2018
DOI: 10.1002/jssc.201700470
|View full text |Cite
|
Sign up to set email alerts
|

Development of a microextraction by packed sorbent with gas chromatography‐mass spectrometry method for quantification of nitroexplosives in aqueous and fluidic biological samples

Abstract: A new method for quantification of 12 nitroaromatic compounds including 2,4,6-trinitrotoluene, its metabolites and 2,4,6-trinitrophenyl-N-methylnitramine with microextraction by packed sorbent followed by gas chromatography and mass spectrometric detection in environmental and biological samples is developed. The microextraction device employs 4 mg of C silica sorbent inserted into a microvolume syringe for sample preparation. Several parameters capable of influencing the microextraction procedure, namely, num… Show more

Help me understand this report

Search citation statements

Order By: Relevance

Paper Sections

Select...
1
1

Citation Types

0
2
0

Year Published

2018
2018
2020
2020

Publication Types

Select...
7

Relationship

0
7

Authors

Journals

citations
Cited by 14 publications
(2 citation statements)
references
References 34 publications
0
2
0
Order By: Relevance
“…1 This was also previously shown for different antiepileptic drugs, 169,170 or NSAIDs. 171 In this section, however, we will mainly focus on the comparisons in recent reports involving microextraction techniques, such as DLLME, 126,172,173 HF-LPME, 87,100 SDME, 109,174 µSPE [175][176][177][178][179][180] and SPME, 1,109,133,181,182 that already incorporate significant technological improvements by comparison with more conventional techniques, such as LLE 1,87,183 and SPE (Table 5). 1,87,109,120,183 These comparisons of MEPS applications with other extraction approaches would be more meaningful if the same experimental conditions were involved but unfortunately this is not available so far for many applications.…”
Section: Comparison With Other Microextraction Techniquesmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…1 This was also previously shown for different antiepileptic drugs, 169,170 or NSAIDs. 171 In this section, however, we will mainly focus on the comparisons in recent reports involving microextraction techniques, such as DLLME, 126,172,173 HF-LPME, 87,100 SDME, 109,174 µSPE [175][176][177][178][179][180] and SPME, 1,109,133,181,182 that already incorporate significant technological improvements by comparison with more conventional techniques, such as LLE 1,87,183 and SPE (Table 5). 1,87,109,120,183 These comparisons of MEPS applications with other extraction approaches would be more meaningful if the same experimental conditions were involved but unfortunately this is not available so far for many applications.…”
Section: Comparison With Other Microextraction Techniquesmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…Currently, besides off-site chemical analysis, there also exist various analytical techniques for the analysis of explosives in situ, such as gas chromatography/mass spectrometry (GC/MS), (1,2) fluorescence, (3)(4)(5) Raman spectrometry, (6,7) and ion mobility spectrometry. (8) All of these methods exhibit high capability, but are often bulky, expensive, and time-consuming.…”
Section: Introductionmentioning
confidence: 99%