| Title |
Investigation of carbon-based nanomaterials as sorbents for headspace in-tube extraction of polycyclic aromatic hydrocarbons
|
|---|---|
| Published in |
Analytical & Bioanalytical Chemistry, April 2017
|
| DOI | 10.1007/s00216-017-0331-9 |
| Pubmed ID | |
| Authors |
Xochitli L. Osorio Barajas, Thorsten Hüffer, Pascal Mettig, Beat Schilling, Maik A. Jochmann, Torsten C. Schmidt |
| Abstract |
Carbon-based nanomaterials (CNM) represent promising materials for the application as sorbents in micro- and other extraction devices. In this work, we investigate the applicability of five different CNM (multi-walled carbon nanotubes (MWCNTs), fullerenes, carboxylic acid functionalized multi-walled carbon nanotubes (MWCNTs-COOH), graphene platelets, and carbon nanohorns) for their performance on PAH extraction from the aqueous phase by headspace in-tube extraction (HS-ITEX). Optimal extraction parameters for HS-ITEX were determined using a Box-Behnken experimental design. From the extraction yield response, central point analysis, fullerenes showed the best extraction properties for the eight selected headspace compatible PAHs (naphthalene, acenaphthylene, acenaphthene, fluorene, phenanthrene, anthracene, fluoranthene, and pyrene). Fullerenes were used for a further method validation including the linear range, limit of detection, precision, as well as recovery. Finally, extraction yields were compared to a commercial material (Tenax GR), demonstrating that fullerene represents a better option as sorbent in ITEX for PAH analysis. Method detection limits for the PAH on fullerene ranged from 10 to 300 ng L(-1), with recoveries between 45 and 103%. |
X Demographics
The data shown below were collected from the profile of 1 X user who shared this research output. Click here to find out more about how the information was compiled.
Geographical breakdown
| Country | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Unknown | 1 | 100% |
Demographic breakdown
| Type | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Scientists | 1 | 100% |
Mendeley readers
The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 24 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.
Geographical breakdown
| Country | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Unknown | 24 | 100% |
Demographic breakdown
| Readers by professional status | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Student > Ph. D. Student | 5 | 21% |
| Student > Master | 4 | 17% |
| Researcher | 4 | 17% |
| Student > Doctoral Student | 2 | 8% |
| Professor | 1 | 4% |
| Other | 2 | 8% |
| Unknown | 6 | 25% |
| Readers by discipline | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Chemistry | 9 | 38% |
| Environmental Science | 2 | 8% |
| Pharmacology, Toxicology and Pharmaceutical Science | 1 | 4% |
| Physics and Astronomy | 1 | 4% |
| Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology | 1 | 4% |
| Other | 0 | 0% |
| Unknown | 10 | 42% |
Attention Score in Context
This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 1. This is our high-level measure of the quality and quantity of online attention that it has received. This Attention Score, as well as the ranking and number of research outputs shown below, was calculated when the research output was last mentioned on 22 May 2017.
All research outputs
#22,764,772
of 25,382,440 outputs
Outputs from Analytical & Bioanalytical Chemistry
#7,543
of 9,619 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#283,932
of 324,249 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Analytical & Bioanalytical Chemistry
#92
of 139 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 25,382,440 research outputs across all sources so far. This one is in the 1st percentile – i.e., 1% of other outputs scored the same or lower than it.
So far Altmetric has tracked 9,619 research outputs from this source. They receive a mean Attention Score of 3.1. This one is in the 1st percentile – i.e., 1% of its peers scored the same or lower than it.
Older research outputs will score higher simply because they've had more time to accumulate mentions. To account for age we can compare this Altmetric Attention Score to the 324,249 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one is in the 1st percentile – i.e., 1% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.
We're also able to compare this research output to 139 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one is in the 1st percentile – i.e., 1% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.