4.7 Article

A rapid method for screening of the Stockholm Convention POPs in small amounts of human plasma using SPE and HRGC/HRMS

期刊

CHEMOSPHERE
卷 86, 期 7, 页码 747-753

出版社

PERGAMON-ELSEVIER SCIENCE LTD
DOI: 10.1016/j.chemosphere.2011.11.006

关键词

Persistent organic pollutants; Sample extraction; Human plasma; HRGC/HRMS; Polychlorinated biphenyls; Organochlorine pesticides

资金

  1. Swedish Research Council (VR)
  2. Swedish Research Council for Environment, Agricultural Sciences and Spatial Planning (FORMAS)

向作者/读者索取更多资源

A rapid analytical screening method allowing simultaneous analysis of 23 persistent organic pollutants (POPs) in human plasma was developed. Sample preparation based on solid-phase extraction (SPE) with additional clean-up using small multilayer silica gel columns. SPE was performed using a custom made polystyrene-divinylbenzene sorbent for the extraction of chlorinated and brominated POPs. Special efforts to reduce sample volume and improve speed and efficiency of the analytical procedure were made. Determination of 16 polychlorinated biphenyls (PCBs), 5 organochlorine (OC) pesticides, octachlorinated dibenzo-p-dioxin (OCDD) and polybrominated diphenyl ether (BDE #47) in 0.5 mL human plasma was performed by using high resolution gas chromatography coupled to high resolution mass spectrometry (HRGC/HRMS). Recovery of POPs ranged between 46% and 110%, and reproducibility was below 25% relative standard deviation (RSD) for all target compounds, except for trans-nonachlor and OCDD, which were present only at low levels. Limits of detection (LOD) were for the PCBs between 0.8 and 117.7 pg mL(-1) plasma and for the OC pesticides between 5.9 and 89.1 pg mL(-1) plasma. The LOD for OCDD and BDE #47 were 1.4 pg mL(-1) plasma, and 9.2 pg mL(-1) plasma, respectively. The presented method was successfully applied to 1016 human plasma samples from an epidemiological study on cardiovascular disease. (C) 2011 Elsevier Ltd. 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

4.7
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