3 years ago

Comparison of a disposable sorptive sampler with thermal desorption in a gas chromatographic inlet, or in a dedicated thermal desorber, to conventional stir bar sorptive extraction-thermal desorption for the determination of micropollutants in water

Comparison of a disposable sorptive sampler with thermal desorption in a gas chromatographic inlet, or in a dedicated thermal desorber, to conventional stir bar sorptive extraction-thermal desorption for the determination of micropollutants in water
The presence of micropollutants in the aquatic environment is a worldwide environmental concern. The diversity of micropollutants and the low concentration levels at which they may occur in the aquatic environment have greatly complicated the analysis and detection of these chemicals. Two sorptive extraction samplers and two thermal desorption methods for the detection of micropollutants in water were compared. A low-cost, disposable, in-house made sorptive extraction sampler was compared to SBSE using a commercial Twister sorptive sampler. Both samplers consisted of polydimethylsiloxane (PDMS) as a sorptive medium to concentrate micropollutants. Direct thermal desorption of the disposable samplers in the inlet of a GC was compared to conventional thermal desorption using a commercial thermal desorber system (TDS). Comprehensive gas chromatography coupled to time-of-flight mass spectrometry (GC × GC-TOFMS) was used for compound separation and identification. Ten micropollutants, representing a range of heterogeneous compounds, were selected to evaluate the performance of the methods. The in-house constructed sampler, with its associated benefits of low-cost and disposability, gave results comparable to commercial SBSE. Direct thermal desorption of the disposable sampler in the inlet of a GC eliminated the need for expensive consumable cryogenics and total analysis time was greatly reduced as a lengthy desorption temperature programme was not required. Limits of detection for the methods ranged from 0.0010 ng L−1 to 0.19 ng L−1. For most compounds, the mean (n = 3) recoveries ranged from 85% to 129% and the % relative standard deviation (% RSD) ranged from 1% to 58% with the majority of the analytes having a %RSD of less than 30%.

Publisher URL: www.sciencedirect.com/science

DOI: S0003267017307365

You might also like
Discover & Discuss Important Research

Keeping up-to-date with research can feel impossible, with papers being published faster than you'll ever be able to read them. That's where Researcher comes in: we're simplifying discovery and making important discussions happen. With over 19,000 sources, including peer-reviewed journals, preprints, blogs, universities, podcasts and Live events across 10 research areas, you'll never miss what's important to you. It's like social media, but better. Oh, and we should mention - it's free.

  • Download from Google Play
  • Download from App Store
  • Download from AppInChina

Researcher displays publicly available abstracts and doesn’t host any full article content. If the content is open access, we will direct clicks from the abstracts to the publisher website and display the PDF copy on our platform. Clicks to view the full text will be directed to the publisher website, where only users with subscriptions or access through their institution are able to view the full article.