Verification of performance with the automated direct optical TIRF immunosensor (River Analyser) in single and multi-analyte assays with real water samples

• Published in: Biosensors & bioelectronics 2004-11, Vol.20 (4), p.743-752
• Main Authors: Tschmelak, Jens, Proll, Guenther, Gauglitz, Guenter
• Format: Article
• Language: English
• Subjects: Atrazine - analysis; Benzhydryl Compounds; Biosensing Techniques - instrumentation; Biosensing Techniques - methods; Endocrine disrupting chemicals; Endocrine disrupting compounds; Environmental analysis; Environmental Monitoring - instrumentation; Environmental Monitoring - methods; Equipment Design; Equipment Failure Analysis; Estrone - analysis; Flow Injection Analysis - instrumentation; Flow Injection Analysis - methods; Fluorescence Polarization Immunoassay - instrumentation; Fluorescence Polarization Immunoassay - methods; Microchemistry - instrumentation; Microchemistry - methods; Optical immunosensor; Optics and Photonics - instrumentation; Pesticides; Phenols - analysis; Reproducibility of Results; River Analyser (RIANA); Sensitivity and Specificity; Statistical methods; Water Pollutants, Chemical - analysis
• ISSN: 0956-5663; 1873-4235
• DOI: 10.1016/j.bios.2004.04.006

In order to verify the reproducibility, precision, and robustness of the optical immunosensor River Analyser (RIANA), we investigated two common statistical methods to evaluate the limit of detection (LOD) and the limit of quantification (LOQ). Therefore, we performed a simultaneous multi-analyte calibration with atrazine, bisphenol A, and estrone in Milli-Q water. Using an automated biosensor, it was possible for the first time to achieve a LOD below 0.020 μg L −1 using a common statistically based method without sample pre-treatment and pre-concentration for each of the analytes in a simultaneous multi-analyte calibration. This biosensor setup shows values comparable to those obtained by more classical analytical methods. Based on this calibration, we measured spiked and un-spiked real water samples with complex matrices (samples from different water bodies, from ground water sources, and tap water samples). The comparison between our River Analyser and common analytical methods (like GC–MS and HPLC–DAD) shows overall comparable values for all three analytes. Furthermore, a calibration of isoproturon (IPU) (in single analyte mode) resulted in a LOD of 0.016 μg L −1, and a LOQ of 0.091 μg L −1. In compliance with guidelines of the Association of Analytical Communities International (AOAC), six out of nine recovery rates (recovery rate: measured concentration divided by real concentration in percent) for three surface water samples with different matrices (spiked and un-spiked) could be obtained between 70 and 120% (recovery rates between 70 and 120%, as demanded by the guidelines of the AOAC International). The reproducibility was checked by measuring replica of each sample within independent repetitions. Robustness could be demonstrated by long-term stability tests of the biosensor surface. These studies show that the biosensor used offers the necessary reproducibility, precision, and robustness required for an analytical method.