4.7 Article

Application of solid-phase microextraction for the determination of organophosphorus pesticides in textiles by gas chromatography with mass spectrometry

期刊

ANALYTICA CHIMICA ACTA
卷 650, 期 2, 页码 202-206

出版社

ELSEVIER SCIENCE BV
DOI: 10.1016/j.aca.2009.07.050

关键词

Organophosphorus pesticides; Solid-phase microextraction; Gas chromatography-mass spectrometry; Distribution coefficient; Textiles

资金

  1. science foundation of General Administration of Quality Supervision Inspection and Quarantine of China [20060K80]
  2. Research Foundation of National Product Quality Supervision Commonweal Action of China [2004GYJ054]

向作者/读者索取更多资源

A method based on solid-phase microextraction (SPME) and gas chromatography with mass spectrometry (GC/MS) for the determination of 18 organophosphorus pesticides (OPPs) in textiles is described. Commercially available SPME fibers, 100 mu m PDMS and 85 mu m PA, were compared and 85 mu m PA exhibited better performance to the OPPs. Various parameters affecting SPME, including extraction and desorption time, extraction temperature, salinity and pH, were studied. The optimized conditions were: 35 min extraction at 25 degrees C, 5% NaSO4 content, pH 7.0, and 3.5 min desorption in GC injector port at 250 degrees C. The linear ranges of the SPME-GC/MS method were 0.1-500 mu g L-1 for most of the OPPs. The limits of detection (LODs) ranged from 0.01 mu g L-1 (for bromophos-ethyl) to 55 mu g L-1 (for azinphos-methyl) and the RSDs were between 0.66% and 9.22%. The optimized method was then used to analyze 18 OPPs in textile sample, and the determined recoveries were ranged from 76.7% to 126.8%. Moreover, the distribution coefficients of the OPPs between 85 mu m PA fiber and simulative sweat solution (K-pa/s) were determined. The determined K-pa/s of the OPPs correlated well with their octanol-water partition coefficients (r = 0.764 and 0.678) and water solubility (r = -0.892 and -0.863). (C) 2009 Elsevier B.V. All rights reserved.

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