4.7 Article

Hollow fibre-based liquid-phase microextraction technique combined with gas chromatography-mass spectrometry for the determination of pyrethroid insecticides in water samples

期刊

TALANTA
卷 100, 期 -, 页码 246-253

出版社

ELSEVIER
DOI: 10.1016/j.talanta.2012.04.039

关键词

Pyrethroids; GC/MS; HF-LPME; Water samples

资金

  1. Bizkaia Council
  2. Basque Country Government [DIPE07/17, SAIOTEK S-PE09UN44, IT47-10]
  3. University of Basque Country

向作者/读者索取更多资源

A simple, easy-to-use, efficient and environmentally friendly method has been developed for the simultaneous analysis of nine pirethroid pesticides in water samples by the combination of hollow fibre-based liquid-phase microextraction (HF-LPME) and gas chromatography-mass spectrometry (GC/MS). For the developed method, nine pirethroid pesticides (esbiothrin, prallethrin, bifenthrin, tetramethrin, phenothrin, permethrin, cyfluthrin, cypermethrin and deltamethrin) were concentrated and well separated under optimal conditions. Several factors that influence the efficiency of HF-LPME were investigated and optimized by means of experimental design. The proposed method has good linearity in the concentration range of 10-400 mu g L-1 with correlation coefficients between 0.995 and 0.999. Overall enrichment factors for the optimized method ranged from 139 to 255 times except for cypermethrin and deltamethrin which ranged from 35 to 128. Detection and quantitation limits of the chromatographic method were in the range of 0.002-0.012 mu g L-1 and 0.003-0.026 mu g L-1 respectively, with RSD values between 4.2% and 18.4%. The recoveries varied in the range of 69.4%-122.7% except for cypermethrin and deltamethrin (17.5%-64.1%) with relative standard deviations between 1.0% and 24.0% for intra and inter-day experiments at different concentrations (0.1 mu g L-1, 0.5 mu g L-1, 1 mu g L-1). The HF-LPME method optimized was applied to the analysis of three spiked real water samples with good results. (C) 2012 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