degree of automation, being time-consuming and requiring a large amount of reagents and consumables, which is difficult to meet the needs of the rapid on-site screening of a large number of samples [99].…”

Sulfoxaflor Degraded by Aminobacter sp. CGMCC 1.17253 through Hydration Pathway Mediated by Nitrile Hydratase

“…11 However, despite being highly effective against sap-feeding insects, showing decreased toxicity compared with other insecticides and lacking cross-resistance with neonicotinoids, sulfoxaflor residues remained detectable in brown rice, rice straw, and paddy field water after field application. 5,12 Sulfoxaflor and its metabolites, X11596066 (5-ethyl-2-trifluoromethylpyridine), X11721061 {1- [6-(trifluoromethyl) 1A). 5,13,14 To achieve successful integrated pest management in protected crops, the first evaluation of the compatibility with pesticides and other nontarget organisms is required.…”

“…However, despite being highly effective against sap-feeding insects, showing decreased toxicity compared with other insecticides and lacking cross-resistance with neonicotinoids, sulfoxaflor residues remained detectable in brown rice, rice straw, and paddy field water after field application. , Sulfoxaflor and its metabolites, X11596066 (5-ethyl-2-trifluoromethylpyridine), X11721061 {1-[6-(trifluoromethyl)­pyridin-3-yl]­ethanol}, X11719474 [ N -(methyl­(oxido)­{1-[6-(trifluoromethyl)­pyridin-3-yl]­ethyl}-k4-sulfanylidene)­urea], X11519540 {[5-(1-methylsulfonyl)­ethyl]-2-(trifluoromethyl)­pyridine}, X11579457 ({5-[1-(S-methylsulfonimidoyl)­ethyl]}-2-(trifluoromethyl)­pyridine), and 5-ethyl-2-(trifluoromethyl)­pyridine, could be detected in the environment, thereby presenting an environmental problem (Figure A). ,, To achieve successful integrated pest management in protected crops, the first evaluation of the compatibility with pesticides and other nontarget organisms is required. However, despite the lack of cross-resistance between neonicotinoids, there are still reports that sulfoxaflor exerts toxicity against many non-target organisms, such as earthworms, bumblebees, and Amblyseius swirskii. − Furthermore, reports that sulfoxaflor residues exert toxicity in rats and mice, as animal models of human disease, are of great concern.…”