PMID- 28843553
OWN - NLM
STAT- PubMed-not-MEDLINE
DCOM- 20180119
LR  - 20180119
IS  - 1873-4324 (Electronic)
IS  - 0003-2670 (Linking)
VI  - 984
DP  - 2017 Sep 1
TI  - Comparison of a disposable sorptive sampler with thermal desorption in a gas 
      chromatographic inlet, or in a dedicated thermal desorber, to conventional stir 
      bar sorptive extraction-thermal desorption for the determination of 
      micropollutants in water.
PG  - 107-115
LID - S0003-2670(17)30736-5 [pii]
LID - 10.1016/j.aca.2017.06.030 [doi]
AB  - The presence of micropollutants in the aquatic environment is a worldwide 
      environmental concern. The diversity of micropollutants and the low concentration 
      levels at which they may occur in the aquatic environment have greatly 
      complicated the analysis and detection of these chemicals. Two sorptive 
      extraction samplers and two thermal desorption methods for the detection of 
      micropollutants in water were compared. A low-cost, disposable, in-house made 
      sorptive extraction sampler was compared to SBSE using a commercial Twister 
      sorptive sampler. Both samplers consisted of polydimethylsiloxane (PDMS) as a 
      sorptive medium to concentrate micropollutants. Direct thermal desorption of the 
      disposable samplers in the inlet of a GC was compared to conventional thermal 
      desorption using a commercial thermal desorber system (TDS). Comprehensive gas 
      chromatography coupled to time-of-flight mass spectrometry (GC x GC-TOFMS) was 
      used for compound separation and identification. Ten micropollutants, 
      representing a range of heterogeneous compounds, were selected to evaluate the 
      performance of the methods. The in-house constructed sampler, with its associated 
      benefits of low-cost and disposability, gave results comparable to commercial 
      SBSE. Direct thermal desorption of the disposable sampler in the inlet of a GC 
      eliminated the need for expensive consumable cryogenics and total analysis time 
      was greatly reduced as a lengthy desorption temperature programme was not 
      required. Limits of detection for the methods ranged from 0.0010 ng L(-1) to 
      0.19 ng L(-1). For most compounds, the mean (n = 3) recoveries ranged from 85% to 
      129% and the % relative standard deviation (% RSD) ranged from 1% to 58% with the 
      majority of the analytes having a %RSD of less than 30%.
CI  - Copyright (c) 2017 Elsevier B.V. All rights reserved.
FAU - Wooding, Madelien
AU  - Wooding M
AD  - Department of Chemistry, University of Pretoria, Private Bag X20, Hatfield, 0028, 
      Pretoria, South Africa.
FAU - Rohwer, Egmont R
AU  - Rohwer ER
AD  - Department of Chemistry, University of Pretoria, Private Bag X20, Hatfield, 0028, 
      Pretoria, South Africa.
FAU - Naude, Yvette
AU  - Naude Y
AD  - Department of Chemistry, University of Pretoria, Private Bag X20, Hatfield, 0028, 
      Pretoria, South Africa. Electronic address: yvette.naude@up.ac.za.
LA  - eng
PT  - Journal Article
DEP - 20170622
PL  - Netherlands
TA  - Anal Chim Acta
JT  - Analytica chimica acta
JID - 0370534
OTO - NOTNLM
OT  - Disposable PDMS sampler
OT  - GCxGC-TOFMS
OT  - Micropollutants
OT  - SBSE
OT  - Thermal desorption
OT  - Water
EDAT- 2017/08/28 06:00
MHDA- 2017/08/28 06:01
CRDT- 2017/08/28 06:00
PHST- 2017/03/27 00:00 [received]
PHST- 2017/06/02 00:00 [revised]
PHST- 2017/06/16 00:00 [accepted]
PHST- 2017/08/28 06:00 [entrez]
PHST- 2017/08/28 06:00 [pubmed]
PHST- 2017/08/28 06:01 [medline]
AID - S0003-2670(17)30736-5 [pii]
AID - 10.1016/j.aca.2017.06.030 [doi]
PST - ppublish
SO  - Anal Chim Acta. 2017 Sep 1;984:107-115. doi: 10.1016/j.aca.2017.06.030. Epub 2017 
      Jun 22.