| Title |
Screen-printed electrode-based electrochemical detector coupled with in-situ ionic-liquid-assisted dispersive liquid–liquid microextraction for determination of 2,4,6-trinitrotoluene
|
|---|---|
| Published in |
Analytical & Bioanalytical Chemistry, November 2013
|
| DOI | 10.1007/s00216-013-7415-y |
| Pubmed ID | |
| Authors |
Elena Fernández, Lorena Vidal, Jesús Iniesta, Jonathan P. Metters, Craig E. Banks, Antonio Canals |
| Abstract |
A novel method is reported, whereby screen-printed electrodes (SPELs) are combined with dispersive liquid-liquid microextraction. In-situ ionic liquid (IL) formation was used as an extractant phase in the microextraction technique and proved to be a simple, fast and inexpensive analytical method. This approach uses miniaturized systems both in sample preparation and in the detection stage, helping to develop environmentally friendly analytical methods and portable devices to enable rapid and onsite measurement. The microextraction method is based on a simple metathesis reaction, in which a water-immiscible IL (1-hexyl-3-methylimidazolium bis[(trifluoromethyl)sulfonyl]imide, [Hmim][NTf2]) is formed from a water-miscible IL (1-hexyl-3-methylimidazolium chloride, [Hmim][Cl]) and an ion-exchange reagent (lithium bis[(trifluoromethyl)sulfonyl]imide, LiNTf2) in sample solutions. The explosive 2,4,6-trinitrotoluene (TNT) was used as a model analyte to develop the method. The electrochemical behavior of TNT in [Hmim][NTf2] has been studied in SPELs. The extraction method was first optimized by use of a two-step multivariate optimization strategy, using Plackett-Burman and central composite designs. The method was then evaluated under optimum conditions and a good level of linearity was obtained, with a correlation coefficient of 0.9990. Limits of detection and quantification were 7 μg L(-1) and 9 μg L(-1), respectively. The repeatability of the proposed method was evaluated at two different spiking levels (20 and 50 μg L(-1)), and coefficients of variation of 7 % and 5 % (n = 5) were obtained. Tap water and industrial wastewater were selected as real-world water samples to assess the applicability of the method. |
X Demographics
The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 2 X users who shared this research output. Click here to find out more about how the information was compiled.
Geographical breakdown
| Country | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| United Kingdom | 1 | 50% |
| Unknown | 1 | 50% |
Demographic breakdown
| Type | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Members of the public | 1 | 50% |
| Scientists | 1 | 50% |
Mendeley readers
The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 41 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.
Geographical breakdown
| Country | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Unknown | 41 | 100% |
Demographic breakdown
| Readers by professional status | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Student > Ph. D. Student | 14 | 34% |
| Professor > Associate Professor | 4 | 10% |
| Student > Bachelor | 3 | 7% |
| Researcher | 3 | 7% |
| Student > Master | 3 | 7% |
| Other | 6 | 15% |
| Unknown | 8 | 20% |
| Readers by discipline | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Chemistry | 21 | 51% |
| Chemical Engineering | 1 | 2% |
| Agricultural and Biological Sciences | 1 | 2% |
| Physics and Astronomy | 1 | 2% |
| Computer Science | 1 | 2% |
| Other | 2 | 5% |
| Unknown | 14 | 34% |
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 29 May 2014.
All research outputs
#17,285,036
of 25,371,288 outputs
Outputs from Analytical & Bioanalytical Chemistry
#5,669
of 9,618 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#201,453
of 315,599 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Analytical & Bioanalytical Chemistry
#40
of 66 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 25,371,288 research outputs across all sources so far. This one is in the 21st percentile – i.e., 21% of other outputs scored the same or lower than it.
So far Altmetric has tracked 9,618 research outputs from this source. They receive a mean Attention Score of 3.1. This one is in the 37th percentile – i.e., 37% 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 315,599 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one is in the 26th percentile – i.e., 26% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.
We're also able to compare this research output to 66 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one is in the 30th percentile – i.e., 30% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.