4.7 Article

Inexpensive, effective novel activated carbon fibers for sample cleanup: application to multipesticide residue analysis in food commodities using a QuEChERS method

期刊

ANALYTICAL AND BIOANALYTICAL CHEMISTRY
卷 410, 期 8, 页码 2241-2251

出版社

SPRINGER HEIDELBERG
DOI: 10.1007/s00216-018-0894-0

关键词

QuEChERS; Reversed-dispersive solid-phase extraction; Activated carbon fibers; Primary secondary amine; Pesticides; Sample preparation

资金

  1. Department of Science and Technology (New Delhi, India) [DST/INSPIRE/04/2015/001869, GAP-306]

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Phenolic resin based activated carbon fibers (ACFs) were applied for the first time as a reversed-dispersive solid-phase extraction (r-DSPE) sorbent. A modified quick, easy, cheap, effective, rugged, and safe (QuEChERS) method was applied to determine 26 pesticides (organophosphates, organochlorines, synthetic pyrethroids, and herbicides) in different complex matrices, including cauliflower, cucumber, banana, apple, wheat, and black gram. Different physicochemical characterization techniques were used to investigate the engineering and structural properties of the r-DSPE sorbent. All the chromatographic analyses were performed with a gas chromatograph equipped with an electron capture detector. The recoveries of all 26 pesticides were acceptable (70-120%), with relative standard deviations of less than 15%. The limit of detection and the limit of quantification were 1.13-5.48 ng/g and 3.42-16.60 ng/g, respectively. In the original QuEChERS method, primary secondary amine is extensively used as the r-DSPE sorbent in the cleanup process, but it is eightfold more expensive than the ACFs used in this study. Therefore, the modified QuEChERS method using ACFs during the cleanup process is more efficient, cheaper, and more robust to determine pesticides from different types of matrices, including vegetables, grains, and fruits, and ACFs could be used as a cost-effective alternative to primary secondary amine.

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