4.7 Article

Determination of six sulfonamide antibiotics, two metabolites and trimethoprim in wastewater by isotope dilution liquid chromatography/tandem mass spectrometry

期刊

TALANTA
卷 89, 期 -, 页码 407-416

出版社

ELSEVIER
DOI: 10.1016/j.talanta.2011.12.053

关键词

Antibiotic; Sulfonamide; Trimethoprim; Wastewater; Sludge; Liquid chromatography; Mass spectrometry; LC-MS; Analytical method

向作者/读者索取更多资源

A highly sensitive method for the analysis of six sulfonamide antibiotics (sulfadiazine, sulfathiazole, sulfapyridine, sulfamerazine, sulfamethazine and sulfamethoxazole), two sulfonamide metabolites (N-4-acetyl sulfamethazine and N-4-acetyl sulfamethoxazole) and the commonly co-applied antibiotic trimethoprim was developed for the analysis of complex wastewater samples. The method involves solid phase extraction of filtered wastewater samples followed by liquid chromatography-tandem mass spectral detection. Method detection limits were shown to be matrix-dependant but ranged between 0.2 and 0.4 ng/mL for ultrapure water, 0.4 and 0.7 ng/mL for tap water, 1.4 and 5.9 ng/mL for a laboratory-scale membrane bioreactor (MBR) mixed liquor, 0.7 and 1.7 ng/mL for biologically treated effluent and 0.5 and 1.5 ng/g dry weight for MBR activated sludge. An investigation of analytical matrix effects was undertaken, demonstrating the significant and largely unpredictable nature of signal suppression observed for variably complex matrices compared to an ultrapure water matrix. The results demonstrate the importance of accounting for such matrix effects for accurate quantitation, as done in the presented method by isotope dilution. Comprehensive validation of calibration linearity, reproducibility, extraction recovery, limits of detection and quantification are also presented. Finally, wastewater samples from a variety of treatment stages in a full-scale wastewater treatment plant were analysed to illustrate the effectiveness of the method. (C) 2011 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

4.7
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