4.7 Article

Optimization of a Solid-Phase Extraction Method Using Centrifugation for the Determination of 16 Polycyclic Aromatic Hydrocarbons in Water

Journal

JOURNAL OF AGRICULTURAL AND FOOD CHEMISTRY
Volume 59, Issue 14, Pages 7592-7600

Publisher

AMER CHEMICAL SOC
DOI: 10.1021/jf200123v

Keywords

polycyclic aromatic hydrocarbons (PAHs); solid-phase extraction (SPE); centrifugation; organic contaminants; water; gas chromatographic-mass spectrometric analysis (GC-MS)

Funding

  1. Lebanese National Council for Scientific Research CNRSL
  2. Lebanese Atomic Energy Commission LAEC
  3. Agence Universitaire de la Francophonie AUF
  4. Lebanese University UL

Ask authors/readers for more resources

A fast and reliable method for the determination of polycyclic aromatic hydrocarbons (PM-is) in water samples by solid-phase extraction (SPE) using centrifugation has been developed and optimized. A silica-based C18 cartridge was used; parameters affecting the extraction procedure such as type and volume of the elution solvent, breakthrough volume of the percolated water sample, drying of the sorbent, and evaporation of the elute have been studied. The innovation of this work was the examination of the use of a centrifugation technique in both the drying and elution steps. When combined with centrifugation, the volume of the elution solvent was reduced to 1 mL and the time for sorbent drying decreased also to 10 min under vacuum. Under optimal conditions, recoveries for the 16 U.S. EPA PAT-Is were between 70 and 85% and the relative standard deviation varied between 1 and 14%. Surrogate standard recoveries were similarly between 61 and 94% with a relative standard deviation between 2 and 15%. The simplicity of the described method, use of less of organic solvent, short procedure time, and good recoveries demonstrate the advantages of this environmentally friendly approach for routine analysis of numerous samples.

Authors

I am an author on this paper
Click your name to claim this paper and add it to your profile.

Reviews

Primary Rating

4.7
Not enough ratings

Secondary Ratings

Novelty
-
Significance
-
Scientific rigor
-
Rate this paper

Recommended

No Data Available
No Data Available