Bulletin of the Korean Chemical Society

  • 제20권6호
  • /
  • Pages.689-695
  • /
  • 1999
  • /
  • 0253-2964(pISSN)
  • /
  • 1229-5949(eISSN)
대한화학회 (Korean Chemical Society)
권호 표지
DOI QR코드

DOI QR Code

Analytical Method for Dioxin and Organo-Chlorinated Compounds: (Ⅱ) Comparison and Extraction Methods of Dioxins from XAD-2 Adsorbent

  • 발행 : 1999.06.20
PDF 다운로드
⟨ 이전 논문 다음 논문 ⟩

초록

Supercritical fluid extraction (SFE), ultrasonic extraction (USE), and accelerated solvent extraction (ASE) were compared with the well known Soxhlet extraction for the extraction of polychlorinated biphenyls (PCBs) and polychlorinated dibenzo-p-dioxins(PCDDs) from the XAD-2 resin which was used to adsorb PCDDs in the atmosphere. XAD-2 resin spiked with five PCDDs was chosen as a sample. The optimum conditions for the extraction of PCDDs by SFE were turned out to be the use of CO2 modified with 10% toluene at 100 ℃ and 350 atm, with 5 min static extraction followed by 20 min dynamic extraction. SFE gave a good extraction rate with good reproducibility for PCDDs ranging from 68 to 98%. The ultrasonic extraction of PCDDs from XAD-2 was investigated and compared with other extractions. A probe type method was compared with a bath type. Two extraction solvents, toluene and acetone were compared with their mixture. The use of their mixture in probe type, with 9 minutes of extraction time, was found to be the optimum condition. The average recovery of the five PCDDs for USE was 82-93%. Accelerated solvent extraction (ASE) with a liquid solvent, a new technique for sample preparation, was performed under elevated temperatures and pressures. The effect of tem-perature on the efficiency of ASE was investigated. The extraction time for a 10 g sample was less than 15 min, when the organic solvent was n-hexaneacetone mixture (1 : 1, v/v). Using ASE, the average recoveries of five PCDDs ranged from 90 to 103%. SFE, USE, and ASE were faster and less laborious than Soxhlet extraction. The former three methods required less solvent than Soxhlet extraction. SFE required no concentration of the solvent extracts. SFE and ASE failed to perform simultaneous parallel extractions because of instrumental limitations.

키워드

참고문헌

  1. Environ. Sci. Technol. v.18 Rappe, C.
  2. Bull. Korean Chem. Soc. v.19 no.6 Yang, J. S.;Kim, J. Y.;Choi, Y. W.;Lee, D. W.
  3. Environ. Sci. Technol. v.22 Walter, R. W.;Guiseppi-Elie
  4. Environ. Sci. Technol. v.13 Keith, L. H.;Telliard, W. A.
  5. J. Chromatogr v.626 van der Velde, E. G.;de Haan, W.;Liem, A. K.D.
  6. Anal. Chem. v.64 Snyder, J. L.;Grob, R. L.;McNally, M. E.;Oostyk, T. S.
  7. Anal. Chem. v.61 Alexandrou, N.;Pawliszyn, J.
  8. LCGC v.9 Campbee, R. M.;Richards, M.
  9. Anal. Chem. v.62 Hawthorne, S. B.
  10. J. Chromatogr. v.363 Xchantz, M. M.;Chesler, S. N.
  11. J. Anal. Chem. v.59 Hawthorne, S. B.;Miller, D. J.
  12. Anal .Chem. v.69 no.4 Reighard, T. S.;lesik, S. V.
  13. Test Methods for Evaluating Solid Waste, 3^{rd} ed.
  14. Test Methods for Evaluating Solid Waste(3rd) Govenment Printing Office
  15. Anal. Chem. v.67 Lopez-Avila, V.;Young, R.;Benedicto, J.;Ho, P.;Kim, R.;Beckert, W. F.
  16. Anal. Chem. v.76 Bowadt, S.;Johannsen, B.;Wunderli, S.;Zenneg, M. F.;de Aleneastro, L. F.;Grandjean, D.
  17. Labor Praxis v.3 Hofler, F.;J. Richter, B.
  18. Labor Praxis v.4 Hofler, F.;Ezzell, J.;Richter, B.
  19. Git Spezial v.1 Hofler, F.;Jensen, D.;Ezzel, J.;Richter, B.
  20. American Laboratory v.24 Richter, B. E.;Ezzell, J. L.;Felix, D.;Roberts, K. A.;Later, D. W.
  21. J. Chromatogr. v.679 Okamura, N.;Fujimoto, Y.;Kuwabara, S.;Yagi, A.
  22. Anal. Chem. v.67 Langenfeld, J. J.;Hawthorne, S. B.;Miller, D. J.;Pawliszyn, J.
  23. Anal. Chem. v.65 Langenfeld, J. J.;Hawthorne, S. B.;Miller, D. J.;Pawliszyn, J.
  24. Anal. Chem. v.68 Richter, B. E.;Jones, B. A.;Ezzell, J. L.;Porter, N. L.;Avdalovic, N.;Pohl, C.
  25. Anal. Chem. v.69 Lou, X.;Janssen, H.-G.;Cramers, C. A.