4.8 Article

Separation and detection of explosives on a microchip using micellar electrokinetic chromatography and indirect laser-induced fluorescence

期刊

ANALYTICAL CHEMISTRY
卷 72, 期 8, 页码 1872-1878

出版社

AMER CHEMICAL SOC
DOI: 10.1021/ac991382y

关键词

-

向作者/读者索取更多资源

A new approach for sensitive detection on a microfabricated chip is presented. Indirect laser-induced-fluorescence (IDLIF) was used to detect explosive compounds after separation by micellar electrokinetic chromatography (MEKC), The detection setup was used in an epifluorescence configuration with excitation provided by a near-IR diode laser operating at 750 nm, To achieve indirect detection, a low concentration of a dye (5 mu M Cy7) was added to the running buffer as a visualizing agent. Using this methodology, a sample containing 14 explosives (EPA 8330 mixture) was examined. Concentrations of 1 ppm of trinitrobenzene (TNB), trinitrotoluene (TNT), dinitrobenzene (DNB), tetryl, and 2,4-dinitrotoluene (2,4-DNT) could be detected with S/N ratios between 3 and 10, Analyses showing 10 peaks, with plate numbers on the order of 60 000, were completed within 60 s using a 65 mm long separation channel. The three isomers of nitrotoluene (2-, 3-, and 4-nitrotoluene) were not resolved. Additionally, the two nitramines (HMX and RDX) could only be detected at much higher concentrations, likely due to the low fluorescence quenching efficiencies of these compounds. The analysis method was also used to separate and detect nitroaromatic compounds in extracts from spiked soil samples. The presence of 1 ppm (1 mu g of analyte/1 g of soil) of TNB, DNB, TNT, tetryl, 2,4-DNT, 2,6-DNT, 2-NH2-4,6-DNT, and 4-NH2-2,6-DNT could readily be detected. In the interest of increasing the sensitivity of the analysis, various on-chip injection schemes were evaluated. It was found that a 250 mu m double-T injector gave a 35% increase in peak signal compared to a straight-cross injector, which is less than expected based on injected volume.

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