4.6 Article

Ordered mesoporous carbon as sorbent for the extraction of N-nitrosamines in wastewater and swimming pool water

期刊

JOURNAL OF CHROMATOGRAPHY A
卷 1513, 期 -, 页码 35-41

出版社

ELSEVIER SCIENCE BV
DOI: 10.1016/j.chroma.2017.07.046

关键词

Sample preparation; Ordered mesoporous carbon; Micro-solid-phase extraction; N-nitrosamines; Central composite design

资金

  1. King Fahd University of Petroleum & Minerals (KFUPM)-National University of Singapore (NUS) Collaborative Project grant [KFUPM-NUS-06/NUS15111, NUS15112]
  2. Singapore International Graduate Award
  3. National Elite Foundation

向作者/读者索取更多资源

The analysis and determination of N-nitrosamines (NAs) in water samples are challenging and demanding. In this study, a simple, reliable, and practical methodology is reported for the quantitative determination by gas chromatography-tandem mass spectrometry with electron impact ionization (El) and triple quadrupole analyzer (GC-El-MS/MS) of eight NAs after micro-solid-phase extraction (mu-SPE) from wastewater and swimming pool water. Thirty milligram of an ordered mesoporous carbonaceous material, oxidative surface-modified CMK-3, enclosed within a porous polypropylene membrane bag, were used as sorbent for mu-SPE. A central composite design approach was applied to optimize the mu-SPE parameters. An isotopically-labeled NA was used as internal standard. Under the optimized conditions, mu-SPE-GC-El-MS/MS was validated for an NA concentration range of between 0.1-100 ng/mL. The precision of the method was evaluated and an average relative standard deviation of 4.8% (n = 8) for a standard solution spiked at 50 ng/mL of each NA was obtained. The limits of detection were measured to be in the range of 0.005-0.283 ng/mL. Domestic wastewater and swimming pool water samples were used to evaluate the applicability of the method. NAs were detected in swimming pool water and wastewater at concentrations of <2 ng/mL and 11 ng/mL, respectively. (C) 2017 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

4.6
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