4.7 Article

Determination of mercury(II) in water samples using dispersive liquid-liquid microextraction and back extraction along with capillary zone electrophoresis

期刊

MICROCHIMICA ACTA
卷 175, 期 3-4, 页码 301-308

出版社

SPRINGER WIEN
DOI: 10.1007/s00604-011-0679-z

关键词

Back extraction; Capillary zone electrophoresis; Dispersive liquid-liquid microextraction; Mercury; Water samples

资金

  1. National Natural Science Foundation of China [20975089]
  2. Chinese Academy of Sciences [KZCX2-EW-206]
  3. Department of Science and Technology of Shandong Province of China [2008GG20005005]
  4. Natural Science Foundation of Shandong Province of China [ZR2010BQ027]
  5. Science and technology support project of Qingdao Public domain [09-1-1-55-nsh]
  6. Yantai Research and Development Program of China [2010158]

向作者/读者索取更多资源

We have developed a method for the determination of mercury in water samples that combines dispersive liquid-liquid microextraction (DLLME) with back-extraction (BE) and detection by capillary zone electrophoresis. DLLME is found to be a simple, cost-effective and rapid method for extraction and preconcentration. The BE procedure is based on the fact that the stability constant of the hydrophilic chelate of Hg(II) with L-cysteine is much larger than that of the respective complex with 1-(2-pyridylazo)-2-naphthol. Factors affecting complex formation and extraction efficiency (such as pH value, concentration of the chelating agent, time of ultrasonication and extraction, and type and quantity of disperser solvent) were optimized. Under the optimal conditions, the enrichment factor is 625, and the limit of detection is 0.62 mu g L-1. The calibration plot is linear in the range between 1 and 1,000 mu g L-1 (R (2) = 0.9991), and the relative standard deviation (RSD, for n = 6) is 4.1%. Recoveries were determined with tap water and seawater spiked at levels of 10 and 100 mu g L-1, respectively, and ranged from 86.6% to 95.1%, with corresponding RSDs of 3.95-5.90%.

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