4.6 Article Proceedings Paper

Automated hollow fiber-protected dynamic liquid-phase microextraction of pesticides for gas chromatography - Mass spectrometric analysis

期刊

JOURNAL OF CHROMATOGRAPHY A
卷 985, 期 1-2, 页码 107-116

出版社

ELSEVIER SCIENCE BV
DOI: 10.1016/S0021-9673(02)01827-7

关键词

liquid-phase microextraction; extraction methods; automation; pesticides

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Dynamic liquid-phase microextraction (LPME) controlled by a programmable syringe pump was evaluated for extracting pesticides in water prior to GC-MS analysis. A conventional microsyringe with a 1.3-cm length of hollow fiber. attached to its needle was connected to a syringe pump to perform the extraction. The microsyringe was used as both the microextraction device as well as the sample introduction device for GC-MS analysis. The attached hollow fiber served as the holder and protector of 3 mul of organic solvent. The solvent was repeatedly withdrawn into and discharged from the hollow fiber by the syringe pump. Pesticides were extracted from 4-ml water samples into the organic solvent impregnated in the hollow fiber. The effects of organic solvents, plunger movement pattern, agitation and extraction time were investigated. Good repeatabilities of extraction performance were obtained, with the RSD values ranging from 3.0% (alachlor) to 9.8% (4-chlorophenol) for the 14 pesticides; most RSD values were under 5.0%. The method provided a 490-fold preconcentration of the target pesticides. The limits of detection were in the range of 0.01-5.1 mug/l (SIN=3) in the GC-MS selected ion monitoring mode. In addition, sample clean-up was achieved during LPME because of the selectivity of the hollow fiber, which prevented undesirable large molecules from being extracted. A slurry sample (mixture of 40 mg soil/ml of water) containing seven pesticides was extracted using this method which also gave good linearity and precision (most RSDs<7.0%, n=3). (C) 2002 Elsevier Science 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