Next Article in Journal
Review of the Lithuanian Alcohol Control Legislation in 1990–2020
Previous Article in Journal
Early-Life Conditions and Cognitive Function in Middle-and Old-Aged Chinese Adults: A Longitudinal Study
 
 
Font Type:
Arial Georgia Verdana
Font Size:
Aa Aa Aa
Line Spacing:
Column Width:
Background:
Article

Direct Enantiomeric Separation and Determination of Hexythiazox Enantiomers in Environment and Vegetable by Reverse-Phase High-Performance Liquid Chromatography

1
Key Laboratory of Entomology and Pest Control Engineering, College of Plant Protection, Southwest University, Chongqing 400715, China
2
Academy of Agricultural Sciences, Southwest University, Chongqing 400715, China
3
State Cultivation Base of Crop Stress Biology for Southern Mountainous Land of Southwest University, Southwest University, Chongqing 400715, China
4
Key Laboratory for Biology and Control of Weeds, Biotechnology Research Institute, Hunan Academy of Agricultural Sciences, Changsha 410125, China
*
Authors to whom correspondence should be addressed.
Int. J. Environ. Res. Public Health 2020, 17(10), 3453; https://doi.org/10.3390/ijerph17103453
Submission received: 21 April 2020 / Revised: 12 May 2020 / Accepted: 13 May 2020 / Published: 15 May 2020
(This article belongs to the Section Environmental Analysis and Methods)

Abstract

:
In the present study, the direct enantiomeric separation of hexythiazox enantiomers on Lux cellulose-1, Lux cellulose-2, Lux cellulose-3, Lux cellulose-4, Lux amylose-1 and Chirapak IC chiral columns were carefully investigated by reverse-phase high-performance liquid chromatography (RP-HPLC). Acetonitrile/water and methanol/water were used as mobile phase at a flow rate of 0.8 mL·min−1. The effects of chiral stationary phase, temperature, thermodynamic parameters, mobile phase component and mobile phase ratio on hexythiazox enantiomers separation were fully evaluated. Hexythiazox enantiomers received a baseline separation on the Lux cellulose-3 column with a maximum resolution of Rs = 2.09 (methanol/water) and Rs = 2.74 (acetonitrile/water), respectively. Partial separations were achieved on other five chiral columns. Furthermore, Lux amylose-1 and Chirapak IC had no separation ability for hexythiazox enantiomers when methanol/water was used as mobile phase. Temperature study indicated that the capacity factor (k) and resolution factor (Rs) decreased with column temperature increasing from 10 °C to 40 °C. The enthalpy (ΔH) and entropy (ΔS) involved in hexythiazox separation were also calculated and demonstrated the lower temperature contributed to better separation resolution. Moreover, the residue analytical method for hexythiazox enantiomers in the environment (soil and water) and vegetable (cucumber, cabbage and tomato) were also established with reliable accuracy and precision under reverse-phase HPLC condition. Such results provided a baseline separation method for hexythiazox enantiomers under reverse-phase conditions and contributed to an environmental and health risk assessment of hexythiazox at enantiomer level.

1. Introduction

Hexythiazox((4RS,5RS)-5-(4-chlorophenyl)-N-cyclohexyl-4-methyl-2-oxothiazolidine-3-carboxamide, CAS: 78587-05-0, Figure 1) is a non-systemic acaricide widely used to control various mites on vegetables, fruits, cottons, pepper and flowers in agriculture and horticulture [1,2]. Although the specific mode of action (MoA) of hexythiazox is unknown, hexythiazox inhibits mite growth by a contact or stomach poison against eggs or early stages of mite development, thus the Insecticide Resistance Action Committee (IRAC) classify hexythiazox as mite growth inhibitors [3]. Commercial hexythiazox is a chiral pesticide and consists of two enantiomers, (4S, 5S)-hexythiazox and (4R, 5R)-hexythiazox, at a ratio of 1:1 [4]. Generally, the enantiomers of chiral pesticides have similar physical and chemical properties in non-chiral environments, whereas their biological behaviors may be completely different because of their different interaction capabilities with biomolecules in biological processes [5,6,7,8,9]. Moreover, the enantioselective accumulation, metabolism, degradation and bioactivity of chiral pesticide enantiomers have received great attention in recent years [10,11,12,13,14]. Thus, it is important and urgent to study the different biological behaviors of chiral pesticides at enantiomer level.
The separation of chiral pesticide enantiomers is a vital and fundamental step in enantiomer-specific risk assessment. Capillary electrophoresis (CE) [15], gas chromatography (GC) [16], normal-phase high-performance liquid chromatography (NP-HPLC) [17], reverse-phase high-performance liquid chromatography (RP-HPLC) [18], supercritical fluid chromatography (SFC) [19], ultra-performance convergence chromatography (UPCC) [20], cyclodextrin-modified micellar electrokinetic chromatography (CD-MEKC) [21], etc. were widely used for enantiomers separation. To date, high-performance liquid chromatography combined with different chiral stationary phases (CSPs) were considered as the most common and effective approach for chiral separation. Among the reported chiral stationary phases, polysaccharide-based CSPs including phenylcarbamates or benzoates derivatives, were the most commonly used CSPs due to their excellent capabilities to recognize enantiomers of chiral compounds, such as cellulose-tris-(3,5-dimethylphenylcarbamate), cellulose-tris-(3-chloro-4-methylphenylcarbamate), cellulose-tris-(4-methylbenzoate), cellulose-tris-(4-chloro-3-methylphenylcarbamate), amylose- tris-(3,5-dimethylphenylcarbamate), cellulose-tris-(3,5-dichlophenylcarbamate), etc. Generally, normal-phase HPLC is more suitable for chiral separation than reverse-phase HPLC due to better separation capability [17]. However, the reverse-phase HPLC has become a preferred and promising approach for enantiomers separation in recent years because of better solubility for polar compounds, lower background signal intensity, easier sample preparation procedures and excellent resolution under specific conditions [22]. Moreover, with the high development of mass spectrometry systems, reverse-phase HPLC is much more compatible with electrospray ionization (ESI) sources in mass spectrometry systems than normal-phase HPLC. Previous studies reported that reverse-phase HPLC coupled with tandem mass spectrometry was successfully applied in chiral pesticides separation including hexaconazole, epoxiconazole, metalaxyl, benalaxyl, myclobutanil, fenpropathrin, novaluron and permethrin, etc. [23,24,25,26,27,28]. To our best knowledge, there are only two studies that reported the chiral separation of hexythiazox enantiomers with normal-phase and reverse-phase HPLC. Wang et al. [29]. investigated the chiral separation of hexythiazox enantiomers with amylose-tris-(3,5-dimethylphenylcarbamate) chiral stationary phase under normal-phase HPLC condition and found the best resolution was Rs = 1.75 with an n-hexane/isopropanol ratio of 99.5/0.5. As for reverse-phase HPLC, Tian et al. [18] studied the chiral separation of hexythiazox enantiomers on cellulose-tris-(3,5-dimethylphenylcarbamate) and amylase-tris-(3,5-dimethylphenylcarbamate) based two chiral columns and found the best resolution was Rs = 0.96 on amylase-tris-(3,5-dimethylphenylcarbamate) based chiral column with acetonitrile/water ratio of 60/40. However, the baseline separation of hexythiazox enantiomers (Rs > 1.5) has not been achieved under reverse-phase conditions up to the present.
In the present study, the direct enantiomeric separation of hexythiazox enantiomers on Lux cellulose-1, Lux cellulose-2, Lux cellulose-3, Lux cellulose-4, Lux amylose-1 and Chirapak IC chiral columns were carefully investigated under reverse-phase HPLC condition. The effects of chiral stationary phase, temperature, thermodynamic parameters, the mobile phase component and mobile phase ratio on hexythiazox enantiomers separation were fully evaluated. Hexythiazox enantiomers received a baseline separation on the Lux cellulose-3 column with a maximum resolution of Rs = 2.09 (methanol/water) and Rs = 2.74 (acetonitrile/water), respectively. Furthermore, the residue analytical method for hexythiazox enantiomers in the environment (soil and water) and vegetable (cucumber, cabbage and tomato) were also established with reliable accuracy and precision. Such results provided a baseline separation method for hexythiazox enantiomers under reverse-phase HPLC condition and contributed to environmental and health risk assessment of hexythiazox at enantiomer level.

2. Materials and Methods

2.1. Chemicals and Reagents

Hexythiazox (purity = 98.0%) was purchased from Sigma-Aldrich (St. Louis, MO, USA). The stock solution of hexythiazox was prepared with methanol at 1000 mg∙L−1 and diluted to appropriate concentration. Acetonitrile (ACN) and methanol (MeOH) were HPLC grade and bought from Honeywell (Morristown, NJ, USA). Sodium chloride and anhydrous sodium sulfate were purchased from J&K Scientific Co., Ltd. (Beijing, China). Water (H2O) was purified with a Milli-Q system from Millipore (Billerica, MA, USA).

2.2. Apparatus and Chiral HPLC Analysis

Liquid chromatography was performed on an Agilent 1260 series HPLC system from Agilent Technologies (Palo Alto, CA, USA), which was equipped with a G1322A degasser, G1311B quatpump, G1316A column compartment, G1315D diode array detector (DAD) and G1329B autosampler with a 100 μL sample loop. The signals were collected and processed using an Agilent Chemstation. Hexythiazox enantiomers were separated on six chiral columns under reverse-phase HPLC condition, including Lux Cellulose-1 (cellulose-tris-(3,5-dimethylphenylcarbamate), 250 mm × 4.6 mm (internal diameter, i.d.), 5 μm), Lux Cellulose-2 (cellulose-tris-(3-chloro-4-methylphenylcarbamate), 250 mm × 4.6 mm (i.d.), 5 μm), Lux Cellulose-3 (cellulose-tris-(4-methylbenzoate), 250 mm × 4.6 mm (i.d.), 5 μm), Lux Cellulose-4 (cellulose-tris-(4-chloro-3-methylphenylcarbamate), 250 mm × 4.6 mm (i.d.), 5 μm), Lux Amylose-1 (amylose-tris-(3,5-dimethylphenylcarbamate), 250 mm × 4.6 mm (i.d.), 5 μm) and Chiralpak IC (cellulose-tris-(3,5-dichlophenylcarbamate), 250 mm × 4.6 mm (i.d.), 5 μm). The mobile phases were using solvent A (methanol or acetonitrile) and solvent B (water) with isocratic elution. In each run, the injection volume was 10 μL and the flow rate was 0.8 mL∙min−1 with the detection wavelength at 230 nm.

2.3. Method Validation

The performances of the analytical method were determined by linearity, precision, accuracy, stability, the limit of detection (LOD) and limit of quantitation (LOQ). The linear calibration curves of the method were the linear regression of the hexythiazox enantiomer area versus the injected concentration. Accuracy and precision were evaluated by the recovery and relative standard deviation (RSD) at three added levels (0.05, 0.5, 5 mg·kg−1) with five replicates, respectively. The LOD was regarded as the concentration of hexythiazox enantiomer that produced a signal-to-noise (S/N) ratio of 3, while the LOQ was defined as the lowest spiked concentration with acceptable RSD. The stability of the hexythiazox stock solution was checked monthly by injection of newly prepared working solution and found that hexythiazox was stable at −20 °C storage condition for at least 3 months.

2.4. Sample Preparation

Portions of 5.0 g homogenized samples (tomato, cucumber, cabbage, soil and water) were weighed to 50 mL polypropylene centrifuge tubes. Twenty-five milliliters acetonitrile and 5 mL ultrapure water were added to the tube. The mixture was placed in a THZ-D constant temperature oscillator for 20 min at 25 °C with 280 rpm rotational speed (Peiying, Jiangsu, China). After oscillation, the samples were exposed to ultrasonic vibration for 10 min, 2 g sodium chloride was added to the tube and shaken violently for 30 s and then centrifuged at 3500 rpm for 5 min. The upper acetonitrile layer was filtered through 10 g of anhydrous sodium sulfate for dehydration and the extraction steps were repeated with another 25 mL of acetonitrile. The combined extracts were evaporated to near dryness at 35 °C using a rotary vacuum evaporator and reconstituted in 1 mL methanol for HPLC analysis.

2.5. Data Analysis

Separation performances were evaluated by the following parameters: capacity factor (k = (t − t0)/t0)), separation factor (α = k2/k1) and resolution factor (Rs = (2(t2 − t1)/(w1 + w2))), where t is the retention time of hexythiazox enantiomers, t0 is the void time, k1 and k2 are capacity factors of the first and second eluted enantiomers of hexythiazox, w1 and w2 were peak width of the hexythiazox enantiomer.
Based on the capacity factor (k) and separation factor (α) obtained at different temperatures, the van’t Hoff equation was used to calculate the enthalpy (ΔH) and entropy (ΔS), which were key parameters to reveal the thermodynamic mechanism on hexythiazox enantiomers separation.
ln k = Δ H R T + Δ S R + ln φ
ln α = Δ Δ H R T + Δ Δ S R
where ∆H and ∆S were standard enthalpy and entropy between the chiral stationary phase and mobile phase, ∆∆H and ∆∆S were values of ∆H2 − ∆H1 and ∆S2 − ∆S1; where ∆H1, ∆H2, ∆S1 and ∆S2 represented the standard enthalpy and entropy values of the first and second eluted hexythiazox enantiomers, respectively, and φ was the column phase ratio. T was absolute temperature, k and R were the retention factors and universal gas constant (8.3144 J·(mol·K)−1), respectively. −∆H/R and (∆S/R + lnφ) were the slope and intercept of the linear regression-based Equation (1). Likewise, −∆∆H/R and ∆∆S/R could be obtained from the linear regression of lnα to 1/T (Equation (2)), respectively.

3. Results

3.1. Chiral Separation of Hexythiazox Enantiomers

The enantiomeric separation of hexythiazox enantiomers on six chiral columns was performed using methanol/water or acetonitrile/water as mobile phase at a flow rate of 0.8 mL·min−1 and 20 °C (Figure 2). Table S1 in supplementary materials summarizes the chiral resolution results, which include the capacity factors (k1, k2), separation factor (α) and resolution factor (Rs). Rs > 1.50 is regarded as baseline separation. When methanol/water was used as mobile phase, hexythiazox enantiomers could be separated on the Lux cellulose-1, Lux cellulose-2, Lux cellulose-3 and Lux cellulose-4 columns, while Lux amylose-1 and Chirapak IC had no separation ability for hexythiazox enantiomers. Moreover, partial separation of hexythiazox enantiomers were obtained on Lux cellulose-1, Lux cellulose-2 and Lux cellulose-4 columns with a maximum Rs of 0.93, 0.81 and 0.73, respectively. Hexythiazox enantiomers could be completely separated on Lux cellulose-3 with maximum Rs = 2.09 at a methanol/water ratio of 100/0. When acetonitrile/water was used as mobile phase, hexythiazox enantiomers could be partially separated on Lux cellulose-1, Lux cellulose-2, Lux cellulose-4, Lux amylose-1 and Chirapak IC columns and completely separated on the Lux cellulose-3 column with a maximum Rs of 2.74 at acetonitrile/water ratio of 80/20. Different separation abilities were observed on the same chiral column between methanol/water and acetonitrile/water. Methanol was a polar protic solvent, which was a hydrogen-bond donor and acceptor, whereas acetonitrile was a polar aprotic solvent, which was just a weak hydrogen-bond acceptor. Thus, methanol/water and acetonitrile/water presented different separation abilities may be induced by different hydrogen-bond interactions involved in hexythiazox enantiomers, mobile phase and chiral stationary phase. Hexythiazox enantiomers received the best resolution on the Lux cellulose-3 column, which implied that the 4-methylbenzoate in Lux cellulose-3 column had better selectivity for hexythiazox enantiomers than other columns. In general, the lower ratio of organic solvent in mobile phase often leads to longer eluted time and higher separation resolution under reverse-phase HPLC conditions. In accordance with this phenomenon, the capacity factor (k) and resolution factor (Rs) increased with a decreasing ratio of acetonitrile and methanol in mobile phase. However, the resolution factor (Rs) on Lux cellulose-3 increased with increasing contents of methanol in mobile phase. Tian et al. [18] obtained partial separation of hexythiazox enantiomers on cellulose-tris-(3,5-dimethylphenylcarbamate) based chiral column with maximum Rs = 0.78 under reverse-phase condition. In the present study, hexythiazox enantiomers were completely separated on the Lux cellulose-3 column with maximum Rs = 2.09 and Rs = 2.74 using methanol/water and acetonitrile/water as mobile phase, respectively. Thus, our study provided a baseline separation method for hexythiazox enantiomers under reverse-phase HPLC for the first time.

3.2. Effects of Temperature on Hexythiazox Enantiomers Separation

Temperature is a vital factor for chiral separation and contributes to revealing the mechanism of chiral recognition. In the present study, the effects of column temperature on hexythiazox enantiomer separation were carefully investigated from 10 °C to 40 °C on Lux cellulose-1, Lux cellulose-2, Lux cellulose-3, Lux cellulose-4, Lux amylose-1 and Chirapak IC columns. Table 1 lists the chromatographic conditions and separation resolutions change with temperature. When methanol/water was used as mobile phase, hexythiazox enantiomers were separated on Lux cellulose-1 (85/15), Lux cellulose-2 (90/10), Lux cellulose-3 (90/10) and Lux cellulose-4 (90/10) in consideration of separation resolution and retention time. While acetonitrile/water was used as mobile phase, the two enantiomers were separated on Lux cellulose-1 (60/40), Lux cellulose-2 (70/30), Lux cellulose-3 (60/40) Lux cellulose-4 (70/30) Lux amylose-1 (60/40) and Chirapak IC (60/40). The results indicated that temperature had significant effects on hexythiazox enantiomer separation with different chiral stationary phases. Lower temperature generally results in longer retention time, higher resolution and wider peak (Figure S1 in supplementary materials). In accordance with this phenomenon, the capacity factor (k1, k2) and resolution factor (Rs) decreased with the increasing trend of temperature on six chiral columns, no matter if methanol/water or acetonitrile/water were used as mobile phase. For example, the k1, k2 and Rs decreased from 1.77 to 1.16, 2.26 to 1.43 and 1.94 to 1.61, respectively on the Lux cellulose-3 column with methanol/water ratio of 90/10. Likewise, the k1, k2 and Rs values decreased from 1.31 to 1.00, 1.76 to 1.26 and 2.49 to 2.00, respectively, on the Lux cellulose-3 column with acetonitrile/water ratio of 60/40. However, temperature sometimes has little effect on chiral resolution. Zhang et al. [30] reported the chiral separation of lambda-cyhalothrin enantiomers on a Lux cellulose-3 column with a methanol/water ratio of 95/5 and found the best chiral resolution was obtained at 40 °C with a maximum Rs of 4.72.

3.3. Thermodynamic Parameters on Hexythiazox Enantiomers Separation

In order to determine the thermodynamic driving forces involved in hexythiazox enantiomers separation, the van’t Hoff equation was adopted to calculate the enthalpy (ΔH) and entropy (ΔS) values based on the capacity factor (k1, k2) and separation factor (α) obtained from Lux cellulose-1, Lux cellulose-2, Lux cellulose-3, Lux cellulose-4, Lux amylose-1 and Chirapak IC columns under different temperatures (Figure 3). The ΔH values of hexythiazox enantiomers on six chiral columns ranged from −5.95 to −14.08 KJ∙mol−1 when methanol/water and acetonitrile/water were used as mobile phase (Table 2). The negative values of ΔH implied that the processes of transfer hexythiazox enantiomers from mobile phase to chiral stationary phase were mainly driven by enthalpy. ∆∆H and ∆∆S were ranged from −0.54 to −1.60 KJ·mol−1 and −0.91 to −3.18 J·mol−1 on six chiral columns, respectively. The negative values of ∆∆H implied the ∆H values of the second enantiomer was more negative than the first eluted enantiomers, which indicated the interactions between the second eluted enantiomer and chiral stationary phase was stronger than the first eluted enantiomer. The negative values of ∆∆H also implied the lower temperature resulted in better chiral resolution, which was observed in temperature study. Studies reported that the main forces involved in enantiomeric separation were hydrogen bonding, π–π and dipole–dipole interaction. The good linearity of lnα versus 1/T implied that only one of these forces was involved in hexythiazox separation. Similarly, poor linearity of lnα versus 1/T would generally indicate multiple interaction forces existed in enantiomers separation [17,29,30].

3.4. Hexythiazox Enantiomers Analysis in Vegetable and Environment

According to baseline separation of hexythiazox enantiomers on the Lux cellulose-3 column, the quantitative analysis of hexythiazox enantiomers was validated in the environment (soil and water) and vegetable (cucumber, tomato and cabbage, Figure 4). Good linearities for the first eluted enantiomer (y = 34.324x + 7.5844, R2 = 0.9997) and second eluted enantiomer (y = 34.098x + 5.0445, R2 = 0.9998) were obtained from the concentration range of 0.05 to 10 mg·L−1. The accuracy and precision of the analytical method were determined by recovery and relative standard deviation (RSD) at three spiked levels in different matrices with five replicates. The reproducibility was evaluated by the interday precision, which represented the injection of the same sample on three sequential days. Table 3 listed the recovery and precision data of the developed analytical method. The recovery ranged from 86.54% to 99.84% and intraday precision ranged from 1.66% to 6.91% for the two hexythiazox enantiomers in cucumber, tomato, cabbage, soil and water samples. The LOD for hexythiazox enantiomers was 0.2 ng and the corresponding LOQ was 0.05 mg·kg−1 based on the lowest spiked concentration with an acceptable RSD. Such results indicated the developed method was reliable and effective for the residue analysis of hexythiazox enantiomers in vegetables and the environment.

4. Conclusions

In the context of this study, the direct enantiomeric separations of hexythiazox enantiomers on six chiral columns were comprehensively investigated by reverse-phase high-performance liquid chromatography. The effects of chiral stationary phase, temperature, thermodynamic parameters, mobile phase component and mobile phase ratio on hexythiazox enantiomers separation were carefully evaluated. Hexythiazox enantiomers received a baseline separation on the Lux cellulose-3 column with maximum Rs = 2.09 (methanol/water, 100/0) and Rs = 2.74 (acetonitrile/water, 50/50), respectively. Partial separations were achieved on the other five columns where the maximum Rs ranged from 0.35 to 0.93. Furthermore, Lux amylose-1 and Chirapak IC had no separation ability for hexythiazox enantiomer when methanol/water was used as mobile phase. A temperature study indicated that capacity factor (k) and resolution factor (Rs) decreased with column temperature increasing from 10 °C to 40 °C. The enthalpy (ΔH) and entropy (ΔS) involved in hexythiazox separation were also calculated and demonstrated the lower temperature contributed to better separation resolution. Moreover, the residue analytical method for hexythiazox in the environment (soil and water) and vegetable (cucumber, cabbage and tomato) were also established with reliable accuracy and precision under reverse-phase HPLC conditions. Such results provided a baseline separation method for hexythiazox enantiomers under reverse-phase conditions and contributed to environmental and health risk assessment of hexythiazox at enantiomer level.

Supplementary Materials

The following are available online at https://www.mdpi.com/1660-4601/17/10/3453/s1, Table S1: Enantiomeric separation results of hexythiazox enantiomers on six chiral columns at 20 °C using methanol/water or acetonitrile/water as mobile phase; Figure S1: The effects of temperature on hexythiazox enantiomers separation with Lux cellulose-3 column (methanol/water (90/10), A 10 °C, B 20 °C, C 30 °C, D 40 °C) and Lux cellulose-2 column (methanol / water (90/10), E 10°C, F 20 °C, G 30°C, H 40 °C).

Author Contributions

P.Z. conceived and designed this study; P.Z., S.W. and Y.X. conducted the experiments; P.Z., D.S. and F.Y. analyzed the data; P.Z., X.D. and Y.H. prepared the manuscript; L.H. and P.Z. edited the manuscript. All authors have read and agreed to the published version of the manuscript.

Funding

This research was funded by the National Natural Science Foundation of China (31801745), Natural Science Foundation of Chongqing, China (cstc2019jcyj-msxmX0403) and Fundamental Research Funds for the Central Universities (XDJK2020B061).

Conflicts of Interest

The authors declare no conflicts of interest. The funders had no role in the writing of the manuscript and in the decision to publish the results.

Abbreviations

CSP, chiral stationary phase; CD, circular dichroism; GC, gas chromatography; HPLC, high-performance liquid chromatography; LOD, limit of detection; RSD, relative standard deviation.

References

  1. Thwaite, W.G. Resistance to Clofentezine and Hexythiazox in Panonychus-Ulmi from Apples in Australia. Exp. Appl. Acarol. 1991, 11, 73–80. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  2. Saber, A.N.; Malhat, F.M.; Badawy, H.M.; Barakat, D.A. Dissipation dynamic, residue distribution and processing factor of hexythiazox in strawberry fruits under open field condition. Food Chem. 2016, 196, 1108–1116. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  3. Ganjisaffar, F.; Perring, T.M. Effects of the miticide hexythiazox on biology of Galendromus flumenis (Acari: Phytoseiidae). Int. J. Acarol. 2016, 43, 169–172. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  4. Abdourahime, H.; Anastassiadou, M.; Brancato, A.; Brocca, D.; Carrasco Cabrera, L.; De Lentdecker, C.; Ferreira, L.; Greco, L.; Jarrah, S.; Kardassi, D.; et al. Review of the existing maximum residue levels for hexythiazox according to Article 12 of Regulation (EC) No 396/2005. EFSA J. 2019, 17, e05559. [Google Scholar]
  5. Liu, W.; Gan, J.; Schlenk, D.; Jury, W.A. Enantioselectivity in environmental safety of current chiral insecticides. Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. USA 2005, 102, 701–706. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  6. Ye, J.; Wu, J.; Liu, W. Enantioselective separation and analysis of chiral pesticides by high-performance liquid chromatography. TrAC-Trend Anal. Chem. 2009, 28, 1148–1163. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  7. Ye, J.; Zhao, M.; Liu, J.; Liu, W. Enantioselectivity in environmental risk assessment of modern chiral pesticides. Environ. Pollut. 2010, 158, 2371–2383. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  8. Jeschke, P. Current status of chirality in agrochemicals. Pest. Manag. Sci. 2018, 74, 2389–2404. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  9. De Albuquerque, N.C.P.; Carrao, D.B.; Habenschus, M.D.; de Oliveira, A.R.M. Metabolism studies of chiral pesticides: A critical review. J. Pharm. Biomed. Anal. 2018, 147, 89–109. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  10. Chang, J.; Xu, P.; Li, W.; Li, J.; Wang, H. Enantioselective Elimination and Gonadal Disruption of Lambda-Cyhalothrin on Lizards (Eremias argus). J. Agric. Food Chem. 2019, 67, 2183–2189. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  11. Chang, W.; Nie, J.; Yan, Z.; Wang, Y.; Farooq, S. Systemic Stereoselectivity Study of Etoxazole: Stereoselective Bioactivity, Acute Toxicity, and Environmental Behavior in Fruits and Soils. J. Agric. Food Chem. 2019, 67, 6708–6715. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  12. Chen, Z.; Yao, X.; Dong, F.; Duan, H.; Shao, X.; Chen, X.; Yang, T.; Wang, G.; Zheng, Y. Ecological toxicity reduction of dinotefuran to honeybee: New perspective from an enantiomeric level. Environ. Int. 2019, 130, 104854. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  13. Tong, Z.; Dong, X.; Yang, S.; Sun, M.; Gao, T.; Duan, J.; Cao, H. Enantioselective effects of the chiral fungicide tetraconazole in wheat: Fungicidal activity and degradation behavior. Environ. Pollut. 2019, 247, 1–8. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  14. Xu, C.; Sun, X.; Niu, L.; Yang, W.; Tu, W.; Lu, L.; Song, S.; Liu, W. Enantioselective thyroid disruption in zebrafish embryo-larvae via exposure to environmental concentrations of the chloroacetamide herbicide acetochlor. Sci. Total Environ. 2019, 653, 1140–1148. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  15. Perez-Fernandez, V.; Dominguez-Vega, E.; Chankvetadze, B.; Crego, A.L.; Garcia, M.A.; Marina, M.L. Evaluation of new cellulose-based chiral stationary phases Sepapak-2 and Sepapak-4 for the enantiomeric separation of pesticides by nano liquid chromatography and capillary electrochromatography. J. Chromatogr. A 2012, 1234, 22–31. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  16. Fox, S.; Strasdeit, H.; Haasmann, S.; Bruckner, H. Gas chromatographic separation of stereoisomers of non-protein amino acids on modified gamma-cyclodextrin stationary phase. J. Chromatogr. A 2015, 1411, 101–109. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  17. Wang, P.; Jiang, S.; Liu, D.; Zhang, H.; Zhou, Z. Enantiomeric resolution of chiral pesticides by high-performance liquid chromatography. J. Agric. Food Chem. 2006, 54, 1577–1583. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  18. Tian, Q.; Zhou, Z.Q.; Lv, C.G.; Yang, J.J. Direct enantiomeric separation of chiral pesticides by liquid chromatography on polysaccharide-based chiral stationary phases under reversed phase conditions. Anal. Methods 2012, 4, 2307–2317. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  19. Tan, Q.; Fan, J.; Gao, R.; He, R.; Wang, T.; Zhang, Y.; Zhang, W. Stereoselective quantification of triticonazole in vegetables by supercritical fluid chromatography. Talanta 2017, 164, 362–367. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  20. Liu, N.; Dong, F.; Xu, J.; Liu, X.; Chen, Z.; Pan, X.; Chen, X.; Zheng, Y. Enantioselective separation and pharmacokinetic dissipation of cyflumetofen in field soil by ultra-performance convergence chromatography with tandem mass spectrometry. J. Sep. Sci. 2016, 39, 1363–1370. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  21. Shea, D.; Penmetsa, K.V.; Leidy, R.B. Enantiomeric and isomeric separation of pesticides by cyclodextrin-modified micellar electrokinetic chromatography. J. AOAC Int. 1999, 82, 1550–1561. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  22. Qiu, J.; Dai, S.; Zheng, C.; Yang, S.; Chai, T.; Bie, M. Enantiomeric separation of triazole fungicides with 3-mum and 5-muml particle chiral columns by reverse-phase high-performance liquid chromatography. Chirality 2011, 23, 479–486. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  23. Rybar, I.; Gora, R.; Hutta, M. Method of fast trace microanalysis of the chiral pesticides epoxiconazole and novaluron in soil samples using off-line flow-through extraction and on-column direct large volume injection in reversed-phase high performance liquid chromatography. J. Sep. Sci. 2007, 30, 3164–3173. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  24. Zhang, P.; Yu, Q.; He, Y.; Zhu, W.; Zhou, Z.; He, L. Chiral pyrethroid insecticide fenpropathrin and its metabolite: Enantiomeric separation and pharmacokinetic degradation in soils by reverse-phase high-performance liquid chromatography. Anal. Methods 2017, 9, 4439–4446. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  25. Zhang, P.; Zhu, W.; Qiu, J.; Wang, D.; Wang, X.; Wang, Y.; Zhou, Z. Evaluating the enantioselective degradation and novel metabolites following a single oral dose of metalaxyl in mice. Pestic. Biochem. Physiol. 2014, 116, 32–39. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  26. Wang, Y.; Xu, L.; Li, D.; Teng, M.; Zhang, R.; Zhou, Z.; Zhu, W. Enantioselective bioaccumulation of hexaconazole and its toxic effects in adult zebrafish (Danio rerio). Chemosphere 2015, 138, 798–805. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  27. Wang, Y.; Zhu, W.; Qiu, J.; Wang, X.; Zhang, P.; Yan, J.; Zhou, Z. Monitoring tryptophan metabolism after exposure to hexaconazole and the enantioselective metabolism of hexaconazole in rat hepatocytes in vitro. J. Hazard. Mater. 2015, 295, 9–16. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  28. Liu, C.; Wang, B.; Xu, P.; Liu, T.; Di, S.; Diao, J. Enantioselective determination of triazole fungicide epoxiconazole bioaccumulation in tubifex based on HPLC-MS/MS. J. Agric. Food Chem. 2014, 62, 360–367. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  29. Wang, P.; Liu, D.; Jiang, S.; Xu, Y.; Gu, X.; Zhou, Z. The chiral resolution of pesticides on amylose-tris(3,5-dimethylphenylcarbamate) CSP by HPLC and the enantiomeric identification by circular dichroism. Chirality 2008, 20, 40–46. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  30. Zhang, P.; Yu, Q.; He, X.; Qian, K.; Xiao, W.; Xu, Z.; Li, T.; He, L. Enantiomeric separation of type I and type II pyrethroid insecticides with different chiral stationary phases by reversed-phase high-performance liquid chromatography. Chirality 2018, 30, 420–431. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
Figure 1. Chemical structure of hexythiazox enantiomers.
Figure 1. Chemical structure of hexythiazox enantiomers.
Ijerph 17 03453 g001
Figure 2. Chiral resolution chromatograms of hexythiazox enantiomers on Lux cellulose-1 (AD), Lux cellulose-2 (EH), Lux cellulose-3 (IL), Lux cellulose-4 (MP), Lux amylose-1 (QT) and Chirapak IC (UX) columns at 20 °C with an ACN/H2O ratio of 90/10 (A,E,I,M,Q,U), 80/20 (B,F,J,N,R,V), 70/30 (C,G,K,O,S,W) and 60/40 (D,H,L,P,T,X), respectively.
Figure 2. Chiral resolution chromatograms of hexythiazox enantiomers on Lux cellulose-1 (AD), Lux cellulose-2 (EH), Lux cellulose-3 (IL), Lux cellulose-4 (MP), Lux amylose-1 (QT) and Chirapak IC (UX) columns at 20 °C with an ACN/H2O ratio of 90/10 (A,E,I,M,Q,U), 80/20 (B,F,J,N,R,V), 70/30 (C,G,K,O,S,W) and 60/40 (D,H,L,P,T,X), respectively.
Ijerph 17 03453 g002
Figure 3. Van’t Hoff plots of hexythiazox on (A) Lux Cellulose-1 (acetonitrile/water, 60/40), (B) Lux Cellulose-2 (acetonitrile/water, 70/30), (C) Chirapak IC (acetonitrile/water, 60/40) and (D) Lux amylose-1 (acetonitrile/water, 60/40).
Figure 3. Van’t Hoff plots of hexythiazox on (A) Lux Cellulose-1 (acetonitrile/water, 60/40), (B) Lux Cellulose-2 (acetonitrile/water, 70/30), (C) Chirapak IC (acetonitrile/water, 60/40) and (D) Lux amylose-1 (acetonitrile/water, 60/40).
Ijerph 17 03453 g003
Figure 4. Representative chromatograms of hexythiazox enantiomers on the Lux Cellulose-3 column. (A) Standard solution; (B) extracted from water; (C) extracted from soil; (D) extracted from cucumber; (E) extracted from cabbage; (F) extracted from tomato.
Figure 4. Representative chromatograms of hexythiazox enantiomers on the Lux Cellulose-3 column. (A) Standard solution; (B) extracted from water; (C) extracted from soil; (D) extracted from cucumber; (E) extracted from cabbage; (F) extracted from tomato.
Ijerph 17 03453 g004
Table 1. Effects of temperature on hexythiazox separation with six chiral columns.
Table 1. Effects of temperature on hexythiazox separation with six chiral columns.
Stationary PhaseMobile Phase
(v/v)
Temperature (°C)k1k2αRsMobile Phase
(v/v)
Temperature (°C)k1k2αRs
Lux Cellulose-1MeOH/H2O
85/15
103.83 4.18 1.09 0.79 ACN/H2O
60/40
104.77 5.05 1.06 0.73
153.59 3.89 1.08 0.70 154.50 4.75 1.05 0.67
203.25 3.50 1.08 0.68 204.34 4.56 1.05 0.66
253.00 3.20 1.07 0.66 254.13 4.32 1.04 0.62
302.64 2.80 1.06 0.65 303.86 4.02 1.04 0.59
352.49 2.63 1.06 0.59 353.72 3.85 1.04 0.54
402.30 2.39 1.04 0.44 403.44 3.56 1.03 0.48
Lux Cellulose-2MeOH/H2O
90/10
102.12 2.28 1.08 0.88 ACN/H2O
70/30
102.90 3.05 1.05 0.72
152.09 2.24 1.07 0.76 152.79 2.93 1.05 0.69
201.93 2.05 1.06 0.67 202.65 2.76 1.04 0.63
251.78 1.88 1.06 0.63 252.51 2.61 1.04 0.59
301.64 1.73 1.05 0.60 302.36 2.44 1.03 0.52
351.52 1.60 1.05 0.55 352.22 2.29 1.03 0.51
401.41 1.47 1.04 0.52 402.09 2.15 1.03 0.48
Lux Cellulose-3MeOH/H2O
90/10
101.77 2.26 1.28 1.94 ACN/H2O
60/40
101.31 1.76 1.35 2.49
151.62 2.05 1.27 1.83 151.28 1.70 1.33 2.45
201.57 1.98 1.26 1.79 201.23 1.62 1.32 2.28
251.46 1.83 1.25 1.77 251.16 1.51 1.30 2.20
301.37 1.70 1.25 1.70 301.11 1.43 1.29 2.15
351.25 1.56 1.24 1.68 351.05 1.34 1.27 2.01
401.16 1.43 1.23 1.61 401.00 1.26 1.26 2.00
Lux Cellulose-4MeOH/H2O
90/10
101.60 1.70 1.06 0.66 ACN/H2O
70/30
102.18 2.32 1.06 0.76
151.54 1.63 1.06 0.62 152.11 2.23 1.06 0.74
201.43 1.51 1.05 0.57 202.04 2.15 1.05 0.73
251.32 1.38 1.05 0.54 251.95 2.04 1.05 0.68
301.23 1.29 1.04 0.50 301.86 1.94 1.04 0.66
351.17 1.22 1.04 0.47 351.72 1.79 1.04 0.61
401.08 1.11 1.03 0.42 401.62 1.67 1.03 0.53
Lux Amylose-1-10----ACN/H2O
60/40
102.91 3.36 1.15 0.82
15----152.81 3.22 1.14 0.79
20----202.70 3.08 1.14 0.76
25----252.59 2.93 1.13 0.73
30----302.53 2.85 1.13 0.70
35----352.39 2.67 1.12 0.68
40----402.27 2.52 1.11 0.65
Chiralpak IC-10----ACN/H2O
60/40
101.71 1.84 1.07 0.72
15----151.65 1.76 1.07 0.69
20----201.55 1.66 1.07 0.68
25----251.45 1.54 1.06 0.65
30----301.37 1.45 1.06 0.64
35----351.29 1.36 1.05 0.62
40----401.24 1.30 1.05 0.55
Table 2. Van’t Hoff equation and thermodynamic parameters of hexythiazox enantiomers on six chiral columns.
Table 2. Van’t Hoff equation and thermodynamic parameters of hexythiazox enantiomers on six chiral columns.
ColumnMobile Phase
(v/v)
lnk = −△H/RT + △S/R + lnφR2△H (KJ mol-1)△S/R+ lnφlnα = −∆∆H/RT + ∆∆S/RR2△△H (KJ mol-1)△△S (J mol-1)
Lux Cellulose-1MeOH/H2O
85/15
lnk1 = 1560.1/T−4.15360.994 −12.97−4.55lnα = 132.9/T-0.3805
0.962
−1.10
−3.16
lnk2 = 1693/T−4.53410.995 −14.08−4.78
ACN/H2O
60/40
lnk1 = 936.25/T−1.73780.988 −7.78−0.35lnα = 71.652/T-0.1962
0.998
−0.60
−1.63
lnk2 = 1007.9/T−1.9340.990 −8.38−0.42
Lux Cellulose-2MeOH/H2O
90/10
lnk1 = 1276.6/T−3.72040.980 −10.61−3.56lnα = 90.966/T-0.2477
0.996
−0.76
−2.06
lnk2 = 1367.5/T−3.96820.982 −11.37−5.55
ACN/H2O
70/30
lnk1 = 983.82/T−2.39390.990 −8.18−3.71lnα = 71.12/T-0.2006
0.995
−0.59
−1.67
lnk2 = 1054.9/T−2.59460.992 −8.77−5.99
Lux Cellulose-3MeOH/H2O
90/10
lnk1 = 1211/T−3.70090.986 −10.07−5.37lnα = 99.749/T-0.1097
0.994
−0.83
−0.91
lnk2 = 1310.8/T−3.81050.988 −10.90−5.78
ACN/H2O
60/40
lnk1 = 824.51/T−2.62560.986 −6.85−1.43lnα = 192.8/T-0.3828
0.997
−1.60
−3.18
lnk2 = 1017.3/T−3.00840.989 −8.46−1.63
Lux Cellulose-4MeOH/H2O
90/10
lnk1 = 1193.9/T−3.72850.992 −9.93−6.93lnα = 74.735/T-0.2033
0.988
−0.62
−1.69
lnk2 = 1268.7/T−3.93180.992 −10.55−9.69
ACN/H2O
70/30
lnk1 = 872.27/T−2.28030.967 −7.25−1.05lnα = 80.151/T-0.2215
0.997
−0.67
−1.84
lnk2 = 952.42/T−2.50180.971 −7.92−0.97
Lux Amylose-1ACN/H2O
60/40
lnk1 = 715.75/T−1.45150.987 −5.95−1.43lnα = 113.47/T-0.258
0.996
−0.94
−2.15
lnk2 = 829.22/T−1.70950.989 −6.89−1.63
Chirapak ICACN/H2O
60/40
lnk1 = 1003.6/T−2.99470.995 −8.34−1.05lnα = 65.454/T-0.1604
0.992
−0.54
−1.33
lnk2 = 1069.1/T-3.15510.995 −8.89−0.97
Table 3. Recovery and precision of the reverse-phase HPLC method for the measurement of hexythiazox enantiomers using the Lux Cellulose-3 column.
Table 3. Recovery and precision of the reverse-phase HPLC method for the measurement of hexythiazox enantiomers using the Lux Cellulose-3 column.
CompoundMatrixSpiked Levels
(mg∙kg−1 or mg∙L−1)
Intraday aInterday b
Day 1Day 2Day 3
Recovery (%)RSD c (%)Recovery (%)RSD (%)Recovery (%)RSD (%)Recovery (%)RSD (%)
E1soil 0.0589.384.8788.005.3187.215.5988.195.36
0.594.334.5298.933.1290.822.6794.694.98
596.583.4897.552.8093.342.6295.833.54
water0.0581.405.9184.915.3487.766.1484.696.58
0.588.774.3892.993.9294.365.0192.045.16
593.964.8994.182.0597.461.6695.203.59
cucumber0.0595.946.2991.756.6888.753.8792.156.63
0.593.315.1392.493.6395.795.3393.865.00
597.502.2096.493.6396.743.2696.913.12
tomato0.0589.655.2190.544.0189.303.8089.834.42
0.596.946.0096.271.9398.714.3097.314.54
597.363.7896.562.9497.511.9897.143.02
cabbage0.0590.364.7689.394.2291.653.8590.474.41
0.597.433.0096.061.9399.843.9097.783.47
598.793.7797.713.1998.882.0198.463.13
E2soil0.0591.385.4588.846.3889.095.5489.775.94
0.595.174.7593.413.3093.162.1593.913.71
597.293.6099.123.4295.721.6997.383.36
water0.0586.545.6289.106.9187.616.0187.756.33
0.591.212.3196.713.4999.445.5495.795.44
595.074.2793.902.9097.152.2195.373.52
cucumber0.0596.186.5897.103.2592.065.4695.115.75
0.594.552.6794.641.6593.864.0294.352.96
596.282.6598.924.1597.492.8697.563.49
tomato0.0589.573.0889.166.4491.842.0690.194.45
0.5100.464.8998.843.79102.485.71100.605.10
597.253.3297.073.5297.362.8897.233.25
cabbage0.0594.862.9394.504.0592.783.9894.053.81
0.597.604.6695.673.70101.502.9598.264.54
5101.393.1296.394.2299.271.4799.023.75
a Intraday RSD (n = 5). b Interday RSD (n = 15).c RSD, relative standard deviation.

Share and Cite

MDPI and ACS Style

Zhang, P.; Wang, S.; Shi, D.; Xu, Y.; Yang, F.; Deng, X.; He, Y.; He, L. Direct Enantiomeric Separation and Determination of Hexythiazox Enantiomers in Environment and Vegetable by Reverse-Phase High-Performance Liquid Chromatography. Int. J. Environ. Res. Public Health 2020, 17, 3453. https://doi.org/10.3390/ijerph17103453

AMA Style

Zhang P, Wang S, Shi D, Xu Y, Yang F, Deng X, He Y, He L. Direct Enantiomeric Separation and Determination of Hexythiazox Enantiomers in Environment and Vegetable by Reverse-Phase High-Performance Liquid Chromatography. International Journal of Environmental Research and Public Health. 2020; 17(10):3453. https://doi.org/10.3390/ijerph17103453

Chicago/Turabian Style

Zhang, Ping, Sheng Wang, Dongmei Shi, Yangyang Xu, Furong Yang, Xile Deng, Yuhan He, and Lin He. 2020. "Direct Enantiomeric Separation and Determination of Hexythiazox Enantiomers in Environment and Vegetable by Reverse-Phase High-Performance Liquid Chromatography" International Journal of Environmental Research and Public Health 17, no. 10: 3453. https://doi.org/10.3390/ijerph17103453

Note that from the first issue of 2016, this journal uses article numbers instead of page numbers. See further details here.

Article Metrics

Back to TopTop