4.6 Article Proceedings Paper

Determination of dichlorvos by on-line microwave-assisted extraction coupled to headspace solid-phase microextraction and gas chromatography-electron-capture detection

期刊

JOURNAL OF CHROMATOGRAPHY A
卷 976, 期 1-2, 页码 349-355

出版社

ELSEVIER
DOI: 10.1016/S0021-9673(02)01144-5

关键词

extraction methods; headspace analysis; vegetables; food analysis; dichlorvos; pesticides

向作者/读者索取更多资源

The pretreatment technique of microwave-assisted extraction on-line headspace solid-phase microextraction (MAE-HS-SPME) was designed and studied for one-step in-situ sample preparation prior to the chromatographic analysis of a pesticide on vegetables. The pesticide on chopped vegetables was extracted into an aqueous solution with the aid of microwave irradiation and then directly onto the SPME fiber in headspace. After being collected on to the SPME fiber and desorbed in the GC injection port, the pesticide (dichlorvos) was analyzed with a GC-electron-capture detection system. The optimum conditions for obtaining extraction efficiency, such as the pH, the polarity modifier, and the salt added in sample solution, the microwave irradiation, as well as the desorption parameters were investigated. Experimental results indicated that the proposed MAE-HS-SPME technique attained the best extraction efficiency of 106% recovery under the optimized conditions, i.e. irradiation of extraction solution (10% aqueous ethylene glycol) at pH 5.0 with medium microwave power for 10 min. Desorption at 220 degreesC for 3 min offered the best detection result. The detection was linear at 5-75 mug/l with correlation coefficient of 0.9985. Detection limit was obtained at similar to1.0 mug/l level based on S/N=3. The proposed method provided a very simple, fast, and solvent-less procedure to collect pesticides directly from vegetables for GC determination. Its application was illustrated by the analysis of trace dichlorvos in vegetables. (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