These tools will no longer be maintained as of December 31, 2024. Archived website can be found here. PubMed4Hh GitHub repository can be found here. Contact NLM Customer Service if you have questions.


Pubmed for Handhelds

PUBMED FOR HANDHELDS

Search MEDLINE/PubMed

  • Title: Coextraction of acidic, basic and amphiprotic pollutants using multiwalled carbon nanotubes/magnetite nanoparticles@polypyrrole composite.
    Author: Asgharinezhad AA, Ebrahimzadeh H.
    Journal: J Chromatogr A; 2015 Sep 18; 1412():1-11. PubMed ID: 26278357.
    Abstract:
    The simultaneous extraction of acidic, basic and amphiprotic pollutants from various samples is a considerable and disputable concept in sample preparation strategies. In this study, for the first time, coextraction of acidic, basic and amphiprotic pollutants (polar and apolar) with multiwalled carbon nanotubes/Fe3O4@polypyrrole (MWCNTs/Fe3O4@PPy) composite based dispersive micro-solid phase extraction followed by high performance liquid chromatography-photo diode array detection was introduced. Firstly, the extraction efficiency of various magnetic nanosorbents including Fe3O4, MWCNTs/Fe3O4, graphene oxide/Fe3O4 (GO/Fe3O4), Fe3O4@PPy, MWCNTs/Fe3O4@PPy and GO/Fe3O4@PPy were compared. The results revealed that MWCNTs/Fe3O4@PPy nanocomposite has higher extraction efficiency for five selected model analytes (4-nitrophenol, 3-nitroaniline, 2,4-dichloroaniline, 3,4-dichloroaniline and 1-amino-2-naphthol). Box-Behnken design methodology combined with desirability function approach was applied to find out the optimal experimental conditions. The opted conditions were: pH of the sample, 8.2; sorbent amount, 12 mg; sorption time, 5.5 min; salt concentration, 14% w/w; type and volume of the eluent, 120 μL acetonitrile; elution time; 2 min. Under the optimum conditions detection limits and linear dynamic ranges were achieved in the range of 0.1-0.25 μg L(-1) and 0.5-600 μg L(-1), respectively. The percent of extraction recovery and relative standard deviations (n=5) were in the range of 45.6-82.2 and 4.0-8.5, respectively. Ultimately, the applicability of this method was successfully confirmed by analyzing rain, snow and river water samples and satisfactory results were obtained.
    [Abstract] [Full Text] [Related] [New Search]