| Literature DB >> 36080757 |
Hamid Najarzadekan1, Hassan Sereshti1, Irfan Ahmad2, Syed Shahabuddin3, Hamid Rashidi Nodeh4, Nanthini Sridewi5.
Abstract
A new solid phase micro extraction (SPME) fiber coating composed of electrospun polyethylene terephthalate (PET) nanofibrous mat doped with superhydrophobic nanosilica (SiO2) was coated on a stainless-steel wire without the need of a binder. The coating was characterized by scanning electron microscopy (SEM) and Fourier transform infrared spectrometer (FTIR) techniques and it was used in headspace-SPME of 16 organochlorine pesticides in water samples prior to gass chromatography micro electron capture detector (GC-µECD) analysis. The effects of main factors such as adsorption composition, electrospinning flow rate, salt concentration, extraction temperature, extraction time, and desorption conditions were investigated. Under the optimum conditions, the linear dynamic range (8-1000 ng L-1, R2 > 0.9907), limits of detection (3-80 ng L-1), limits of quantification (8-200 ng L-1), intra-day and inter-day precisions (at 400 and 1000 ng L-1, 1.7-13.8%), and fiber-to-fiber reproducibility (2.4-13.4%) were evaluated. The analysis of spiked tap, sewage, industrial, and mineral water samples for the determination of the analytes resulted in satisfactory relative recoveries (78-120%).Entities:
Keywords: electrospun nanofibers; organochlorine pesticides; polyethylene terephthalate; solid-phase microextraction; superhydrophobic nanosilica
Year: 2022 PMID: 36080757 PMCID: PMC9460059 DOI: 10.3390/polym14173682
Source DB: PubMed Journal: Polymers (Basel) ISSN: 2073-4360 Impact factor: 4.967
Figure 1(A) The setup design for electrospinning process, and (B) headspace–SPME procedure.
Figure 2(A) Performance of different types of PET nanofibers, (B) dosage of nano-SiO2 (mg) in PET nanofibers, and (C) the effect of polymer solution flow rate (mL h−1).
Figure 3The FT-IR spectra of electrospun nano-SiO2 and PET/nano-SiO2.
Figure 4The SEM images of (A,B) electrospun PET and (C,D) PET/nano-SiO2. (E) histogram for size distribution of fabricated nanofiber.
Figure 5Optimization of effective parameters on extraction efficiency of OCPs. (A) Effect of salt (w/v %), (B) extraction temperature (°C), (C) extraction time (min), (D) desorption temperature (°C), and (E) desorption time (min).
Analytical data obtained by HS-SPME of OCPs mixture using the PET/nano-SiO2 adsorbent.
| Compound | LOD a | LOQ b | LDR c | R2 | RSD d | RSD e | ||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Intraday | Interday | Fiber to Fiber | Intraday | Interday | Fiber to Fiber | |||||
| α-HCH | 30 | 80 | 80–10,000 | 0.9967 | 6.3 | 8.6 | 7.5 | 2.2 | 6.4 | 5.4 |
| β-HCH | 20 | 50 | 50–5000 | 0.9914 | 5.3 | 1.7 | 3.5 | 3.1 | 2.4 | 2.4 |
| γ-HCH | 20 | 50 | 50–5000 | 0.9914 | 4.8 | 9.5 | 7.1 | 3.2 | 7.0 | 6.3 |
| δ-HCH | 80 | 200 | 200–10,000 | 0.9983 | 8.1 | 10.6 | 4.8 | 8.2 | 8.8 | 11.9 |
| Heptachlor | 20 | 50 | 50–5000 | 0.9907 | 10.5 | 7.3 | 8.9 | 5.5 | 6.0 | 6.4 |
| Aldrin | 3 | 8 | 8–2000 | 0.9977 | 6.2 | 4.5 | 5.4 | 4.0 | 3.9 | 4.2 |
| Heptachlor epoxide | 3 | 8 | 8–2000 | 0.9930 | 5.5 | 2.6 | 4.0 | 5.5 | 2.7 | 4.0 |
| Endosulfan I | 80 | 200 | 200–10,000 | 0.9987 | 10.9 | 10.3 | 11.6 | 5.7 | 10.6 | 12.0 |
| p,p′-DDE | 3 | 8 | 8–2000 | 0.9989 | 7.2 | 6.5 | 6.8 | 2.6 | 4.2 | 4.5 |
| Dieldrin | 30 | 80 | 80–5000 | 0.9909 | 11.3 | 7.6 | 11.5 | 4.2 | 6.0 | 5.9 |
| Endrin | 30 | 80 | 80–5000 | 0.9987 | 9.8 | 3.1 | 6.5 | 1.7 | 3.4 | 2.4 |
| Endosulfan II | 30 | 80 | 80–5000 | 0.9932 | 12.3 | 8.1 | 10.2 | 5.6 | 4.3 | 6.9 |
| p,p′-DDD | 30 | 80 | 80–2000 | 0.9912 | 12.4 | 8.5 | 5.4 | 10.0 | 8.8 | 9.3 |
| Endrin aldehyde | 30 | 80 | 80–2000 | 0.9942 | 13.8 | 8.0 | 5.4 | 9.5 | 11.0 | 12.3 |
| Endosulfan sulfate | 30 | 80 | 80–5000 | 0.9921 | 11.4 | 9.3 | 7.3 | 8.5 | 6.6 | 11.4 |
| p,p′-DDT | 30 | 80 | 80–5000 | 0.9965 | 11.3 | 10.5 | 11.4 | 11.3 | 11.8 | 13.4 |
a Limit of detection (ng L−1). b Limit of quantification (ng L−1). c Linear dynamic range (ng L−1). d C = 400 ng L−1. e C = 1000 ng L−1.
Analytical data obtained after HS-SPME of OCPs mixture using the PET/Superhydrophobe NanoSiO2.
| Compound | Industrial Water a (RR%) b | Sewage Water c (RR%) | Tap Water (RR%) | River Water d (RR%) | ||||||||||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| S1 e | RSD% | S2 f | RSD% | S1 | RSD% | S2 | RSD% | S1 | RSD% | S2 | RSD% | S1 | RSD% | S2 | RSD% | |
| α-HCH | 100.3 | 6 | 99.6 | 6.6 | 93.7 | 7.8 | 99.6 | 6.6 | 90.8 | 6.3 | 99.4 | 2.2 | 96.5 | 11.3 | 101 | 4.9 |
| β-HCH | 114.9 | 2.9 | 97.7 | 2.4 | 98 | 1.5 | 97.7 | 2.4 | 89.8 | 5.3 | 99.8 | 3.1 | 105.1 | 2.5 | 99.3 | 3.9 |
| γ-HCH | 88.8 | 3.5 | 93.3 | 7.7 | 103.3 | 1.5 | 93.3 | 7.7 | 91.2 | 4.8 | 100.1 | 3.2 | 90.3 | 1.7 | 96.4 | 5.0 |
| δ-HCH | 95.4 | 18 | 95.1 | 13.6 | 120.7 | 7.3 | 95.1 | 13.6 | 103.1 | 48.1 | 100.4 | 8.2 | 113.2 | 17.0 | 98.1 | 9.8 |
| Heptachlor | 98.9 | 11 | 97.1 | 6.9 | 98.4 | 10.1 | 97.1 | 6.9 | 100.8 | 10.5 | 99.6 | 5.5 | 103.1 | 6.9 | 100.9 | 6.3 |
| Aldrin | 96.0 | 1.3 | 98 | 4.6 | 98.2 | 5.2 | 98 | 4.6 | 102.3 | 6.2 | 100 | 4.0 | 101.5 | 4.9 | 100.5 | 4.3 |
| Heptachlorepoxide | 98.9 | 5.9 | 96.7 | 1.7 | 101.3 | 4.4 | 96.7 | 1.7 | 100.1 | 5.5 | 99.7 | 5.5 | 102.0 | 3.1 | 96.0 | 1.7 |
| Endosulfan I | 100 | 10.4 | 96.2 | 13.1 | 116.1 | 10.7 | 96.2 | 13.1 | 95.3 | 10.9 | 100.5 | 5.7 | 102.5 | 9.2 | 101.1 | 5.2 |
| p,p′-DDE | 95.2 | 1.3 | 99.6 | 4.2 | 98.9 | 7.0 | 99.6 | 4.2 | 96.0 | 7.2 | 100.3 | 2.6 | 101.5 | 6.1 | 102.2 | 2.2 |
| Dieldrin | 87.3 | 7.0 | 97.1 | 6.4 | 90.9 | 4.8 | 97.1 | 6.4 | 92.8 | 21.3 | 99.4 | 4.2 | 105.8 | 14.7 | 96.5 | 5.5 |
| Endrin | 103 | 7.3 | 100.8 | 3.7 | 99.9 | 4.1 | 100.8 | 3.7 | 101.4 | 9.8 | 100.5 | 1.7 | 100.3 | 9.8 | 99.6 | 3.0 |
| Endosulfan II | 97.9 | 13.7 | 96.0 | 5.1 | 95.7 | 10.1 | 96 | 5.1 | 99.7 | 12.3 | 100.2 | 5.6 | 103.2 | 8.7 | 95.8 | 5.2 |
| p,p′-DDD | 88.3 | 7.0 | 96.1 | 11.0 | 92.6 | 13.8 | 96.1 | 11 | 90.0 | 22.4 | 99.6 | 10.0 | 106.1 | 15.5 | 96.4 | 11.5 |
| Endrin aldehyde | 81.3 | 10.1 | 100 | 13.2 | 94.1 | 12 | 100 | 13.2 | 97.8 | 23.8 | 101.3 | 9.5 | 104.7 | 16.6 | 99.4 | 12.2 |
| Endosulfan sulfate | 82.4 | 17 | 98.3 | 8.0 | 79.1 | 14.5 | 98.3 | 8.0 | 98.5 | 14.4 | 100.8 | 8.5 | 102.3 | 11.2 | 99.2 | 9.6 |
| p,p′-DDT | 78.7 | 7.0 | 100.6 | 18 | 88.4 | 14.1 | 100.6 | 18 | 93.1 | 21.3 | 100.1 | 11.3 | 99.9 | 16.2 | 97.3 | 12.8 |
a Collected from Khoramdasht industrial park. b Relative recovery. c Collected from our university campus. d A river in the north of Iran. e Spiked with 400 ng mL−1. f Spiked with 1000 ng mL−1.
Comparison of HS-SPME/GC-ECD with other published method for determination of OCPs.
| Methods | Sorbent | LOD a | LDR b | Extraction Time (min) | RR% c | Ref |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| SPME | PET/NanoSiO2 | 3–80 | 8–10,000 | 10 | 78–120 | Current study |
| SPE-GC/ECD | Florisil | 400–2000 | 5–1000 | - | 77–105 | [ |
| SMPE | PDMS d/PA e | 20–80 | 50–1000 | 20 | 91.4 (average) | [ |
| SB-μ-SPE | Hydroxide/graphene | 300–1400 | 1000–200,000 | 20 | 84.2–100.2 | [ |
| ASE f & SPME | PDMS/PA | 0.2–4.9 (ng m−3) | 50–3000 (ng m−3) | 40 | - | [ |
a Limit of detection (ng L−1). b Linear dynamic range (ng L−1). c Relative Recovery. d Polydimethylsiloxane. e Polyacrylate. f Accelerated solvent extraction.