4.7 Article

Direct immersion dual-drop microextraction for simultaneous separation and enrichment of Cr(III) and Cr(IV) in food samples prior to graphite furnace atomic absorption spectrometry detection

期刊

FOOD CHEMISTRY
卷 406, 期 -, 页码 -

出版社

ELSEVIER SCI LTD
DOI: 10.1016/j.foodchem.2022.134276

关键词

Chromium speciation; Direct immersion dual-drop microextraction; Graphite furnace atomic absorption spectrometry; Food samples

向作者/读者索取更多资源

A direct immersion dual-drop microextraction (DIDDME) method was developed for the separation and preconcentration of Cr(III) and Cr(VI). Using two organic drops on needle tips of microsyringes, each containing a specific chelating reagent, Cr(III) and Cr(VI) were selectively extracted into different drops. The method showed low detection limits, wide linear range, high enrichment factors, and good precision, and was successfully applied to quantify Cr(III) and Cr(VI) in food samples.
Non-chromatographic speciation methods generally involve speciation conversion, which may cause sample contamination, analysis errors and tedious operations. In this work, a direct immersion dual-drop microextraction (DIDDME) was firstly developed for separation and preconcentration of Cr(III) and Cr(VI). In DIDDME, two organic drops on needle tips of microsyringes were concurrently immersed in a stirred sample solution. Each drop contains a chelating reagent for reacting with a specific species. Thus, Cr(III) and Cr(VI) were selectively extracted into different drops. This method afforded detection limits of 3.0 and 4.1 ng/L, quantification limit of 10 ng/L and 14 ng/L, linear range of 0.01-30 ng mL(-1) and enrichment factors of 354-fold and 326-fold for Cr(III) and Cr(VI), respectively. Precisions like repeatability and reproducibility were assessed by calculating relative standard deviations, which were lower than 5.4 % and 6.9 %, respectively. This procedure was used successfully for quantification of Cr(III) and Cr(VI) in food samples.

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