| Literature DB >> 22619590 |
Hossein Abdolmohammad-Zadeh1, Keyvan Tavarid, Zeynab Talleb.
Abstract
Nanostructured nickel-aluminum-zirconium ternary layered double hydroxide was successfully applied as a solid-phase extraction sorbent for the separation and pre-concentration of trace levels of iodate in food, environmental and biological samples. An indirect method was used for monitoring of the extracted iodate ions. The method is based on the reaction of the iodate with iodide in acidic solution to produce iodine, which can be spectrophotometrically monitored at 352 nm. The absorbance is directly proportional to the concentration of iodate in the sample. The effect of several parameters such as pH, sample flow rate, amount of nanosorbent, elution conditions, sample volume, and coexisting ions on the recovery was investigated. In the optimum experimental conditions, the limit of detection (3s) and enrichment factor were 0.12 μg mL(-1) and 20, respectively. The calibration graph using the preconcentration system was linear in the range of 0.2-2.8 μg mL(-1) with a correlation coefficient of 0.998. In order to validate the presented method, a certified reference material, NIST SRM 1549, was also analyzed.Entities:
Mesh:
Substances:
Year: 2012 PMID: 22619590 PMCID: PMC3349096 DOI: 10.1100/2012/145482
Source DB: PubMed Journal: ScientificWorldJournal ISSN: 1537-744X
Figure 1XRD patterns of Ni-Al-Zr (NO3 −) LDH with different Ni/(Al+Zr) and Al/Zr molar ratios. (a) Ni/(Al+Zr) molar ratios of (A) 1 : 1, (B) 2 : 1, (C) 3 : 1, and (D) 4 : 1. (b) Ni/(Al+Zr) molar ratio of 3 : 1 and different Al/Zr molar ratios of 0.3 : 0.7, 0.5 : 0.5, and 0.7 : 0.3 from bottom to top, respectively.
Figure 2FT-IR spectrum of Ni-Al-Zr (NO3 −) LDH.
Figure 3SEM image of Ni-Al-Zr (NO3 −) LDH.
Figure 4Effect of sample pH on the retention of iodate ions on Ni-Al-Zr (NO3 −) LDH nanosorbent.
Figure 5Effect of eluent volume on the recovery of iodate ions from Ni-Al-Zr (NO3 −) LDH nanosorbent.
Tolerance limits of interfering ions in the determination of 0.2 μg mL−1 iodate.
| Ions | Interferent-to-analyte ratio |
|---|---|
| Ca2+, Al3+, Mg2+, Fe3+ | 1000 : 1 |
| CO3 2−, ClO4 −, Cl−, CH3COO−, Br− | 500 : 1 |
| SO4 2−, PO4 3−, F− | 100 : 1 |
| V(V), Mo(VI), Cr(VI) | 50 : 1 |
| BrO3 − | 1 : 1 |
Optimum conditions and analytical performance of the presented method for iodate determination.
| Experimental conditions | Unit | |
|---|---|---|
| Working pH | — | 5.5 |
| Amount of Ni-Al-Zr LDH | (mg) | 200 |
| Sample volume | (mL) | 50 |
| Sample loading flow rate | (mL min−1) | 3 |
| Eluent concentration | (mol L−1) | 2 |
| Eluent volume | (mL) | 1.5 |
| Elution flow rate | (mL min−1) | 1 |
| Iodide concentration | (mol L−1) | 0.1 |
| Detection pH | — | 2.5 |
| Final volume | (mL) | 2.5 |
| Wavelength | (nm) | 352 |
|
| ||
| Analytical parameters | Unit | |
|
| ||
| Linear range | ( | 0.2–2.8 |
| Intercept | — | 0.0389 |
| Slope | — | 0.4184 |
| Detection limita | ( | 0.12 |
| Correlation coefficient | — | 0.998 |
| Relative standard deviation ( | (%) | 2.5 (0.5) |
| Enrichment factorc | — | 20 |
aCalculated as three times the standard deviation of the blank signal.
bValue in parentheses is the iodate concentration (μg mL−1) for which the RSD was obtained.
cEnrichment factor calculated as the ratio between the volume of the initial aqueous solution and the final elution volume.
Determination of iodate in different real samples (results of recoveries of spiked samples).
| Samples | Added IO3
− ( | Found IO3
−
a ( | Recovery (%) |
|---|---|---|---|
| Table salt (1)b | — | 3.6 ± 0.8 | — |
| 10.0 | 13.3 ± 0.8 | 97.0 | |
| Table salt (2)c | — | 5.2 ± 0.9 | — |
| 10.0 | 14.8 ± 0.6 | 96.0 | |
| Table salt (3)d | — | 3.3 ± 0.5 | — |
| 10.0 | 12.7 ± 0.8 | 94.0 | |
| Rock salte | — | 1.7 ± 0.3 | — |
| 10.0 | 11.5 ± 0.2 | 98.0 | |
| Milk powderf | — | 2.5 ± 0.4 | — |
| 10.0 | 12.2 ± 0.7 | 97.0 | |
|
| |||
| Samples | Added IO3
− ( | Found IO3
−
a ( | Recovery (%) |
|
| |||
| Seawaterg | — | 0.1 ± 0.4 | — |
| 0.1 | 0.2 ± 0.6 | 100.0 | |
| Urineh | — | 0.1 ± 0.1 | — |
| 1.0 | 1.1 ± 0.1 | 100.0 | |
aMean of three experiments ± standard deviation.
bObtained from Ehteram Co. table salt, Khoy, Iran.
cObtained from Rahnema Co. table salt, Tabriz, Iran.
dObtained from Ghohar Dane Co. table salt, Sanandaj, Iran.
eMineral salt, Urmia, Iran.
fObtained from the local pharmacy (Humana Co. milk powder).
gCollected from Caspian Sea, Nowshahr, Iran.
hHealthy human urine, 25 years old man.
Comparison of the presented method with other reported methods for iodate determination.
| Detection system | LOD ( | Linear range ( | RSD (%) | Reference |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| FI-UV-Vis | 0.02 | 0.1−30 | 1.2 | [ |
| Reverse FI-UV-Vis | 0.008 | 0.2−3 | 0.9 | [ |
| Sequential FI-UV-Vis | 0.05 | 0.05−10 | 0.8 | [ |
| TICP-CZE-UV | 0.0035 | Up to 5 | 1.08 | [ |
| LPME-microvolume UV-Vis | 0.001 | 0.0075–0.175 | 4.2 | [ |
| SPE-spectrophotometry | 0.12 | 0.2–2.8 | 2.5 | This work |
Notes: LOD: limit of detection; RSD: relative standard deviation; LPME: liquid-phase microextraction; FI: flow injection; TICP-CZE-UV: transient isotachophoresis-capillary zone electrophoresis with UV detection.