4.7 Article

Ultra-trace determination of Cr (VI) ions in real water samples after electromembrane extraction through novel nanostructured polyaniline reinforced hollow fibers followed by electrothermal atomic absorption spectrometry

期刊

MICROCHEMICAL JOURNAL
卷 143, 期 -, 页码 212-219

出版社

ELSEVIER SCIENCE BV
DOI: 10.1016/j.microc.2018.08.014

关键词

Polyaniline; Electromembrane extraction; Selective extraction; Electrothermal atomic absorption spectrometry; Real water samples

资金

  1. Research Affairs of Shahid Beheshti University

向作者/读者索取更多资源

In this study, a combination of nanostructured polyaniline reinforced electromembrane extraction (EME) and electrothermal atomic absorption spectrometry (ETAAS) was employed for the separation and extraction of ultra-trace levels of Cr(VI) from real water samples. In this regard, polyaniline (PANI) decorated hollow fibers were made via electrochemical polymerization of aniline in an acidified medium. The extraction performance and selectivity of Cr(VI) via the anion exchange process were improved because of the existence of nanostructured PANI in the hollow fiber pores. The effective surface area of PANI nanostructure increased the separation performance by enhancing the possible interactions of PANI with Cr(VI) via anion exchange mechanism. The influential factors on extraction such as pH, extraction solvent, agitation speed, extraction time, and applied potential were systematically evaluated. In optimized conditions, a good linearity between 0.02 and 2 ng mL(-1) (R-2 value = 0.9972), superb enrichment factor (106), and good repeatability (RSD%, n = 4, 8.9%) for 1.0 ng mL(-1) of Cr(VI) solution were achieved. In addition, the extraction recovery was equal to 70.6% in this condition and the detection limit (S/N ratio of 3:1) and limit of quantification (S/N ratio of 10:1) were 0.006 and 0.02 ng mL(-1), respectively. Finally, the recommended method was employed with success to determine trace amounts of Cr(VI) ions in real water samples.

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

4.7
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