4.6 Article

Magnetic solid-phase extraction based on [60]fullerene functionalization of magnetic nanoparticles for the determination of sixteen polycyclic aromatic hydrocarbons in tea samples

Journal

JOURNAL OF CHROMATOGRAPHY A
Volume 1578, Issue -, Pages 53-60

Publisher

ELSEVIER SCIENCE BV
DOI: 10.1016/j.chroma.2018.10.010

Keywords

[60]fullerene; Magnetic solid-phase extraction; Polycyclic aromatic hydrocarbons; Tea; GC-MS

Funding

  1. National Natural Science Foundation of China [21607003]
  2. Science and Technology Project of General Administration of Quality Supervision, Inspection and Quarantine [2016IK002, 2017IK175]
  3. Anhui Provincial Key Research and Development Program [1704f0804052]

Ask authors/readers for more resources

[60]Fullerene functionalized magnetic nanoparticles (Fe3O4@SiO2@C-60) were prepared and characterized by transmission electron microscope, vibrating sample magnetometer and infrared spectroscopy. The Fe3O4@SiO2@C-60 was then applied for the magnetic solid-phase extraction of 16 priority pollutants polycyclic aromatic hydrocarbons (PAHs) in tea samples. The analyses were performed on gas chromatography-mass spectrometry (GC-MS) using selected ion monitoring (SIM) mode. Parameters affecting the extraction, including sorbent amount, desorption solvent, salt concentration, pH and extraction time were investigated. Under optimized conditions, the developed method based on Fe3O4@SiO2@C-60 gave detection limits of 0.8-14.3 ng L-1, and quantification limits of 2.6-47.6 ng L-1 for 16 PAHs, respectively. The spiked recoveries of the target PAHs in tea samples ranged from 92.4% to 106.9%. The intra-day and inter-day relative standard deviations (RSDs) were lower than 8.7% and 10.6%, respectively. These results demonstrated that the established method could be applied to the analysis of PAHs at trace level in tea samples. (C) 2018 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