4.6 Article

Simultaneous determination of seven bisphenols in environmental water and solid samples by liquid chromatography-electrospray tandem mass spectrometry

期刊

JOURNAL OF CHROMATOGRAPHY A
卷 1328, 期 -, 页码 26-34

出版社

ELSEVIER SCIENCE BV
DOI: 10.1016/j.chroma.2013.12.074

关键词

Bisphenols; Liquid chromatography-tandem mass spectrometry; Environmental water; Sludge; Solid-phase extraction

资金

  1. National Natural Science Foundation of China [41273132, 21207008]
  2. Beijing Municipal Senior Technical Training Plan in Health Systems

向作者/读者索取更多资源

This article presents a simple and universal analytical method for the simultaneous analysis of bisphenol S (BPS), bisphenol F (BPF), bisphenol A (BPA), bisphenol B (BPB), bisphenol AF (BPAF), tetrachlorobisphenol A (TCBPA), and tetrabromobisphenol A (TBBPA) in environmental water (river water, sewage) and solid samples (sediment, sludge) based on liquid chromatography-electrospray tandem mass spectrometry (LC-MS/MS). Analytes were extracted from water samples using hydrophilic lipophilic balanced (HLB) solid-phase extraction (SPE) cartridges, and the extracts were further purified using MAX SPE cartridges. For the solid samples, a combination of ultrasonic extraction with the same SPE clean-up procedures used for the water samples was employed. The absolute recoveries for all analytes in the water and solid samples ranged from 57.1 to 114.3%. Good method reproducibility was achieved in terms of intra- and inter-day precision, yielding relative standard deviations (RSDs) less than 16.9 and 18.1%, respectively. The method limits of quantitation (MLOQ) for the seven compounds in environmental water and solid samples ranged from 0.05 to 4.35 ng/L and from 0.06 to 2.83 ng/g (dry weight, d.w.), respectively. Finally, this method was successfully applied to real environmental sample analysis, which revealed that all of the tested BPs were present, with the exception of BPB. (C) 2014 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