4.7 Article

Comparative study of hollow-fiber liquid-phase micro-extraction and an aqueous two-phase system for determination of phytohormones in soil

期刊

ANALYTICAL AND BIOANALYTICAL CHEMISTRY
卷 403, 期 6, 页码 1743-1749

出版社

SPRINGER HEIDELBERG
DOI: 10.1007/s00216-012-5984-9

关键词

Ionic liquid; hollow-fiber liquid-phase micro-extraction; aqueous two-phase systems; phytohormones; soil samples

资金

  1. National Natural Science Foundation of China [50830303]
  2. Program for Changjiang Scholars and Innovative Research Team in University [IRT0853]
  3. Education Department Foundation of Shaanxi Province in China [11JK0570]
  4. Research Achievements Foundation of Xi'an University of Architecture and Technology [ZC1004]

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Two methods, hollow-fiber liquid-phase micro-extraction (HF-LPME) and an aqueous two-phase system (ATPS), have been systematically optimized and compared for extraction and determination of phytohormones in soil by high-performance liquid chromatography (HPLC). The effects on extraction of conditions including solvent type and volume, extraction time, temperature, and amount of salt were evaluated. It was shown that ATPS was superior to HF-LPME for determination of paclobutrazol and uniconazole under the optimum conditions. The limits of detection (LODs) of ATPS were 0.002 mu g g(-1) for uniconazole and 0.01 mu g g(-1) for paclobutrazol, whereas LODs of HF-LPME were 0.005 mu g g(-1) and 0.03 mu g g(-1), respectively. Relative standard deviations (RSDs, = 5) and recovery were in the range 1.7-5.3 % and 86-102 %, respectively, for ATPS and 6.7-7.9 % and 40-60 % for HF-LPME. In addition, the advantages of ATPS were shorter extraction time, suitable for simultaneous pretreatment of batches of samples, and higher extraction capacity. ATPS was therefore applied to the determination of paclobutrazol and uniconazole in real soil samples. Uniconazole was detected in all the samples analyzed whereas paclobutrazol was not found.

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