...
首页> 外文期刊>Talanta: The International Journal of Pure and Applied Analytical Chemistry >Comparative evaluation of liquid-liquid extraction, solid-phase extraction and solid-phase microextraction for the gas chromatography-mass spectrometry determination of multiclass priority organic contaminants in wastewater
【24h】

Comparative evaluation of liquid-liquid extraction, solid-phase extraction and solid-phase microextraction for the gas chromatography-mass spectrometry determination of multiclass priority organic contaminants in wastewater

机译:液液萃取,固相萃取和固相微萃取用于气相色谱-质谱法测定废水中多种优先有机污染物的比较评价

获取原文
获取原文并翻译 | 示例
           

摘要

The European Water Framework Directive (WFD) 2000/60/EC establishes guidelines to control the pollution of surface water by sorting out a list of priority substances that involves a significant risk to or via the aquatic systems. In this article, the analytical performance of three different sample preparation methodologies for the GC-MS/MS determination of multiclass organic contaminants - including priority comprounds from the WFD - in wastewater samples using gas chromatography-mass spectrometry was evaluated. The methodologies tested were: (a) liquid-liquid extraction (LLE) with n-hexane; (b) solid-phase extraction (SPE) with C_(18) cartridges and elution with ethyl acetate:dichloromethane (1:1 (v/v)), and (c) headspace solid-phase microextraction (HS-SPME) using two different fibers: polyacrylate and polydimethylsiloxane/carboxen/divinilbenzene. Identification and confirmation of the selected 57 compounds included in the study (comprising polycyclic aromatic hydrocarbons (PAHs), pesticides and other contaminants) were accomplished using gas chromatography tandem mass spectrometry (GC-MS/MS) with a triple quadrupole instrument operated in the multiple reaction monitoring (MRM) mode. Three MS/MS transitions were selected for unambiguous confirmation of the target chemicals. The different advantages and pitfalls of each method were discussed. In the case of both LLE and SPE procedures, the method was validated at two different concentration levels (15 and 150 ng L~(-1)) obtaining recovery rates in the range 70-120% for most of the target compounds. In terms of analyte coverage, results with HS-SPME were not satisfactory, since 14 of the compounds tested were not properly recovered and the overall performance was worse than the other two methods tested. LLE, SPE and HS-SPME (using polyacrylate fiber) procedures also showed good linearity and precision. Using any of the three methodologies tested, limits of quantitation obtained for most of the detected compounds were in the low nanogram per liter range.
机译:欧洲水框架指令(WFD)2000/60 / EC制定了控制地表水污染的准则,方法是对一系列对水生系统或通过水生系统具有重大风险的优先物质进行分类。在本文中,使用气相色谱-质谱法评估了三种不同样品制备方法对废水样品中GC-MS / MS测定多类有机污染物(包括来自WFD的优先配合物)的分析性能。测试的方法是:(a)用正己烷进行液-液萃取(LLE); (b)用C_(18)柱进行固相萃取(SPE),并用乙酸乙酯:二氯甲烷(1:1(v / v))洗脱,以及(c)顶空固相微萃取(HS-SPME),使用两种不同的纤维:聚丙烯酸酯和聚二甲基硅氧烷/羧基/二乙烯基苯。使用气相色谱串联质谱仪(GC-MS / MS)和三重四极杆质谱仪对多个研究对象中的57种化合物(包括多环芳烃(PAHs),农药和其他污染物)进行鉴定和确认反应监测(MRM)模式。选择了三个MS / MS转换以明确确认目标化学物质。讨论了每种方法的不同优点和陷阱。在LLE和SPE程序中,该方法均在两种不同浓度水平(15和150 ng L〜(-1))下得到验证,大多数目标化合物的回收率在70-120%范围内。就分析物的覆盖率而言,HS-SPME的结果并不令人满意,因为其中14种化合物无法正确回收,总体性能比其他两种方法差。 LLE,SPE和HS-SPME(使用聚丙烯酸酯纤维)程序也显示出良好的线性和精度。使用所测试的三种方法中的任何一种,大多数检测到的化合物的定量限均在每升范围低的纳克范围内。

著录项

相似文献

  • 外文文献
  • 中文文献
  • 专利
获取原文

客服邮箱:kefu@zhangqiaokeyan.com

京公网安备:11010802029741号 ICP备案号:京ICP备15016152号-6 六维联合信息科技 (北京) 有限公司©版权所有
  • 客服微信

  • 服务号