Applied Water Science. Группа авторов

Чтение книги онлайн.

СКАЧАТЬ m-dSPE using 36 mg layered carbon-Fe₃O₄ under agitation for 10 min, a magnet was used for decantation, and elution (in triplicate) with 0.5 mL acetone by vortex for 10 s HPLC-UV 0.27–0.33 μg/L 88.0–104.7% at 5 and 10 μg/L One sample of each water were analyzed and residues of DAP and DIBP were found at 0.52 and 0.86 μg/L, respectively, in the river water sample Acetone showed higher extraction efficiency than MeOH and ACN as elution solvent [26] DMP, DEP, DIBP, DBP, DMEP, BMPP, DEEP, DNPP, DHXP, BBP, DBEP, DCHP, DEHP, DIPP, DNOP, and DNP Mineral and tap waters (9.8 mL plus 0.2 mL MeOH) m-dSPE using 0.1 mL suspension of MWCNTs-m-NPs in water (40 mg/ml) under vortex for 3 min, a magnet was used for decantation, and elution with 1 mL acetone GC-MS 0.016–0.13 μg/L 79.6–125.6% at 5 μg/L Two mineral and 1 tap water samples were analyzed and contained at least 3 PAEs at levels from 0.36 to 3.3 μg/L Acetone showed higher extraction efficiency than MeOH, ethyl acetate and hexane as elution solvent. Juice and carbonated drinks, and one perfume sample were also analyzed [77] DMP, DEP, DIBP, DBP, DEHP, BBP, and DNOP River and pond waters (10 mL) m-dSPE using 20 mg G-Fe₃O₄ under vortex for 15 min, a magnet was used for decantation, and elution with 0.4 mL ethyl acetate and 0.5 g anhydrous sodium sulfate by sonication for 15 min GC-MS 0.035–0.19 μg/L 88–110% at 10,000 μg/L One sample of each water were analyzed and residues of all PAEs except DMP were found at levels from 22.2 to 150.8 μg/L Ethyl acetate showed higher extraction efficiency than acetone and chloroform as elution solvent [79] DMP, DEP, DBP, BBP, and DNOP River, tap and mineral waters (20 mL) m-dSPE using 20 mg Fe₃O₄-ZIF-8 MOF under sonication for 8 min, a magnet was used for decantation, and elution with 1 mL MeOH by sonication for 8 min HPLC-DAD 0.3–0.8 μg/L 85.6–103.6% at 1, 10, and 100 μg/L One sample of each water were analyzed and at least 2 PAEs at levels from 5 to 60 μg/L were detected in the river and tap water samples Methanol showed higher extraction efficiency than ACN, chloroform and tetrahydrofuran as elution solvent [85] DMP, DEP, DIBP, DBP, DEHP, BBP, DNOP, DMEP, DEEP, DNPP, BMPP, DHXP, DBEP, DCHP, DPhP, and DINP Tap and lake waters (20 mL) m-dSPE using 20 mg Fe₃O₄-polypyrrole under agitation for 40 min, a magnet was used for decantation, and elution with 2 mL ethyl acetate by sonication for 60 min GC-MS 0.018–0.068 μg/L 80.4–108.2% at 5 and 100 μg/L One sample of each water were analyzed and at least 5 PAEs at levels from 0.10 to 6.90 μg/L were detected An orthogonal fraction factorial design was used for optimization purposes. Ethyl acetate showed higher extraction efficiency than acetone and isopropanol as elution solvent [81] DEP, DPP, DBP, DIPP, DNPP, BBP, DCHP, DEHP, DNOP, DINP, DIDP and DEHA Mineral, tap, pond and waste waters (25 mL adjusted at pH 6) m-dSPE using 60 mg Fe₃O₄-PDA under agitation for 1 min, a magnet was used for decantation, and elution with 6 mL dichloromethane by agitation for 30 s GC-MS/MS 0.009–0.02 μg/L 71–120% at 0.5 and 5 μg/L One sample of each water were analyzed and residues of DEP and DBP were found at levels from 0.36 ± 0.46 to 4.20 ± 0.52 μg/L in the mineral, tap and waste waters Dichloromethane showed higher extraction efficiency than acetone, MeOH and ACN as elution solvent [22] DMP, DEP, BBP, and DBP Carbonated, mineral and soda waters (25 mL) m-dSPE using 30 mg poly(1-vinyl-3-butylimidazolium bromide)-PS m-NPs under vortex for 2.5 min, a magnet was used for decantation, and elution with 7 mL ACN by sonication HPLC-DAD 0.017-0.047 μg/L 77.8-102.1% at 2 and 20 μg/L One sample of each water were analyzed and residues of DEP were found at 25.8 and 15.5 μg/L in the carbonate and soda waters, respectively ACN showed higher extraction efficiency than acetone, petroleum ether and MeOH as elution solvent [82] DMP, DEP, DAP, DIBP, and DBP Tap and well waters (5 mL plus 15% w/v NaCl) m-dSPE using 15 mg Fe₃O₄-MIL-101(Cr) MOF under agitation for 20 min, a magnet was used for decantation, and elution with 1 mL hexane/acetone (1:1 v/v) by vortex for 3 min GC-MS 0.3–0.5 μg/L 90.1–106.7% at 5 and 50 μg/L One sample of each water were analyzed and no residues were detected The use of Fe₃O₄-MIL-101(Cr) MOF showed higher enrichment capacity than Fe₃O₄ and MIL-101(Cr) MOF separately. Hexane/acetone (1:1 v/v) showed higher extraction efficiency than ethyl acetate, hexane, acetone and hexane/ethyl acetate (1:1 v/v) as elution solvent. Human plasma was also analyzed [86] DMP, DEP, DBP, BBP, DEHP, and DNOP Tap, drinking and mineral waters (10 mL) m-dSPE using 15 mg Fe₃O₄-MIL-100 MOF and 15-mg Fe₃O₄-SiO₂-polythiophene under sonication for 1 min and oscillation for 15 min, a magnet was used for decantation, and elution with 1 mL ACN by agitation for 10 min GC-MS 1.1–2.9 μg/L 76.9–109.1% at 1, 10 and 50 μg/L One sample of each water were analyzed and no residues were quantified A combination of 15-mg Fe₃O₄-MIL-100 MOF and 15-mg Fe₃O₄-SiO₂-polythiophene gave better extraction efficiency than using 30-mg each separately. ACN showed higher extraction efficiency than acetone, ethyl acetate and hexane as elution solvent [88] DMP, DBP, BBP, DCHP, and DEHP Tap and lake waters (100 mL adjusted at pH 6) m-dSPE using 30 mg poly(1-vinylimidazole)-carboxy-latocalix[4] arene m-NPs under sonication for 15 min, a magnet was used for decantation, and elution with 0.5 mL MeOH by sonication for 5 min HPLC-UV 0.05–0.11 μg/L 89.9–110.0% at 0.5, 1, and 5 μg/L One sample of each water were analyzed and contained at least 1 PAE at levels from 0.4 to 8.9 μg/L СКАЧАТЬ