4.7 Article

Application of Box-Behnken design to optimize multi-sorbent solid phase extraction for trace neonicotinoids in water containing high level of matrix substances

期刊

TALANTA
卷 170, 期 -, 页码 392-398

出版社

ELSEVIER SCIENCE BV
DOI: 10.1016/j.talanta.2017.04.031

关键词

Neonicotinoid insecticide; Surface water; Box-Behnken design; Solid phase extraction; Matrix interfering substances

资金

  1. National Natural Science Foundation of China [41473106, 41273120]
  2. Guangdong Provincial Department of Science and Technology [2015TX01Z168]
  3. China Postdoctoral Science Foundation [2015M582431]
  4. Natural Science Foundation of Guangdong Province, China [2015A030310219, 2016A030312009]

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Extensive use of neonicotinoid insecticides has raised great concerns about their ecological risk. A reliable method to measure trace neonicotinoids in complicated aquatic environment is a premise for assessing their aquatic risk. To effectively remove matrix interfering substances from field water samples before instrumental analysis with HPLC/MS/MS, a multi-sorbent solid phase extraction method was developed using Box-Behnken design. The optimized method employed 200 mg HLB/GCB (w/w, 8/2) as the sorbents and 6 mL of 20% acetone in acetonitrile as the elution solution. The method was applied for measuring neonicotinoids in water at a wide range of concentrations (0.03-100 mu g/L) containing various amounts of matrix components. The recoveries of acetamiprid, imidacloprid, thiacloprid and thiamethoxam from the spiked samples ranged from 76.3% to 107% while clothianidin and dinotefuran had relatively lower recoveries. The recoveries of neonicotinoids in water with various amounts of matrix interfering substances were comparable and the matrix removal rates were approximately 50%. The method was sensitive with method detection limits in the range of 1.8-6.8 ng/L for all target neonicotinoids. Finally, the developed method was validated by measurement of trace neonicotinoids in natural water.

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