4.6 Article

Electromembrane extraction of biogenic amines in food samples by a microfluidic-chip system followed by dabsyl derivatization prior to high performance liquid chromatography analysis

期刊

JOURNAL OF CHROMATOGRAPHY A
卷 1556, 期 -, 页码 21-28

出版社

ELSEVIER SCIENCE BV
DOI: 10.1016/j.chroma.2018.04.046

关键词

On chip electromembrane extraction; High performance liquid chromatography; Dabsyl chloride; Biogenic amines; Microfluidic-chip

资金

  1. Iran National Science Foundation (INSF) [95005963]
  2. INSF
  3. Tarbiat Modares University

向作者/读者索取更多资源

In the present research, an on-chip electromembrane extraction coupled with high performance liquid chromatography was developed for monitoring the trace levels of biogenic amines (BAs), including histamine, tryptamine, putrescine, cadaverine and spermidine in food samples. A porous polypropylene sheet membrane impregnated with an organic solvent was placed between the two parts of the chip device to separate the channels. Two platinum electrodes were mounted at the bottom of these channels, which were connected to a power supply, providing the electrical driving force for migration of ionized analytes from the sample solution through the porous sheet membrane into the acceptor phase. BAs were extracted from 2 mL aqueous sample solutions at neutral pH into 50 mu L of acidified (HCI 90 mM) acceptor solution. Supported liquid membrane including NPOE containing 10% DEHP was used to ensure efficient extraction. Low voltage of 40V was applied over the SLMs during extraction time. The influences of fundamental parameters affecting the transport of BAs were optimized. Under the optimized conditions, the relative standard deviations based on four replicate measurements were less than 8.0% and limit of detections were in range of 3.0-8.0 mu gL(-1). Finally, the method was successfully applied to determinate BAs in the food samples and satisfactory results (recovery > 95.6) were obtained. (C) 2018 Elsevier B.V. All rights reserved.

作者

我是这篇论文的作者
点击您的名字以认领此论文并将其添加到您的个人资料中。

评论

主要评分

4.6
评分不足

次要评分

新颖性
-
重要性
-
科学严谨性
-
评价这篇论文

推荐

暂无数据
暂无数据