4.7 Article Proceedings Paper

Development of analytical procedures for trace-level determination of polybrominated diphenyl ethers and tetrabromobisphenol A in river water and sediment

期刊

ANALYTICAL AND BIOANALYTICAL CHEMISTRY
卷 396, 期 2, 页码 865-875

出版社

SPRINGER HEIDELBERG
DOI: 10.1007/s00216-009-3267-x

关键词

Polybrominated diphenyl ethers; Tetrabromobisphenol A; Solid-phase extraction; River water; Sediment

向作者/读者索取更多资源

The aim of this work was to develop procedures for the simultaneous determination of selected brominated flame retardants (BFRs) in river water and in river bed sediment. The target analytes were polybrominated diphenyl ethers (PBDEs) and tetrabromobisphenol A (TBBPA). To determine dissolved BFRs, a novel mixed-mode solid-phase extraction procedure was developed by combining a hydrophobic sorbent (C-18) with a silica-based anion exchange sorbent, so as to overcome the negative artefact induced by dissolved organic carbon. Extraction recoveries exceeded 73% for most analytes, except for BDE-183 and BDE-209 (57%). As regards suspended sediment and river bed sediment, extraction was carried out by means of ultrasonication (recoveries: 73-94%). These procedures, combined to gas chromatography coupled to negative chemical ionisation mass spectrometry (GC-NCI-MS), enabled the determination of BFRs at trace level: 3-160 pg L-1 in river water, 5-145 pg g(-1) in bed sediment. These methods were applied to the determination of PBDEs and TBBPA in a suburban river (near Paris, France). PBDEs were systematically detected in the water column (I BDEs pound, 2,300-4,300 pg L-1); they partitioned between the dissolved and particulate phases and BDE-209 was the dominant congener, followed by BDE-99 and BDE-47. TBBPA was detected in the dissolved phase only (< 35-68 pg L-1). All selected BFRs were ubiquitous in bed sediments and levels ranged from 3,100 to 15,100 pg g(-1) and from 70 to 280 pg g(-1) (dry weight), for I BDEs pound and TBBPA, respectively.

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