4.7 Article

MIL-101(Cr)/MWCNTs-functionalized melamine sponges for solid-phase extraction of triazines from corn samples, and their subsequent determination by HPLC-MS/MS

期刊

TALANTA
卷 211, 期 -, 页码 -

出版社

ELSEVIER
DOI: 10.1016/j.talanta.2019.120676

关键词

MIL-101(Cr)/MWCNTs; Melamine sponge; Triazines; HPLC-MS/MS; Corn; Solid-phase extraction

资金

  1. Science and Technology Developing Foundation of Jilin Province of China [20180201050YY, 201701011106JC]
  2. Industrial Innovation Funds of Jilin Province of China [2018C034-1]

向作者/读者索取更多资源

In the presented work, we proposed the use of polyvinylidene difluoride (PVDF) as a coupling agent to load MIL-101(Cr) and carboxylated multi-walled carbon nanotubes (MWCNTs) on the skeleton of melamine sponge (MeS) for the preparation of novel extraction media with high-efficiency. The morphology and structure of this composite were characterized by scanning electron microscopy (SEM) analyses. The obtained MIL-101(Cr)/MWCNTs functionalized MeS(MIL/M-MeS) cube was used as a sorbent for the solid-phase extraction (SPE) of six triazines (Atraton, Simetryne, Prometon, Ametryn, Propazine, and Prometryn) spiked corn samples. Several parameters that may affect the extraction efficiencies, including type and volume of extraction solvent, times of ultrasonic extraction, adsorption, and desorption; type and volume of desorption solvent, were optimized. This was followed by elution containing the herbicides, which were quantified using high performance liquid chromatography-tandem mass spectrometry (HPLC-MS/MS). Under optimum conditions, the analytical method for the preparation of MIL/M-MeS cube produced satisfactory recoveries and repeatability. The LODs of the method when applied to spiked corn samples were in the range of 0.01-0.04 ng g(-1) (LODs = 38/k). The relative infra- and inter-day recoveries ranged from 90.30 to 116.50% and 92.38-116.24%, respectively, and relative standard deviations ranged from 1.08 to 12.32% and 5.36-16.23%, 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