Impact of humic acids, temperature and stirring on passive extraction of pharmaceuticals from water by trihexyl(tetradecyl)phosphonium dicyanamide
Hanna Męczykowska , Piotr Stepnowski , Magda Caban
AbstractOne of the most promising tools for the long-term monitoring of pharmaceuticals in the water environment is passive extraction techniques. A necessary step in passive sampling calibration is the determination of the sampling rates (Rs) for target analytes. This process is carried out primarily in laboratory conditions due to practical reasons. However, one should take into account the significant impact of the environmental factors that differentiate the studied aquatic environments, such as temperature, pH, salinity, water flow or the presence of dissolved organic matter (DOM). In this paper, the results of the calibration of the new PASSIL (PASsive Sampling with Ionic Liquids) sampler was performed for the first time with an examination of the effects of temperature, donor phase stirring and the concentration of humic acids, representing dissolved organic matter (DOM), using both deionized and environmental water. A slight influence of the above-mentioned factors on the extraction efficiency was observed. The determined sampling rates, however, differed in particular when the values obtained from experiments carried out using different donor phase stirring were compared. The study of the process kinetics coupled information of both the extraction efficiency and the sampling rates. The general conclusion is that the calibration of passive samplers should be performed with respect to the water parameters of the tested environment, both for the presented new technique (PASSIL) and already known techniques.
|Journal series||Microchemical Journal, ISSN 0026-265X, (A 35 pkt)|
|Publication size in sheets||0.5|
|Keywords in English||ionic liquids, pharmaceuticals, humic acids, passive sampling with ionic liquids|
|Score||= 35.0, 24-07-2019, ArticleFromJournal|
|Publication indicators||= 0; = 0; : 2016 = 1.305; : 2017 = 2.746 (2) - 2017=2.867 (5)|
* presented citation count is obtained through Internet information analysis and it is close to the number calculated by the Publish or Perish system.