4.7 Article

Electrodeposited histidine-(CuCr)layered double hydroxides/carbon dots for in-tube solid-phase microextraction of chlorophenols from water, juice, and honey samples followed by HPLC-UV

Journal

TALANTA
Volume 268, Issue -, Pages -

Publisher

ELSEVIER
DOI: 10.1016/j.talanta.2023.125276

Keywords

Carbon dots; Chlorophenols; Electrodeposition; In-tube solid-phase microextraction; Layered double hydroxides

Ask authors/readers for more resources

A novel adsorbent consisting of carbon dots, CuCr-layered double hydroxides, and L-histidine was successfully applied for in-tube solid-phase microextraction of chlorophenols. Through optimization of various parameters, good separation and measurement results were achieved, enabling accurate detection of chlorophenols in water samples.
A novel adsorbent consisting of a composition of carbon dots and CuCr-layered double hydroxides intercalated with L-histidine (C-dots@His/LDHs) was introduced. This adsorbent was electrochemically deposited on the inner surface of a capillary copper tube. It was used as an adsorbent for in-tube solid-phase microextraction of chlorophenols (CPs). Separation and measurement of CPs were done by high-performance liquid chromatography-ultraviolet detector. The main parameters which had the most impact on the extraction efficiency and time such as extraction time and flow rate, desorption time and flow rate, ionic strength (salt concentration) and pH were optimized. Calibration curves (0.5-1000 mu g L-1) were plotted in real sample (tap water) under optimal conditions which coefficients of determination better than 0.9893 and relative recoveries in the range of 88-120 % were obtained. The limits of detection (S/N = 3) and limits of quantification (S/N = 10) were obtained in the range of 0.1-1.0 mu g L-1 and 0.3-3.0 mu g L-1, respectively. The intra- and inter-assay precisions (RSD%, n = 3) were better than 5.9 and 8.8 %, respectively.

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