超临界流体分级萃取正构烷烃和多环芳烃

本工作用超临界ＣＯ２对环境模拟样品中的正构烷烃和多环芳烃的超临界分级萃取方法及超临界ＣＯ２的压力，温度和用量对分级效率的影响进行了详细的研究。结果表明，在低压、低温下（８０ＭＰａ，５０℃）能成功地分级萃取正构烷烃和多环芳烃，其Ｃ１０～Ｃ１８的萃取率为９９．９４％～５９．２８％，而多环芳烃基本未被萃取。当压力升至２６．０ＭＰａ、温度升至８０℃时，可有效地萃取多环芳烃，实现了正构烷烃和多环芳烃的有效分离     

用自制新型端羟基冠醚固相微萃取涂层快速监测水中痕量多环芳烃

采用溶胶—凝胶技术，加入自制的新化合物端羟基冠酸，成功地涂制了固相微萃取涂层；用半挥发性的有机污染物多环芳烃评价了涂层的基本性能，并对实际水样中的多环芳烃进行了分析。该方法的线性范围在0．1—10μg／L，检出限在0．001—0.03μg/L，8种多环芳烃化合物测定的相对标准偏差在2．05％一9．80％，回收率在85％以上。     

ACF-SPME检测海洋水体中的多环芳烃

使用新型活性炭纤维(ACF)作为固相微萃取(SPME)技术的萃取纤维,检测了海水中的多环芳烃。得到ACF-SPME萃取多环芳烃的最优条件为:在搅拌条件下,盐浓度10%,pH3,温度60℃水浴中直接萃取40min。并确定16种多环芳烃的RSD(n=5)为1.8%～10%、线性范围为0.1～500μg/L、检出限为0.1～100μg/L。对东海近海海水进行了分析,结果表明海水中PAHs浓度在检测限以下,同时进行加标回收实验,得到16种多环芳烃的回收率在80%～128%。     

固相萃取-高效液相色谱法测定水中的多环芳烃

建立了固相萃取-一高效液相色谱法测定水中多环芳烃的方法。水样经L-18固相萃取柱吸附后用二氯甲烷洗脱,氮吹干后换甲醇溶剂。反相C18柱为色谱柱;水、甲醇为流动相进行梯度洗脱,流速为1．0mL／min;柱温为30℃;检测器为荧光检测器、紫外检测器。方法的检出限为0．00006-0.03μg／L,回收率为80％～110％,测定结果的相对标准偏差为0．1％～3．6％（n=5）。方法适合于水中16种多环芳烃的测定。     

多规格硅橡胶萃取棒的萃取性能研究

采用溶胶-凝胶-硫化法,以甲基乙烯基硅橡胶和乙烯基封端硅橡胶为原料,制备了6种规格的搅拌棒,分别为2 cm(涂层3 mg、8 mg、13 mg)和1 cm、2 cm、3 cm(涂层皆8 mg)。以多环芳烃为目标分析物,考察了搅拌棒的萃取效率。结果表明,萃取条件不变,分子量小的多环芳烃,增加涂层厚度或体积,可提高萃取效率。分子量大的多环芳烃,要提高萃取效率,除具备一定的萃取体积,还要有足够的表面积。用长度1 cm(涂层3 mg、6 mg)、长度2 cm(涂层3 mg)、长度3 cm(涂层6 mg、13 mg)的搅拌棒,优化条件下,萃取5 min~30 min时,多环芳烃的检出限2 ng/L~140 ng/L,各组分峰面积的相对标准偏差小于12%。实际样品雨水的分析,发现了萘及苊的存在。     

pH侬赖型脂肪酸辅助的分散液-液微萃取与高效液相色谱仪联用测定水样中3种多环芳烃

建立了pH依赖型脂肪酸辅助的分散液-液微萃取与高效液相色谱联用测定水中菲、芘、苊3种多环芳烃(PAHs)的新方法。对影响前处理方法的因素进行了考察,在55μL正庚酸、50μL 28%(质量分数)浓氨水、500μL 98%(质量分数)浓硫酸、离心时间3 min的萃取条件下,采用Diamonsil C_(18)柱(150 mm×4.6 mm,5μm)分离,乙腈-水等度洗脱的方式测定了自来水、井水和海水样品中的3种多环芳烃。结果显示,3种多环芳烃在20～500μg/L范围内具有良好的线性关系,相关系数不小于0.999 3,3种目标化合物的检出限为9.18～13.11μg/L。实际样品中3种多环芳烃在3个浓度水平的加标回收率为87.9%～110%,RSD均不大于3.0%。该方法将脂肪酸作为萃取剂,与HPLC联用实现了多环芳烃的富集与检测,为环境水样中多环芳烃的检测提供了新的前处理方法。方法简便、快速,实验过程仅需6 min即可实现水样中多环芳烃的定量测定。     

用固相萃取技术富集水中多环芳烃

系统地研究了淋洗剂强度、用量和有机改性剂的加入对固相萃取水中多环芳烃回收率的影响。研究表明,二氯甲烷和苯的洗脱效果较好,回收率为８７％～１０２％;当淋洗剂的用量超过１．５ｍＬ时,对多环芳烃的回收率没有明显的影响;向自来水样中加入２０％有机改性剂可明显改善多环芳烃的回收效果,使回收率达到８９％～１０８％。     

固相微萃取-气相色谱-质谱联用测定海水和沉积物间隙水中的痕量多环芳烃

建立了固相微萃取(SPME)与气相色谱-质谱(GC-MS)联用同时测定海水中16种多环芳烃的分析方法, 研究了萃取时间、盐度条件的影响. 同时用SPME的方法研究了海水中的溶解有机物(DOM)对多环芳烃萃取的影响. 计算出不同DOM浓度下多环芳烃K_DOM与K_OW的关系: C_DOM=5 mg/L时, logK_DOM = 0.7944K_OW + 0.773 (R² = 0.91). C_DOM=10 mg/L时, logK_DOM = 0.7905K_OW + 0.668 (R² = 0.97); C_DOM=30 mg/L时, logK_DOM = 0.714K_OW + 1.0407(R² = 0.91). 该法对16种多环芳烃的检出限为0.1~3.5 ng/L, 相对标准偏差(RSD, n=5)为 4%~23%. 用该法分析海洋环境中的痕量多环芳烃, 16种多环芳烃的平均回收率为88.2±20.4%, 方法快速、灵敏、简单, 适用于快速分析海水和沉积物间隙水样中的痕量多环芳烃.     

分散液液微萃取-气相色谱/质谱法测定水中多环芳烃

用分散液液微萃取-气相色谱/质谱法测定水样中的16种多环芳烃(PAHs)。通过实验确定最佳萃取条件为:20μL四氯化碳作萃取剂,1.0 mL乙腈作分散剂,超声萃取1 min。在优化条件下,多环芳烃的富集倍数达到216～511,方法在0.05～50μg/L范围内呈良好的线性关系,相关系数(R2)在0.9873～0.9983之间,检出限为0.0020～0.14μg/L。相对标准偏差(RSD)在3.82%～12.45%(n=6)之间。该方法成功用于实际水样中痕量多环芳烃的测定。     

固相膜萃取与GC/MS联用测定地下水中痕量半挥发性有机物的野外采样方法研究

C18固相萃取膜适宜处理大体积地下水样现场采样而且易于运输、贮存。利用C18固相膜萃取以及GC／MS联用的方法对地下水中痕量半挥发性有机污染物进行了萃取以及定性、定量分析。优化了固相膜萃取的地下水采样量和浓缩体积。有机氯农药和多环芳烃的平均回收率分别为85％～110．1％、90．3％～115．1％；方法检出限达到10^-9g／L；相对标准偏差均小于15％。本方法用于北京地区地下水中的有机污染物分析，并给出地下水样C18固相膜萃取的GC／MS测定结果。     

石墨烯固相萃取测定水中稠环芳烃

建立了石墨烯固相萃取柱萃取和高效液相色谱法检测8种稠环芳烃的方法。采用紫外检测器进行定性和定量分析。对包括吸附剂的种类、洗脱剂的种类和用量、样品溶液的pH和样品体积等实验参数进行了详细优化。在优化条件下,8种稠环芳烃在0.0200～150μg/L浓度范围内与峰面积呈良好的线性关系,相关系数为0.990～0.996。信噪比为3时,稠环芳烃的检出限为0.0020～0.080μg/L。方法的精密度为1.30%～4.65%。将该方法用于环境水样分析,回收率为82.50%～106.5%。     

气相色谱-质谱法测定热塑性弹性体中的多环芳烃

建立了一种简单、准确的测定热塑性弹性体中16种多环芳烃(PAHs)的气相色谱-质谱(GC-MS)方法。考察了样品制备、萃取溶剂、萃取方法、时间以及温度对厂家制备的阳性热塑性弹性体样品中PAHs提取效率的影响,确定了萃取条件和方法。样品经甲苯超声萃取、浓缩后用环己烷溶解、二甲亚砜液液萃取净化后采用GC-MS进行分析,内标法定量。通过对不同材质阳性热塑性弹性体样品的加标回收、精密度试验等对建立的方法进行评价,16种PAHs的平均回收率为70%～117%,精密度为0.2%～10.8%。该方法适合于热塑性弹性体中PAHs的测定。     

加速溶剂萃取/气相色谱-质谱测定海洋沉积物中的痕量多环芳烃

沉积物是多环芳烃(polycyclic aromatic hydrocarbons,PAHs)在环境中迁移归趋的一个重要的汇[1]。沉积物中多环芳烃的提取方法主要有索氏提取、超声波提取、微波萃取、加速溶剂提取及超临界流体萃取等。其中加速溶剂提取(accelerated solvent extraction,ASE)由于提取速度快,溶     

微波萃取-GC/MS联用法测定橡胶及其制品中多环芳烃

建立了微波萃取-GC/MS联用法测定橡胶及其制品中16种多环芳烃(PAHs)的方法,通过实验优化了萃取溶剂、萃取时间、萃取温度等微波萃取条件和16种PAHs的分离和测定条件。用加标回收方法试验确定方法的准确度。结果表明:16种PAHs检出限(S/N=5)为0.002~0.01 mg/L,平均回收率为63.58%~100.5%,RSD为1.9%~9.9%。该方法可以满足橡胶及其制品中多环芳烃的检测要求。     

Determination of polycyclic aromatic hydrocarbons in marine sediments using a new ASE-SFE extraction technique

In order to determine PAHs in marine sediment samples by GC/MS(SIM) a new extraction approach of ASE-SFE was evaluated using combined accelerated solvent extraction (ASE, dynamic and static mode) and supercritical fluid extraction (SFE, dynamic mode) without further purification of the sample. The solvents used for ASE-SFE were methylene chloride and carbon dioxide. The recovery data, precision and accuracy of the whole method were evaluated statistically. The average recoveries of PAHs, based on deuterated internal standards were 77% for 2-3-ring PAHs, 85% for 4-ring PAHs, 88% for 5-ring PAHs and 97% for 6-ring PAHs. The extraction time required for the ASE-SFE technique was 30 min, which is longer than in the case of independent use of ASE and shorter compared to SFE. ASE-SFE recoveries of PAHs from SRM marine sediment are comparable for (2-3-ring, 4-ring PAHs) or higher (5-ring, 6-ring PAHs) than reported for the conventional extraction methods of ASE and SFE. Method detection limits of (MDL) were statistically estimated. MDL values obtained for 15 PAHs compounds vary between 0.06 ngg(-1) and 3.54 ngg(-1).     

Determination of polycyclic aromatic hydrocarbons in marine sediments using a new ASE-SFE extraction technique

In order to determine PAHs in marine sediment samples by GC/MS(SIM) a new extraction approach of ASE-SFE was evaluated using combined accelerated solvent extraction (ASE, dynamic and static mode) and supercritical fluid extraction (SFE, dynamic mode) without further purification of the sample. The solvents used for ASE-SFE were methylene chloride and carbon dioxide. The recovery data, precision and accuracy of the whole method were evaluated statistically. The average recoveries of PAHs, based on deuterated internal standards were 77% for 2–3-ring PAHs, 85% for 4-ring PAHs, 88% for ¶5-ring PAHs and 97% for 6-ring PAHs. The extraction time required for the ASE-SFE technique was 30 min, which is longer than in the case of independent use of ASE and shorter compared to SFE. ASE-SFE recoveries of PAHs from SRM marine sediment are comparable for (2–3-ring, 4-ring PAHs) or higher (5-ring, 6-ring PAHs) than reported for the conventional extraction methods of ASE and SFE. Method detection limits of (MDL) were statistically estimated. MDL values obtained for 15 PAHs compounds vary between 0.06 ngg^?1 and 3.54 ngg^?1.     

A Simple Extraction Method for Determination of High Molecular Weight Polycyclic Aromatic Hydrocarbons in Sediments by Gas Chromatography–Mass Spectrometry

A simplified extraction method was developed for extracting high molecular weight polycyclic aromatic hydrocarbons (PAHs) from river sediments. The samples were extracted 3 times with 5 mL of solvent (toluene:methanol, 9 : 1, v/v) at 100 °C, 10 minutes for each extraction. After clean‐up and concentration, extracts were analyzed by gas chromatography coupled with mass spectrometer (GC‐MS). The extraction efficiency and accuracy was evaluated by the standard reference material (SRM‐1941b). Comparing to certified values, the average recoveries of high molecular weight PAHs with 3, 4, 5 and 6 fused benzene rings were 72.9∼113.2 % (R.S.D. 2.3∼6.3 %) except those of dibenz[a,h]anthracene (206.2±4.6 %). The average recoveries for PAHs spiked sediment samples were comparable with accelerated solvent extraction (ASE) and Soxhlet methods. The simple extraction method consumes less solvent, fewer amount of sample than those of conventional methods. The lowest quantitation limit of PAHs is 1.1 μg/kg.     

Extraction optimization of polycyclic aromatic hydrocarbons by alcoholic-assisted dispersive liquid-liquid microextraction and their determination by HPLC

A sensitive method for the extraction and determination of polycyclic aromatic hydrocarbons (PAHs) using alcoholic-assisted dispersive liquid-liquid microextraction (AA-DLLME) and HPLC was developed. The extraction procedure was based on alcoholic solvents for both extraction and dispersive solvents. The effective parameters (type and volume of extraction and dispersive solvents, amount of salt and stirring time) on the extraction recovery were studied and optimized utilizing factorial design (FD) and central composite design (CCD). The best recovery was achieved by FD using 2-ethyl-1-hexanol as the extraction solvent and methanol as the dispersive solvent. The results showed that volume of dispersive solvent and stirring time had no effect on the recovery of PAHs. The optimized conditions were 145 μL of 2-ethyl-1-hexanol as the extraction solvent and 4.2% w/v of salt (NaCl) in sample solution. The enrichment factors of PAHs were in the range of 310-325 with limits of detection of 0.002-0.8 ng/mL. The linearity was 0.01-800 ng/mL for different PAHs. The relative standard deviation (RSD) for intra- and inter-day of extraction of PAHs were in the range of 1.7-7.0 and 5.6-7.3, respectively, for five measurements. The method was also successfully applied for the determination of PAHs in environmental water samples.     

The Extraction of Polycyclic Aromatic Hydrocarbons from Atmospheric Particulate Matter Samples by Accelerated Solvent Extraction (ASE)

Abstract

The Accelerated solvent extraction (ASE) of PAHs (23 2- to 6-ring species) spiked onto glass fibre filters (GFFs) was studied as a function of variable extraction solvents, pressure, temperature and extraction times. Acceptable recoveries (85% ± 15%) were obtained for certain combinations of conditions and a tentative method (1500 psi, 150°C, 70:30 hexane:acetone mixture, 7 min heat-up time, 5 min static extraction time, 60% flush volume, 2 static cycles was selected for further testing. However, this method did not prove as effective as the traditional Soxhlet method of extraction when these parameters were used to extract native PAHs from ambient atmospheric particulate matter collected on a GFF by Integrated Atmospheric Deposition Network (IADN) sampling protocols. The extraction recovery study for spiked GFFs was repeated using slightly different extraction conditions: 2000 psi, 100°C, 70:30 hexane:acetone, 5 min heat-up time, 5 min static extraction time, 150% flush volume, 3 static cycles. When this method was applied to the extraction of native PAHs from ambient atmospheric particulate matter collected on GFFs, the results showed equivalent or better recoveries to that of the Soxhlet method. The total time of extraction was 25 min requiring only 30 mL of solvent. This ASE method is presently used to quantitatively determine PAHs in IADN particle-phase samples.