4.5 Article

Ionic liquid/ionic liquid dispersive liquid-liquid microextraction

期刊

JOURNAL OF SEPARATION SCIENCE
卷 34, 期 7, 页码 830-836

出版社

WILEY-V C H VERLAG GMBH
DOI: 10.1002/jssc.201000802

关键词

High-performance liquid chromatography; Ionic liquid/ionic liquid dispersive liquid-liquid microextraction; Pyrethroid pesticides; Water samples

资金

  1. Natural Science Foundation of Shandong Province [ZR2010BL029]
  2. Scientific and Technological Developing Project of Shandong Province [2009GG20001021-9]
  3. State Key Laboratory of Environmental Chemistry and Ecotoxicology
  4. Research Center for Eco-Environmental Sciences
  5. Chinese Academy of Sciences [KF2010-25]
  6. Analysis and Test Center

向作者/读者索取更多资源

In this article, a novel and simple microextraction method, termed ionic liquid/ionic liquid dispersive liquid-liquid microextraction (IL/IL-DLLME), has been designed and developed for the rapid enrichment and analysis of environmental pollutants. Instead of using hazardous organic solvents, two kinds of ILs, hydrophobic IL and hydrophilic IL, were used as extraction solvent and disperser solvent in IL/IL-DLLME step, respectively. Permethrin and biphenthrin, two of the often-used pyrethroid pesticides, were used as model compounds. Factors that may affect the enrichment efficiencies were investigated and optimized in detail. Under optimum conditions, permethrin and biphenthrin exhibited a wide linear relationship over the range 1-100 mu g/L. For permethrin and biphenthrin, the precisions were 4.65-7.78%, and limits of detection were found to be 0.28 and 0.83 mu g/L, respectively. Satisfactory results were achieved when the present method was applied to analyze the target compounds in real-world water samples with spiked recoveries over the range 84.1-113.5%. All these facts indicated that IL/IL-DLLME is a simple and rapid alternative for the enrichment and analysis of environmental pollutants and will have a wide application perspective in the future.

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

4.5
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