4.7 Article

Quantitative immunoassay for determining polyaromatic hydrocarbons in electrical insulating oils

Journal

ANALYTICA CHIMICA ACTA
Volume 450, Issue 1-2, Pages 13-25

Publisher

ELSEVIER SCIENCE BV
DOI: 10.1016/S0003-2670(01)01386-1

Keywords

immunoassay; polycyclic aromatic hydrocarbons; electrical insulating oils

Ask authors/readers for more resources

The development and application of a combined sample extraction and immunoassay protocol for the quantification of polyaromatic hydrocarbons (PAHs) in transformer oils is reported. Tests were performed on 12 different used transformer oils from three major manufacturers. The removal of matrix interferents was achieved by loading oil fractions onto silica solid phase extraction cartridges and eluting with non-polar solvent prior to evaporation and reconstitution in a more polar medium. Extracts were immunoassayed using two commercially available PAH test kits either having broad specificity towards priority PAHs or enhanced binding specificity toward more carcinogenic PAHs. The total and carcinogenic PAH test kits yielded PAH levels in the oil extracts 5.86-fold and 126-fold lower than the industry-standard IP346 method. The latter method, widely used by the industry, since it correlates with biological carcinogenicity tests, grossly over-estimates PAH levels in oils since it is a non-specific gravimetric solvent extraction approach. The assay was found to be unaffected by the extract sample matrix and was capable of determining PAHs at the nanogram per millilitre level. The assay protocol was simple, low-cost and rapid (<2 h) and equally amenable to operation at remote sites or high-throughput sample screening. The binding specificity of the total anti-PAH antibody was examined by preparing and loading an anti-PAH immunosorbent with oil, prior to solvent displacement of antibody-bound compounds and by gas chromatography (GC)-mass spectrometry (MS) analysis. (C) 2001 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

4.7
Not enough ratings

Secondary Ratings

Novelty
-
Significance
-
Scientific rigor
-
Rate this paper

Recommended

No Data Available
No Data Available