4.8 Article

Combining drop-to-drop solvent microextraction with gas chromatography/mass spectrometry using electronic ionization and self-ion/molecule reaction method to determine methoxyacetophenone isomers in one drop of water

期刊

ANALYTICAL CHEMISTRY
卷 78, 期 5, 页码 1707-1712

出版社

AMER CHEMICAL SOC
DOI: 10.1021/ac052076p

关键词

-

向作者/读者索取更多资源

A novel analytical technique termed drop-to-drop solvent microextraction (DDSME) was developed to determine three methoxyacetophenone isomers in one drop of water, which were then detected by gas chromatography/mass spectrometry using electronic ionization mass spectrometry for quantification analysis and self-ion/molecule reaction/tandem mass spectrometry for isomer differentiation. The best optimum parameters for the DDSME technique were as follows: extraction time, 5 min; using toluene as the extraction solvent; volume of extraction solvent, 0.5 mu L and no salt addition. The advantages of this method are rapidity, convenience, ease of operation, simplicity of the device, and extremely little solvent and sample consumption. The limit of detection (LOD) for this technique was 1 ng/mL. The relative standard deviation was less than 2.6% (n = 5). The linear range of the calibration curve of DDSME is from 0.01 to 5 mu g/mL with correlation coefficient (r(2)) of > 0.954. In the comparison of the LOD of DDSME with other sample pretreatment methods including liquid/liquid extraction (LLE), single-drop microextraction (SDME), solid-phase microextraction (SPME), and liquid-phase microextraction (LPME) using a dual gauge microsyringe with hollow fiber methods, this method shows much better in sensitivity than the LLE (25 ng/mL) and it is compatible with SDME (0.5 ng/mL), SPME (0.5 ng/mL), and LPME using a dual gauge microsyringe with a hollow fiber (1 ng/mL). However, DDSME was more convenient than the LPME using a dual gauge microsyringe with a hollow fiber method and much lower cost than the SPME technique.

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

4.8
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