4.7 Article

Combination of magnetic solid-phase extraction and HPLC-UV for simultaneous determination of four phthalate esters in plastic bottled juice

期刊

FOOD CHEMISTRY
卷 339, 期 -, 页码 -

出版社

ELSEVIER SCI LTD
DOI: 10.1016/j.foodchem.2020.127855

关键词

Magnetic solid-phase extraction; Phthalate esters; Porous organic polymers; Juice samples

资金

  1. National Natural Science Foundation of China [31471643, 31571925, 31671930]
  2. National Natural Science Foundation of Hebei Province [C2020204020, B2020204003, B2020204001, B2016204136, B2016204146, B2017204025]

向作者/读者索取更多资源

A magnetic o-hydroxyazobenzene (M-HAzo) porous organic polymer was prepared by a green azo coupling reaction for pre-concentration of phthalate esters (PAEs) in plastic bottled juice, followed by HPLC-UV detection. The method showed good performance under optimized conditions and has promising potential for trace level analysis of organic pollutants.
A magnetic o-hydroxyazobenzene (M-HAzo) porous organic polymer was facilely prepared by a green azo coupling reaction in aqueous solution. The prepared M-HAzo was applied as a new adsorbent for the first time to pre-concentrate phthalate esters (PAEs) from plastic bottled juice, followed by their determination with high performance liquid chromatography-ultraviolet detection. The effects of various parameters, i.e., the mass ratio of the Fe3O4@SiO2 to HAzo, extraction time, ionic strength, pH of the sample, desorption conditions were optimized. Under the optimized conditions, the M-HAzo based method exhibited good performance in terms of linear range (0.3-50.0 mu g L-1), detection limit (0.08-0.50 mu g L-1), accuracy (recovery of 78.0-115.0%) and repeatability (relative standard deviation of 2.9-7.8%). This work provides a sensitive method for analysis of PAEs at trace levels in drinks, which is featured with high sensitivity, simple operation and environmentally-friendly merit and will have a promising potential in analysis of other organic pollutants.

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