4.6 Article

Ultra-preconcentration and determination of thirteen organophosphorus pesticides in water samples using solid-phase extraction followed by dispersive liquid-liquid microextraction and gas chromatography with flame photometric detection

Journal

JOURNAL OF CHROMATOGRAPHY A
Volume 1219, Issue -, Pages 61-65

Publisher

ELSEVIER
DOI: 10.1016/j.chroma.2011.11.019

Keywords

Dispersive liquid-liquid microextraction; Solid-phase extraction; Gas chromatography; Organophosphorus pesticides

Ask authors/readers for more resources

An ultra-preconcentration technique composed of solid-phase extraction (SPE) and dispersive liquid-liquid microextraction (DLLME) coupled with gas chromatography-flame photometric detection (GC-FPD) was used for determination of thirteen organophosphorus pesticides (OPPs) including phorate, diazinon, disolfotane, methyl parathion, sumithion, chlorpyrifos, malathion, fenthion, profenphose, ethion, phosalone, azinphose-methyl and co-ral in aqueous samples. The analytes were collected from large volumes of aqueous solutions (100 mL) into 100 mg of a SPE C-18 sorbent. The effective variables of SPE including type and volume of elution solvent, volume and flow rate of sample solution, and salt concentration were investigated and optimized. Acetone was selected as eluent in SPE and disperser solvent in DLLME and chlorobenzene was used as extraction solvent. Under the optimal conditions, the enrichment factors were between 15,160 and 21,000 and extraction recoveries were 75.8-105.0%. The linear range was 1-10,000 ng L-1 and limits of detection (LODs) were between 0.2 and 1.5 ng L-1. The relative standard deviations (RSDs) for 50 ng L-1 of OPPs in water with and without an internal standard, were in the range of 1.4-7.9% (n = 5) and 4.0-11.6%. respectively. The relative recoveries of OPPs from well and farm water sat spiking levels of 25 and 250 ng L-1 were 88-109%. (C) 2011 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