4.6 Article Proceedings Paper

Membrane protected C18 coated stir bar sorptive extraction combined with high performance liquid chromatography-ultraviolet detection for the determination of non-steroidal anti-inflammatory drugs in water samples

期刊

JOURNAL OF CHROMATOGRAPHY A
卷 1472, 期 -, 页码 27-34

出版社

ELSEVIER
DOI: 10.1016/j.chroma.2016.10.051

关键词

Membrane protected C-18 coated stir bar sorptive extraction; HPLC-UV; Nonsteroidal anti-inflammatory drugs; Water samples

向作者/读者索取更多资源

By wrapping a porous membrane around the coated stir bar, a novel membrane protected stir bar sorptive extraction (MPSBSE) was proposed to filter out the high molecular weight interferences (such as humic acid), resulting in the analysis of real environmental water samples without filtration or centrifugation. Hydrophilic and hydrophobic membranes were compared and hydrophobic polytetrafluoroethylene (PTFE) membrane impregnated with methanol was employed to protect the C-18 coated stir bar. The impregnated methanol improves the transfer of target analytes from sample solution to the pores and lumen of the membrane, and then to the coated stir bar inside. By combining C-18-MPSBSE with HPLC-UV, a method was proposed for the direct determination of two common non-steroidal anti-inflammatory drugs, Ketoprofen (KEP) and Naproxen (NAP) in complex water samples. Under the optimized conditions, the limit of detections of KEP and NAP are 7.89, 9.52 mu g L-1 in the waste water and 7.69, 6.90 mu g L-1 in the pure water, respectively, with the enrichment factors of 32.0-49.1-fold. Besides, the lifetime of the prepared C-18 stir bar protected by PTFE membrane (50 times) is longer than that of C-18 stir bar without membrane protection (20 times), indicating that the friction damage of SBSE coating during extraction was effectively avoided. The developed method was successfully applied to the analysis of KEP and NAP in domestic sewage and campus lake water samples. (C) 2016 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