4.6 Article

Combination of saponification with in-tube liquid-liquid extraction and dispersive liquid-liquid microextraction for determination of polybrominated diphenyl ethers in whole milk by gas chromatography-mass spectrometry

期刊

ANALYTICAL METHODS
卷 3, 期 4, 页码 842-848

出版社

ROYAL SOC CHEMISTRY
DOI: 10.1039/c0ay00742k

关键词

-

资金

  1. National Natural Science Foundation of China [20605021, 20975099]
  2. Key Projects in the National Science & Technology Pillar Program [2009ZX09308-0065]
  3. Research Subjects in the National Science & Technology Innovative Plan [2010IM030400]

向作者/读者索取更多资源

A simple, inexpensive and reliable analytical method was developed for the determination of polybrominated diphenyl ethers (PBDEs) in whole milk by gas chromatography-mass spectrometry (GC-MS). Matrix components such as proteins and fats in the whole milk were removed by saponification procedure and the combined PBDEs were released. Then, a simple one-step liquid-liquid extraction procedure in the centrifuge tube (in-tube LLE) was performed and PBDEs were extracted into petroleum ether. After centrifugation, dehydration and nitrogen drying of petroleum ether phase, the extract was dissolved in acetonitrile. The acetonitrile solution was directly used as dispersant for the subsequent dispersive liquid-liquid microextraction (DLLME). Under the optimal conditions, the enrichment factors (EFs) of PBDEs ranged from 270 to 307. The calibration was performed by use of matrix-matched calibration standards, the correlation coefficients were better than 0.99 and the limits of detection (LODs) ranged from 0.012 to 0.29 mu g L(-1). The recoveries for the whole milk samples analysis spiked at 1 mu g L(-1) were between 78% and 120% with relative standard deviations (RSDs) ranging from 1.7% to 11% (n = 5). In this study, a simple, valid and combined sample preparation method was applied in the analysis of PBDEs in whole milk sample and the satisfactory recoveries for PBDEs were obtained.

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

4.6
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