4.7 Article

A novel doped metal-organic skeleton MnDUT-52 as a sorbent for dispersive solid phase extraction of diphenyl ether herbicides in the water environment

期刊

MICROCHEMICAL JOURNAL
卷 193, 期 -, 页码 -

出版社

ELSEVIER
DOI: 10.1016/j.microc.2023.109155

关键词

Doped metal-organic framework; Pretreatment; Dispersive solid phase extraction; Herbicide; Water sample

向作者/读者索取更多资源

A manganese doped metal-organic framework composite (MnDUT-52) was synthesized and applied for the dispersive solid phase extraction of trace diphenyl ether herbicides (Des) in water samples. The doped material showed enhanced surface area and zeta potential compared to its precursor. The optimized extraction conditions resulted in good reusability of MnDUT-52 and the developed HPLC-UV method exhibited wide linear range, low detection limits, and high extraction recovery for Des.
A manganese doped metal-organic framework composite (MnDUT-52) was fabricated by a facile solvothermal method and applied as an adsorbent for dispersive solid phase extraction (DSPE) of trace diphenyl ether herbicides (Des) in water samples. The doped material exhibited large surface area (527.3 m2/g) and a higher zeta potential (43.2 mV) compared with its precursor (8.57 mV). And the quantitative parameters affecting the DSPE process (i.e., adsorbent amount, adsorption time, pH, ionic strength, desorption solvent and desorption volume) were optimized in detail. Under the optimal conditions, MnDUT-52 exhibited good reusability (6 times reuse, RSDs & LE; 5.8 %). Notably, the conjugation, hydrophobic and electrostatic interactions contributed to the good adsorption of Des by MnDUT-52. Finally, a method coupled with high-performance liquid chromatographyultraviolet (HPLC-UV) was developed. It provided wide linear range (0.2-300 ng/mL), low detection limits (0.06-0.10 ng/mL) and extraction recovery (82.4-102.5 %). The developed method was successfully applied for the fast and sensitive determination of Des in water 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