4.7 Article

Development of a cheap and accessible carbon fibers-in-poly(ether ether ketone) tube with high stability for online in-tube solid-phase microextraction

期刊

TALANTA
卷 148, 期 -, 页码 313-320

出版社

ELSEVIER SCIENCE BV
DOI: 10.1016/j.talanta.2015.11.001

关键词

Carbon fibers; Fiber-in-tube; Solid-phase microextraction; High performance liquid chromatography; Polycyclic aromatic hydrocarbons; Online analysis

资金

  1. National Natural Science Foundation of China (NSFC) [21205048, 21405061]
  2. Shandong Provincial Natural Science Foundation of China [ZR2012BQ018, ZR2014BQ019]
  3. Natural Science Foundation of University of Jinan [XKY1313]

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Carbon fibers (CFs) are one kind of important industrial materials that can be obtained commercially at low price. Based on the high extraction efficiency of carbon sorbents, a cheap and accessible carbon fibers-in-poly(ether ether ketone) (PEEK) tube was developed for online in-tube solid-phase microextraction (SPME) method. Coupled to high performance liquid chromatography (HPLC), the CFs-in-tube SPME was applied to analyze eight polycyclic aromatic hydrocarbons (PAHs) in environmental aqueous samples. Extraction conditions (sampling rate, extraction time, methanol content) and desorption time were investigated for optimization of conditions. Under the optimum conditions, the CFs-in-tube SPME-HPLC method provided high extraction efficiency with enrichment factors up to 1748. Good linearity (0.05-50 mu g L-1, 0.5-50 mu g L-1) and low detection limits (0.01-0.1 mu g L-1) were also obtained. The online analysis method was finally applied to determine several model PAHs analytes in real environmental aqueous samples. Some target analytes were detected and relative recoveries were in the range of 92.3-111%. Due to natural chemical stability of carbon fibers and PEEK tube, the CFs-in-tube device exhibited high resistance to organic solvent, acid and alkaline conditions. (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