4.7 Article

Magnetic Cu-MOFs embedded within graphene oxide nanocomposites for enhanced preconcentration of benzenoid-containing insecticides

期刊

TALANTA
卷 181, 期 -, 页码 112-117

出版社

ELSEVIER SCIENCE BV
DOI: 10.1016/j.talanta.2018.01.004

关键词

Magnetic solid-phase extraction; Preconcentration; Metal-organic frameworks; Insecticides; High performance liquid chromatography

资金

  1. National Natural Science Foundation of China [21467028, 21327005]
  2. Program for Chang Jiang Scholars and Innovative Research Team, Ministry of Education, China [IRT1283]
  3. Key Laboratory of Polymer Materials of Gansu Province
  4. Key Laboratory of Ecological Environment Related Polymer Materials of Ministry of Education

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Hybrid magnetic nanocomposites based on Cu-MOFs, graphene oxide (GO), and Fe3O4 nanoparticles (NPs) were prepared via chemical bonding approach, which GO were used as platforms to load nanostructured Cu-MOFs and Fe3O4 NPs. The composite features both magnetic separation characteristics and high MOFs porosity, making it an excellent adsorbent for magnetic solid-phase extraction (MSPE). The as-synthesized nanocomposites are characterized by XRD, TGA, SEM, TEM, nitrogen adsorption-desorption analysis and FT-IR spectroscopy. The composites are used in MSPE of six aromatic insecticides from various real samples prior to their quantification by HPLC. Amount of adsorbent, extraction times, extraction temperature, desorption times and oscillation rate are optimized. Under the optimal conditions, the method has a relative standard deviations (RSDs) of 1.9-2.7%, and good linearity (correlation coefficients higher than 0.9931). The low LOD and LOQ for six insecticides are found to be 0.30-1.58 mu g L-1 and 1.0-5.2 mu g L-1, respectively. The RSDs of within batch extraction are 1.6-9.5% and 3.9-12% for batch to batch extraction. The experimental results suggest that the nanocomposites have potential application for removal of hazardous pollutants from effluents.

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