Microwave extraction of phthalate esters from marine sediment and soil
- 142 Downloads
- 25 Citations
Summary
As part of an on-going ASEAN+)-Canada Cooperative Programme on Marine Science, microwave-assisted solvent extraction has been employed for the extraction of six phthalate esters from marine sediment and soil samples. Five of the six esters studied are among the United States Environmental Protection Agency's list of top priority pollutants. The effects of extraction solvent, extraction temperature, duration of extraction and extraction volume on the mean recoveries of the six phthalate esters were quantitatively evaluated by means of an analysis of variance, followed by testing the differences among the level means for each condition with least significant difference method. Microwave-assisted solvent extraction allowed comparable or higher recoveries of the six phthalate esters (70.1–91.0%) in comparison with conventional soxhlet (65.5–89.5%) and sonication (64.6–88.6%). The precision of results by microwave-assisted solvent extraction was improved significantly compared to the conventional techniques. The microwave extraction system has many advantages over the soxhlet and sonication extraction, e.g., no laborious clean-up procedure, lower usage of hazardous organic solvent, and larger sample throughput. The technique has been employed for the analysis of native marine sediment and soil samples in Singapore.
Key Words
Microwave-assisted solvent extraction Phthalate esters Marine sediment SoilPreview
Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.
References
- [1]L. A. Al-Omran, M. R. Preston, Environ. Poll.46, 177 (1987).Google Scholar
- [2]M. R. Preston, L. A. Al-Omran, Environ. Poll.62, 183 (1989).Google Scholar
- [3]J. L. Schmitzer, I. Scheunert, F. Korte, J. Agri. Food Chem.36, 210 (1988).Google Scholar
- [4]M. A. Callahan, M. W. Slimak, N. W. Gabel, C. F. Fowler, J. F. Freed, J. P. May, F. C. Withmore, P. Jennings, R. L. Durfee, B. Mewstri, C. Gould, US Environmental Protection Agency, 440/4-79-029b, Vol 2, Contract No. 68-01-3867, Washington, DC, 1979.Google Scholar
- [5]J. C. Inman, S. D. Strachan, L. E. Sommers, D. W. Nelson, J. Environ. Sci. Health, Part B,19 245 (1984).Google Scholar
- [6]P. Larsson, A. Thuren, G. Gahnström, Environ. Poll.42, 223 (1986).Google Scholar
- [7]C. S. Giam, E. Altas, M. A. Power, J. E. Leonard, in O. H. Hutzinger, Ed., The Handbook of Environmental Chemistry, Vol 3. Part C, p. 67, Springer Verlag, Berlin, 1984.Google Scholar
- [8]W. M. Kluwe, E. E. McConnel, J. E. Huff, J. K. Haseman, J. F. Douglas, W. V. Hartwell, Environ. Health Perspect.45, 129 (1982).Google Scholar
- [9]P. K. Seth, Environ. Health Perspect.45, 27 (1982).Google Scholar
- [10]W. J. Kozumbo, R. Krull, R. J. Rubin, Environ. Health Perspect.45, 103 (1982).Google Scholar
- [11]R. Ritsema, W. P. Cofino, P. C. M. Frintrop, U. A. Th. Brinkman, Chemosphere18, 2161 (1989).Google Scholar
- [12]J. C. Peterson, D. H. Freeman, Intern. J. Environ. Anal. Chem.12, 277 (1982).Google Scholar
- [13]T. Zurmühl, Analyst115, 1171 (1990).Google Scholar
- [14]F. E. Onuska, K. A. Terry, Chromatographia36, 191 (1993).Google Scholar
- [15]V. Lopez-Avila, R. Young, W. F. Beckert, Anal. Chem.66, 1097 (1994).Google Scholar
- [16]V. Lopez-Avila, R. Young, J. Benedicto P. Ho, R. Kim, W. F. Beckert, Anal. Chem.67, 2096 (1995).Google Scholar
- [17]M. Ehrhardt, J. Derenbach, Marine Chem.8, 339 (1980).Google Scholar
- [18]R. A. Hites, Environ. Health Perspect.3, 17 (1973).Google Scholar
- [19]F. W. Karasek, Indust. Res. Dev. April, 113 (1978).Google Scholar
- [20]H. E. Schwartz, U. A. Th. Brinkman, C. J. M. Anzion, H. P. M. Van Vliet, J. W. C. Peereboom, Intern. J. Environ. Anal. Chem.6, 133 (1979).Google Scholar
- [21]R. Von Malisch, E. Schulte, L. Acker, Chemiker Zeitung105, 187 (1981)Google Scholar
- [22]A. Thurén, Environ. Contam. Toxicol.36, 33 (1986).Google Scholar