4.7 Article

Integrated lab-on-a-valve platform incorporating a sorbent microcolumn and membraneless gas-liquid separation for cold vapor generation-atomic fluorescence spectrometric assays

期刊

JOURNAL OF ANALYTICAL ATOMIC SPECTROMETRY
卷 25, 期 11, 页码 1717-1723

出版社

ROYAL SOC CHEMISTRY
DOI: 10.1039/c0ja00002g

关键词

-

资金

  1. Spanish Ministry of Education and Science [CTQ2007-64331, CTM2010-17214]

向作者/读者索取更多资源

An automatic mesofluidic cold-vapor atomic fluorescence spectrometric method is herein developed for on-line sample processing and trace level determination of inorganic mercury capitalized on a lab-on-a-valve (LOV) manifold, which integrates a readily exchangeable commercially available sorptive micro-cartridge, a microscale reaction chamber for in-line vapour generation and a membraneless gas-liquid separator. The uptake of mercury(II) is accomplished onto the surfaces of reversed-phase co-polymeric Oasis (TM) HLB beads, containing a balanced ratio of hydrophilic and lipophilic monomers [namely, poly(divinylbenzene-co-N-vinylpyrrolidone)], without need of any extra chelate reagent. The preconcentrated analyte is eluted by a mixture of hydrochloric and nitric acid, merged downstream with a metered volume of tin(II) chloride and transported into the integrated reaction chamber/gas-liquid separator (RC-GLS). The generated cold vapor is monitored using a peripheral atomic fluorescence spectrometer. The detection limit and repeatability (RSD) are found to be 0.04 mu g L-1 and 3.8% (at 10.0 mu g L(-1)concentration level), respectively, for 9 mL sample. The proposed LOV mesofluidic system can also be effectively used without sorptive preconcentration by loading a metered volume of sample (<= 3 mL) into the RC-GLS. The detection limit and precision for direct analysis of samples are estimated to be 0.1 mu g L-1 and 2.9%, respectively. The applicability and reliability of the automated miniaturized method are ascertained through the analysis of spiked environmental waters.

作者

我是这篇论文的作者
点击您的名字以认领此论文并将其添加到您的个人资料中。

评论

主要评分

4.7
评分不足

次要评分

新颖性
-
重要性
-
科学严谨性
-
评价这篇论文

推荐

暂无数据
暂无数据