| Title |
Multi-layer solid-phase extraction and evaporation—enrichment methods for polar organic chemicals from aqueous matrices
|
|---|---|
| Published in |
Analytical & Bioanalytical Chemistry, February 2018
|
| DOI | 10.1007/s00216-018-0921-1 |
| Pubmed ID | |
| Authors |
Niklas Köke, Daniel Zahn, Thomas P. Knepper, Tobias Frömel |
| Abstract |
Analysis of polar organic chemicals in the aquatic environment is exacerbated by the lack of suitable and widely applicable enrichment methods. In this work, we assessed the suitability of a novel combination of well-known solid-phase extraction (SPE) materials in one cartridge as well as an evaporation method and for the enrichment of 26 polar model substances (predominantly log D < 0) covering a broad range of physico-chemical properties in three different aqueous matrices. The multi-layer solid-phase extraction (mlSPE) and evaporation method were investigated for the recovery and matrix effects of the model substances and analyzed with hydrophilic interaction liquid chromatography-tandem mass spectrometry (HILIC-MS/MS). In total, 65% of the model substances were amenable (> 10% recovery) to the mlSPE method with a mean recovery of 76% while 73% of the model substances were enriched with the evaporation method achieving a mean recovery of 78%. Target and non-target screening comparison of both methods with a frequently used reversed-phase SPE method utilizing "hydrophilic and lipophilic balanced" (HLB) material was performed. Target analysis showed that the mlSPE and evaporation method have pronounced advantages over the HLB method since the HLB material retained only 30% of the model substances. Non-target screening of a ground water sample with the investigated enrichment methods showed that the median retention time of all detected features on a HILIC system decreased in the order mlSPE (3641 features, median tR9.7 min), evaporation (1391, 9.3 min), HLB (4414, 7.2 min), indicating a higher potential of the described methods to enrich polar analytes from water compared with HLB-SPE. Graphical abstract Schematic of the method evaluation (recovery and matrix effects) and method comparison (target and non-target analysis) of the two investigated enrichment methods for very polar chemicals in aqueousmatrices. |
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 59 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.
Geographical breakdown
| Country | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Unknown | 59 | 100% |
Demographic breakdown
| Readers by professional status | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Researcher | 10 | 17% |
| Student > Master | 10 | 17% |
| Student > Ph. D. Student | 9 | 15% |
| Student > Bachelor | 9 | 15% |
| Professor | 1 | 2% |
| Other | 2 | 3% |
| Unknown | 18 | 31% |
| Readers by discipline | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Chemistry | 27 | 46% |
| Environmental Science | 6 | 10% |
| Engineering | 2 | 3% |
| Chemical Engineering | 1 | 2% |
| Unknown | 23 | 39% |
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 19 March 2018.
All research outputs
#22,834,739
of 25,461,852 outputs
Outputs from Analytical & Bioanalytical Chemistry
#7,569
of 9,646 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#395,228
of 454,899 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Analytical & Bioanalytical Chemistry
#140
of 186 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 25,461,852 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 9,646 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 454,899 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 186 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.