Reviewing neonicotinoid detection with electroanalytical methods

Abstract

Neonicotinoids, as the fastest-growing class of insecticides, currently account for over 25% of the global pesticide market. Their effectiveness in controlling a wide range of pests that pose a threat to croplands, home yards/gardens, and golf course greens cannot be denied. However, the extensive use of neonicotinoids has resulted in significant declines in nontarget organisms such as pollinators, insects, and birds. Furthermore, the potential chronic, sublethal effects of these compounds on human health remain largely unknown. To address these pressing issues, it is crucial to explore and understand the capabilities of electrochemical sensors in detecting neonicotinoid residues. Surprisingly, despite the increasing importance of this topic, no comprehensive review article currently exists in the literature. Therefore, our proposed review aims to bridge this gap by providing a thorough analysis of the use of electrochemical methods for neonicotinoid determination. In this review article, we will delve into various aspects of electrochemical analysis, including the influence of electrode materials, employed techniques, and the different types of electrode mechanisms utilized. By synthesizing and analysing the existing research in this field, our review will offer valuable insights and guidance to researchers, scientists, and policymakers alike.

Keywords: Determination; Electroanalysis; Electrochemical analysis; Neonicotinoid; Pesticide; Voltammetry.

Fig. 1

Chemical structure of neonicotinoids and their generation class assignment

Fig. 2

Cyclic (A) and differential pulse voltammogram (B) represent the electrochemical behaviour of 10⁻³ M clothianidin in pH 6 BR buffer solution at bare PGE. The potential sweeps applied between − 0.4 and − 1.2 V with the scan rate 20 mV s⁻¹. Reproduced from Öndeş and Muti (2020) with permission

Fig. 3

SW CSV voltammogram of 3 × 10^–6 M clothianidin in BR buffer pH 8.1; conditions: frequency 50 Hz, amplitude 25 mV, step potential 5 mV, t_acc = 30 s at 0 V. Blank (1), added clothianidin (2). Inset: clothianidin structure. Reproduced from Guziejewski et al. (2011) with permission

Fig. 4

Cyclic voltammograms of the three electrodes, MSE, GCE, and CPE, in the potential range of 0 to − 1600 mV versus Ag/AgCl with a scan rate of 50 mV s⁻¹, 1.0 × 10⁻³ mol L⁻¹ of thiamethoxam in BR buffer (pH 10.4). Reproduced from Ajermoun et al. (2019) with permission

Fig. 5

SEM images of (a) bare GCE, (b) GNs/GCE, and AgNDs/GNs/GCE synthesized under applied time of 120 s and applied potential of (c) + 0.1 V, (d) − 0.1 V, (e) − 0.3 V, AgNDs/GNs/GCE synthesized under applied potential of − 0.3 V and applied time of (f) 60 s, (g) 120 s, and (h) 180 s. Reproduced from Majidi and Ghaderi (2017) with permission

Fig. 6

Schematic diagram of the procedure for the preparation of MIP-GN/GCE and concept for the selective electrochemical detection of thiamethoxam. Reproduced from Xie et al. (2017) with permission

Fig. 7

The mechanism of electrocatalytic reduction of imidacloprid, thiamethoxam, and dinotefuran at the N/NiCu@C/GCE. Reproduced from Zhangsun et al. (2022) with permission

Fig. 8

The proposed schematic electroreduction mechanism of (A) clothianidin, (B1) nitenpyram in pH < 9, and (B2) nitenpyram in pH > 9