Optimization of solid-phase extraction using developed modern sorbent for trace determination of ametryn in environmental matrices

Magnesium oxide microspheres as a novel solid‐phase extraction sorbent for the determination of benzo[a]pyrene in environmental water samples

“…Similar to our results, some reports [30,31] also demonstrated that at lower flow rates, the recoveries of analyses kept almost constant, and then decreased with the further increase of flow rate. However, in the report of Koohpaei et al [32], they found that the recovery of ametryn decreased with the increase of flow rate (0.5-5.0 mL/min) by using molecularly imprinted SPE column. Junk and Richard [28] found that the flow rate did not influence the recoveries of PAHs by adopting C 18 -bonded silica as SPE sorbent even at very high flow rate (e.g., 25 mL/min).…”

Synthesis and characterization of magnetic-molecularly imprinted polymers for the HPLC-UV analysis of ametryn

“…The monomers with intermediary binding energy, such as: allylamine, 2-(diethylamino)ethyl methacrylate, methacrylic acid (MAA), acrylamide, 2-hydroxyethyl methacrylate and 2acrylamido-2-methyl-1-propanesulfonic acid, have in their structure atoms of amine, amide or carboxylic groups. These groups, in general, provide hydrogen bonds with the analyte, then the intermediary energy is probably due to this interaction [13,[39][40][41][42]. For the mag-MIPs' synthesis, 2-vinylpyridine was chosen due to its higher binding energy and the possibility of two kinds of interaction with analyte.…”

Theoretical and Computational Strategies for the Study of the Molecular Imprinting Process and Polymer Performance

“…In essence, the concept involves changing all relevant factors simultaneously over a series of planned experiments and then interpreting the results using mathematical models. Traditionally, the different experimental design methods applied to the analysis of different aspects of MIP systems are considered to be fractional factorial [130][131][132][133][134][135], full factorial [136][137][138][139][140], central composite [134,137,138,140,141], Box-Behnken [142] and Doehlert [132,133,135,139,143]. The fundamental differences between these designs are that they differ in terms of how factors are varied and the number of experiments required.…”