4.7 Article

Molecularly imprinted solid phase extraction in a syringe filter for determination of triazine herbicides in Radix Paeoniae Alba by ultra-fast liquid chromatography

期刊

TALANTA
卷 148, 期 -, 页码 539-547

出版社

ELSEVIER
DOI: 10.1016/j.talanta.2015.11.027

关键词

Solid phase extraction (SPE); Molecularly imprinted polymer (MIP); Triazine herbicides; Radix Paeoniae Alba (RPA); Ultra-fast liquid chromatography (UFLC)

资金

  1. National Natural Science Foundation of China, China [21405057, 21207047, 21105037]

向作者/读者索取更多资源

A novel, cost-effective and simple solid phase extraction (SPE) method, by using a syringe connected with a nylon membrane filter as the adsorbent container, was developed for the extraction of triazine herbicides from Radix Paeoniae Alba (RPA) samples. The selective molecularly imprinted polymers (MIPs) synthesized with the template of atrazine were employed as the adsorbents for the enrichment and purification of analytes. The extraction parameters, including the volume and type of loading solvent, the type of washing solvent and eluting solvent, were investigated. Under the optimized conditions, the final extracts were analyzed by ultra-fast liquid chromatography (UFLC). Recoveries of the developed method range from 92.4% to 107.3% with intra- and inter-day relative standard deviations (RSDs) lower than 8.2%. The calibration curve is linear in the concentration range of 0.005-2.4 mu g g(-1) for desmetryn, atrazine and terbumeton, and 0.005-1.5 mu g g(-1) for dimethametryn and dipropetryn, with the correlation coefficient (R-2) higher than 0.9995. The limits of detection CLODS) of five triazine herbicides are in the range of 0.09-0.39 ng g(-1), which are lower than the maximum residue levels (MRLs) established by various official organizations. Analytical results of three real Radix Paeoniae Alba samples indicate that the proposed method is cost-effective and easy-to-use than other routine pretreatment methods. (C) 2015 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

4.7
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