4.6 Article

Tuning the selectivity of polymeric ionic liquid sorbent coatings for the extraction of polycyclic aromatic hydrocarbons using solid-phase microextraction

期刊

JOURNAL OF CHROMATOGRAPHY A
卷 1217, 期 40, 页码 6143-6152

出版社

ELSEVIER SCIENCE BV
DOI: 10.1016/j.chroma.2010.08.007

关键词

Ionic liquid; Solid-phase microextraction; Polymeric ionic liquid; Polycyclic aromatic hydrocarbon; Gas chromatography

资金

  1. Division of Chemistry
  2. Chemical, Environmental, Bioengineering, and Transport Systems Division from the National Science Foundation [CHE-0748612]

向作者/读者索取更多资源

A new generation polymeric ionic liquid (PIL), poly(1-4-vinylbenzyl)-3-hexadecylimidazolium bis[(trifluoromethyl)sulfonyl]imide (poly(VBHDIm(+) NTf2-)), was synthesized and is shown to exhibit impressive selectivity towards the extraction of 12 polycyclic aromatic hydrocarbons (PAHs) from aqueous samples when used as a sorbent coating in direct-immersion solid-phase microextraction (SPME) coupled to gas chromatography (GC). The PIL was imparted with aromatic character to enhance pi-pi interactions between the analytes and the sorbent coating. For comparison purposes, a PIL with similar structure but lacking the pi-pi interaction capability, poly(1-vinyl-3-hexadecylimidazolium bis[(tritluoromethyl)sulfonyl]imide) (poly(HDIm(+) NTf2-)), as well as a commercial polydimethylsiloxane (PDMS) sorbent coating were evaluated and exhibited much lower extraction efficiencies. Extraction parameters, including stir rate and extraction time, were studied and optimized. The detection limits of poly(VBHDIm(+) NTf2-), poly(HDIm(+) NTf2-), and PDMS coatings varied between 0.003-0.07 mu g L-1, 0.02-0.6 mu g L-1, and 0.1-6 mu g L-1, respectively. The partition coefficients (logK(fs)) of eight PAHs to the three studied fiber coatings were estimated using a static SPME approach. This study represents the first report of analyte partition coefficients to any PIL-based material. (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