4.7 Article

Determination of polycyclic aromatic hydrocarbons using lab on valve dispersive liquid-liquid microextraction coupled to high performance chromatography

Journal

TALANTA
Volume 138, Issue -, Pages 190-195

Publisher

ELSEVIER SCIENCE BV
DOI: 10.1016/j.talanta.2015.02.007

Keywords

Dispersive liquid-liquid microextraction; Experimental design; HPLC; Polycyclic aromatic hydrocarbons

Funding

  1. Spanish Ministry of Economy and Competitiveness (MINECO) [CTQ2013-47461-R]
  2. FEDER funds
  3. Conselleria d'Educacio, Cultura I Universitats from the Government of the Balearic Islands
  4. Fondo Social Europeo [AP2007-03788]

Ask authors/readers for more resources

In this work, dispersive liquid-liquid microextraction (DLLME) method was applied for high performance liquid chromatography (HPLC) determination of 15 PAHs in aqueous matrices. The extraction procedure was automated using a system of multisyringe flow injection analysis coupled to HPLC instrument with fluorescence detector. Factors affecting the extraction process, such as type and volume of extraction and dispersive solvent extraction time and centrifugation step were investigated thoroughly and optimized utilizing' factorial design. The best recovery was achieved using 100 mu L of trichloroethylene as the extraction solvent and 900 mu L of acetonitrile as the dispersive solvent The results showed that extraction time has no effect on the recovery of PAHs. The enrichment factors of PAHs were in the range of 86-95 with limits of detection of 0.02-0.6 mu g L-1. The linearity was 02-600 mu g L-1 for different PAHs. The relative standard deviation (RSD) for intra- and inter-day of extraction of PAHs were in the range of 1.6-4.7 and 2.1-53, respectively, for five measurements. The developed method was used to assess the occurrence of 15 PAHs in tap water, rain waters and river surface waters samples. (C) 2015 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

4.7
Not enough ratings

Secondary Ratings

Novelty
-
Significance
-
Scientific rigor
-
Rate this paper

Recommended

No Data Available
No Data Available