4.7 Article

Nanostructure conducting molecularly imprinted polypyrrole film as a selective sorbent for benzoate ion and its application in spectrophotometric analysis of beverage samples

期刊

FOOD CHEMISTRY
卷 155, 期 -, 页码 186-191

出版社

ELSEVIER SCI LTD
DOI: 10.1016/j.foodchem.2014.01.041

关键词

Nanostructure; Polypyrrole; Molecularly imprinted; Selective sorbent; Electrochemically controlled solid-phase microextraction; Beverage

资金

  1. Research Council of Tarbiat Modares University
  2. Iran National Science Foundation (INSF)

向作者/读者索取更多资源

The benzoate anion was selectively extracted by electrochemically controlled solid-phase microextraction (EC-SPME) using a electro-synthesised nanostructure conducting molecularly imprinted polypyrrole (CMIP) film that imprinted for benzoate ions (template ion). The sorbent behaviors of CMIP were characterised using spectrophotometry analysis. The effect of pH, uptake and released times and potentials, template ion concentration, and interference were investigated, and experimental conditions optimised. The film exhibited excellent selectivity in the presence of potential interference from anions including salicylate, sorbate, citrate, phosphate, acetate and chloride ions. The calibration graph was linear (R-2 >= 0.993) in the range 1.1 x 10(-5)-5.5 x 10(-4) mol L-1 and detection limit was 5.2 x 10(-6) mol L-1. The relative standard deviation was less than 4.5% (n = 3). The CMIP film, as a solid-phase micro-extraction absorbent, was applied for the selective clean up and quantification of benzoate in beverage samples using the EC-SPME-spectrophotometric method. The results were in agreement. with those obtained using HPLC analysis. This method has a good selectivity and mechanical stability and is disposable simple to construct. However, HPLC method is more selective for determination of benzoate in some food products which have interference compounds such as vanilla and flavoring agents. (C) 2014 Elsevier Ltd. 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

4.7
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