4.7 Article

Multi-walled carbon nanotubes as solid-phase extraction adsorbents for the speciation of cobalamins in seafoods by liquid chromatography

期刊

ANALYTICAL AND BIOANALYTICAL CHEMISTRY
卷 401, 期 4, 页码 1393-1399

出版社

SPRINGER HEIDELBERG
DOI: 10.1007/s00216-011-5158-1

关键词

Multi-walled carbon nanotubes; Solid-phase extraction; Liquid chromatography; Speciation; Cobalamins; Seafoods

资金

  1. Spanish MICINN [CTQ2009-08267/BQU]
  2. Fundacion Seneca (Comunidad Autonoma de la Region de Murcia) [15217/PI/10]
  3. Fundacion Seneca

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Multi-walled carbon nanotubes (MWCNTs) were evaluated as potential adsorbents for miniaturized solid-phase extraction coupled to liquid chromatography. The adsorption capacity of this sorbent was applied to assess the speciation of four cobalamins representing the various forms of vitamin B-12. The preconcentration on the MWCNTs was based on the retention of analytes by introducing the sample online into the mini-column system. Dimethyl sulfoxide was used to elute the retained vitamins for liquid chromatographic analysis. The experimental conditions of the continuous flow device, which affect the enrichment procedure, such as the type and amount of nanotubes, the volume, pH and flow rate of the sample solution, and the eluent and its volume, were optimized. For detection purposes, a diode array device was used and good resolution was obtained with a mobile-phase acetonitrile-phosphate buffer and gradient elution. Specificity was demonstrated by the retention characteristics and UV spectra and by comparing the peak purity index with commercial standards. Linearity, precision, recovery, and sensitivity were satisfactory. Detection limits ranged from 0.35 to 30 ng mL(-1). The method was successfully applied to the determination of cobalamins in seafoods, which were extracted from the sample with a buffer solution using an ultrasonic probe. The reliability of the procedure was checked by analyzing a certified reference material.

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