4.6 Article

Rapid screening of edible oils for phthalates using phase-transfer catalyst-assisted hydrolysis and liquid phase microextraction coupled to high performance liquid chromatography-tandem mass spectrometry

期刊

JOURNAL OF CHROMATOGRAPHY A
卷 1420, 期 -, 页码 26-34

出版社

ELSEVIER SCIENCE BV
DOI: 10.1016/j.chroma.2015.10.002

关键词

Total phthalate; Phthalic acid; Tetrabutylammonium bromide; Edible oil; Phase-transfer catalyst

资金

  1. Scientific Research Starting Foundation [Z111021005]
  2. Fundamental Research Funds from Northwest A&F University, China [Z109021565]

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Edible oil is easily contaminated with phthalic acid esters (PAEs). Conventional procedures to analyze individual PAEs require very rigorous experimental conditions that are extremely labor-intensive due to significant procedural contaminations generated by the ubiquitous presence of PAEs in the laboratory environment. In this study, a rapid screening method for PAEs in edible oil was successfully developed. Using a phase-transfer catalyst (terabutylammonium bromide) during oil/water biphasic base hydrolysis of PAEs, the hydrolysis time was decreased from a previously reported time of 20h to 10 min (80 degrees C). The resulting phthalic acid in the acidified hydrolysate was extracted with 600 mu L of tributyl phosphate and then analyzed by high performance liquid chromatography-tandem mass spectrometry in 6 min. Parameters affecting the hydrolysis of PAEs and the extraction of phthalic acid were optimized, and the analytical method was validated. No obvious matrix effect existed in the edible oils whether an external or internal standard method was used. The detection limit was 1.0 mu mol kg(-1), and the quantification limit was 1.3 mu mol kg(-1). The recovery rates varied from 86 to 107% with relative standard deviations equal to or lower than 9.9% in all of the tested conditions. Twenty-six samples were analyzed, and the background corrected total PAE content was found to be in the range of

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