4.7 Article

C8-modified magnetic graphene oxide based solid-phase extraction coupled with dispersive liquid-liquid microextraction for detection of trace phthalate acid esters in water samples

期刊

ECOTOXICOLOGY AND ENVIRONMENTAL SAFETY
卷 170, 期 -, 页码 789-795

出版社

ACADEMIC PRESS INC ELSEVIER SCIENCE
DOI: 10.1016/j.ecoenv.2018.12.051

关键词

Phthalate acid esters; Water; Magnetic graphene oxide; Modification; Solid-phase extraction; Dispersive liquid-liquid microextraction

资金

  1. National Natural Science Foundation of China [41272262]
  2. Science and Technology Planning Project of Guangdong Province, China [2014A040401077, 2016A040403112]
  3. Science and Technology Planning Project of Guangzhou, China [201803030040]

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Phthalate acid esters (PAEs) are extensively applied in plastic and plastic products, and have caused potential hazards on human and animal health. In this study, a highly sensitive method was proposed for trace detection of selected PAEs in water by gas chromatography-mass spectrometry, after solid-phase extraction (SPE) using octyl (C8)-modified magnetic graphene oxide (MGO-C8) as the adsorbent followed by dispersive liquid-liquid microextraction (DLLME). The prepared MGO-C8 was characterized by Fourier transform infrared spectroscopy (FT-IR), thermo gravimetric analysis (TGA) and vibrating sample magnetometry (VSM). The recoveries of the PAEs using MGO-C8 as the adsorbent were found to be significantly higher those obtained by MGO. The influences of solution pH, adsorption and desorption time, eluent and extractant, and salt addition on the extraction efficiency of PAEs were investigated. Under the optimized conditions, limits of detection (LODs) of 0.5-1.0 ng L-1 for PAEs, and related standard deviations (RSDs) of 4.8-7.5% were obtained. The proposed method was utilized in the detection of trace PAEs in real environmental water samples, with spiked recoveries of 89.5-112.3%, 91.5-105.0% and 98.0-110.0% for DBP, DEHP and DNOP, respectively.

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