4.6 Article

Evaluation of eggshell membrane-based bio-adsorbent for solid-phase extraction of linear alkylbenzene sulfonates coupled with high-performance liquid chromatography

期刊

JOURNAL OF CHROMATOGRAPHY A
卷 1217, 期 36, 页码 5659-5664

出版社

ELSEVIER SCIENCE BV
DOI: 10.1016/j.chroma.2010.07.017

关键词

Eggshell membrane; Solid-phase extraction; Linear alkylbenzene sulfonate; High-performance liquid chromatography; Bio-adsorbent

资金

  1. Chongqing Science and Technology Commission [2006AA7003]
  2. Key Laboratory of Eco-environments in Three Gorges Reservoir Region (Ministry of Education)

向作者/读者索取更多资源

The potential of eggshell membrane (ESM) as a novel solid-phase extraction bio-adsorbent was investigated in the present study. The ESM with a unique structure of intricate lattice network showed a predominant ability to capture linear alkylbenzene sulfonates (LAS) as a model of organic pollutants by the hydrophobic interactions between ESM and LAS molecular at pH very close to the isoelectric point of ESM, which was similar to the most widely used trapping mechanism for SPE. Under the optimal conditions, the breakthrough capacities of the ESM packed cartridge for C10-C13 LAS homologues were found to be 30, 53, 50, and 43 mu g g(-1), respectively. On the basis of high-performance liquid chromatography separation and UV detection of LAS homologues, the proposed system could respond down to 0.027 ng mL(-1) of LAS with a linear calibration range from 0.2 to 100 ng mL(-1), showing a good LAS enrichment ability of eggshell membrane biomaterial with high sensitivity, and could be successfully used for the detection of residual LAS in environmental water samples. The reproducibility among columns was satisfactory (RSD among columns is less than 10%). A comparison study with ESM. C8 and C18 as adsorbents for LAS demonstrated that ESM-based bio-adsorbent was advantageous over C8 and C18, the widely used traditional adsorbents. (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