4.6 Article

Porous organic frameworks-based (micro)extraction

期刊

JOURNAL OF CHROMATOGRAPHY A
卷 1609, 期 -, 页码 -

出版社

ELSEVIER
DOI: 10.1016/j.chroma.2019.460477

关键词

Porous organic frameworks; Solid phase extraction; Magnetic solid phase extraction; Solid phase microextraction; Capillary microextraction; Stir bar sorptive extraction; Trace analysis

资金

  1. National Natural Science Foundation of China [21575107, 21675118, 21575108]
  2. Science Fund for Creative Research Groups of NSFC [20921062]

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Porous organic frameworks (POFs) are an exciting emerging type of porous organic materials in which molecular building blocks are linked by covalent bonds. POFs usually have high thermal and chemical stability, large surface area, artificially regulated pore size distribution and abundant functional groups, which are considered to be ideal and efficient adsorbent for diverse compounds. They are an excellent alternative for sorbents/coating-based sample pretreatment techniques. In this review, the application of various POFs in trace analysis is discussed in terms of pretreatment techniques, including solid phase extraction, magnetic solid phase extraction, solid phase microextraction, capillary microextraction and stir bar sorptive extraction. The POFs-based sorbents/coatings are reviewed, with the focus on the construction process, comparison among POFs and between POFs and common sorbents, adsorption mechanism for specific analytes and the adsorption performance in trace analysis. Current research status indicate that much effort would be paid on further exploration of the relationship between the special properties of POFs (e.g., crystal form, pore structure) and the adsorption behavior, directional design and synthesis of POFs involved sorbents/coating for trace analysis of organic substances and elemental species, and the development of POFs-involved analytical methodologies for quantification of interest analytes. (C) 2019 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

4.6
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