Premium
Analysis of Microcystins in Drinking Water by ELISA and LC/MS/MS
Author(s) -
Guo Yingbo C.,
Lee Anthea K.,
Yates Richard S.,
Liang Sun,
Rochelle Paul A.
Publication year - 2017
Publication title -
journal ‐ american water works association
Language(s) - English
Resource type - Journals
SCImago Journal Rank - 0.466
H-Index - 74
eISSN - 1551-8833
pISSN - 0003-150X
DOI - 10.5942/jawwa.2017.109.0027
Subject(s) - microcystin , chemistry , chromatography , liquid chromatography–mass spectrometry , microcystin lr , cyanotoxin , mass spectrometry , tandem mass spectrometry , environmental chemistry , tap water , water quality , raw water , cyanobacteria , biology , environmental science , environmental engineering , ecology , genetics , bacteria
Enzyme‐linked immunosorbent assay (ELISA) and liquid chromatography/tandem mass spectrometry (LC/MS/MS) were compared for analyzing microcystins in water. ELISA results of microcystin‐LR spiked into raw water samples were close to the spike concentrations, but method variability was ±25%. However, ELISA‐derived microcystin‐LA concentrations were two to three times higher than the spike concentrations obtained using the kit‐provided microcystin‐LR standards, indicating the need for variant‐appropriate ELISA standards. LC/MS/MS results agreed with spike concentrations for all variants in reagent water, but matrix suppression was observed in some raw waters. In bench‐scale studies, ozonated microcystins generated low‐level positive responses by ELISA and a protein phosphatase inhibition assay, even though microcystins were not detected by LC/MS/MS. These findings indicate that ELISA results—particularly in treated water—should be interpreted with caution because of the possibility of false‐positives, relatively high variability, and differential detection of some variants.