4.7 Article

Sensitive determination of seven triazine herbicide in honey, tomato and environmental water samples by hollow fiber based liquid-liquid-liquid microextraction combined with sweeping micellar electrokinetic capillary chromatography

期刊

TALANTA
卷 186, 期 -, 页码 88-96

出版社

ELSEVIER SCIENCE BV
DOI: 10.1016/j.talanta.2018.04.012

关键词

Triazine herbicides; Hollow fiber liquid-liquid-liquid microextraction; Sweeping; Micellar electrokinetic chromatography

资金

  1. National Natural Science Foundation of China [21575107, 21575108, 21675118]
  2. Science Fund for Creative Research Groups of NSFC [20921062]

向作者/读者索取更多资源

A rapid, simple, and effective method has been developed for the determination of seven triazine herbicides (terbutryn, prometryn, ametryn, prometon, propazine, atrazine, simazine) by coupling off-line hollow fiber liquid liquid liquid microextraction (HF-LLLME) with on-line sweeping micellar electrokinetic chromatography (sweeping-MEKC). In HF-LLLME, seven target triazines in hydrophobic form were extracted from the sample solution into decane impregnated in the pores of the hollow fiber, and then back-extracted into 1 mol L-1 H3PO4 inside the hollow fiber lumen. Then, the pH of acceptor phase was adjusted with 1 mu L 1 mol L-1 NaOH for subsequent sweeping-MEKC analysis. In the sweeping-MEKC process, seven triazines were separated in about 16 min with a background electrolyte (BGE) consisting of 92 mmol L-1 phosphate, 40 mmol L-1 SDS and 15% (v/v) 1-propanol (pH = 2.6). The hydrodynamic injection was performed at 50 mbar for 250 s. Under the optimized conditions, the limits of detection were in the range of 0.07-0.69 mu g L-1 with enrichment factors of 3100-10000-fold for target triazines, with a dynamic linear range of 0.3/2-100 mu g L-1. The developed method exhibited excellent clean-up capability as well as high enrichment factors and was successfully applied to the analysis of target triazines in environmental water, honey and tomato samples.

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