4.7 Article

Vortex-assisted restricted access-based supramolecular solvent microextraction of trace Pb(II) ions with 4-(benzimidazolisonitrosoacetyl) biphenyl as a complexing agent before microsampling flame AAS analysis

期刊

TALANTA
卷 248, 期 -, 页码 -

出版社

ELSEVIER
DOI: 10.1016/j.talanta.2022.123651

关键词

Oxime; Characterization; FT-IR; SUPRAS; Preconcentration; Water

资金

  1. TUBITAK [115Z656]

向作者/读者索取更多资源

A new oxime compound, BIBP, was synthesized and used to preconcentrate trace amounts of Pb(II) ions. The compound was characterized and optimized, and successfully applied for Pb(II) determination in real samples.
A new oxime compound, 4-(benzimidazolisonitrosoacetyl)biphenyl (BIBP) was synthesized and used as a complexing agent in this study to preconcentrate trace amounts of Pb(II) ions with vortex-assisted restricted access based supramolecular solvent microextraction (RA/SUPRAS-LPME) method. The new complexing agent was characterized by a combination of elemental analyses, Proton Nuclear Magnetic Resonance (H-1-NMR), Carbon 13 Nuclear Magnetic Resonance (C-13 NMR) and Fourier Transform Infrared spectroscopy (FT-IR) and techniques. Extraction of the complex which was formed at pH 8.0 was done by using a supramolecular solvent phase of tetrahydrofuran (THF) and 1-decanol. A microsampling flame atomic absorption spectrophotometer was used to measure the lead ion concentrations of the extract. The method optimized and the optimum experimental conditions were found as; pH = 8, amount of the ligand 2,25 mg, supramolecular solvent volume 50 mu L, sample volume 20 mL and vortex time 3 min. The limit of detection (LOD), limit of quantification (LOQ) were calculated as 0.69 mu g L-1 and 2.29 mu g L-1, respectively. Linear range was found between 15.1 mu g L-1 and 606 mu g L-1. The developed method was applied to Pb(II) determination in real samples after evaluating the accuracy by using the TMDA-53.3 fortified environmental water sample as certified reference material.

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