The DOI matches its Crossref record.
Comparison of ASE and SFE with Soxhlet, Sonication, and Methanolic Saponification Extractions for the Determination of Organic Micropollutants in Marine Particulate Matter
Abstract
The methods of accelerated solvent extraction (ASE) and supercritical fluid extraction (SFE) of polycyclic aromatic hydrocarbons (PAHs), aliphatic hydrocarbons, and chlorinated hydrocarbons from marine samples were investigated. The results of extractions of a certified sediment and four samples of suspended particulate matter (SPM) were compared to classical Soxhlet (SOX), ultrasonication (USE), and methanolic saponification extraction (MSE) methods. The recovery data, including precision and systematic deviations of each method, were evaluated statistically. It was found that recoveries and precision of ASE and SFE compared well with the other methods investigated. Using SFE, the average recoveries of PAHs in three different samples ranged from 96 to 105%, for ASE the recoveries were in the range of 97-108% compared to the reference methods. Compared to the certified values of sediment HS-6, the average recoveries of SFE and ASE were 87 and 88%, most compounds being within the limits of confidence. Also, for alkanes the average recoveries by SFE and ASE were equal to the results obtained by SOX, USE, and MSE. In the case of SFE, the recoveries were in the range 93-115%, and ASE achieved recoveries of 94-107% as compared to the other methods. For ASE and SFE, the influence of water on the extraction efficiency was examined. While the natural water content of the SPM sample (56 wt %) led to insufficient recoveries in ASE and SFE, quantitative extractions were achieved in SFE after addition of anhydrous sodium sulfate to the sample. Finally, ASE was applied to SPM-loaded filter candles whereby a mixture of n-hexane/acetone as extraction solvent allowed the simultaneous determination of PAHs, alkanes, and chlorinated hydrocarbons.
Overview
The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.
Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.
Integrity signals
Registry
Cites
Statistics
Verification
Claims the paper makes
The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.
Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.
Self-check
Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.
The self-check needs the paper’s full text.
Citations
Cited by
Before the injection—Modern methods of sample preparation for separation techniques
Smith, R. M. (2003) · Journal of Chromatography A · doi:10.1016/s0021-9673(03)00511-9 · Cited by 503
Sosa Ferrera, Z., Padrón Sanz, C., Mahugo Santana, C., & Santana Rodrı́guez, J. J. (2004) · TrAC Trends in Analytical Chemistry · doi:10.1016/s0165-9936(04)00732-0 · Cited by 184
Wu, Y., Xia, L., Chen, R., & Hu, B. (2008) · Talanta · doi:10.1016/j.talanta.2007.05.057 · Cited by 79
Tavakoli, L., Yamini, Y., Ebrahimzadeh, H., & Shariati, S. (2008) · Journal of Chromatography A · doi:10.1016/j.chroma.2008.04.036 · Cited by 71
Hu, J., Li, Y., Zhang, W., Wang, H., Huang, C., Zhang, M., & Wang, X. (2009) · Journal of Separation Science · doi:10.1002/jssc.200900027 · Cited by 51
Metadata
- Authors
- Heemken, O. P., Theobald, N., & Wenclawiak, B. W.
- Venue
- Analytical Chemistry
- Publisher
- American Chemical Society (ACS)
- Published
- 1997-06-01
- Volume
- 69
- Issue
- 11
- Pages
- 2171-2180
- ISSN
- 0003-2700 (ISSN-L)
- 1520-6882
- OpenAlex
- W2072949556
- Cited by
- 234
- References
- 0
- FWCI
- 12.56
- Type
- journal article
- Language
- en
- Open access
- closed
About these checks
Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.
Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.
Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.
What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›
Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review
Data sources
Bibliographic data: Semantic Scholar, OpenAlex, Crossref.
Contains information from the Semantic Scholar Academic Graph Datasets, made available under the ODC Attribution License (ODC-BY 1.0).
Semantic Scholar’s data is described in: Kinney, R., et al. (2023). The Semantic Scholar Open Data Platform. arXiv:2301.10140.