4.6 Article

Determination of polycyclic aromatic hydrocarbons and polycylic aromatic sulfur heterocycles by high-performance liquid chromatography with fluorescence and atmospheric pressure chemical ionization mass spectrometry detection in seawater and sediment samples

Journal

JOURNAL OF CHROMATOGRAPHY A
Volume 958, Issue 1-2, Pages 141-148

Publisher

ELSEVIER SCIENCE BV
DOI: 10.1016/S0021-9673(02)00386-2

Keywords

water analysis; sediment; polynuclear aromatic hydrocarbons; polynuclear aromatic sulfur heterocycles

Ask authors/readers for more resources

Two methods for determining 10 polycyclic aromatic compounds were developed. Both methods were based on high-performance liquid chromatography (HPLC), but one method used fluorescence detection, while the other used atmospheric pressure chemical ionization mass spectrometry (APCI-MS). For water analysis, solid-phase extraction (SPE) was on-line coupled to the separation system. Using a styrene-divinylbenzene copolymer (PLRP-s) as sorbent in the SPE and adding 20% of acetonitrile to the water sample before its preconcentration, recoveries were above 70% for most of the compounds. For the fluorescence method, all compounds were detected and six of them could be quantified at concentrations higher than 0.02 mug l(-1). For the MS detection method, only seven of the compounds were detected and six were quantified at concentrations higher than 0.06 mug l(-1). To analyse sediment samples, an extraction with dichloromethane was used and, due to the complexity of the matrix, a standard addition calibration was carried out. Seawater and sediment samples taken from the Tarragona fishing port and marina on the coast of Catalonia (Spain) were analysed, and five compounds (benzo[b]fluoranthene, benzo[k]fluoranthene, benzo[a]pyrene, benzo[ghi]perylene and indeno[1,2,3-cd]pyrene) were quantified in the sediment samples. (C) 2002 Elsevier Science 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