| Literature DB >> 31384807 |
Sayyed Hossein Hashemi1, Massoud Kaykhaii2, Ahmad Jamali Keikha3, Elahe Mirmoradzehi1, Ghasem Sargazi4.
Abstract
This paper describes the application of response surface methodology (RSM) to develop a miniaturized metal organic framework based pipette-tip solid phase extraction for the extraction of malachite green (MG), rhodamine B (RB), methyl orange (MO) and acid red 18 (AR) dyes from seawater samples and their determination by high performance liquid chromatography. The effects of various parameters such as pH of the sample solution, type and amount of added salt, type and volume of eluent solvent, concentration of surfactant (triton X-114), sample volume, and number of cycles of extraction and desorption were investigated and optimized by two methods of one-variable-at-a-time and RSM based on Box-Behnken design. Under optimum conditions, the linear range of the method was 0.5-200.0 µg/L for RB and MG and 1.0-150.0 µg/L for AR and MO. Limits of detection of the analytes were obtained in the range of 0.09-0.38 µg/L. Reproducibility of the method (as RSD %) was better than 6.4%. The method has been successfully used for analysis of four dyes in seawater of Chabahar Bay.Entities:
Keywords: Azo dyes; Box–Behnken design; Metal–organic framework; Pipette tip solid phase extraction; Response surface methodology; Seawater analysis
Year: 2019 PMID: 31384807 PMCID: PMC6661774 DOI: 10.1186/s13065-019-0572-0
Source DB: PubMed Journal: BMC Chem ISSN: 2661-801X
Fig. 1Structure of dyes studied in this paper a rhodamine B, b malachite green, c acid red 18, d methyl orange
Fig. 2Scanning electron microscopy image of the synthesized Co-MOF
Levels or variables chosen for the trials
| A | B | C | D | |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| MG | 2 (− 1) | 200 (− 1) | 7 (− 1) | 7 (− 1) |
| 3 (0) | 250 (0) | 9 (0) | 9 (0) | |
| 4 (+ 1) | 300 (+ 1) | 11 (+ 1) | 11 (+ 1) | |
| MO | 6 (− 1) | 250 (− 1) | 3 (− 1) | 3 (− 1) |
| 7 (0) | 300 (0) | 5 (0) | 5 (0) | |
| 8 (+ 1) | 350 (+ 1) | 7 (+ 1) | 7 (+ 1) | |
| RB | 2 (− 1) | 250 (− 1) | 5 (− 1) | 5 (− 1) |
| 3 (0) | 300 (0) | 7 (0) | 7 (0) | |
| 4 (+ 1) | 350 (+ 1) | 9 (+ 1) | 9 (+ 1) | |
| AR | 5 (− 1) | 300 (− 1) | 3 (− 1) | 3 (− 1) |
| 6 (0) | 250 (0) | 5 (0) | 5 (0) | |
| 7 (+ 1) | 350 (+ 1) | 7 (+ 1) | 7 (+ 1) |
Fig. 3Response surface -2D contours showing the effect of independent variable on the extraction efficiency of dyes. a and b for MG, c and d for MO, e and f for RB and g and h for AR
Analytical figure of merit for MOF-PT-SPE combined by HPLC for determination of dyes (C and A are the concentrations of dyes and HPLC response as peak area, respectively)
| Analyte | Linearity range (µg/L) | Equation of calibration | Determination coefficient (R2) | Limit of detection (µg/L) | Enrichment factor |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| RB | 0.5–200.0 | A = 225.7 C + 7435 | 0.9908 | 0.09 | 25.8 |
| MG | 0.5–200.0 | A = 267.43 C + 1190.6 | 0.999 | 0.17 | 31.0 |
| AR | 1.0–150.0 | A = 476.6 C + 6973.8 | 0.9953 | 0.33 | 25.8 |
| MO | 1.0–150.0 | A = 467.95 C + 7909.7 | 0.9970 | 0.38 | 25.8 |
Characteristic data of the suggested technique with other methods
| Dye | Method | Detection method | LOD (µg/L) | Linear range (µg/L) | Refs. |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Orang G, MO, AR | Micro-cloud point | Spectrophotometry | 0.6–111.0 | 200–12,000 | [ |
| MG | MIP | HPLC | 0.17 | 0–200 | [ |
| MG, RB and crystal violet | Micro-cloud point | Spectrophotometry | 2.2 | 60–800 | [ |
| MG, gentian violet, leucomalachite and leucogentian | MIP | HPLC | 0.11 | 10–250 | [ |
| RB, MG, MO, AR | MOF-PT-SPE | HPLC | 0.09–0.38 | 0.5–200.0 | This research |
Recovery results for real sample achieved from several points of Chabahar Bay (Iran)
| Analyte added | Sampling location | Recovery % at spiked level of 10 (µg/L) | Dyes found (µg/L) | RSD (%)b |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| RB | Station 1, Tisa | – | 1.56 | 0.7 |
| Station 1, Tis | 94.4 | 11.00 | 2.6 | |
| Station 2, Lypara | – | 1.67 | 3.4 | |
| Station 2, Lypar | 95.6 | 11.23 | 3.6 | |
| Station 3, Chabahar Maritime Universitya | – | 1.96 | 2.4 | |
| Station 3, Chabahar Maritime University | 93.6 | 11.32 | 4.6 | |
| Station 4, Konaraka | – | 1.44 | 1.9 | |
| Station 4, Konarak | 88.8 | 10.32 | 1.7 | |
| Station 5, Kalantarya | – | 2.77 | 1.3 | |
| Station 5, Kalantary | 91.1 | 11.88 | 2.6 | |
| MG | Station 1, Tisa | – | 1.12 | 0.66 |
| Station 1, Tis | 90.4 | 10.16 | 0.63 | |
| Station 2, Lypara | – | 1.35 | 3.5 | |
| Station 2, Lypar | 96.8 | 11.03 | 4.0 | |
| Station 3, Chabahar Maritime Universitya | – | 1.65 | 3.9 | |
| Station 3, Chabahar Maritime University | 98.7 | 11.52 | 3.0 | |
| Station 4, Konaraka | – | 1.89 | 3.9 | |
| Station 4, Konarak | 96.5 | 11.54 | 2.8 | |
| Station 5, Kalantarya | – | 3.45 | 2.5 | |
| Station 5, Kalantary | 99.6 | 13.41 | 4.0 | |
| MO | Station 1, Tisa | – | 1.20 | 4.5 |
| Station 1, Tis | 78.3 | 9.03 | 1.9 | |
| Station 2, Lypara | – | 1.14 | 5.3 | |
| Station 2, Lypar | 95.0 | 10.64 | 4.8 | |
| Station 3, Chabahar Maritime Universitya | – | 1.87 | 4.6 | |
| Station 3, Chabahar Maritime University | 86.8 | 10.55 | 2.5 | |
| Station 4, Konaraka | – | 1.26 | 3.4 | |
| Station 4, Konarak | 97.8 | 11.04 | 2.1 | |
| Station 5, Kalantarya | – | 3.02 | 3.1 | |
| Station 5, Kalantary | 96.4 | 12.66 | 6.4 | |
| AR | Station 1, Tisa | – | 1.34 | 0.8 |
| Station 1, Tis | 97.2 | 11.06 | 0.7 | |
| Station 2, Lypara | – | 1.28 | 1.2 | |
| Station 2, Lypar | 97.3 | 11.01 | 1.0 | |
| Station 3, Chabahar Maritime Universitya | – | 1.98 | 2.8 | |
| Station 3, Chabahar Maritime University | 95.9 | 11.57 | 3.0 | |
| Station 4, Konaraka | – | 1.42 | 2.5 | |
| Station 4, Konarak | 93.0 | 10.72 | 2.3 | |
| Station 5, Kalantarya | – | 2.87 | 5.6 | |
| Station 5, Kalantary | 78.5 | 10.72 | 6.3 |
aNo spiking
bRSD, relative standard deviation for three replicate measurement
Fig. 4Sample HPLC chromatograms of sea water sample taken from station 3 (Chabahar Maritime University). Wavelengths of 510 nm for AR (A), 555 nm for RB (B), 448 nm for MO (C) and 618 nm for MG (D) were used. a MOF-PT-SPE without spiking, b MOF-PT-SPE of 10 µg/L spiked sample