4.7 Article

Voltammetry and amperometric detection of tetracyclines at multi-wall carbon nanotube modified electrodes

期刊

ANALYTICAL AND BIOANALYTICAL CHEMISTRY
卷 389, 期 3, 页码 951-958

出版社

SPRINGER HEIDELBERG
DOI: 10.1007/s00216-007-1505-7

关键词

tetracyclines; water analysis; high-performance liquid chromatography; electrochemical detection; carbon nanotube modified electrode

向作者/读者索取更多资源

The voltammetric behaviour and amperometric detection of tetracycline (TC) antibiotics at multi-wall carbon nanotube modified glassy carbon electrodes (MWCNT-GCE) are reported. Cyclic voltammograms of TCs showed enhanced oxidation responses at the MWCNT-GCE with respect to the bare GCE, attributable to the increased active electrode surface area. Hydrodynamic voltammograms obtained by flow-injection with amperometric detection at the MWCNT-GCE led us to select a potential value E-det=+1.20 V. The repeatability of the amperometric responses was much better than that achieved with bare GCE (RSD ranged from 7 to 12%), with RSD values for i(p) of around 3%, thus demonstrating the antifouling capability of MWCNT modified electrodes. An HPLC method with amperometric electrochemical detection (ED) at the MWCNT-GCE was developed for tetracycline, oxytetracycline (OTC), chlortetracycline and doxycycline (DC). A mobile phase consisting of 18:82 acetonitrile/0.05 mol L-1 phosphate buffer of pH 2.5 was selected. The limits of detection ranged from 0.09 mu mol L-1 for OTC to 0.44 mu mol L-1 for DC. The possibility to carry out multiresidue analysis is demonstrated. The HPLC-ED/MWCNT-GCE method was applied to the analysis of fish farm pool water and underground well water samples spiked with the four TCs at 2.0 x 10(-7) mol L-1. Solid-phase extraction was accomplished for the preconcentration of the analytes and clean-up of the samples. Recoveries ranged from 87 +/- 6 to 99 +/- 3%. Under preconcentration conditions, limits of detection in the water samples were between 0.50 and 3.10 ng mL(-1).

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