4.6 Article

Membrane assisted solvent extraction coupled to large volume injection-gas chromatography-mass spectrometry for trace analysis of synthetic musks in environmental water samples

Journal

JOURNAL OF CHROMATOGRAPHY A
Volume 1227, Issue -, Pages 38-47

Publisher

ELSEVIER
DOI: 10.1016/j.chroma.2011.12.104

Keywords

Synthetic musk fragrances; Membrane based extraction techniques; Large volume injection; Optimisation; Environmental water samples

Funding

  1. Spanish Ministry of Science and Innovation [CTM2011-21599]
  2. Basque Government

Ask authors/readers for more resources

This work describes the optimisation, validation and application of membrane assisted solvent extraction (MASE) together with a large volume injection (LVI) in a programmable temperature vaporisation (PTV) injector coupled to gas chromatography-mass spectrometry (GC-MS) for the quantification of ten synthetic musk fragrances (musks) in surface and wastewater samples. Regarding the MASE, musks were extracted from 150 mL of aqueous samples to 200 mu L of n-hexane hold in home-made low density polyethylene (LDPE) bags. The extraction took 240 min and the performance of the method made possible the direct analysis of the extracts by LVI-PTV-GC-MS without needing any further treatment and avoiding losses of analytes. During the optimisation of LVI-PTV set-up, the response surfaces of every analyte signal against the cryo-focussing temperature, injection speed and vent time were built. Finally, the figures of merit of the whole procedure allowed the analysis of most of the musks owing to the low method detection limits (between 4 and 25 ng L-1) and good precisions (<20%). In fact, this method was successfully applied to the analysis of musks in surface and wastewater samples. Galaxolide and tonalide are the main two synthetic musks observed in most of the analysed environmental water samples. (C) 2012 Elsevier B.V. All rights reserved.

Authors

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

Reviews

Primary Rating

4.6
Not enough ratings

Secondary Ratings

Novelty
-
Significance
-
Scientific rigor
-
Rate this paper

Recommended

No Data Available
No Data Available