Inner filter effect-based immunoassay for the detection of acetamiprid using upconversion nanoparticles and gold nanoparticles

Figures & data

Figure 1. Schematic diagram of the IFE-IA.

Figure 2. TEM images of amino-modified NaYF4:Yb,Er UCNPs (A), AuNPs (B) and the complex of UCNPs and AuNPs (C). The emission spectrum of UCNPs at the excitation of 980 nm and the absorption spectrum of AuNPs (C). Effect of fluorescence quenching for mAb-conjugated UCNPs by different concentrations of antigen-coupled AuNPs (0, 0.2, 0.4, 0.6, 0.8, 1.0, 1.2, 1.4, 1.6 nmol/L) (D).

Figure 3. The changes of fluorescence intensity with different concentrations of acetamiprid (A) and the calibration curve of the IFE-IA for acetamiprid (B).

Table 1. The comparison of different immunoassays for acetamiprid.

Method	LOD (µg/L)	SC50/IC50 (µg/L)	Detection time (min)	Detection step	Reference
IC-ELISA	ND^a	1.3	300	6	Wanatabe et al. (2001)
Dc-ELISA	0.015	1.0	70	5	Watanabe et al. (2018)
Bic-ELISA	0.17	ND	300	6	Fang et al. (2019)
ICS	0.1	ND	5	1	Liu et al. (2017)
QDs-ICS	0.098	1.12	60	1	Liu et al. (2019)
Immunosensor	0.0032	ND	240	4	Xu et al. (2018)
IFE	0.002	0.04	40	1	This study

^a ND represents no data in the reference.

Table 2. Cross-reactivity of acetamiprid toward its analogues.

Compound	Structure	SC50 (µg/L)	CR (%)
Acetamiprid		0.04	100
Thiacloprid		0.11	36.4
Imidacloprid		>100	<0.04
Clothianidin		>100	<0.04
Imidaclothiz		>100	<0.04
Nitenpyram		>100	<0.04
Thiamethoxam		>100	<0.04

Table 3. Average recoveries of samples spiked with acetamiprid.

Sample	Spiked concentration (μg/kg)	Average recovery ± SD (%)	RSD (%)
Soil	10	97.2 ± 8.3	8.5
	1	75.1 ± 3.1	4.1
	0.1	97.7 ± 2.2	2.3
Pear	25	91.4 ± 1.3	1.4
	5	104.7 ± 6.3	6.0
	0.1	96.6 ± 2.1	2.2
Wheat	25	86.5 ± 2.4	2.8
	5	98.1 ± 9.9	10.1
	0.1	93.4 ± 8.1	8.7
Cucumber	25	85.7 ± 2.8	3.3
	5	91.3 ± 4.1	4.5
	0.1	82.6 ± 5.2	6.3

Figure 4. Correlation between the IFE-IA and HPLC for the detection of pear samples spiked with unknown concentration of acetamiprid.

Wanatabe, S., Ito, S., Kamata, Y., Omoda, N., Yamazaki, T., Munakata, H., Kaneko, T., & Yuasa, Y. (2001). Development of competitive enzyme-linked immunosorbent assays (ELISAs) based on monoclonal antibodies for chloronicotinoid insecticides imidacloprid and acetamiprid. Analytica Chimica Acta, 427(2), 211–219. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0003-2670(00)01126-0

 Web of Science ®Google Scholar

Watanabe, E., Tomomi, Y., Yuki, H., Harada, A., Iwasa, S., & Miyake, S. (2018). Organic solvent-free immunoassay for quantitative detection of neonicotinoid acetamiprid residues in agricultural products. Analytical Methods, 10(26), 3162–3169. https://doi.org/10.1039/C8AY01061G

 Web of Science ®Google Scholar

Fang, Q., Zu, Q., Hua, X. D., Lv, P., Lin, W. W., Zhou, D. H., Xu, Z. H., Fan, J. R., Li, X. H., & Cao, H. Q. (2019). Quantitative determination of acetamiprid in pollen based on a sensitive enzyme-linked immunosorbent assay. Molecules, 24(7), 1265. https://doi.org/10.3390/molecules24071265

 PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar

Liu, L. Q., Suryoprabowo, S., Zheng, Q. K., Song, S. S., & Kuang, H. (2017). Development of an immunochromatographic strip for detection of acetamiprid in cucumber and apple samples. Food and Agricultural Immunology, 28(5), 767–778. https://doi.org/10.1080/09540105.2017.1312294

 Web of Science ®Google Scholar

Liu, Y., Zhao, Y., Zhang, T. Y., Chang, Y. Y., Wang, S. J., Zou, R. B., Shen, L. R., & Guo, Y. R. (2019). Quantum dots-based immunochromatographic strip for rapid and sensitive detection of acetamiprid in agricultural products. Frontiers in Chemistry, 7, 76. https://doi.org/10.3389/fchem.2019.00076

 PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar

Xu, X. H., Yuna, G., Liu, W., He, K., Guo, Y., Quan, W. X., & Sundaram, G. (2018). Hapten-grafted programmed probe as a corecognition element for a competitive immunosensor to detect acetamiprid residue in agricultural products. Journal of Agricultural and Food Chemistry, 66(29), 7815–7821. https://doi.org/10.1021/acs.jafc.8b02487

 PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar