1993
DOI: 10.1002/jhrc.1240160107
|View full text |Cite
|
Sign up to set email alerts
|

Considerations for analytical supercritical fluid extraction of sulfonyl ureas employing a modified fluid

Abstract: Important considerations are discussed for analytical SFEmethod development employing methanolmodified carbon dioxide and solid-phase trapping.The focus of this study was to break the method development procedure into distinct steps so that the origins of low recoveries could be determined conclusively. Sulfonyl urea herbicides were used as probe analytes. Analyte solubility, analyte trapping, analyte trap removal (solidphase), and extract analysis were all shown to be equally important in achieving quantitati… Show more

Help me understand this report

Search citation statements

Order By: Relevance

Paper Sections

Select...
1
1
1

Citation Types

0
11
0

Year Published

1994
1994
2015
2015

Publication Types

Select...
5
2

Relationship

0
7

Authors

Journals

citations
Cited by 22 publications
(11 citation statements)
references
References 11 publications
0
11
0
Order By: Relevance
“…For the 7680T, the 1 ml Hypersil octyldecylsilane (ODS) trap was rinsed to waste with 2 ml of ethyl acetate followed by 2 ml of acetonitrile at 1 ml min 21 each to clean and regenerate the trap between extractions. For the Autoprep-44, the 1 ml trap consisted of a 1 + 1 ODS-Unibeads sorbent prepared by Suprex, and the trap was flushed with 4 ml of acetonitrile at 1.8 ml min 21 between extractions (60 psi N 2 gas pressure to blow the trap dry, 1 psi = 6894.76 Pa). After 8-16 extractions, the 7680T tubing (after the vessel) and trap were flushed with ≈ 10 ml of 1 + 1 methanol-water.…”
Section: Apparatusmentioning
confidence: 99%
See 2 more Smart Citations
“…For the 7680T, the 1 ml Hypersil octyldecylsilane (ODS) trap was rinsed to waste with 2 ml of ethyl acetate followed by 2 ml of acetonitrile at 1 ml min 21 each to clean and regenerate the trap between extractions. For the Autoprep-44, the 1 ml trap consisted of a 1 + 1 ODS-Unibeads sorbent prepared by Suprex, and the trap was flushed with 4 ml of acetonitrile at 1.8 ml min 21 between extractions (60 psi N 2 gas pressure to blow the trap dry, 1 psi = 6894.76 Pa). After 8-16 extractions, the 7680T tubing (after the vessel) and trap were flushed with ≈ 10 ml of 1 + 1 methanol-water.…”
Section: Apparatusmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…9 The use of modifiers also complicates the optimization of extraction and trapping conditions. 6,[19][20][21] Derivatization is another option to improve SFE recovery of polar pesticides, such as 2,4-D, [22][23][24][25] but in multiresidue analysis, derivatization methods are not desirable.…”
mentioning
confidence: 99%
See 1 more Smart Citation
“…The pellet was resuspended with 40 ml methanol, shaken for 5 min, and centrifuged for 5 min at 4080 x g. The methanol and NaOH supematants were combined and the pH was adjusted to 2 with 6 N HC1 to precipitate the humic acids. The combined NaOH-methanol supernatant was centrifuged for 5 min at 4080 x g and filtered using a Buchner funnel with two filter papers 7 . The 50-g soil pellet was resuspended with 40 ml 0.1 N HC1 in 25% by vol aqueous methanol and centrifuged for 5 min at 4080 x g. The supernatant was filtered and combined with NaOH-methanol extract.…”
Section: Conventional Extractionmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…To overcome this problem, CO 2 is often used with a modifier. [7][8][9][10] Poor analyte recoveries are often attributed to poor extraction efficiencies, although in some cases, they are caused by incomplete analyte collection after the extraction. 11 The aim of this article is to develop an efficient, rapid method for the quantitative analysis of antioxidants in polypropylene.…”
Section: Introductionmentioning
confidence: 99%