4.6 Article

A new 1,3-dibutylimidazolium hexafluorophosphate ionic liquid-based dispersive liquid-liquid microextraction to determine organophosphorus pesticides in water and fruit samples by high-performance liquid chromatography

期刊

JOURNAL OF CHROMATOGRAPHY A
卷 1217, 期 31, 页码 5013-5020

出版社

ELSEVIER SCIENCE BV
DOI: 10.1016/j.chroma.2010.05.057

关键词

1,3-Dibutylimidazolium; hexafluorophosphate ionic liquid; Dispersive liquid-liquid microextraction; Organophosphorus pesticide; High-performance liquid chromatography

资金

  1. National Natural Science Foundation of China [20905020]
  2. Major Research and Public Service Tender of Henan Province

向作者/读者索取更多资源

The paper described a new ionic liquid, 1,3-dibutylimidazolium hexafluorophosphate, as extraction solvent for extraction and preconcentration of organophosphorus pesticides (fenitrothion, parathion, fenthion and phoxim) from water and fruit samples by dispersive liquid-liquid microextraction combined with high-performance liquid chromatography. The effects of experimental parameters, such as extraction solvent volume, disperser solvent and its volume, extraction and centrifugal time, sample pH, extraction temperature and salt addition, on the extraction efficiency were investigated. An extraction recovery of over 75% and enrichment factor of over 300-fold were obtained under the optimum conditions. The linearity relationship was also observed in the range of 5-1000 mu g L-1 with the correlation coefficients (r(2)) ranging from 0.9988 to 0.9999. Limits of detection were 0.01-0.05 mu g L-1 for four analytes. The relative standard deviations at spiking three different concentration levels of 20, 100 and 500 mu g L-1 varied from 1.3-2.7, 1.4-1.9 and 1.1-1.7% (n=7), respectively. Three real samples including tap water, Yellow River water and pear spiked at three concentration levels were analyzed and yielded recoveries ranging from 92.7-109.1, 95.0-108.2 and 91.2-108.1%, respectively. (C) 2010 Elsevier B.V. All rights reserved.

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

4.6
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