2018
DOI: 10.1002/jssc.201701197
|View full text |Cite
|
Sign up to set email alerts
|

β‐Cyclodextrin polymer@Fe3O4 based magnetic solid‐phase extraction coupled with HPLC for the determination of benzoylurea insecticides from honey, tomato, and environmental water samples

Abstract: In this work, a magnetic β-cyclodextrin polymer was successfully prepared and used as an adsorbent for the magnetic solid-phase extraction of six benzoylurea insecticides (diflubenzuron, triflumuron, hexaflumuron, teflubenzuron, flufenoxuron, and chlorfluazuron) from honey, tomato, and environmental water samples. The influence of the main experimental conditions on the extraction was studied. Under the optimized conditions, the β-cyclodextrin polymer@Fe O showed an excellent extraction performance for the ben… Show more

Help me understand this report

Search citation statements

Order By: Relevance

Paper Sections

Select...
2
2
1

Citation Types

0
8
0

Year Published

2018
2018
2024
2024

Publication Types

Select...
7

Relationship

1
6

Authors

Journals

citations
Cited by 32 publications
(8 citation statements)
references
References 42 publications
(52 reference statements)
0
8
0
Order By: Relevance
“…To evaluate the developed method, it was compared with previously reported techniques for the analysis of BUs in respect of the samples, extraction time, spiked recovery, linearity, LODs, and RSDs (see Supporting Information Table S4) . Results demonstrate that the present method has a shorter or comparable extraction time, better linearity, higher recovery, lower LODs, and RSDs than most of the methods listed in Supporting Information Table S4.…”
Section: Resultsmentioning
confidence: 93%
“…To evaluate the developed method, it was compared with previously reported techniques for the analysis of BUs in respect of the samples, extraction time, spiked recovery, linearity, LODs, and RSDs (see Supporting Information Table S4) . Results demonstrate that the present method has a shorter or comparable extraction time, better linearity, higher recovery, lower LODs, and RSDs than most of the methods listed in Supporting Information Table S4.…”
Section: Resultsmentioning
confidence: 93%
“… Method Extraction sorbent Sorbent amount Extraction time Recovery (%) RSD (%) LODs (μg L −1 ) Ref. SPE-HPLC TiO 2 nanotube 45 min 82–100 0.062–0.21 8 SPME-HPLC β-CDP@ Fe 3 O 4 16 mg 25 min 87.3–112.5 1.5–5.3 0.02–0.05 13 SPME-HPLC MMF/MAED fiber 70 min 70.9–118 1.5–9.8 0.026–0.075 9 MLLE/DSPE-LC Fe 3 O 4 /SiO 2 /ILs 3 mg 4 min 73.2–85.8 2.2–4.5 0.67–1.46 26 MDSPE-HPLC MG/PDA 10 mg 30 s 70.6–91.6 0.3–5.9 0.75 This work …”
Section: Resultsmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…An alternative strategy to address this inefficiency in DSPE analysis is to magnetize the sorbent and develop a magnetic DSPE (MDSPE) technique. Recently, several materials have been prepared for the preparing of magnetic sorbents to extract BUIs from different matrixes, such as attapulgite 1 , ionic liquids 12 , and polymers 2 , 13 .…”
Section: Introductionmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…The extraction performance of the proposed Fe 3 O 4 -HAPAM-based MSPE method was compared with previous reports [27][28][29][30][31][32] involving the determination of BUs in water samples (Table 1). The merits of the proposed method were low sorbent consumption and short experiment time.…”
Section: Comparison Of the Proposed Methods With Previous Reportsmentioning
confidence: 99%