An unsegmented extraction system for flow injection analysis

Sahleström, Ylva; Karlberg, Bo

doi:10.1016/s0003-2670(00)84476-1

Cited by 45 publications

(12 citation statements)

References 6 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Unclassified

Order By: Relevance

“…The technique was first introduced in 1986 by Sahleström and Karlberg [9], but it was seldom applied to real samples until just recently. MMLLE has not been studied as widely as supported liquid membrane extraction (SLM).…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Factors affecting microporous membrane liquid‐liquid extraction

Kuosmanen

Lehmusjärvi

Hyötyläinen³

et al. 2003

J of Separation Science

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Factors affecting microporous membrane liquidliquid extractionThe effect of different factors on the extraction yield in microporous membrane liquidliquid extraction (MMLLE) was studied in this work. The factors were the extraction temperature, mixing of the donor and acceptor solvents, state of the acceptor (stagnant or flowing), solvent set-up in the membrane unit (organic phase on top or bottom), adsorption of the analytes into the membrane material, and the membrane pore size. The effect of temperature, as it was mediated through the other factors, was of particular interest. Increase in the extraction temperature improved the extraction yields substantially: for naphthalene the extraction yield increased from 14.3% to 17.7% and for benz [a]anthracene from 0.4% to 11.1% when the temperature was raised from 208C to 808C. The diffusion coefficients, which were determined with a chromatographic band broadening method, were also clearly increased with temperature: the average diffusion coefficient obtained for naphthalene in water at ambient temperature was 7.92610 -10 m 2 /s, while at 708C it was 2.19610 -9 m 2 /s. The most vigorous mixing of the solvents was obtained with counter-currently flowing acceptor phase and water on top in the membrane block. The adsorption to the membrane material compared with theoretical 100% extraction yield ranged from 0.5 to 5.4% at 808C when no acceptor phase was present.

show abstract

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Factors affecting microporous membrane liquid‐liquid extraction

Kuosmanen

Lehmusjärvi

Hyötyläinen³

et al. 2003

J of Separation Science

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…The extraction yields (compared to on-column injections of standard solutions) were in the range 5.3-44.3% (average 18.6%). Because of the dynamic characteristics of MMLLE, 100% extraction yield is never achieved but these recoveries are on the same level as those usually obtained in MMLLE [32]. Although the extraction yields obtained with MMLLE are (Table 3).…”

Section: Quantitative Analysismentioning

confidence: 77%

On-line coupling of microporous membrane liquid?liquid extraction and gas chromatography in the analysis of organic pollutants in water

Lüthje

Hyötyläinen

Riekkola

2004

Analytical and Bioanalytical Chemistry

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

A method for the determination of hydrophobic pollutants in surface waters was developed. The pretreatment was done with microporous membrane liquid-liquid extraction, the extract was eluted to a sample loop in the large-volume injector valve of the gas chromatograph and the extract was injected on-line to the gas chromatograph. The method was optimised using standard compounds and the linearity, the limits of detection and quantification of the method were studied. The method allowed the determination of hydrophobic pesticides and PAHs at the ng L(-1) level. The RSD values for the repeatability of the method varied from 4.2% to 25.6%, being on average 9.5%. Surface water samples from Finnish lakes and rivers were analysed.

show abstract

“…3(a) -(c), [15][16][17] that were inert for extracting solvents, have been proposed. These fit the needs of a phase separator in the FIA system, which include not only a complete separation for several kinds of organic solvents but also the small dispersion of the injected and extracted samples.…”

Section: Flow Injection Analysis Coupled With Liquidliquid Extractionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Advancement of Flow-based Analysis with Alternative Chemical Reactions and New Devices for Environmental and Biological Samples

Sakai

Teshima

2008

ANAL. SCI.

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

This review includes our researches and other methodologies related to flow-based techniques, such as flow injection analysis (FIA) and sequential injection analysis (SIA). The methods will demonstrate semi-and full automated FIA and SIA, including liquid-liquid and liquid-solid extraction. FIA using alternative chemical reactions in the aqueous solution was applied to the trace analysis of metals in biological and environmental samples. For durable liquid-liquid extraction, several phase separators were designed. Moreover, multi-channel FIA with newly designed flow cells and SIA with labon-valve devices have been used for the simultaneous and successive determination of metals and organic compounds. On-line solid phase extraction (SPE) has also been proposed for highly sensitive analysis of organic and inorganic compounds.

show abstract

An unsegmented extraction system for flow injection analysis

Cited by 45 publications

References 6 publications

Factors affecting microporous membrane liquid‐liquid extraction

Factors affecting microporous membrane liquid‐liquid extraction

On-line coupling of microporous membrane liquid?liquid extraction and gas chromatography in the analysis of organic pollutants in water

Advancement of Flow-based Analysis with Alternative Chemical Reactions and New Devices for Environmental and Biological Samples

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About