4.6 Article

Oxidized multi-walled carbon nanotubes for the dispersive solid-phase extraction of quinolone antibiotics from water samples using capillary electrophoresis and large volume sample stacking with polarity switching

期刊

JOURNAL OF CHROMATOGRAPHY A
卷 1218, 期 31, 页码 5352-5361

出版社

ELSEVIER SCIENCE BV
DOI: 10.1016/j.chroma.2011.06.031

关键词

Quinolones; Oxidized multi-walled carbon nanotubes; Dispersive solid-phase extraction; Capillary zone electrophoresis; Large volume sample stacking with polarity switching; Water

资金

  1. Spanish Ministry of Education
  2. Spanish Ministry of Science and Innovation [AGL2008-00990/ALI, AGL2009-07884/ALI]

向作者/读者索取更多资源

In this work, a new method for the determination of eleven quinolone antibiotics (moxifloxacin, lomefloxacin, danofloxacin, ciprofloxacin, levofloxacin, marbofloxacin, enrofloxacin, difloxacin, pefloxacin, oxolinic acid and flumequine) in different water samples using dispersive solid-phase extraction (dSPE) and capillary zone electrophoresis with diode-array detection was developed. Oxidized multi-walled carbon nanotubes (o-MWCNTs) were used for the first time as stationary phases for the off-line preconcentration by dSPE of the antibiotics. A 65 mM phosphate buffer at pH 8.5 was found adequate for analyte separation while large volume sample stacking with polarity switching of the analytes dissolved in water containing 10% (v/v) of acetonitrile was carried out in order to improve the sensitivity. dSPE parameters, such as sample volume and pH, o-MWCNT amount, volume and type of eluent in dSPE were optimized. Application of the developed method to the analysis of spiked Milli-Q mineral, tap, and wastewater samples resulted in good recoveries values ranging from 62.3 to 116% with relative standard deviation values lower than 7.7% in all cases. Limits of detection were in the range of 28-94 ng/L. The proposed method is very fast, simple, repeatable, accurate and highly selective. (C) 2011 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