2013
DOI: 10.1016/j.aca.2013.10.052
|View full text |Cite
|
Sign up to set email alerts
|

Capabilities and limitations of dispersive liquid–liquid microextraction with solidification of floating organic drop for the extraction of organic pollutants from water samples

Help me understand this report

Search citation statements

Order By: Relevance

Paper Sections

Select...
2
2
1

Citation Types

2
31
0

Year Published

2014
2014
2016
2016

Publication Types

Select...
8

Relationship

0
8

Authors

Journals

citations
Cited by 61 publications
(33 citation statements)
references
References 35 publications
2
31
0
Order By: Relevance
“…Compared with previously reported manual methods dealing with liquidliquid microextraction of phenolic compounds, better extraction efficiencies are achieved for most of the common phenolic compounds studied, except for 2,4,6-TCP. Fattahi et al [38] reported extraction efficiencies of 28.7, 62, and 75.15 % for 2-CP, 2,4-DCP, and 2,4,6-TCP, respectively, Faraji et al [39] reported extraction efficiencies of 21, 34, 63, and 86 % for phenol, 2-CP, 2,4-DCP, and 2,4,6-TCP, respectively, and Vera-Ávila et al [36] reported extraction efficiencies of 13.1, 38.2, 76.9, and 86.2 % for phenol, 2-CP, 2,4-DCP, and 2,4,6-TCP, respectively. Furthermore, higher precision is achieved with the present method, i.e., RSDs between 6.4 and 10.4 % in comparison with RSDs of 5.2 % or less obtained with the proposed system.…”
Section: Quantification Of Phenolic Compoundsmentioning
confidence: 99%
See 2 more Smart Citations
“…Compared with previously reported manual methods dealing with liquidliquid microextraction of phenolic compounds, better extraction efficiencies are achieved for most of the common phenolic compounds studied, except for 2,4,6-TCP. Fattahi et al [38] reported extraction efficiencies of 28.7, 62, and 75.15 % for 2-CP, 2,4-DCP, and 2,4,6-TCP, respectively, Faraji et al [39] reported extraction efficiencies of 21, 34, 63, and 86 % for phenol, 2-CP, 2,4-DCP, and 2,4,6-TCP, respectively, and Vera-Ávila et al [36] reported extraction efficiencies of 13.1, 38.2, 76.9, and 86.2 % for phenol, 2-CP, 2,4-DCP, and 2,4,6-TCP, respectively. Furthermore, higher precision is achieved with the present method, i.e., RSDs between 6.4 and 10.4 % in comparison with RSDs of 5.2 % or less obtained with the proposed system.…”
Section: Quantification Of Phenolic Compoundsmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…Then, mixtures of TBP with different disperser solvents were tested, i.e., methanol [36], ethanol [36], ACN [26,36], acetone [36,37], 1-propanol [26], and 2-propanol. The TBPacetone mixture was discarded because of the high absorbance of the extraction blank.…”
Section: Study Of Extractants and Disperser Solventsmentioning
confidence: 99%
See 1 more Smart Citation
“…Nevertheless, most of the DLLME-SFO reported methods are limited to just one group of compounds with similar polarities or similar structures. Only a few of them have been reported for the simultaneous determination of compounds from different families such as polychlorinated biphenyls, organochlorine and pyrethroid pesticides [14] or polycyclic aromatic hydrocarbons, chlorinated pesticides and phenols [15]. The aim of this paper is to evaluate the applicability of ultrasoundassisted DLLME-SFO (UA-DLLME-SFO) for multiresidue extraction of organic pollutants from aqueous samples.…”
Section: Introductionmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…High enrichment factors and good performance are of characteristics of this method. 23,24 However, crashing of the solidified organic phase into small pieces is a problem usually encountered in this method that makes the collection of the organic phase somewhat problematic.…”
Section: Introductionmentioning
confidence: 99%