4.5 Article

Reverse osmosis membrane-based pretreatment for the quantification of N-nitrosodimethylamine concentrations in high-matrix water samples

期刊

出版社

ROYAL SOC CHEMISTRY
DOI: 10.1039/d3ew00222e

关键词

-

向作者/读者索取更多资源

In this study, a reverse osmosis (RO) membrane treatment was used as a pretreatment for NDMA analysis in high-matrix water samples. The method successfully isolated NDMA from interfering substances and showed the potential for continuous monitoring of NDMA in aqueous solutions.
N-Nitrosodimethylamine (NDMA) is a carcinogenic constituent commonly found in recycled water and pharmaceuticals. Developing an analytical method to continuously monitor changes in NDMA concentrations during water recycling and pharmaceutical manufacturing can mitigate accidents caused by NDMA formation. However, NDMA analysis in high-matrix water samples, such as beverages, wastewater, and pharmaceutical ingredients, is difficult. In this study, we adapted reverse osmosis (RO) membrane treatment as a pretreatment for NDMA analysis by isolating NDMA from interfering substances in high-matrix water samples. Subsequently, high-performance liquid chromatography-chemiluminescence detection was used for NDMA analysis. In a pure water matrix, 95% of NDMA can pass through at a low permeate flux of 1 L m(-2) h(-1). The method was then validated using beer, which is known to contain high concentrations of NDMA, as a representative high-matrix water sample. We found that RO pretreatment leads to clean chromatograms in which NDMA peaks are clearly visible while other peaks are mostly absent. Analysis of six different beer samples showed a maximum NDMA concentration of 315 ng L-1, and an average NDMA concentration of 138 & PLUSMN; 83 ng L-1 (n = 6), which fall within the regulation limits for NDMA in beer in the United States of America. The proposed pretreatment method has the potential to provide a platform for developing technologies for continuous monitoring of NDMA in aqueous solutions.

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

4.5
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