4.5 Article

Supercritical fluid extraction combined with dispersive liquid-liquid microextraction as a sensitive and efficient sample preparation method for determination of organic compounds in solid samples

期刊

JOURNAL OF SUPERCRITICAL FLUIDS
卷 55, 期 1, 页码 161-168

出版社

ELSEVIER SCIENCE BV
DOI: 10.1016/j.supflu.2010.07.008

关键词

Dispersive liquid-liquid microextraction; Polycyclic aromatic hydrocarbons; Supercritical fluid extraction; Marine sediments

向作者/读者索取更多资源

The supercritical fluid extraction (SFE) followed by the dispersive liquid-liquid microextraction (DLLME) has been developed for extraction and determination of polycyclic aromatic hydrocarbons (PAHs) in marine sediments. PAHs were employed as model compounds to assess the extraction procedure and were determined by gas chromatography-flame ionization detection (GC-FID). SFE of PAHs was performed at 313 K and 253.2 bar, at static and dynamic times 10 and 30 min, respectively. The extracted PAHs were collected in 1 mL of acetonitrile. Subsequently, 16 mu l of chlorobenzene (as extraction solvent) was added to collecting solvent (1.0 mL of acetonitrile). Then, the resulted mixture was injected into 5.0 mL of aqueous solution, rapidly. After centrifugation, the PAHs in the sedimented phase were analyzed by GC-FID. Effects of significant parameters on the extraction in SFE and DLLME methods were investigated. Under the optimum conditions, the calibration plots were linear in the range of 0.4-41.6 mg kg and the limits of detection CLODS) were 0.2 mg kg(-1) for all of the analytes. Analysis of PAHs in different solid samples showed that the improved technique has great potential for PAHs analysis in marine sediments. SFE-DLLME leads to high preconcentration factor, easy use of DLLME in solid samples and solving the main problem of SFE that is the extra step (vaporization of large volume of toxic organic solvent) after extraction needed prior to final analysis. (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

4.5
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