4.7 Article

New approaches to extraction techniques in determination of 4,4′-methylenebis(2-chloroaniline) in air and water solutions

Journal

TALANTA
Volume 93, Issue -, Pages 117-121

Publisher

ELSEVIER SCIENCE BV
DOI: 10.1016/j.talanta.2012.01.057

Keywords

Toxicology; 4,4 '-Methylenebis(2-chloroaniline); Extraction techniques; High performance liquid chromatography

Funding

  1. European Social Found, Polish National Budget, Kujawsko-Pomorskie Voivodship Budget (within Sectoral Operational Programme Human Resources) Krok w przyszlosc

Ask authors/readers for more resources

Extraction techniques for 4,4'-methylenebis(2-chloroaniline) (MOCA) in air samples and water solutions were developed and compared. Classic techniques for air sampling of MOCA were enhanced by incorporating a derivatization step (3,5-dinitrobenzoyl chloride solution in toluene), thus increasing the limit of detection and limit of quantification. Sampling of MOCA from water solution was performed using novel nanoporous polymeric (polypyrrole and polythiophene) fiber coatings and solid phase microextraction. Samples were analyzed by high-performance liquid chromatography coupled with a UV detector. Using the modified method for air sampling of MOCA, we found that the limit of detection was 7.90 ng m(-3) and the limit of quantification was 23.8 ng m(-3). In contrast, the limit of detection for MOCA in water samples was 11.26 ng mL(-1) (polypyrrole) and 84.62 ng mL(-1) (polythiophene) and the limit of quantification for MOCA was from 33.78 (polypyrrole) and 253.86 ng mL(-1) (polythiophene). Correlation coefficients were 0.9997 for air and 0.8790-0.9852 for water samples, respectively. The techniques presented provide alternative methods for the determination of MOCA in air samples and in water solutions that are more sensitive, quicker and less expensive than previously established procedures. (C) 2012 Elsevier B.V. All rights reserved.

Authors

I am an author on this paper
Click your name to claim this paper and add it to your profile.

Reviews

Primary Rating

4.7
Not enough ratings

Secondary Ratings

Novelty
-
Significance
-
Scientific rigor
-
Rate this paper

Recommended

No Data Available
No Data Available