4.7 Article

Functionalized ionic liquids-supported metal organic frameworks for dispersive solid phase extraction of sulfonamide antibiotics in water samples

期刊

ANALYTICA CHIMICA ACTA
卷 1133, 期 -, 页码 88-98

出版社

ELSEVIER
DOI: 10.1016/j.aca.2020.07.074

关键词

Sulfonamide antibiotics; Ionic liquids; Metal organic frameworks; Dispersive solid-phase extraction; High performance liquid chromatography

资金

  1. National Key R&D Program of China [2018YFC1901000]
  2. National Natural Science Foundation of China [21675053]

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Sulfonamides antibiotic residues are commonly found in environmental samples, which is highly concerning for public safety and environmental protection. The detection of sulfonamides antibiotics (SAs) is quite important but challenging. In this work, functionalized Zr metal-organic frameworks (Zr-MOFs) and imidazole-based ionic liquids (ILs) were selected and designed according to the structures and properties of SAs. By supporting functionalized ILs into the water-stable Zr-MOFs, the novel ILs@Zr-MOFs nanocomposites were synthesized for the pretreatment of SAs. [H(2)Nmim][NTf2]@UiO-66-Br showed good selectivity for SAs with maximum adsorption capacity of 352.1 mg g(-1) for sulfadiazine. The satisfied performance attributed to not only the large BET surface areas, but also the multiple interactions between the adsorbent and SAs, including electrostatic interaction, hydrogen bonding interaction and pi-pi interaction. The as-prepared nanocomposites were applied to the dispersive solid phase extraction of SAs in environmental water samples. Combined with high performance liquid chromatography-diode array detector (HPLC-DAD), the effective extraction and sensitive analysis of SAs was achieved by [H(2)Nmim][NTf2]@UiO-66-Br with enrichment factors higher than 270 and extraction recoveries between 90.5% and 101.9% in short extraction time (10 min). The detection limits were lower than 0.03 mu g L-1. (C) 2020 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