Journal
JOURNAL OF CHROMATOGRAPHY A
Volume 1300, Issue -, Pages 70-78Publisher
ELSEVIER
DOI: 10.1016/j.chroma.2013.02.033
Keywords
Air-agitated liquid-liquid micro-extraction; Dispersive liquid-liquid micro-extraction; Triazole pesticides; Gas chromatography
Funding
- Research Council of University of Tabriz
Ask authors/readers for more resources
Two micro-extraction methods, air-agitated liquid-liquid microextraction (AALLME) and dispersive. liquid-liquid microextraction (DLLME), have been compared with each other by applying them for the analysis of five triazole pesticides (penconazole, hexaconazole, diniconazole, tebuconazole and triticonazole) in aqueous samples by gas chromatography with flame ionization detection (GC-FID). In the AALLME method, which excludes any disperser solvent, much less volume of organic solvent is used. In order to form fine and dispersed organic droplets in the aqueous phase, the mixture of aqueous sample solution and extraction solvent is repeatedly aspirated and dispensed with a syringe. In the DLLME method, an appropriate mixture of extraction solvent and disperser solvent is rapidly injected by a syringe into the aqueous sample. Effect of the pertinent experimental factors on DLLME (i.e. identity and volume of the extraction and disperser solvents and ionic strength) and on AALLME (identity and volume of the extraction solvent, number of agitations, and ionic strength) were investigated. Under optimal conditions, limits of detection for the five target pesticides obtained by AALLME-GC-FID and DLLME-GC-FID ranged from 0.20 to 1.1 ng mL(-1) and 1.9 to 5.9 ng mL(-1), respectively. The relative standard deviations (RSDs, n=5) were in the range of 1-4% and 3-5% with the enrichment factors of 449-504 and 79-143 for AALLME-GC-FID and DLLME-GC-FID, respectively. Both of the compared methods are simple, fast, efficient, inexpensive and can be applied to the analysis of the five pesticides in different aqueous samples in which penconazole and hexaconazole were found. For spiked samples, the recoveries were in the ranges of 92-105%, and 92-104% for AALLME and DLLME, respectively. (C) 2013 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
Recommended
No Data Available