高级检索
    常君瑞, 李娜, 徐春雨, 刘喆, 吴亚西. 索氏与超声法提取PM2.5中多环芳烃的比较[J]. 环境卫生学杂志, 2015, 5(2): 160-164. DOI: 10.13421/j.cnki.hjwsxzz.2015.02.019
    引用本文: 常君瑞, 李娜, 徐春雨, 刘喆, 吴亚西. 索氏与超声法提取PM2.5中多环芳烃的比较[J]. 环境卫生学杂志, 2015, 5(2): 160-164. DOI: 10.13421/j.cnki.hjwsxzz.2015.02.019
    shu
    CHANG Junrui, LI Na, XU Chunyu, LIU Zhe, WU Yaxi. Comparison of Soxhlet and Ultrasonic Method for Extraction Polycyclic Aromatic Hydrocarbons in PM2.5[J]. Journal of Environmental Hygiene, 2015, 5(2): 160-164. DOI: 10.13421/j.cnki.hjwsxzz.2015.02.019
    Citation: CHANG Junrui, LI Na, XU Chunyu, LIU Zhe, WU Yaxi. Comparison of Soxhlet and Ultrasonic Method for Extraction Polycyclic Aromatic Hydrocarbons in PM2.5[J]. Journal of Environmental Hygiene, 2015, 5(2): 160-164. DOI: 10.13421/j.cnki.hjwsxzz.2015.02.019
    shu

    索氏与超声法提取PM2.5中多环芳烃的比较

    Comparison of Soxhlet and Ultrasonic Method for Extraction Polycyclic Aromatic Hydrocarbons in PM2.5

      摘要
    • 摘要:
      目的 比较索氏提取法与超声提取法对颗粒物中苯并b荧蒽、苯并k荧蒽、苯并a芘、二苯并a, h蒽、茚并1, 2, 3-c, d芘、苯并g, h, i苝的提取效果。
      方法 对加标的空白滤膜以及采样滤膜用索氏提取法及超声提取法进行处理、用高效液相色谱-荧光检测器测定, 计算两种样品前处理方法的相对标准偏差(RSD)及加标回收率并进行比较。
      结果 索氏提取法与超声提取法的相对标准偏差分别为3.6%、2.9%。索氏提取法和超声提取法对空白滤膜的加标回收率分别为91.7%和90.3%, 对6种物质回收率的标准差分别为18.5%、2.8%, 索氏提取法与超声提取法对采样滤膜的加标回收率分别为89.0%、83.3%, 回收率的标准差分别为1.7%、3.1%。在实际样品测定的比较中, 两种样品前处理方法取得了相近的结果。
      结论 索氏提取法处理步骤多, 影响结果的因素较多; 超声提取法操作简便, 操作过程对结果的影响较小, 结果比较稳定。超声提取法是一种比较实用、快速的样品前处理方法。

       

      Abstract:
      Objectives To compare the soxhlet and ultrasonic methods for extraction of six polycyclic aromatic hydrocarbons(PAHs), including benzobfluoranthene, benzokfluoranthene, benzoapyrene, dibenza, hanthracene, indeno1, 2, 3-cdpyrene and benzoghiperylene in PM2.5 in the air.
      Methods Sample and blank filter membranes added with standards were extracted by soxhlet and ultrasonic method, respectively, and detected by HPLC-fluorescence detector. The relative standard deviation(RSD) and the recovery of standard addition were calculated.
      Results The RSDs of six PAHs on blank filter membrane extracted by soxhlet and ultrasonic method were 3.6% and 2.9%, respectively. The recoveries of standard addition of six PAHs on blank filter membranes extracted by Soxhlet and ultrasonic method were 91.7% and 90.3%, respectively; those on sample filter membranes were 89.0% and 83.3%, respectively. The standard deviations of recoveries for 6 PAHS on blank filter membranes extracted by soxhlet and ultrasonic method were 18.5% and 2.8%, respectively; those on sample filter membranes were 1.7% and 3.1%, respectively. The results of actual sample detected by these two methods were comparable.
      Conclusions Many factors in the process of soxhlet extraction might affect the results because of its complex steps. Ultrasonic extraction method was simple and the results were relatively stable. Ultrasonic extraction was a simple, rapid and practicable preparation method for the detection of PAHs in PM2.5.

       

      • HTML全文
      • 参考文献(8)
      • 相关文章
      • 施引文献
    • 资源附件(0)

    /

    返回文章
    返回