4.7 Article

Headspace solid-phase microextraction gas chromatography tandem mass spectrometry for the determination of brominated flame retardants in environmental solid samples

期刊

ANALYTICAL AND BIOANALYTICAL CHEMISTRY
卷 385, 期 3, 页码 637-644

出版社

SPRINGER HEIDELBERG
DOI: 10.1007/s00216-006-0440-3

关键词

SPME; headspace analysis; brominated flame retardants; PBDEs; PBBs; sediment; soil; environmental analysis; GC-MS-MS

向作者/读者索取更多资源

A headspace solid-phase microextraction gas chromatography coupled with tandem mass spectrometry (HSSPME-GC-MS-MS) methodology for determination of brominated flame retardants in sediment and soil samples is presented. To the best of our knowledge, this is the first time that SPME has been applied to analyze polybrominated biphenyls (PBBs) and polybrominated diphenyl ethers (PBDEs) in environmental solid samples. Analyses were performed using 0.5-g solid samples moisturized with 2 mL water, employing a polydimethylsiloxane (PDMS) fiber coating, exposed to the headspace at 100 degrees C for 60 min. Several types of environmental solid samples were included in this study and the extraction efficiency was related to the organic matter content of the sample. Calibration was performed using real samples, and the method showed good linearity over a wide concentration range, precision, and afforded quantitative recoveries. The obtained detection limits were in the sub-ng g(-1) for all the target analytes in both samples. The proposed procedure was applied to several marine and river sediments and soils, some of which were found to contain PBDEs at concentrations in the ng g(-1) level; BDE-47, BDE-100, and BDE-99 were the major congeners detected. The proposed method constitutes a rapid and low-cost alternative for the analysis of the target brominated flame retardants in environmental solid samples, since the clean-up steps, fractionation, and preconcentration of extracts inherent to the classical multi-step solvent extraction procedures are avoided.

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