0115 966 7955 Today's Opening Times 10:00 - 20:00 (BST)

Effects of Atmospheric Aerosols on Human Health

Disclaimer: This dissertation has been submitted by a student. This is not an example of the work written by our professional dissertation writers. You can view samples of our professional work here.

Any opinions, findings, conclusions or recommendations expressed in this material are those of the authors and do not necessarily reflect the views of UK Essays.

Abstract:

A highly Sensitive (LOD; 0.04-0.4 ng/ml) method is developed for detection and quantification of acidic compounds (C3 -C10) containing mono and dicarboxylic acids on GC-MS. These compounds (C3 -C10) existed in trace amount, as secondary organic aerosols i.e. important constituents of Aerosols. Membrane extraction technique was utilized for selective enrichment (1-4300 times) of target compounds. Good repeatability (RSD% ≤ 10%) from selective organic phase (10% TOPO in DHE) was achieved with three phase HF-LPME. Aerosols containing samples, after Ultrasonic Assisted extraction were detected and quantified Through GC-MS. Effective derivatization of each target compound was performed with BSTFA reagent. Gas Chromatography, having capillary column and interfaced with mass spectrometry was used for separation, detection and quantification of target compounds.

Method Development and Application -hollow fiber Supported liquid membrane extraction of Fatty acids (C3-C10) containing mono and dicarboxylic acids and Detection of aerosols Samples after ultrasonic assisted extraction.

1. Introduction:

Impact of Atmospheric aerosols on human health and effect on radioactive stability in Earth’s atmosphere is getting importance now a days and this phenomenon has been well understood. [1]. Atmospheric aerosols can harm respiratory and cardiovascular system of human.

Impact of Secondary organic aerosols as biogenic and anthropogenic antecedent is identified (Adams and sinfold, 2002) [1, 17]. Low molecular dicarboxylic acids (C3-C9) are also vital tracers of SOA [2]. Short chain fatty acids are found as secondary organic aerosols which are also supposed to derive from long chain fatty acids [1]. Importance of organic aerosol has been well established now a days and carboxylic acids are of great interest for environmental studies [1]. Several studies and mechanisms were proposed to understand the production of these SOA precursors [1]. Short chain carboxylic acids are found extensively in troposphere [2]. Secondary organic aerosols (SOA) are formed in the atmosphere by gas particles conversions. Organic matter present in aerosol contains more than 90% of troposphere’s aerosols [5, 15].

Dicarboxylic acids found in nature as polymeric compounds such as suberin and cutin [3]. Short chain dicarboxylic acids are found in vegetables [Siddiqui, 1989] and in soil containing micro organisms of durum wheat [4]. Dicarboxylic acids are found in plant oils which have greater interest for cosmetic and pharmaceutical industries [6]. Short chain dicarboxylic acids having aliphatic chain possess strong cyclotoxicity and antineoplastic activities [18].

Many analytical techniques are used to determine the composition of SOA so keeping in view these techniques new method for determination of fatty acids (common in SOA) has been developed. Membrane extraction is used in this method due to its increasing importance for high selectivity and high enrichment factor [24].

Dicarboxylic acids formed of bio oxidation of fatty acids so these are considered as metabolic part of fatty acid [42]. Dicarboxylic acids and their derivatives can be used to make polymers and their condensation with diols in solution produces high molecular weight polyester [39]. Additionally these dicarboxylic acids use less temperature in the reaction for the preparation of polyesters [39].

1.1. Analytes Description:

Properties (physical, chemical, etc.) of Compounds (C3-C10) containing mono and dicarboxylic acids are discussed in section; 1.1.1-1.1.12. These compounds (C3-C10) are the target analytes in this diploma project. These target analytes are extracted through Liquid phase micro extraction and detected by GC-MS system. Fig. 1.1-1.12 represents structures of target analytes (section; 1.1.1-1.1.12).

1.1.1- Adipic Acid

Adipic acid is a product of lipid per oxidation. Adipic acid does not undergo hydrolysis in the environment perhaps due to the lack of hydrolysable functional groups (Harris 1990) [5].

1.1.2- Malonic Acid:

Malonic Acid is a metabolite of plants and tissues and Malonyle-CoA [28]. Malonic Acid is an intermediate for preparation of fatty acids from plants and other tissues [7]. Malonic acid is also present in aerosols [8]. Malonic acid is an important constituent of short chain fatty acids [8]. Malonic acid present in beet rots as a Calcium salt [42].

1.1.3- Succinic Acid:

Succinic acid is found in atmosphere as water soluble compound and as a compound of Secondary organic aerosols [29]. Succinic acid is a solid exists as crystals, anciently called spirit of amber. Succinic acid is an important intermediate in citric acid cycle which is very important constituent of living organism [42].

1.1.4- Glutaric acid:

Glutaric acid is found as SOA in aerosols [8]. Glutaric acid is sparingly soluble in water [41], can be used to prepare a plasticizer for polyester [41].

1.1.5- Pimelic Acid:

Pimelic acid is a last dicarboxylic acid relative to carbon number which has IUPAC name. Derivatives of Pimelic acid are used for biosynthesis of amino acid typically lysine [41]. Pimelic acid is produced, when Nitric acid is heated with Oleic acid as a secondary sublimation product which is not crystallized [20].

1.1.6-Suberic Acid:

Suberic acid is produced from suberine [8]. Suberic acid can also be obtained by vigorous reaction condition of natural oil with nitric acid [8].

1.1.7-Azelaic Acid:

Azelaic acid is an important constituent of secondary organic aerosols because it produces short chain fatty acids upon photo oxidation and also because it can be produced during oxidation of unsaturated acid that is found in Oleic acid [11].

1.1.8- Cis-pinonic Acid:

Cis-pinonic acid is also produced in atmosphere by photo oxidation of α-pinene in the existence of Ozone [30].

1.1.9- Pinic Acid:

Pinic acid is derivative of α-pinene. Pinic acid can be generated by photo oxidation of α-pinene with Ozone as given in this chemical reaction; (C10H16 + 5/3 O3 ----> C9H14O4 + HCHO). Pinic acid is present in a crystalline form used to prepare plasticizers [30].

1.1.10- 4-Hydroxybenzoic Acid

4-Hydroxy benzoic acid is exists as crystals. It is used to derive parabens and can be used as antioxidant [41].

1.1.11-Phthalic Acid:

Phthalic acid is an aromatic dicarboxylic acid it is found as white crystalline state in pure form [41]. Phthalic acid is found abundantly in atmosphere and it has toxic properties. Aromatic acids are generally emitted through anthropogenic sources like reminiscent of solvent evaporation and Automobile exhaust [31].

1.1.12-Syringic Acid.

Syringic acid is found as humic substance in environment [40].

1.2. Detection of Ultrasonic Assisted Extraction samples(UAE):

A detection procedure by GC-MS is established with reference standard injections and UAE samples. A theoretical description is given in section 1.2 for “Ultrasonic assisted extractions”. Unknown real Samples from Aerosols containing mono and dicarboxylic acids (C 3-C 10) are provided after Ultrasonic assisted extraction [34].

1.2.1- Ultrasonic Assisted Extraction:

‘Ultrasonic’ is derived from ultrasound. Ultrasound refers to a sound that has a higher frequency than a normal human can hear. This technique is used in chemistry in several aspects and due to application in chemistry it is known as Sonochemistry [23].

Ultra Sound is used in sample preparation in analytical chemistry like extraction, filtration, dissolution and sample purification. When Ultrasonic technique is used for assistance in extraction, this assistance in extraction is called “Ultrasonic assisted extraction” (UAE) [23].

There are many advantages by using UAE because it require less organic solvents ,non destructive, less expensive and less time consuming comparative to other sample preparation techniques like soxhlet [21].

The normal range of ultrasound frequencies used in laboratory ranges from 20 KHz to 40 KHz. Use of UAE is simple. A sample solution inside a vessel in an appropriate solvent can be placed inside ultrasonic bath at desired temperature and sound waves stir the sample [20].

The mechanism of US is as “when a sound source produces a high frequency waves, sample molecules starts vibrating and shift this vibration to other molecules of sample in a longitudinal direction when gas and liquid is used as a sample, while in solid sample both longitudinal and transverse waves can be produced” [19].
When UAE is utilized it increases speed of mass transport by vibration of mechanical transport from the sample matrix through a process called “cavitation” [21].

1.2.2- Theory of Ultrasonic Assisted extraction:

There are two theoretical aspects of sonication i.e. physical and chemical aspects in sample preparation. Physical and chemical aspects are described in section (1.2.2.1-1.2.2.2), in order to understand its practical use in analytical chemistry.

1.2.2.1- Physical aspects of UAE:

During Ultrasonic assisted extraction, a bubble in a liquid cannot take energy (due to US) and implodes. On the other hand due to Ultra sound in liquid extractions, the cavitational pressure is shifted relatively higher so formation of bubble is difficult [21].

Ultrasonic intensity produces cavitations in a liquid sample during extraction (UAE). Two types of US cavitation is produced known as “transient cavitation” (produce transient bubble) and “permanent cavitation” [21].

The life time of transient bubble is so short that no mass transport or diffusion of gas is possible with in a sample [21]. Transient bubble is believed to be produced at US intensity (10 W/cm2) and permanent bubble at intensity (1-3 Watt/cm2). Sonochemical effects are intense inside the bubble because energy (numerous amounts) is produced during bubble eruption and production [21].

1.2.1.2 Chemical aspects of UAE:

When US radiation strikes a water molecule it produces free radicals OH* and H* due to collapsing cavitations’ bubble which exhibits high temperature and pressure inside and also many other radicals can be produced in solution [21]. Radical OH* is believed to be more stable and can begin many new reactions while H* radical is not stable. Second Sonochemical effect is pyrolytic reactions that occur inside bubble and can degrade compounds under analysis [21, 23].

1.3. Liquid Phase microExtraction(lpme):

The application of membrane extractions in analytical chemistry has taken the intentions of analysts during recent time. The goal of utilizing membrane extraction is to achieve high enrichment, selective extraction and environmental friendly procedure [24]. Small quantity of solvent (usually in micro liters) is required comparative to old techniques of extractions (soxlet) [24]. Clean extracts are obtained and after extraction, recovered compounds are shifted to another analytical instrument like Gas chromatography or liquid chromatography directly for further quantitative analysis [24].

1.3.1 Hollow fiber membrane extraction:

Two types of membrane are used in LPME. One membrane is flat sheet porous and second membrane is polypropylene hollow fiber. In this project polypropylene hollow fiber is used as a membrane support in membrane extractions due to limited cost and to reduce carry over problems [24].

1.3.1.1 HF-LPME Technique:

When a hollow fiber is used in LPME, this technique (LPME) is called hollow fiber liquid phase micro extraction (HF- LPME). In HF- LPME technique, a hollow fiber is used containing a thin film of immobilized liquid membrane inside the pores while the fiber is dipped into an aqueous phase containing objective analytes. Target analytes can transport through the membrane into a liquid filled inside the lumen of the fiber, which is termed as accepter solution [22].

Extraction of target analytes (C3-C10) was carried through three phase HF- LPME during whole of the project. Donor solution was contained analytes in aqueous medium, a suitable organic solvent i.e. Dihexyl ether (TOPO mixture) was used in pores of hollow fiber as a stationary liquid membrane support (SLM). Accepter solution was in aqueous medium [22].Target analytes were recovered into accepter phase after evaporation of water. Acetonitrile solvent was added in dried GC vial along with derivatizing reagent. After derivatization these samples were injected into a Gas chromatographic system.

1.3.2 Basic Principle of LPME:

Basic principle is same for all LPME techniques (two phase or three phase LPME), the variation is only from accepter region [24]. In three phase liquid phase micro extraction technique (HF- LPME) a donor aqueous solution is filled in a vial or flask containing sample analytes. A short piece of hollow fiber is used and accepter solution is injected inside fiber through a micro syringe after injecting accepter solution one end is closed and other end contains syringe needle. Fiber containing solutions is inserted in an appropriate organic solvent having less polarity (Dihexyl ether) to create a stationary liquid membrane (SLM). Donor solution pH is adjusted such that it can restrain the ionization of target analytes [22].

The process of three phase extraction [22] can be explained as follows in Eq 1.1.

Where ‘A’ is a target analyte, ‘K1’, ‘K2’, ‘K3’ and ‘K4’ are first order extraction rate constants. In order to obtain combined distribution coefficient, at equilibrium recovery, Eq. 1.2 is derived [22].

D accepter/sample = C eq accepter / C eq sample

= C Org sample/ C eq accepter

=α D .Korg/sample / α a. Korg/accepter………….1.2

In Eq. 1.2, C eq accepter, C eq sample and C Org sample are the concentration of analytes at equilibrium, in accepter phase, in aqueous sample phase and in organic membrane phase respectively.Here Korg/sample, Korg/accepter are the partition ratio’s between Organic phase and sample phase and between accepter phase and organic phase respectively [22]. α D and α a are the extractable fraction of total concentration of target analyte in sample and accepter respectively.

If conditions are similar between sample and accepter, other than ionization of analytes in sample phase, from Eq. 1.2, equilibrium is independent from partition ratio of stationary liquid membrane in three phase lpme i.e. it depends mainly on ionization of analytes in sample [22].

Extraction efficiency (E) can be calculated from Eq. 1.3[22].

V sample, V accepter and V mem , in Eq. 1.3, are the volume of donor sample phase, aqueous accepter phase and organic immobilized membrane liquid phase respectively. D accepter/sample and D Org/sample are individual distribution coefficients relative to accepter phase to sample phase and Organic phase (SLM) to sample phase respectively [22]. Eq. 1.3 is derived for three phase lpme. It is evident; from the interpretation of Eq. 1.3 that efficiency is mainly controlled by individual distribution coefficients. Individual distribution ratios are directly dependent on partition coefficients, so by increasing the partition ratios efficiency can be improved [22]. Partition coefficients can be improved by properly adjusting the pH of donor and accepter and by using an appropriate organic solvent. Volume of sample and organic phase should also be kept minimum, according to Eq. 1.3 in order to develop efficiency [22].

1.3.3-Mass transfer in LPME:

Enrichment factor (Ee) for three phase LPME is given in Eq. 1.4.

Ee = C accepter/C initial

= V sample. E / V accepter ………….. 1.4

In Eq. 1.4, C accepter is the concentration of target analyte, present in final stage inside accepter solution [22].

When an acidic analyte is ionized in aqueous solution, total extractable fraction of analyte (α) is given in Eq. 1.5 [24].

α = [AH]/ [A-][AH] = 1/[1+10(pH-pKa)] ……….. 1.5

In the context of Eq. 1.3, the overall distribution constant (D) at equilibrium can be rearranged as given in Eq. 1.5 [24].

D = 1+10 s (pH-pKa) . KD /1 + 10 s (pH-pKa). KA ………….. 1.6

‘s’ is equal to 1 for acidic analytes (Eq. 1.6). ‘pKa’ is dissociation constant and pH refers to donor or accepter solution(Eq. 1.6) [24].

∆C = αD .Cs - αa CA.KA/KS ………… 1.7

Eq. 1.5-1.7 are derived from Henderson-Hasselbalch relation, in this equation α represents the extractable fraction of analytes [24].

The driving force for the extraction in neutral conditions of three phase LPME is the concentration gradient (∆C) from sample to accepter [12]. The concentration gradient between two phases, between donor and accepter, is described in Eq. 1.7. K represent partition ratio of uncharged analyte between the membrane and aqueous phase. CA and Cs are the concentrations of analytes in accepter and sample phase respectively.

1.3.4 End point for extraction:

Three end points are normally considered for extraction [22].

1. Exhaustive extraction. 2. Kinetic extraction. 3. Equilibrium extraction.

1.3.4.1 Exhaustive extraction:

Exhaustive end point is the specific end point (time), when all amount of analytes are exhausted (which can be practically possible) present in donor [22]. In this practical diploma work, Exhaustive end point will be applied in (LPME) extractions. Enrichment factor will increase by growing analyte concentration in accepter by the passage of time, at certain point it reaches a stable value [12]. Mass transfer between organic phase and liquid phase is dependent on concentration gradient [12]. Enrichment factor can be improved by increasing the value of αD preferably close to unity and decreasing the value of αA to zero. Such conditions for the αD and αA values are called “infinite sink” conditions, normally required for exhaustive extractions [22]. Situation close to these values can be achieved for acids by selective tuning the pKa values. For example for acidic compound if pH of accepter is adjusted, 3.3 (pH) units above than the pKa of acidic analytes this Difference set the value of αA to 0.0005, at this point accepter can capture all analytes. At this set value (αA), enrichment factor increases linearly with time [12]. Peak time of enrichment factor, when other parameters are constant, can be calculated by comparison of CA maximum. CA maximum (‘CA’ is considered as time dependent) can be obtained by careful calculation of CA maximum values at a certain time, before this value starts to decrease again [12].

1.3.5 Rate of LPME:

Two parameters, govern the rate of extraction (when extraction approaches to equilibrium conditions), are membrane controlled extractions or diffusion controlled extractions [13, 24]. The maximum concentration Ee can be obtained when concentration gradient (∆C) is approaches to zero described in Eq. 1.8 [13, 24].

Ee (max) = (C a / C d) max

= αD/αA ………….. 1.8

In membrane controlled extractions, the rate limiting step is the diffusion of target analytes. When analytes pass through the organic phase, the mass transfer (Km) is given in Eq. 1. 9 [13, 16].

Km µ K.D m /h m ……….. 1.9

In Eq. 1.9; K is partition coefficient, Dm is membrane diffusion coefficient and ‘h m ‘ is the thickness of membrane [13, 16].

1.3.6 Addition of Trioctylphosphine oxide(TOPO):

Mass transfer can be improved for acidic analytes by using different concentrations (w/v) of TOPO in organic solvent typically for short chain carboxylic acids. Interaction of TOPO with polar acids in solution takes place efficiently due to hydrogen bonding [16].

1.3.7 Trapping of Analyte in Three phase lpme[24]:

Concentration enrichment of analytes in three phase LPME can be achieved by stable mass transfer through the membrane to accepter phase. Back diffusion of analytes is prevented by trapping of analytes in accepter phase. In order to achieve high enrichment of acidic analytes pH of accepter phase is fixed enough basic so that when acidic analytes reached to the accepter solution becomes charged. Analytes could not be driven back to donor. So this trapping of analytes due to pH adjustment is called ‘’direct trapping’’. For high enrichment purpose, pH of accepter is usually adjusted 3.3 pH units higher than the pKa values of acidic target analytes while extracting from acidic donor. Buffer capacity of accepter should be sufficient such that during extraction protons from acidic donor cannot be neutralized by the concentration gradient between two aqueous phases during three phase lpme [24].

1.3.8 Selection for Organic phase:

Choice of organic solvent has basic importance in method validation because this solvent directly affect partition coefficient. Organic phase solvent should have low solubility in water [22] and low volatility to prevent solvent losses during extraction process [16]. Organic phase should have high distribution coefficient, between donor to organic phase and between organic to accepter phase, to achieve high enrichment. Organic phase should have adequate affinity to the hollow fiber. Organic phase should be immobilized sufficiently to cause efficient trapping of analytes in the pores through polarity matching [22]. Mixture of organic solvents can also be used as mobile phase [16]. In this project organic solvent is either pure DHE or DHE is also mixed with different amount of TOPO (section; 1.3.6) to achieve high stability of organic phase [22, 24].

1.3.9 Agitation of sample:

Extraction kinetics can be improved by agitation. Agitation increases analyte diffusion from donor to accepter. Organic membrane solution (DHE) is very stable inside pores of the membrane. Shaking by a magnetic stirrer helps analyte transfer from donor solution to the accepter solution [17]. When Donor solution containing analytes is stirred at high speed, probability of fresh solution contact with membrane phase is enhanced [9]. In order to enhance mass transfer all membrane extractions in this project are assisted through agitation by a magnetic stirrer. A membrane extraction assembly is shown in Fig. 1.13.

1.3.10Volume of donor and acceptor solutions.

Volume of donor and accepter solution is very important because sensitivity can be improved by proper volume adjustment of accepter solution. Volume of accepter solution should be minimum comparative to donor to get better sensitivity [17]. Volume of accepter solution should be enough to be injected, detected and quantified by GC or HPLC. Volume of the accepter solution should be enough to fill lumen of hollow fiber appropriately [17].

1.3.11 Adjustment of pH.

Proper adjustment of pH of donor and accepter is very important because high partition ratio can be obtained in three phase lpme by proper adjustment of donor and accepter solution [17]. According to Eq. 1.7, Efficiency can be improved by increasing concentration gradient which depends mainly on pH. In this project three phase lpme is utilized on acidic analytes (C3-C9) containing carboxylic and hydroxyl groups so in donor solution pH is adjusted slightly lower than the pKa values of analytes to suppress ionization of these analytes [17].

1.4. Detection and quantification of Analytes:

1.4.1-GC-MS analysis:

GC-MS is a powerful detection technique for environmental trace analysis due to its high sensitivity [14]. Aerosols are existed in trace level so their detection requires a sensitive device with low limit of detection. GC-MS suffers less matrix effect and is usually cost effective and highly selective [14]. Analytes are separated according to their charge to mass (m/e) ratio after passing through mass spectrometer. Scan mode is used for identification of each analyte [14].

When gaseous analytes come to mass spectrometer they are converted to their respective molecular ions. Electron ionization in mass spectrometer strikes molecules to fragments [18]. These molecular ions are specific for each analyte and sensitivity and selectivity can be improved through selected ion chromatogram (SIM) [14]. Signal to noise ratio (SNR) is improved through extracted ion chromatogram (XIC) which is selected through SIM mode [14]. SIM mode is used for qualitative and quantitative analysis [14].

Analytes (C3-C10) are polar and non volatile, so these analytes cannot be detected in pure form and separated by using Gas chromatographic column. A derivatization step is necessary to convert Analyte into volatile substances. Derivatization is made to convert carboxylic and hydroxyl functional groups to their respective ester functional group [14].

1.5. Derivatization:

Two derivatization reagents; ‘’N, O-bis(trimethylsilyl) trifluoroacetamide’’ (BSTFA) and ‘’N-(tertbutyldimethylsilyl)-N-methyltrifluoroacetamide’’ (MSTFA) are commonly used for esterification of hydroxyl and carboxylic functional groups before injecting to GC-MS system[14]. Both derivatizing reagents are applied separately and compared prior to GC-MS analysis.

1.5.1- Silylation:

Analytes containing carboxylic acids (C3-C10) are introduced to GC-MS after derivatization. Carboxylic acids are converted to their respective trimethyl silyl ester (TMS derivative) by BSTFA.

A nucleuphilic attack is taken place by a hetero atom to silicon atom when BSTFA reagent is used as a derivatization reagent [14]. BSTFA is found very efficient to convert hydroxyl groups to respective Silyl ester [18].

Advantage with BSTFA is that its derivative can be injected directly without purification and it can be used for very sensitive detection [18]. BSTFA is non polar and its efficiency can be improved by using BSTFA in Acetonitrile [32]. Chemical structure of BSTFA is shown in Fig [1.14] below.

Due to the use of BSTFA reagent in the reaction, a common peak is appeared at m/z= 73, due to [Si(CH3)3]+ molecular ion and at m/z=145 due to [OH=Si(CH3)2]+ molecular ion . when Analytes containing dicarboxylic acids are used for MS analysis, Ion peak is appeared at m/z=147. Ion peak at m/z=147 is appeared due to the [(CH3)2Si=Si(CH3)2]+ molecular ion [18].

2. Method:

2.1 Membrane extraction:

Three phase HF- LPME method is used for extraction. Section 2.1 describes the method for three phase hollow fiber liquid phase micro extraction technique.

2.1.1 Equipment and reagents for Membrane Extraction:

Hollow fiber Accurel PP polypropylene (Q3/2) is purchased from Membrana (Wuppertal, Germany). The wall thickness of membrane is 200 µm, Inner diameter 600 µm and pore size is 0.2 µm. Before extraction a 7.5 cm membrane was cut carefully with a fine cutter. After cutting membrane was washed in acetone and dried overnight.

A magnetic stirrer, containing multiple stations, model (Ika-werke, Germany) was used for agitation of donor solution. Micro Syringe 50 µl (Agilent, Australia) was used to push accepter solution inside the lumen of membrane and for holding of membrane. pH meter (Mettler Toledo) was used to measure pH for donor and accepter solution. Volumetric flask (Kebo, Germany) was used for extractions (contain donor solution).

Milli-Q water was obtained from Millipore gradient system (Millipore, USA). Hydrochloric acid (37%, Fluka) and Sodium hydroxide monohydrate (Fluka) were used to prepare further solutions. Dihexyl ether (97%) was purchased from Sigma Aldrich. TOPO (99%; Aldrich) was used to prepare solutions in DHE (%, w/v).

2.1.2Set up for Membrane Extraction:

2.1.2.1 Donor solution:

The pH donor solution was adjusted to 2. All aqueous solutions were prepared in mill Q water and pH was adjusted by adding HCl (0.1M). All Samples were spiked in a dried 100 ml volumetric flask (Germany). This flask was then, filled up to mark with donor solution. Further 5 ml of donor solution was added in same flask in order to dip membrane inside donor solution. Total volume of donor solution was adjusted to 105 ml. A clean magnet was dropped in flask and then, this spiked solution inside the flask was allowed to stir for 30 minutes and at a fixed revolutions/min (800 rpm) of magnetic stirrer.

2.1.2.2 Accepter solution:

Accepter solution was prepared in milli Q water and pH 12 was adjusted by Sodium hydroxide (0.5 M, 5 M). The accepter solution was injected inside lumen of dried membrane through a micro syringe. Specific amount of (24 µl) accepter solution was injected inside lumen of hollow fiber via a BD micro syringe. Specific volume (24 µl) of accepter solution was fixed after several adjustments, for best compatibility with a 7.5 cm hollow fiber, to achieve good repeatability and enrichment.

2.1.2.3 Membrane solvent:

Membrane containing accepter solution was dipped for 15 s (Approximately) into the organic solvent (pure DHE or topo% solutions in DHE), to impregnate the fiber with organic solvent and to establish a membrane phase. The solvents, immobilized in the pores of hollow fiber were; pure DHE, 1% topo in DHE (w/v), 5% topo in DHE (w/v), 10% topo in DHE (w/v), 15% topo in DHE (w/v) and 19% topo in DHE (w/v). All solutions (topo in DHE) were prepared and mixed by manual shaking, although 15% topo in DHE and 19% topo in DHE solutions were prepared by vigorous shaking and were put inside sonicator for efficient mixing.

2.2. Sample preparations:

All primary solutions were prepared in methanol. Primary solutions were prepared by transferring specific weight of analytes to a sample vial, having air tight caps. This solution was diluted with methanol to prepare a solution of concentration (100 μg/ml). Table 2.1 represents properties (physical, chemical) of analytes. A (abbreviation) name was given respective to TMS ester of each analyte, new name consists of three words only. Molecular weight (Mw), Molecular (Molec) formula, Source (chemicals were purchased from), pKa values of individual analytes (dissociates in water) and purity (as labeled on each chemical) of each analyte is listed in Table 2.1.

Table. 2.1- Analytes source (purchased from)and purity.

Sr. No

Chemical name

Abbreviation

Mw

Molec formula

Purchased

from

pka. Values

Purity

(%)

1

Malonic Acid

Mal

104.06

C3H4O4

Aldrich

2.83, 5.69 (36)

99

2

Succinic Acid

Suc

118.09

C5H6O4

Fluka

4.19, 5.48 (36)

99.9

3

Glutaric Acid

Glu

132.04

C5H8O4

Aldrich

4.34, 5.42 (36)

99

4

Adipic Acid

Ad

146.14

C6H10O4

Fluka

4.34,5.44 (36)

99.5

5

Pimelic Acid

Pim

160.17

C7H12O4

Aldrich

4.48, 5.42 (36)

98

6

Suberic Acid

Sub

174.2

C8H14O4

Aldrich

4.52, 5.40 (36)

98

7

Azelic Acid

Aze

188.22

C9H16O4

Aldrich

4.55, 5.41 (36)

98

8

Cis-Pinonic Acid

Pin

184.23

C10H16O3

Sigma Aldrich

N/A

98

9

Pinic Acid

Pnc

186.2

C9H14O4

Sigma Aldrich

N/A

99

10

Syringic Acid

Syg

198.17

C9H10O5

Sigma

N/A

-

11

Pthalic Acid

Pth

166.03

C8H6O4

Sigma Aldrich

2.98,528(41)

99.5

12

4- Hydroxy benzoic Acid

Hyd

138.03

C7H6O3

Aldrich

4.52,9.23 (35)

99

Primary solution (100 μg/ml, solution A), containing individual analytes, was used to prepare multi component standard mixture (5 μg/ml). This solution was then named as ‘solution B’. Solution B was used to prepare further (dilute) solutions of different strengths (Table. 2.2).

Diluted multi component standard mixtures (containing all target analytes) with different solution strengths (2000, 1000, 500, 250, and 50 ng/ml) were prepared from ‘solution B’ for computing calibration curve. All standard solutions were prepared and diluted with Methanol solvent. Method for the preparation of dilute solutions, were presented in table 2.2.

Table 2.2- Sample preparation of different strength of analyte mixture.

Sr No

Amount of solution A(µl)

Methanol(µl)

Total volume

Solution strength

1

800

1200

2 ml

2000 ng/ml

2

400

1600

2 ml

1000 ng/ml

3

200

1800

2 ml

500 ng/ml

4

80

1920

2 ml

250 ng/ml

5

40

1960

2 ml

100 ng/ml

6

20

1980

2 ml

50 ng/ml

2.2.1 Sample preparation for extraction and detection by GC-MS:

15 µl of standard solutions, having 2000 ng/ml strength, was spiked to the donor solution in a volumetric (100 ml, Fig. 1.13) flask before insertion of hollow fiber, this solution was stirred for 20 min to mix sample solution thoroughly into the donor solution. After stopping extraction, 24 µl (almost) of sample was collected from the accepter solution via a syringe and this solution was transferred to a GC flask (pear shape glass vial), same amount of (0.1M) HCl was transferred to this vial to neutralize basic pH of the accepter solution. This vial, containing neutralized sample, was then put under stream of nitrogen, at a specific temperature (30-40 °C) to evaporate whole of the solvent. Extreme care was required to evaporate solvent under Nitrogen stream. After solvent drying, 20 µl of internal standard (in Acetonitrile) along with 10 µl of BSTFA reagent were poured in the same vial. This sample vial was put in an oven at 80 °C for one hour. Derivatization was accompanied during this hour and then sample was injected directly to the GC-MS system.

2.3- Chromatographic analyses:

Chromatographic analysis were performed on a 6890 series gas chromatographic system interfaced with Agilent 5973-N Mass selective detector. Gas chromatographic system was equipped with auto sampler and 7683 injector. EI source was used at -70 eV to produce ions. EI was operated in positive mode. Full Scan mode from 50 m/z to 600 m/z was used to study fragmented parts of each analyte. Quantitative analyses were done by selecting characteristic molecular ions of each analyte by selected ion monitoring (SIM) technique [14]. Extracted ion chromatogram (XIC) method was used, through data analysis window to get the information about retention time of characteristic ions. Peak area of each characteristic ion was manually selected and calculated for quantification purpose [14].

A Factor four capillary column (30 m x 0.25 mm) having phase thickness 0.25 µm and 5% phenyl cross linked (Varian, Germany) was used. Column was fitted with a retention gap.

Helium (99.9995% pure) was used as carrier gas. Table 2.3 shows, schedule of oven (GC) temperature that was programmed for Gas chromatographic analysis.

Table 2.3– GC Temperature parameters.

Ramp

Rate C/Min

Temperature C

Hold Min.

Time total

 

-

60

2

2

Ramp 1

2.5

120

0

24

Ramp 2

10

220

0

34

Ramp 3

20

300

0

38

Gas (He; 99.999% pure) flow rate (1.5 ml/min) was used with Splitless injection mode. Fixed amount (volume) of sample (2 µl), was injected to the GC Injector (285 °C) throughout this project. Acetonitrile (HPLC grade), Acetone (HPLC grade) and Methanol (HPLC grade) were purchase from Fisher Scientific (USA).

2.3.1 Sample preparation for GCMS analysis:

15 µl of standard solution of a specific concentration was transferred, via a micro pipette to a conical glass vial. This sample was put in an oven at 80 °C for 20 min to evaporate methanol. After solvent evaporation, 20 µl internal standard (in Acetonitrile), along with 10 µl of BSTFA reagent were shifted to the previously dried vial. After pouring BSTFA and Acetonitrile, vial was tightly capped and put in oven at 80 °C for 60 min. After 60 min of derivatization reaction, same vial was put to the auto sampler and sample was injected directly to the GC system. Standard solutions were injected in duplicate, standard concentrations (Injected) were ranged from 16.66 - 666.6 ng/ml (absolute quantity) to check linearity. Table 2.3 shows different standard amounts that were used to obtain regression line (calibration curve).

Table 2.4- Concentration (ng/ml) of standard solutions in Injection vial.

Sr.No

1

2

3

4

5

6

Sample Injected

666.6 ng/ml

333.3 ng/ml

166.6 ng/ml

83.3 ng/ml

33.3 ng/ml

16.66 ng/ml

2.3.2Set up for retention time to confirm mass spectra of analytes (GC-MS Analysis):

10 µl of each analyte, containing individual analyte (solution A), were poured to a vial and this vial was put in oven at 800 C for 20 minutes to evaporate methanol. Respective retention time and fragmented ions were listed in table 2.5.

2.3.3 Derivatization:

N-O bis(trimethylsilylyl)trifluroacetamide with 1% Trimethyl chloroSilane (BSTFA) and N-methyl-N-trimethylsilyl-trifluoroacetamide with 1% Trimethyl chloro Silane (MSTFA) were purchased from Sigm. Both reagents were used for derivatization and were compared for best selectivity. Trimethyl silyl (TMS) derivatives were produced after reaction with target analytes, where as Acetonitrile was used as a solvent in reaction medium. Acetone and Hexane were also used as a solvent for derivatization reaction, discussed above. The TMS derivatives are presented in table 2.3[18, 32, 19, 15, and 37]. These TMS esters (table 2.3) were purposed to produce through derivatization reaction before injecting to GC-MS system.

2.3.3 Selection of internal standard:

1-Phenyl dodecane (97%) was purchased from Acros Organic (Geel, Belgium). Internal standard was used to get consistent and reproducible results [32]. Derivatization reagent does not react with internal standard. Peak area of analytes (A a) was divided by internal standard peak area (A is) i.e. A a/A is. Peak area was calculated from detector response.

2.3.4 Dryingprocedure (solvent):

Drying of sample’s solvent was carried through evaporation. Two methods were utilized for evaporation till dryness. First method was; to dry in oven at 80 °C and second method was; to dry under gentle stream of nitrogen at 30-35 °C. Both methods were applied and results were compared. First method of drying was applied for samples containing Methanol and second method was applied for samples containing water solvent. Sample before evaporation after membrane extracted was neutralized by using 24 µl of 0.1 M HCl (the same amount was used as accepter solution). Drying procedure under nitrogen all solutions after extraction were evaporated till dry by the same procedure.

Table 2.5 -Structure of TMS derivatives of derivatized target analytes.

Sr. No.

TMS ester (Name)

TMC derivative of analytes

Structure of TMS derivative

Molecular Weight

1

Mal

C 9 H24 O4 Si2

 

248.09

2

Suc

C10 H22 O4 Si2

 

262.11

3

Glu

C 11 H24 O4 Si2

 

276.12

4

Ad

C 12 H26 O4 Si2

 

290.14

5

Pim

C 13 H28 O4 Si2

 

304.15

6

Sub

C 14 H30 O4 Si2

 

318.17

7

Aze

C 15 H32 O4 Si2

 

332.18

Sr. No.

TMS ester (Name)

TMC derivative of analytes

Structure of TMS derivative

Molecular Weight

8

Pin

C 12 H26 O4 Si2

 

328.73

9

Pnc

C 15 H30 O4 Si2

 

330.17

10

Syg

C 13 H21 O4 Si2

 

297.10

11

Pth

C 14 H22 O4 Si2

 

310.11

12

Hyd

C 13 H22 O4 Si2

 

282.11

*[ Note: table 2.5 contains structures of TMS derivative of target analytes, these structures are sketched according to proposed reaction and for understanding of fragments produced from these proposed structures].

2.4 Aerosols samples Ultrasonic Assisted Extraction:

Samples were provided after ultrasonic extraction for derivatization and quantification. Solvent from the Ultra sonic extracted mixture (containing Samples) was evaporated (section; 2.3.4) till dryness. Dried sample was derivatized (section; 2.3.1 2.3.3). Quantification of unknown samples (1-23) was carried through in the same procedure.

2.5 Limit of detection (LOD):

Limit of detection of an analyte is defined as signals from minimum concentration of an analyte which can be distinguished from signals of blank [19] or background signals [25]. LOD information is very important for trace analysis. LOD is calculated [19] from the standard deviation of response from standards used in calibration curve and slope of analyte curve (b) given in equation [25].

LOD = b + 3 s y/x …………………….. 2.1

In Eq. 2.1, “s y/x” is residual standard deviation of the regression line.

2.6 Limit of Quantification (LOQ):

Limit of quantification is smallest concentration of analyte that can be determined quantitatively with a certain degree of assurance [19].It is calculated from a linear response from the analyte area/height. Eq. 2.2 describes limit of quantification which is calculated from regression line from standards [25].

LOQ = b + 10 s y/x ………………… 2.2

3-Results

3.1. Detection and quantification of Ultrasonic assisted extraction samples:

3.1.1 –Detection by GC-MS:

All individual analytes (100 µg/ml) were injected separately to GC-MS system at 33,333 ng/ml (in GC vial) concentration to confirm analyte’s presence in chromatogram. Each analyte was run on scan mode of Mass Spectrometer after derivatization and characteristic ions were determined as well as retention times of each analyte. Retention time, Characteristic ions and selected ions for each analyte are presented in table 3.1.

Table 3.1- Set up for retention time and characteristic ion study for each analyte including internal standard in Scan mode of MS.

Sr No

Analyte name

Retention time*min

Characteristic ion

Selected ion

1

Mal

13.89

147,73,233,75

233

2

Suc

18.70

147,73,148,75,247

147

3

Glu

22.85

147,73,261,75,158,

147

4

Ad

25.56

73,111,147,75

147

5

Pim

27.30

73,75,147,155,125,

147

6

Sub

28,65

73,75,187,217

187

7

Aze

29.87

73,75,201,129,147

201

8

Pin

25.84

73,171,75,83

171

9

Pnc

28.26

73,129,75,171,172

171

10

Syg

31.06

297,73,253,141

297

11

Pth

28.63

147 , 73 , 295

295

12

Hyd

27.61

267 , 223 , 193

223

13

IS

30.77

246

246

3.1.2 LOD,LOQ and linearity of Standard injections:

Multi component standards, concentration ranges from 16.66 -666.6 ng/ml (absolute injection concentration), were injected to GC-MS system after derivatization and results were presented in table 3.2. Total ion chromatogram for standard contains minimum concentration of analytes (16.66ng/ml) and UAE sample “24” is presented in Fig. 3.1. Calibration curves, for individual standards are presented in Fig. 3.2-3.3.

Fig. 3.1- TIC GC-MS chromatogram. (A) Standard analysis (16.66ng/ml); (B) UAE sample unknown

Fig. 3.2-Fig 3.3 shows peaks for selected ions. Chromatogram was superimposed by using standard and sample ion peaks, for comparative study, by using extracted ion chromatogram through MS computer window.

Fig. 3.2- SIM, GC-MS Overlay chromatograms for the standard analysis (16.66 ng/ml), UAE Sample (24). (A) SIM 147; (B) SIM 187

Fig. 3.3- SIM, GC-MS Overlay chromatogram for the standard analysis (16.66 ng/ml), UAE Sample (24). (C) SIM 147; (D) SIM 187

A regression line was drawn by computing six multi component standards (for “Mal” through five points). Fig. 3.4 - 3.5 represent calibration curves, calculated from characteristic ion with respect to each target analyte (Section 2.3.1), through XIC window.

Fig. 3.4- Calibrationcurves (a-e) for the standards (16.66-666.6 ng/ml)

Fig. 3.5- Calibration curves (g-k) for the standards (16.66-666.6 ng/ml)

Eq. 2.1 -2.2 were used to calculate LOD and LOQ from parameters of calibration curve.

Table 3.2- Slope and Regression coefficients of the Regression line, LOD and LOQ of individual analytes.

Sr. no

Analytes

Conc range(ng/ml)

Slope(m)

Regression coefficient

LOD(ng/ml)

LOQ(ng/ml)

1

Mal

16.66-666.6

0.0011

0.999

0.405

1.347

2

Suc

16.66-666.6

0.0082

0.9945

0.146

1.465

3

Glu

16.66-666.6

0.0039

0.995

0.236

0.776

4

Ad

16.66-666.6

0.0014

0.996

0.083

0.247

5

Pim

16.66-666.6

0.0008

0.99

0.079

0.238

6

Sub

16.66-666.6

0.0007

0.997

0.059

0.177

7

Aze

16.66-666.6

0.0005

0.996

0.040

0.132

8

Pin

16.66-666.6

0.0011

0.997

0.066

0.217

9

Pnc

16.66-666.6

0.0011

0.995

0.076

0.250

10

Syg

16.66-666.6

0.001

0.994

0.072

0.236

11

Pth

16.66-666.6

0.0007

0.993

0.060

0.200

12

Hyd

16.66-666.6

0.0016

0.995

0.099

0.328

3.1.3- Quantification of UAE Real samples (Aerosols):

Amount of analytes were quantified by GC-MS after UAE. Each sample (1-23), containing multiple analytes, was run duplicate in GC-MS system. Amount of each analyte (ng/ml) was presented in table 3.3, as quantified from computing with regression line (table 3.2). Quantification of unknown UAE samples is presented in Fig. 3.6- 3.8. Comparison between calculated amounts of analyte was presented (Fig. 3.6- 3.8) graphically (with respect to three other analytes) to study the variations in amount, for the same analyte in all real samples (1-23).

Table 3.3- Amount (ng/ml) of each analyte in separate samples (1-23) after UAE.

sample

Mal

Suc

Glu

Ad

Pim

Sub

Aze

Pin

Pnc

Syg

Pth

Hyd

1

<LOQ

46

62

56

46

87

104

47

70

52

135

122

2

<LOQ

845

103

134

45

114

130

49

94

56

118

163

3

<LOQ

97

82

114

61

110

132

51

73

60

132

132

4

<LOQ

258

112

142

83

103

127

48

72

57

117

143

5

<LOQ

47

63

89

53

89

90

51

56

54

73

126

6

<LOQ

119

78

124

47

102

104

67

95

53

161

197

7

<LOQ

95

78

126

47

104

110

61

124

163

126

158

8

<LOQ

151

89

115

52

99

110

50

63

51

106

130

9

<LOQ

315

111

134

68

124

169

53

104

51

126

183

10

<LOQ

38

62

97

52

96

99

53

65

56

105

141

11

<LOQ

78

60

91

46

93

101

42

51

53

75

119

12

<LOQ

69

83

369

138

308

547

92

100

59

93

208

13

<LOQ

66

87

315

174

211

465

102

75

53

85

177

14

<LOQ

156

62

131

80

101

176

50

52

43

59

78

15

<LOQ

175

101

238

86

150

173

67

90

49

103

184

16

<LOQ

54

72

171

81

141

156

63

67

50

83

144

17

<LOQ

99

92

212

97

144

167

71

105

53

83

167

18

<LOQ

4

52

84

67

96

98

82

69

57

69

167

19

<LOQ

76

74

180

63

112

84

97

77

61

99

171

20

<LOQ

59

75

219

83

115

125

123

94

57

144

145

21

<LOQ

208

121

245

76

149

291

113

175

55

508

268

22

<LOQ

56

75

137

64

103

93

71

132

58

172

174

23

<LOQ

86

106

159

79

122

166

100

137

62

84

226

Fig. 3.6- A comparitive study of analyte’s amount, calculated cocentration (Mal, Suc, Glu and Ad) vs UAE unknown samples (1-23).

Fig. 3.7- A comparitive study of Analytes, calculated cocentration (Pim, Sub, Aze, Pin ) vs UAE unknown samples (1-23).

Fig. 3.8- A comparitive study of Analytes, calculated cocentration (Pnc ,Syg,Pth,Hyd)vs UAE (unknown) samples (1-23).

Total presence of each analyte in whole of the real samples (average for all analytes) was plotted with respect to individual analyte, quantified after UAE, is presented in Fig. 3.4.

Fig.3.9- Comparison of Average concentration (ng/ml) of all analyte.

3.2. Membrane Extraction:

3.2.1 LOD,LOQ and linearity of Standard injections after column cutting:

After three month continuous running GC-MS system was started to cause problems after many troubleshooting instrument started work again. Approximately 1.5 meter column was c


To export a reference to this article please select a referencing stye below:

Reference Copied to Clipboard.
Reference Copied to Clipboard.
Reference Copied to Clipboard.
Reference Copied to Clipboard.
Reference Copied to Clipboard.
Reference Copied to Clipboard.
Reference Copied to Clipboard.

Request Removal

If you are the original writer of this dissertation and no longer wish to have the dissertation published on the UK Essays website then please click on the link below to request removal:


More from UK Essays

Get help with your dissertation
Find out more
Build Time: 0.0046 Seconds