4.7 Article

Development of a needle trap device packed with zinc based metal-organic framework sorbent for the sampling and analysis of polycyclic aromatic hydrocarbons in the air

期刊

MICROCHEMICAL JOURNAL
卷 148, 期 -, 页码 346-354

出版社

ELSEVIER
DOI: 10.1016/j.microc.2019.05.019

关键词

Air; Electrochemical; Needle trap device; Polycyclic aromatic hydrocarbons; Zn-3(ETC)(2) metal-organic framework

资金

  1. Hamadan University of Medical Sciences [9703221457]

向作者/读者索取更多资源

This study aimed to present a new method combined of needle trap devices (NTDs) packed with the Zn-3(BTC)(2) metal-organic framework (Zn-MOF) as a sorbent, for the sampling and analysis of polycylic aromatic hydrocarbons (PAHs) in the air for the first time. The electrochemical method was used to synthesize Zn-MOF sorbent packed inside 22 gauge needle trap. This method was investigated in the laboratory under different condition and applied in the field to determination of PAHs in air. In order to make different concentrations of PAHs in air, a glass chamber under temperature of 120 degrees C was used. The optimization of the desorption conditions and breakthrough volume was accomplished using the response surface method and Design-Expert software (version 7). According to the results, the best desorption temperature was obtained as 379 degrees C in 9 min, the limit of detection and limit of quantification for the analytes under investigation were within the ranges of 0.011-0.021 and 0.03-0.07 mg/m(3), respectively. Moreover, repeatability and reproducibility of the method were estimated in the ranges of 3.6-9.9 and 5.3-24.1, respectively. By storing the needles at 4 degrees C, no significant reduction was observed in the amount of analytes after 60 days (P > 0.05). It could be concluded that NTD: Zn-MOF is a reliable and high collection efficiency method had a suitable performance in the sampling of PAHs, compared to the National Institute for Occupational Safety and Health (NIOSH)-5515 method.

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