4.7 Article

Net-like mesoporous carbon nanocomposites for magnetic solid-phase extraction of sulfonamides prior to their quantitation by UPLC-HRMS

期刊

MICROCHIMICA ACTA
卷 187, 期 2, 页码 -

出版社

SPRINGER WIEN
DOI: 10.1007/s00604-019-4072-7

关键词

Carbon-based composite; Magnetic nanomaterials; Adsorbent; One-pot synthesis; Adsorption mechanism; pi interaction; Hydrogen bonds; Sample preparation; Milk analysis; Antibiotics

资金

  1. Environmental Protection Department of Hubei Province [2017HB04]
  2. Fundamental Research Funds for the Central Universities, China University of Geosciences (Wuhan) [CUG170102]

向作者/读者索取更多资源

A net-like mesoporous carbon nanocomposite (MCN) was hydrothermally prepared by using filter paper as the raw material. The MCN contains magnetic nanoparticles of type Fe3O4 which result from the addition of Fe(NO3)(3)center dot 9H(2)O during synthesis. The MCN was characterized by X-ray diffraction, Fourier transform infrared spectroscopy, scanning electron microscopy, transmission electron microscopy, Raman spectra, Brunauer-Emmett-Teller methods and vibrating sample magnetometry. The MCN is shown to be a viable material for magnetic solid-phase extraction of trace sulfonamides (SAs) including sulfadiazine, sulfapyridine, sulfamerazine, sulfamethazine, sulfamethizole, sulfamethoxypridazine, sulfachloropyridazine and sulfadimethoxine. Following desorption with acetone containing 0.5% ammonia, the SAs were quantified by UPLC with high-resolution mass spectrometric detection. With sulfamethazine as an example, the adsorption equilibrium configurations and the major interaction mechanism between SAs and the MCN were calculated by using density functional theory. Under the optimal conditions, the calibration plots are linear in the 0.05-10 ng center dot mL(-1) SA concentration ranges. The limits of detection are between 7.2 and 13.6 ng center dot L-1. The recoveries from spiked samples ranged from 79 to 107%, with relative standard deviations of <9.9%.

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