4.6 Article

Development of a sensitive methodology for the analysis of chlorobenzenes in air by combination of solid-phase extraction and headspace solid-phase microextraction

期刊

JOURNAL OF CHROMATOGRAPHY A
卷 1045, 期 1-2, 页码 189-196

出版社

ELSEVIER SCIENCE BV
DOI: 10.1016/j.chroma.2004.06.033

关键词

air analysis; solid-phase microextraction; solid-phase extraction; factorial design; headspace analysis; chlorobenzenes; organochlorine compounds; volatile organic compounds

向作者/读者索取更多资源

In this study, a combination of solid-phase extraction (SPE) and solid-phase microextraction (SPME) has been used to determine chlorobenzenes in air. Analytes were sampled by pumping a known volume of air through a porous polymer (Tenax TA). Then, the adsorbent was transferred into a glass vial and SPME was performed. The quantification was carried out using gas chromatography (GC)-electron-capture detection or GC-MS. Several SPME coatings (100 mum poly(dimethylsiloxane) (PDMS), 75 mum Carboxen (CAR)-PDMS, 65 mum PDMS-divinylbenzene (DVB), 65 mum PDMS-DVB and 85 mum polyacrylate (PA) were evaluated, obtaining the highest responses with Carbowax (CW)-PDMS for the most volatile chlorobenzenes, and with PDMS-DVB or CW-DVB fibers for the semivolatile compounds. To optimize some other factors that could affect the SPME step, a factorial design was used. Kinetic studies of the SPME process were also performed. Concerning the SPE step, breakthrough was studied, showing that 2.5 m(3) of air could be processed without losses of the most volatile compounds. The performance of the method was evaluated. External calibration, which does not require the complete sampling process, demonstrated to be suitable. obtaining good linearity (R-2 > 0.99) for all chlorobenzenes. Recovery studies were performed at two concentration levels (4 and 40 ng/m(3)), obtaining quantitative recoveries (>80%). Limits of detection at the sub ng/m(3) were achieved for all the target compounds. (C) 2004 Elsevier B.V. All rights reserved.

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