Development and comparison of two multi-residue methods for the analysis of select pesticides in honey bees, pollen, and wax by gas chromatography–quadrupole mass spectrometry
Graphical abstract
Introduction
The honey bee, Apis mellifera, plays a critical role in agriculture and the global ecosystem by pollinating plants, while at the same time producing bee products with high economic value [1], [2]. Globally, this value has been estimated to be approximately $210 billion, thus honey bees are an essential target for conservation [3]. However, in recent years, honey bee populations have been in a worldwide decline, which has been referred to as colony collapse disorder (CCD) and colony weakening [4], [5]. Multiple causes of colony losses have been proposed, such as exposure to pesticides, pathogens, parasites, and natural habitat degradation [6], [7]. Among these factors, pesticides are suspected by the scientific and beekeeping communities to have a strong impact on honey bee mortality and colony weakening [8], [9]. In modern farming systems, honey bees are readily exposed to pesticides when they gather nectar and pollen from blooming crops, which are routinely treated with pesticides [10], [11]. For example, researchers have demonstrated that low levels of pesticides, such as pyrethroid and neonicotinoid insecticides, may induce adverse sublethal effects in honey bees [8], [12], [13], [14], [15]. Honey bees are also exposed to miticides, like coumaphos and tau-fluvalinate, which are intentionally introduced to the hives to control the parasitic mite, Varroa destructor [16]. However, the relative contribution that pesticides have in colony losses remains unknown. Thus, to better understand the potential involvement that pesticides may have in colony losses, it is essential to develop reliable and sensitive analytical methods for the quantitation of pesticides in honey bees as well as in bee products, including pollen and wax.
In the past few years, several methods have been developed for the detection of pesticides in bee products like honey, pollen, wax, and honey bees [3], [17], [18], [19], [20], [21], [22], [23], [24], [25]. However, most of the reported methods have focused on one or two matrices. To date, there have been very few multi-residue methods described in the literature for the simultaneous analysis of pesticide residues in honey bees, pollen, and wax. Since honey bees are most likely exposed to pesticides in both pollen and wax, it is important to be able to simultaneously quantify pesticide residues from these relevant matrices in one study. In view of these concerns, the aim of the current study was to develop a fast and reliable multi-residue analytical method for the trace analysis of relevant pesticides in honey bees, pollen, and wax. A total of 11 pesticides were selected for this study including the pyrethroid insecticides bifenthrin, lambda-cyhalothrin, permethrin, cyfluthrin, cypermethrin, and tau-fluvalinate, the organophosphate insecticides chlorpyrifos, coumaphos and coralox, the organochlorine fungicide chlorothalonil and the triazine herbicide atrazine (Table 1). These target analytes were chosen based on their potential toxicity to honey bees at low environmental concentrations and their widespread use in plant protection or in the bee hive directly. Two sample preparation methods, based on cleanup with gel permeation chromatography (GPC) and dispersive solid-phase extraction (d-SPE) with a new zirconium-based sorbent (Z-Sep) were compared with subsequent determination by gas chromatography coupled to a quadrupole mass spectrometry (GC–MS). Finally, the Z-Sep method was applied to bee hive samples collected in Virginia to validate this method as well as obtain preliminary data on the pesticides present in the hive.
Section snippets
Chemicals and reagents
Pesticides analyzed in the current study were purchased from ChemService (West Chester, PA, USA), and their purities were >97.0% as certified by the manufacturer. Decachlorobiphenyl (DCBP) and 4,4′-dibromooctafluorobiphenyl (DBOFB) were used as surrogates and were purchased from Supelco (Bellefonte, PA, USA), and had purities >99%. The internal standards, PCB 204, chlorpyrifos d10, coumaphos d10, flucynthrinate, and atrazine d5 (AccuStandard, New Haven, CT, USA) were added to the solutions
Matrix effects
Previous analysis of honey bee and pollen extracts revealed large amounts of lipids and pigments in honey bees, and lipids and proteins in pollen, which proved to be the most serious interferences during the analysis [1]. Wax is a very complex mixture of lipophilic compounds, including esters of long-chain aliphatic alcohols with fatty acids or hydroxy-fatty acids, long-chain hydrocarbons, free long-chain fatty acids, and carotenoids [22]. High molecular weight compounds that are lipid-like and
Conclusions
Honey bee hive matrices are a challenge to cleanup and quantify due to matrix issues created by the large number of fatty compounds, pigments, carbohydrates, and other complex components [39]. Two cleanup methods were compared and contrasted in the current study to quantify 11 target pesticides in honey bees, pollen and wax: an older established GPC method and a newly developed zirconia-based sorbent (Z-Sep) method. Overall, the Z-Sep method had less matrix interference, higher sensitivity,
Acknowledgments
This project was wholly (or partially) funded by a grant (MOA 2013-001) from the Virginia Department of Agriculture and Consumer Services, United States. Funding for this project came from registration fees paid by pesticide companies.
References (39)
- et al.
J. Food Prot.
(2002) - et al.
J. Chromatogr. A
(2013) - et al.
Pharmacol. Biochem. Behav.
(2005) - et al.
Anal. Chim. Acta
(2010) - et al.
J. Chromatogr. A
(2013) - et al.
Food Chem.
(2012) - et al.
J. Chromatogr. A
(2007) - et al.
Talanta
(2011) - et al.
J. Chromatogr. A
(2004) - et al.
J. Chromatogr. A
(2001)
Food Chem.
Talanta
Talanta
J. Chromatogr. A
J. Chromatogr. A
PLoS One
J. Apic. Res.
PLoS One
Science
Cited by (49)
Pesticide residues in bee bread, propolis, beeswax and royal jelly – A review of the literature and dietary risk assessment
2023, Food and Chemical ToxicologyFungicides and bees: a review of exposure and risk
2022, Environment InternationalPresence and distribution of pesticides in apicultural products: A critical appraisal
2022, TrAC - Trends in Analytical ChemistryA global study of pesticides in bees: QuEChERS as a sample preparation methodology for their analysis – Critical review and perspective
2021, Science of the Total EnvironmentCitation Excerpt :On the other hand, Kasiotis et al. (2014) developed a method for simultaneous detection and quantitative identification of 112 pesticides (including 46 insecticides - NEOs, PYRs, OPs, CARs) using methanol as an extraction solvent, obtaining recoveries within the range of 59–117%. Other applied extraction solvents include n-hexane (García-Valcárcel et al., 2016; Wiest et al., 2011), heptan (Daniele et al., 2018), dichloromethane (Chauzat et al., 2011), as well as mixtures, i.e. ACN/H2O/acetic acid (55:44:1) (Al Naggar et al., 2015, 2015a), ACN: Ethyl acetate (8:2) (Gbylik-Sikorska et al., 2015), Ethyl acetate: hexane (7:3) (Li et al., 2015). Fig. 6 shows the physicochemical properties of solvents frequently used for extraction, ordered by elution power.
Fungicides chlorothanolin, azoxystrobin and folpet induce transcriptional alterations in genes encoding enzymes involved in oxidative phosphorylation and metabolism in honey bees (Apis mellifera) at sublethal concentrations
2019, Journal of Hazardous MaterialsCitation Excerpt :In our present study we focus on the transcriptional effects of three largely used fungicides to evaluate potential effects, which are currently unknown. Chlorothanolin is a broad-spectrum fungicide and has been found for instance in bee’s wax at concentrations of 47.38 ng/g [13]. Its mode of action in fungi is unclear, but it reduces the fungal intracellular glutathione level [14].