4.7 Article

An overview on human exposure, toxicity, solid-phase microextraction and adsorptive removal of perfluoroalkyl carboxylic acids (PFCAs) from water matrices

期刊

ENVIRONMENTAL RESEARCH
卷 231, 期 -, 页码 -

出版社

ACADEMIC PRESS INC ELSEVIER SCIENCE
DOI: 10.1016/j.envres.2023.116102

关键词

Adsorptive removal; Derivatization; Perfluoroalkyl carboxylic acids; Remediation; Toxicity; Solid phase microextraction

向作者/读者索取更多资源

This study summarizes the latest advancements in solid-phase extraction techniques for the trace-level analysis of PFCAs from water matrices. The methods have been highlighted for their ease of applications, low cost, robustness, low solvents consumption, high pre-concentration factors, better extraction efficiency, good selectivity, and recovery of the analytes. The article also demonstrates the effectiveness of some porous materials for the adsorptive removal of the PFCAs from water matrices, and discusses the mechanisms, success, and limitations of the SPE/adsorption techniques.
Perfluoroalkyl carboxylic acids (PFCAs) are sub-class of perfluoroalkyl substances commonly detected in water matrices. They are persistent in the environment, hence highly toxic to living organisms. Their occurrence at trace amount, complex nature and prone to matrix interference make their extraction and detection a challenge. This study consolidates current advancements in solid-phase extraction (SPE) techniques for the trace-level analysis of PFCAs from water matrices. The advantages of the methods in terms of ease of applications, lowcost, robustness, low solvents consumption, high pre-concentration factors, better extraction efficiency, good selectivity and recovery of the analytes have been emphasized. The article also demonstrated effectiveness of some porous materials for the adsorptive removal of the PFCAs from the water matrices. Mechanisms of the SPE/ adsorption techniques have been discussed. The success and limitations of the processes have been elucidated.

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