ArticleJournal of separation science2025
Automated Analysis of Pollutants in Wastewater Using Atmospheric Pressure Gas Chromatography-Tandem Quadrupole Mass Spectrometer With Robotic Autosampler and Solid Phase Micro Extraction.
Article in Journal of separation science, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 1 paper.
What it found
Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.
The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.
The trial behind it
Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
1 citing paper in PubMed.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
11 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
The analysis of organic pollutants using gas chromatography coupled to mass spectrometer (GC-MS) with electron impact (EI) ionization and liquid-liquid or solid-phase extraction (LLE or SPE) often suffer from a limited selectivity and arduous sample preparation. Therefore, atmospheric pressure GC-MS/MS coupled with Dual Head-Robotic Tool Change (DH-RTC) Prep and Load (PAL), and solid-phase micro extraction (SPME) arrow was investigated for its suitability. Evaluation of the SPME arrow coated with divinylbenzene-polydimethylsiloxane (DVB-PDMS) using 2-nitrotoluene and nitrobenzene showed acceptable intra-day precision (%relative standard deviation [RSD]) of less than 10% and inter-day precision (n = 35) of 10.54% and 12.45% respectively. Initial trials were conducted to assess the suitability of technique for eight multiclass compounds (from early eluting volatile organic compounds [e.g., 1,2-dichlorobenzene] to challenging late eluting polycyclic aromatic hydrocarbons [PAH] [e.g., benzo[ghi]perylene], specification markers [e.g., octafluoronaphthalene, and hexachlorobenzene], labile and toxic analytes [e.g., endosulfan, and 2,3,7,8-tetrachlorodibenzodioxin], and isobaric closely eluting PAHs [phenanthrene, and anthracene]). The precision (%RSD, n = 6) was ranged from 1.68 to 16.57, with peak asymmetry factor between 1.003 (phenanthrene) and 1.520 (anthracene). Further experiments conducted for priority pollutants (United States Environmental Protection Agency (U.S. EPA) 625.1/2016) indicated that the addition of salt significantly enhanced the responses for 28 analytes. The increase in response was ranged from 1.14-fold for Endosulfan II to 40.53-fold for pentachlorophenol. However, the %RSDs for 51 analytes were better without adding salt and for 12 analytes it improved with the addition of salt. Since the responses for 12 analytes are sufficient even without salt and standard deviations are below U.S.EPA 625.1/2016 limits, further trials were conducted without adding salt. Preliminary trials showed high RSDs up to 52.76% for high-boiling compounds, which were reduced by using internal standards (IS) and lowering the analyte load during injection. Dedicated analysis of high-boiling PAHs and selected compounds with deuterated IS achieved acceptable coefficient of determination (r
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.