LibCat » Книги » Приключения » unrecognised » Applied Water Science

Applied Water Science

Здесь есть возможность читать онлайн «Applied Water Science» — ознакомительный отрывок электронной книги совершенно бесплатно, а после прочтения отрывка купить полную версию. В некоторых случаях можно слушать аудио, скачать через торрент в формате fb2 и присутствует краткое содержание. Жанр: unrecognised, на английском языке. Описание произведения, (предисловие) а так же отзывы посетителей доступны на портале библиотеки ЛибКат.

Читать книгу

Название:
Applied Water Science
Автор:
Неизвестный Автор
Жанр:
unrecognised / на английском языке
Год:
неизвестен
ISBN:
нет данных
Рейтинг книги:
4 / 5. Голосов: 1
Избранное:

Добавить в избранное
Отзывы:
Написать комментарий
Ваша оценка:
- 80
- 1
- 2
- 3
- 4
- 5

Applied Water Science: краткое содержание, описание и аннотация

Предлагаем к чтению аннотацию, описание, краткое содержание или предисловие (зависит от того, что написал сам автор книги «Applied Water Science»). Если вы не нашли необходимую информацию о книге — напишите в комментариях, мы постараемся отыскать её.

Water is one of the most precious and basic needs of life for all living beings, and a precious national asset. Without it, the existence of life cannot be imagined. Availability of pure water is decreasing day by day, and water scarcity has become a major problem that is faced by our society for the past few years. Hence, it is essential to find and disseminate the key solutions for water quality and scarcity issues. The inaccessibility and poor water quality continue to pose a major threat to human health worldwide. Around billions of people lacking to access drinkable water. The water contains the pathogenic impurities; which are responsible for water-borne diseases. The concept of water quality mainly depends on the chemical, physical, biological, and radiological measurement standards to evaluate the water quality and determine the concentration of all components, then compare the results of this concentration with the purpose for which this water is used. Therefore, awareness and a firm grounding in water science are the primary needs of readers, professionals, and researchers working in this research area.
This book explores the basic concepts and applications of water science. It provides an in-depth look at water pollutants’ classification, water recycling, qualitative and quantitative analysis, and efficient wastewater treatment methodologies. It also provides occurrence, human health risk assessment, strategies for removal of radionuclides and pharmaceuticals in aquatic systems. The book chapters are written by leading researchers throughout the world. This book is an invaluable guide to students, professors, scientists and R&D industrial specialists working in the field of environmental science, geoscience, water science, physics and chemistry.

Applied Water Science — читать онлайн ознакомительный отрывок

Ниже представлен текст книги, разбитый по страницам. Система сохранения места последней прочитанной страницы, позволяет с удобством читать онлайн бесплатно книгу «Applied Water Science», без необходимости каждый раз заново искать на чём Вы остановились. Поставьте закладку, и сможете в любой момент перейти на страницу, на которой закончили чтение.

Тёмная тема

Шрифт:

↓

↑

Сбросить

Интервал:

↓

↑

Закладка:

Сделать

Table 1.2Some examples of the application of SPE for the analysis of PAEs in water samples.

PAEs	Matrix (sample amount)	Sample pretreatment	Separation technique	LOQ	Recovery study	Residues found	Comments	Reference
DMP, DEP, DIBP, DBP, DMEP, BMPP, DEEP, DNPP, DHXP, BBP, DBEP, DCHP, DEHP DNOP, and DNP	River and sea waters (20 mL)	dSPE using 3 mL colloidal G and vortex for 2 min, centrifugation at 3800 rpm for 5 min, and desorption with 5 mL ethyl acetate and 2 g sodium sulfate by vortex for 30 s	GC-MS	5–20 μg/L	72–117% at 20 and 50 μg/L	Nine river and 2 sea waters samples were analyzed and contained at least 1 PAE at levels from 2 to 78 μg/L	Ethyl acetate showed higher extraction efficiency than ACN, acetone and hexane as desorption solvent	[72]
DEHP	Rain, lake and river waters (600 mL)	dSPE using 20 mg GO-MIP and agitation for 30 min, centrifugation at 12000 rpm for 10 min, and desorption (twice) with 2.5 mL acetone by vortex for 1 min and subsequent sonication for 5 min	HPLC-UV	2.82 μg/L	82-92% at 5, 50, and 500 μg/L	One sample of each water were analyzed and residues were found at 0.32 ± 0.08 and 1.56 ± 0.32 μg/L in lake and river waters, respectively.	DEHP was used as the template molecule. Acetone showed higher extraction efficiency than MeOH as desorption solvent	[69]
DMP, DEP, DBP, BBP, DEHP, and DNOP	Bottle water (200 mL)	dSPE using 60 mg DMIMs and stirring for 90 min, and desorption with 5 mL dichloromethane by sonication for 15 min	GC-MS	1.03–1.35 μg/L	92.4–99.0% at 25 μg/L	Two samples were analyzed and residues of DEHP were found at 10.06 ± 0.84 and 11.90 ± 1.70 μg/L	DEP was used as the dummy template. Dichloromethane showed higher extraction efficiency than acetone, MeOH, chloroform, ethyl acetate and hexane as desorption solvent. DMIMs-dSPE method showed higher recovery values compared with non-imprinted polymers	[73]
DMP, DEP, and DBP	Tap and mineral waters (20 mL)	dSPE using 20 mg (β-cyclodextrin-poly (N-isopropylacrylamide) and water bath at 50°C for 25 min., addition of sodium sulfate for polymer condensation purposes, and desorption with 200 μL ethyl acetate by sonication for 15 min.	GC-MS	0.021–0.350 μg/L	82.2–105.6% at 5, 100, and 600 μg/L	One sample of each water were analyzed and all PAEs were found at levels from 0.14 to 4.97 μg/L	Ethyl acetate showed higher extraction efficiency than hexane, acetone and dichloromethane as desorption solvent.	[74]
BBP, DBEP, DIPP, DNPP, DCHP, DEHP, DNOP, DINP, and DEHA	Milli-Q, pond, tap and waste waters (50 mL)	dSPE using 120 mg Basolite* F300 MOF and shaking for 5 min, vacuum-dried using a SPE column for 30 min, and elution with 15-mL ACN	HPLC-MS	0.022–0.069 μg/L	70–118% at 0.375 and 1.875 μg/L	Eight samples were analyzed and residues of DEHP were found at levels from 0.21 ± 0.26 to 4.04 ± 0.23 (_ig/L in all samples	ACN showed higher extraction efficiency than dichloromethane, acetone, cyclohexane and MeOH as elution solvent	[25]
DMP, DEP, DPP, DIBP, DBP, DNPP, DHXP, BBP, DEHP, DHP, DCHP, DPhP and DNOP	Drinking water (200 mL)	m-dSPE using 20 mg MWCNTs-m-NPs under agitation for 2 min, a magnet was used for decantation, and elution with 1 mL toluene–acetone (1:4, v/v)	GC-MS/MS	0.03–0.1 μg/L	86.6-100.2% at 5 μg/L	Three samples were analyzed and no residues were detected	Toluene showed higher extraction efficiency than acetone, MeOH, hexane and ethyl acetate as elution solvent. To reduce the toxicity of toluene, different proportions toluene-acetone (1:1, 1:4 and 1:9, v/v) were tested and the mix toluene–acetone (1:4, v/v) gave similar results	[76]
DEP, DPP, DBP, DCP, and DEHP	Bottled and river waters (300 mL)	m-dSPE using 25 mg G-Fe 3O 4under 3 4 agitation for 15 min, a magnet was used for decantation, and elution (in triplicate) with 0.5 mL acetone by vortex for 10 s	HPLC-UV	0.03–0.1 μg/L	80.0–106.0% at 0.5 and 5 μg/L	One sample of each water were analyzed and residues of DBP and DEHP were found at 0.12 and 0.15 μg/L, respectively, in the river water sample	Acetone showed higher extraction efficiency than MeOH and ACN as elution solvent. Coca-Cola and green tea samples were also analyzed	[78]
DMP, DEP, DAP, DIBP, and BBP	River, reservoir and sea waters (300 mL)	m-dSPE using 36 mg layered carbon-Fe 3O 4under agitation for 10 min, a magnet was used for decantation, and elution (in triplicate) with 0.5 mL acetone by vortex for 10 s	HPLC-UV	0.27–0.33 μg/L	88.0–104.7% at 5 and 10 μg/L	One sample of each water were analyzed and residues of DAP and DIBP were found at 0.52 and 0.86 μg/L, respectively, in the river water sample	Acetone showed higher extraction efficiency than MeOH and ACN as elution solvent	[26]
DMP, DEP, DIBP, DBP, DMEP, BMPP, DEEP, DNPP, DHXP, BBP, DBEP, DCHP, DEHP, DIPP, DNOP, and DNP	Mineral and tap waters (9.8 mL plus 0.2 mL MeOH)	m-dSPE using 0.1 mL suspension of MWCNTs-m-NPs in water (40 mg/ml) under vortex for 3 min, a magnet was used for decantation, and elution with 1 mL acetone	GC-MS	0.016–0.13 μg/L	79.6–125.6% at 5 μg/L	Two mineral and 1 tap water samples were analyzed and contained at least 3 PAEs at levels from 0.36 to 3.3 μg/L	Acetone showed higher extraction efficiency than MeOH, ethyl acetate and hexane as elution solvent. Juice and carbonated drinks, and one perfume sample were also analyzed	[77]
DMP, DEP, DIBP, DBP, DEHP, BBP, and DNOP	River and pond waters (10 mL)	m-dSPE using 20 mg G-Fe 3O 4under vortex for 15 min, a magnet was used for decantation, and elution with 0.4 mL ethyl acetate and 0.5 g anhydrous sodium sulfate by sonication for 15 min	GC-MS	0.035–0.19 μg/L	88–110% at 10,000 μg/L	One sample of each water were analyzed and residues of all PAEs except DMP were found at levels from 22.2 to 150.8 μg/L	Ethyl acetate showed higher extraction efficiency than acetone and chloroform as elution solvent	[79]
DMP, DEP, DBP, BBP, and DNOP	River, tap and mineral waters (20 mL)	m-dSPE using 20 mg Fe 3O 4-ZIF-8 MOF under sonication for 8 min, a magnet was used for decantation, and elution with 1 mL MeOH by sonication for 8 min	HPLC-DAD	0.3–0.8 μg/L	85.6–103.6% at 1, 10, and 100 μg/L	One sample of each water were analyzed and at least 2 PAEs at levels from 5 to 60 μg/L were detected in the river and tap water samples	Methanol showed higher extraction efficiency than ACN, chloroform and tetrahydrofuran as elution solvent	[85]
DMP, DEP, DIBP, DBP, DEHP, BBP, DNOP, DMEP, DEEP, DNPP, BMPP, DHXP, DBEP, DCHP, DPhP, and DINP	Tap and lake waters (20 mL)	m-dSPE using 20 mg Fe 3O 4-polypyrrole under agitation for 40 min, a magnet was used for decantation, and elution with 2 mL ethyl acetate by sonication for 60 min	GC-MS	0.018–0.068 μg/L	80.4–108.2% at 5 and 100 μg/L	One sample of each water were analyzed and at least 5 PAEs at levels from 0.10 to 6.90 μg/L were detected	An orthogonal fraction factorial design was used for optimization purposes. Ethyl acetate showed higher extraction efficiency than acetone and isopropanol as elution solvent	[81]
DEP, DPP, DBP, DIPP, DNPP, BBP, DCHP, DEHP, DNOP, DINP, DIDP and DEHA	Mineral, tap, pond and waste waters (25 mL adjusted at pH 6)	m-dSPE using 60 mg Fe 3O 4-PDA under agitation for 1 min, a magnet was used for decantation, and elution with 6 mL dichloromethane by agitation for 30 s	GC-MS/MS	0.009–0.02 μg/L	71–120% at 0.5 and 5 μg/L	One sample of each water were analyzed and residues of DEP and DBP were found at levels from 0.36 ± 0.46 to 4.20 ± 0.52 μg/L in the mineral, tap and waste waters	Dichloromethane showed higher extraction efficiency than acetone, MeOH and ACN as elution solvent	[22]
DMP, DEP, BBP, and DBP	Carbonated, mineral and soda waters (25 mL)	m-dSPE using 30 mg poly(1-vinyl-3-butylimidazolium bromide)-PS m-NPs under vortex for 2.5 min, a magnet was used for decantation, and elution with 7 mL ACN by sonication	HPLC-DAD	0.017-0.047 μg/L	77.8-102.1% at 2 and 20 μg/L	One sample of each water were analyzed and residues of DEP were found at 25.8 and 15.5 μg/L in the carbonate and soda waters, respectively	ACN showed higher extraction efficiency than acetone, petroleum ether and MeOH as elution solvent	[82]
DMP, DEP, DAP, DIBP, and DBP	Tap and well waters (5 mL plus 15% w/v NaCl)	m-dSPE using 15 mg Fe 3O 4-MIL-101(Cr) MOF under agitation for 20 min, a magnet was used for decantation, and elution with 1 mL hexane/acetone (1:1 v/v) by vortex for 3 min	GC-MS	0.3–0.5 μg/L	90.1–106.7% at 5 and 50 μg/L	One sample of each water were analyzed and no residues were detected	The use of Fe 3O 4-MIL-101(Cr) MOF showed higher enrichment capacity than Fe 3O 4and MIL-101(Cr) MOF separately. Hexane/acetone (1:1 v/v) showed higher extraction efficiency than ethyl acetate, hexane, acetone and hexane/ethyl acetate (1:1 v/v) as elution solvent. Human plasma was also analyzed	[86]
DMP, DEP, DBP, BBP, DEHP, and DNOP	Tap, drinking and mineral waters (10 mL)	m-dSPE using 15 mg Fe 3O 4-MIL-100 MOF and 15-mg Fe 3O 4-SiO 2-polythiophene under sonication for 1 min and oscillation for 15 min, a magnet was used for decantation, and elution with 1 mL ACN by agitation for 10 min	GC-MS	1.1–2.9 μg/L	76.9–109.1% at 1, 10 and 50 μg/L	One sample of each water were analyzed and no residues were quantified	A combination of 15-mg Fe 3O 4-MIL-100 MOF and 15-mg Fe 3O 4-SiO 2-polythiophene gave better extraction efficiency than using 30-mg each separately. ACN showed higher extraction efficiency than acetone, ethyl acetate and hexane as elution solvent	[88]
DMP, DBP, BBP, DCHP, and DEHP	Tap and lake waters (100 mL adjusted at pH 6)	m-dSPE using 30 mg poly(1-vinylimidazole)-carboxy-latocalix[4] arene m-NPs under sonication for 15 min, a magnet was used for decantation, and elution with 0.5 mL MeOH by sonication for 5 min	HPLC-UV	0.05–0.11 μg/L	89.9–110.0% at 0.5, 1, and 5 μg/L	One sample of each water were analyzed and contained at least 1 PAE at levels from 0.4 to 8.9 μg/L	Methanol showed higher extraction efficiency than ACN and chloroform as elution solvent. The use of poly(1 -vinylimidazole)-carboxy-latocalix[4] arene m-NPs showed higher enrichment capacity than Fe 3O 4and poly(1-vinylimidazole) separately. m-dSPE using poly(1-vinylimidazole)-carboxy-latocalix[4] arene m-NPs showed better results compared with SPE with C 18and Cleanert SCX cartridges. Drinks, tonic lotions, and human serum were also analyzed	[83]
DBP, DMP, DCHP, BBP, and DEP	River water (10 mL)	m-dSPE using 30 mg 3D N-Co-C/HCF MOF under agitation for 20 min, a magnet was used for decantation, and elution with 6 mL ACN by sonication for 10 min	HPLC-UV	0.077–0.377 μg/L	92.4–104.2% at 1, 10, and 50 μg/L	One sample was analyzed and contained DMP and DEP at 0.075 and 0.081 μg/L, respectively	Green tea, sports beverage and white spirit were also analyzed. ACN showed higher extraction efficiency than acetone, MeOH, and ethanol as elution solvent	[87]
DPP, DBP, DCHP, DEHP, DNOP, DIDP, BBP, DINP, DIPP, DNPP, and DEHA	Sea water (50 mL adjusted at pH 6)	m-dSPE using 120 mg Fe 3O 4-PDA under agitation for 1 min, a magnet was used for decantation, and elution with 1 mL dichloromethane by agitation for 30 s	GC-MS	0.0018–0.319 μg/L	79–116% at 0.4, 1, and 1.6 μg/L	Ten samples were analyzed and no residues were quantified	Sea sand was also analyzed.	[80]

MeOHMeOHMeOHMeOHMeOHACN, acetonitrile; BBP, benzylbutyl phthalate; BMPP, bis(4-methyl-2-pentyl) phthalate; DAD, diode-array detector; DAP, diallyl phthalate; DBEP, di(2-butoxyethyl) phthalate; DBP, dibutyl phthalate; DCHP, dicyclohexyl phthalate; DEEP, di(2-ethoxyethyl) phthalate; DEHA, di(2-ethylhexyl) adipate; DEHP, di(2-ethylhexyl) phthalate; DEP, diethyl phthalate; DHP, diheptyl phthalate; DHXP, dihexyl phthalate; DIBP, diisobutyl phthalate; DIDP, diisodecyl phthalate; DINP, diisononyl phthalate; DIPP, diisopentyl phthalate; DMEP, di(2-methoxyethyl) phthalate; DMIMs, dummy molecularly imprinted microbeads; DMP, dimethyl phthalate; DNOP, di-n-octyl phthalate; DNP, dinonyl phthalate; DNPP, di-n-pentyl phthalate; DPhP, diphenyl phthalate; DPP, dipropyl phthalate; dSPE, dispersive solid-phase extraction; G, graphene; GC, gas chromatography; GO, graphene oxide; HCF, hierarchical carbon framework; HPLC, high-performance liquid chromatography; LOQ, limit of quantification; m-dSPE, magnetic solid-phase extraction; MeOH, methanol; MIL, Material of Institute Lavoisier; MIP, molecularly imprinted polymer; m-NPs, magnetic nanoparticles; MOF, metal organic framework; MS/MS, tandem mass spectrometry; MS, mass spectrometry; MWCNTs, multiwalled carbon nanotubes; PAE, phthalic acid ester; PDA, poly(dopamine); PS, polystyrene; SPE, solid-phase extraction; UV, ultraviolet; ZIF, Zeolitic Imidazolate Framework.