Authors:
Young Sang KwonKorea Institute of Toxicology, Jinju 52834, Korea

Search for other papers by Young Sang Kwon in
Current site
Google Scholar
PubMed
Close
,
Sung-Gil ChoiKorea Institute of Toxicology, Jinju 52834, Korea

Search for other papers by Sung-Gil Choi in
Current site
Google Scholar
PubMed
Close
,
Seung-Min LeeKorea Institute of Toxicology, Jinju 52834, Korea

Search for other papers by Seung-Min Lee in
Current site
Google Scholar
PubMed
Close
,
Jong-Hwan KimKorea Institute of Toxicology, Jinju 52834, Korea

Search for other papers by Jong-Hwan Kim in
Current site
Google Scholar
PubMed
Close
, and
Jong-Su SeoKorea Institute of Toxicology, Jinju 52834, Korea

Search for other papers by Jong-Su Seo in
Current site
Google Scholar
PubMed
Close
Open access

The applicability of gas chromatography–triple quadrupole mass spectrometry (GC–MS/MS) for determination of dioxins in soil was investigated. The analytical method was validated based on US Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) Method 1613 and European Union (EU) Regulation No. 709/2014 for selectivity, linearity of sensitivity, and instrumental limits of quantification (iLOQs). Method development commenced with determination of retention times for 17 native polychlorinated dibenzo-p-dioxins (PCDDs) and polychlorinated dibenzofurans (PCDFs) and selection of characteristic ions from GC–MS/MS spectra. The linearity was measured using 1613 standard solutions (CS1–CS5) containing 0.5 to 200 ng/mL tetrachlorodibenzo-p-dioxin/furan (TCDD/F) congeners, 2.5 to 1000 ng/mL pentachlorodibenzo-p-dioxin/furan (PeCDD/F) to heptachlorodibenzo-p-dioxin/furan (HpCDD/F) congeners, and 20 to 2000 ng/mL octachlorodibenzo-p-dioxin/furan (OCDD/F) congeners. The correlation coefficient (R2) values ranged between 0.9990 and 0.9999, and the iLOQ values ranged from 0.052 to 0.350 pg/μL for TCDD/F congeners, with a relative standard deviation of 2.7–9.6%. The entire analytical method was verified by analysis of certified reference materials (BCR-529 and BCR-530), and the recoveries were 71.79–103.87% and 81.50–103.12%, respectively. Thus, the GC–MS/MS system provides an alternative to GC–high-resolution MS for the simultaneous determination of TCDD/F congeners in soil.

Abstract

The applicability of gas chromatography–triple quadrupole mass spectrometry (GC–MS/MS) for determination of dioxins in soil was investigated. The analytical method was validated based on US Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) Method 1613 and European Union (EU) Regulation No. 709/2014 for selectivity, linearity of sensitivity, and instrumental limits of quantification (iLOQs). Method development commenced with determination of retention times for 17 native polychlorinated dibenzo-p-dioxins (PCDDs) and polychlorinated dibenzofurans (PCDFs) and selection of characteristic ions from GC–MS/MS spectra. The linearity was measured using 1613 standard solutions (CS1–CS5) containing 0.5 to 200 ng/mL tetrachlorodibenzo-p-dioxin/furan (TCDD/F) congeners, 2.5 to 1000 ng/mL pentachlorodibenzo-p-dioxin/furan (PeCDD/F) to heptachlorodibenzo-p-dioxin/furan (HpCDD/F) congeners, and 20 to 2000 ng/mL octachlorodibenzo-p-dioxin/furan (OCDD/F) congeners. The correlation coefficient (R2) values ranged between 0.9990 and 0.9999, and the iLOQ values ranged from 0.052 to 0.350 pg/μL for TCDD/F congeners, with a relative standard deviation of 2.7–9.6%. The entire analytical method was verified by analysis of certified reference materials (BCR-529 and BCR-530), and the recoveries were 71.79–103.87% and 81.50–103.12%, respectively. Thus, the GC–MS/MS system provides an alternative to GC–high-resolution MS for the simultaneous determination of TCDD/F congeners in soil.

Introduction

Polychlorinated dibenzo-p-dioxins (PCDDs) and polychlorinated dibenzofurans (PCDFs) are important environmental pollutants (also known as dioxins) that are classified as persistent organic pollutants (POPs) and lead to a broad range of toxic effects in humans and natural environments [13]. PCDD/PCDFs are unintentionally formed as by-products during a variety of industrial, manufacturing, and combustion processes [48]. Dioxins are chemically highly stable and persist in environmental ecosystems for many years due to a half-life in soil of 10–12 years [9]. For this reason, analytical methods for the determination of dioxins in natural environments are being actively developed.

For instrumental determination, exhaustive extraction, extensive clean-up and sensitive detection procedures are required to determine dioxins in complex matrices. High-resolution gas chromatography coupled to high-resolution mass spectrometry (HRGC/HRMS) is a powerful tool for dioxin research, which has been used successfully for analysis of PCDD/F congeners, and designated as an international reference method [1015]. HRGC/HRMS has advantages and disadvantages in terms of the analysis process and equipment. Advantages include its high sensitivity, high selectivity, and robustness in terms of MS [1617]. Disadvantages include its relatively high cost and difficult usage [18]. For these reasons, the development of alternative methods that are more reliable than HRMS but with similar or better reliability is ongoing.

As an alternative to HRGC/HRMS, gas chromatography–triple quadrupole mass spectrometry (GC–MS/MS) should in theory be able to determine dioxin congeners at very low concentrations, potentially providing unambiguous evidence to confirm measurements derived from HRGC/HRMS. Accuracy and sensitivity have both been recently improved due to technological and developmental advances in mass spectrometry (MS). These improvements are in accordance with the analytical criteria of HRGC/HRMS and represent enhanced selectivity. In recent years, analysis of dioxins from matrices including food, feed, fats, sewage sludge, and fly ash samples using GC–MS/MS have revealed sensitivity and accuracy comparable with HRGC/HRMS [15, 1823]. Therefore, GC–MS/MS could, in principle, be employed for analysis of POPs, such as dioxins, and for analysis of harmful and toxic substances in various fields.

To the best of our knowledge, determination of dioxin congeners in soil using GC–MS/MS instead of HRGC/HRMS has not been reported previously. In the present study, we demonstrate the applicability of the GC–MS/MS system for analysis of PCDD/F congeners in soil containing low levels of these compounds.

Experimental

Reagents, Standards, and Materials

All reagents and solvents for dioxin analysis were of analytical grade or HPLC-grade. Toluene and nonane of dioxin analysis grade were provided by Wako Pure Chemical Industries (Tokyo, Japan), and other solvents including dichloromethane, hexane, and methanol (MeOH) were obtained from Burdick & Jackson (Muskegon, MI, USA). A multilayer silica gel column (10% silver nitrate silica gel, 44% sulfuric silica gel, 22% sulfuric silica gel, and 2% potassium hydroxide silica gel) and activated carbon solid phase extraction (SPE) cartridges were obtained from GL Science Inc. (Tokyo, Japan) and Sigma-Aldrich (St. Louis, MO, USA). Native and 13C12-isotope-labelled standard mixtures of PCDD/Fs (EPA 1613 CS1 to CS5, LCS, and ISS) were certified purchases from Wellington Laboratories Inc. (Guelph, Ontario, Canada) and were used for the development of the analytical methodology. Certified reference material (CRM) samples including BCR 529 (sandy soil) and 530 (clay soil) were obtained from the Institute for Reference Materials and Measurements (IRMM, Geel, Belgium) for method validation.

Sample Extraction and Clean-up

Extraction procedures for determination of dioxins in soil were performed as described previously [24] with a slight modification, as shown in Figure 1. Briefly, 10 g soil was spiked with 13C-labelled compounds (EPA 1613 LCS) as internal (surrogate) standards, and extraction was performed using an ASE 300 system (Dionex, Sunnyvale, CA, USA) with instrument settings as follows: 170 °C, 1500 psi, 70% flush volume, 2 static cycles of 6 min, and toluene as an extraction solvent. The aliquots were evaporated by rotary evaporation, solvent was replaced with n-hexane, and samples were injected into a multilayer silica gel column pre-equilibrated with 25 mL n-hexane. After elution of 100 mL n-hexane and evaporation to dryness, the samples were redissolved in 3 mL n-hexane and transferred to an active carbon SPE column to separate PCDD/Fs. The activated carbon SPE column was washed with 50 mL DCM–hexane (1:1, v/v) to separate the interfering material and eluted with 100 mL toluene. The eluted extract was evaporated to dryness using nitrogen gas, redissolved in 25 μL nonane, and EPA1613 ISS (13C12–1,2,3,4- tetrachlorodibenzo-p-dioxin [TCDD] and 13C12–1,2,3,7,8,9-hexachlorodibenzo-p-dioxin [HxCDD]) were added as an internal injection standard at a final concentration of 100 ng/mL. The samples were transferred to auto-sampling vials and analyzed by GC–MS/MS.

Figure 1.
Figure 1.

Flow diagram of the sample extraction and clean-up procedures

Citation: Acta Chromatographica Acta Chromatographica 31, 3; 10.1556/1326.2019.00422

Instrumental Analysis (GC–MS/MS)

For determination of PCDD/F congeners, we used a Bruker Scion TQ triple quadruple mass spectrometer (Bruker, Fremont, CA, USA) coupled to a Bruker 451 GC and CP 8400 auto sampler, with a DB-5MS UI capillary column (60 m × 0.25 mm × 0.25 μm; J&W Scientific, Folsom, CA, USA) operated in the selected ion monitoring (SIM) mode and the electron ionization (EI) positive mode at 70 eV. The temperatures of the transfer line, injector, and ion source were 280 °C and 230 °C, respectively. For analysis, a 2-μL sample was injected in the pulse splitless mode. Helium at a constant flow rate of 1 mL/min was used as the carrier gas. The program temperature was 140 °C for 1 min, increased to 220 °C at 20 °C/min (held for 1 min) and then to 320 °C at 5 °C/min (held for 14 min) for a total runtime of 35 min. Details of the GC–MS/MS operational parameters, as well as the multiple reaction monitoring (MRM) conditions for PCDD/Fs determination, are provided in Tables 1 and 2.

Table 1.

Experimental conditions for gas chromatography–triple quadrupole mass spectrometry (GC–MS/MS) analysis of polychlorinated dibenzo-p-dioxins (PCDDs) and polychlorinated dibenzofurans (PCDFs)

GC conditions
Column DB-5MS UI

60 m × 0.250 mm × 0.25 μm
Injection volume (μL) 2.0, splitless
Inlet temp. (°C) 280
Inlet module and mode Pulsed splitless, 50 psi (1 min)
Carrier gas Helium
Column flow (mL/min) 1.0
Column pneumatics Constant flow
Oven program 140 °C (1 min)

20 °C/min to 220 °C (1 min)

5 °C/min to 320 °C (14 min)
MS conditions
Operation mode Electron ionisation (EI), multiple reaction monitoring (MRM)
MS system MS WS 8.0 SPI
Transfer line temperature 280 °C
Ion source temperature 230 °C
Electron energy −70 eV
Collision gas 1.5 mTorr
Table 2.

Multiple reaction monitoring (MRM) conditions for detection of the PCDD/F congeners

Congeners RT (min) Precursor ion Product ion CE (V) Precursor ion Product ion CE (V)
13C-2,3,7,8-TCDF 15.40 316 252 30 318 254 30
2,3,7,8-TCDF 15.41 304 241 30 306 243 30
13C-1,2,3,4-TCDD(ISS*) 15.46 332 268 22 334 270 22
13C-2,3,7,8-TCDD 15.71 332 268 22 334 270 22
2,3,7,8-TCDD 15.71 320 257 22 322 259 22
13C-1,2,3,7,8-PeCDF 17.62 350 286 32 352 288 32
1,2,3,7,8-PeCDF 17.63 338 275 30 340 277 30
13C-2,3,4,7,8-PeCDF 18.18 350 286 32 352 288 32
2,3,4,7,8-PeCDF 18.21 338 275 30 340 277 30
13C-1,2,3,7,8-PeCDD 18.36 368 304 22 370 306 22
1,2,3,7,8-PeCDD 18.38 354 291 25 356 293 25
13C-1,2,3,4,7,8-HxCDF 20.22 386 322 32 388 324 32
1,2,3,4,7,8-HxCDF 20.24 374 311 30 376 313 30
13C-1,2,3,6,7,8-HxCDF 20.33 386 322 32 388 324 32
1,2,3,6,7,8-HxCDF 20.34 374 311 30 376 313 30
13C-2,3,4,6,7,8-HxCDF 20.76 386 322 32 388 324 32
2,3,4,6,7,8-HxCDF 20.77 374 311 30 376 313 30
13C-1,2,3,4,7,8-HxCDD 20.90 402 338 22 404 340 22
1,2,3,4,7,8-HxCDD 20.85 388 262 40 390 327 25
13C-1,2,3,6,7,8-HxCDD 21.14 402 338 22 404 340 22
1,2,3,6,7,8-HxCDD 21.16 388 262 40 390 327 25
13C-1,2,3,7,8,9-HxCDD(ISS*) 21.13 402 338 22 404 340 22
1,2,3,7,8,9-HxCDD 21.16 388 262 40 390 327 25
13C-1,2,3,7,8,9-HxCDF 21.48 386 322 32 388 324 32
1,2,3,7,8,9-HxCDF 21.48 374 311 30 376 313 30
13C-1,2,3,4,6,7,8-HpCDF 22.61 420 356 35 420 358 35
1,2,3,4,6,7,8-HpCDF 22.60 408 345 35 410 347 35
13C-1,2,3,4,6,7,8-HpCDD 23.46 436 372 22 438 374 22
1,2,3,4,6,7,8-HpCDD 23.48 424 361 25 426 363 25
13C-1,2,3,4,7,8,9-HpCDF 23.94 420 356 35 422 358 35
1,2,3,4,7,8,9-HpCDF 23.96 408 345 35 410 347 35
13C-OCDD 25.87 470 406 25 472 408 25
OCDD 25.87 458 395 25 460 397 25
OCDF 26.07 442 379 30 444 381 30

ISS, internal standards (EPA-1613ISS).

Results and Discussion

Analytical Validation of the GC–MS/MS Method

Analytical performance was assessed in terms of selectivity, linearity of sensitivity, and instrumental limits of quantification (iLOQs) according to the validation parameters for GC–MS/MS method development. EPA-1613 CS3 calibration standard solutions were selected to evaluate the chromatographic separation of PCDD/Fs, and the separation was acceptable for all PCDD/F congeners (Figure 2). Optimization of operational parameters was performed by selecting the two most abundant precursor ions for each target compound from full scan spectra of PCDD/Fs. Tables 2 summarizes the MRM transitions and optimum collision energy (CE) voltages for each congener and transition.

Figure 2.
Figure 2.

Chromatographic and mass spectrometric separation of 17 polychlorinated dibenzo-p-dioxins (PCDDs) and polychlorinated dibenzofurans (PCDFs) using gas chromatography–triple quadrupole mass spectrometry (GC–MS/MS)

Citation: Acta Chromatographica Acta Chromatographica 31, 3; 10.1556/1326.2019.00422

Linearity is an important factor determining the accuracy of the analytical validation process. Linearity tests were optimized and applied to five calibration standard solutions (EPA1613 CS1 to CS5) including native and 13C12-labelled tetrachlorodibenzo-p-dioxin/furan (TCDD/F) congeners at concentrations ranging from 0.5 to 2000 pg/μL and 100 pg/μL, respectively, except for 13C12-octachlorodibenzo-p-dioxin (OCDD), which was 200 pg/μL. Determination coefficient (R2) values higher than 0.999 indicated good linearity, and the relative response factor (RRF) and relative standard deviation (RSD) values were in good agreement (RSD <15%) for PCDD/F congeners (Table 3). These excellent linearity results confirmed that method was in accordance with the criteria established earlier by the EPA 1613 method.

Table 3.

Linearity of calibration curves and relative response factors (RRFs) of PCDD/F congeners

Congeners Concentration range (pg/μL) R 2 Average RRF RRF% RSD
2,3,7,8-TCDF 0.5–40 0.9994 1.23 8.2
2,3,7,8-TCDD 0.5–40 0.9997 1.16 3.8
1,2,3,7,8-PeCDF 2.5–1000 0.9999 1.28 2.9
2,3,4,7,8-PeCDF 2.5–1000 0.9990 1.52 1.5
1,2,3,7,8-PeCDD 2.5–1000 0.9999 0.81 9.4
1,2,3,4,7,8-HxCDF 2.5–1000 0.9991 1.38 8.5
1,2,3,6,7,8-HxCDF 2.5–1000 0.9999 1.22 3.6
2,3,4,6,7,8-HxCDF 2.5–1000 0.9996 1.03 5.2
1,2,3,4,7,8-HxCDD 2.5–1000 0.9994 1.27 5.8
1,2,3,6,7,8-HxCDD 2.5–1000 0.9999 0.95 4.7
1,2,3,7,8,9-HxCDD 2.5–1000 0.9992 1.14 10.2
1,2,3,7,8,9-HxCDF 2.5–1000 0.9999 1.09 9.4
1,2,3,4,6,7,8-HpCDF 2.5–1000 0.9995 0.91 2.5
1,2,3,4,6,7,8-HpCDD 2.5–1000 0.9999 1.22 4.8
1,2,3,4,7,8,9-HpCDF 2.5–1000 0.9991 1.05 3.8
OCDD 5.0–2000 0.9999 1.34 2.4
OCDF 5.0–2000 0.9999 1.25 7.2

One of the major differences between HRGC/HRMS and GC–MS/MS is the ability to set the iLOQ value; although HRGC/HRMS is measured by the signal-to-noise (S/N) ratio for raw signals, GC–MS/MS does not allow calculation of the S/N ratio due to filtering of ions by the quadrupoles [25]. For these reasons, iLOQ values for the GC–MS/MS system were measured using a 10-fold dilution of the EPA-1613CS1 standard solution following 10 repeated injections, which were considered to be 10 times the RSD of the replicates. The iLOQ values ranged from 0.052 to 0.350 pg/μL for TCDD/F congeners. All %RSD values were below 9.6% (Table 4), suggesting that the proposed GC–MS/MS analytical method was sufficiently sensitive to easily detect low-level dioxin congeners.

Table 4.

Calibration curve data and instrumental limits of quantitation (iLOQ) values

Retention time (min) Lowest calibration point (pg/μL) Highest calibration point (pg/ μL) Lowest calibration point RSD (%) R2 correlation coefficient Difference RF (low)-RF (All) % Average RF iLOQ (pg/μL)
PCDDs
2,3,7,8-TCDD 15.961 0.078 3.957 6.7 0.9991 −0.411 2.799 0.052
1,2,3,7,8-PeCDD 18.638 0.421 20.213 4.1 0.9999 −0.242 1.450 0.173
1,2,3,4,7,8-HxCDD 21.418 0.414 20.204 8.5 0.9999 2.170 1.436 0.350
1,2,3,6,7,8-HxCDD 21.425 0.394 20.067 5.7 0.9999 0.094 1.507 0.226
1,2,3,7,8,9-HxCDD 21.427 0.361 20.093 6.6 0.9999 1.498 1.546 0.239
1,2,3,4,6,7,8-HpCDD 23.750 0.391 19.995 5.1 0.9999 1.008 1.408 0.199
OCDD 26.165 0.850 40.142 3.7 0.9999 0.492 0.945 0.315
PCDFs
2,3,7,8-TCDF 15.652 0.090 3.957 9.6 0.9995 −16.286 5.554 0.086
1,2,3,7,8-PeCDF 17.879 0.427 19.929 3.2 0.9998 −0.392 2.799 0.137
2,3,4,7,8-PeCDF 18.482 0.394 19.957 3.9 0.9997 −0.503 3.151 0.154
1,2,3,4,7,8-HxCDF 20.511 0.421 19.855 7.5 0.9999 0.869 2.926 0.317
1,2,3,6,7,8-HxCDF 20.596 0.423 20.086 6.1 0.9999 0.518 3.230 0.255
2,3,4,6,7,8-HxCDF 21.037 0.384 20.275 2.7 0.9999 1.283 3.166 0.104
1,2,3,7,8,9-HxCDF 21.736 0.405 20.179 6.4 0.9999 2.137 2.505 0.261
1,2,3,4,6,7,8-HpCDF 22.864 0.419 19.909 3.2 0.9999 −0.127 1.987 0.136
1,2,3,4,7,8,9-HpCDF 24.220 0.425 19.857 3.6 0.9999 −0.243 1.484 0.153
OCDF 26.349 0.849 40.157 3.7 0.9999 0.624 1.290 0.315

Determination of Dioxins in CRMs

To assess the accuracy of the validation tests used to assess the analytical method, we evaluated the analytical efficiency using two CRMs, BCR 529 and 530, which are the same matrices as the real samples. The accuracy values obtained as recovery factors for dioxin congeners were used as reference values for quality assurance with the GC–MS/MS instrument. CRM and accuracy results are shown in Table 5. The measured total dioxin values for BCR 529 (16,865.53 pg. g−1) and BCR 530 (1495.69 pg. g−1) were in good agreement with the certified values for BCR 529 (20,025 ± 2981 pg/g) and BCR 530 (1575 ± 174 pg/g). The range of accuracy of values for dioxin congeners compared with certified values for BCR 529 and BCR 530 were 71.79–103.87% (average = 84%) and 81.50–103.12% (average = 95%), respectively, which was satisfactory (>90% for most congeners) according to US Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) 1613 [14] and European Union (EU) Regulation 709/2014 [26]. These results indicate that GC–MS/MS approaches were suitable for the monitoring of dioxins in soil and comparable in terms of sensitivity to HRGC/HRMS.

Table 5.

Results of dioxin concentration analysis in the reference materials BCR 529 and BCR 530

Congeners BCR 529 BCR 530
Certified (pg/g) Analyzed (pg/g) Ratio of analyzed /certified (%) Certified (pg/g) Analyzed (pg/g) Ratio of analyzed /certified (%)
2,3,7,8-TCDD 4500 ± 600 4253.41 94.52 NA NC NA
1,2,3,7,8-PeCDD 440 ± 50 446.19 101.41 NA NC NA
1,2,3,4,7,8-HxCDD 1220 ± 210 1256.51 102.99 NA NC NA
1,2,3,6,7,8-HxCDD 5400 ± 900 3919.85 72.59 61 ± 11 49.72 81.50
1,2,3,7,8,9-HxCDD 3000 ± 400 2153.75 71.79 21.8 ± 2.9 18.65 85.56
1,2,3,4,6,7,8-HpCDD NA NC NA NA NC NA
OCDD NA NC NA NA NC NA
2,3,7,8-TCDF 78 ± 13 81.02 103.87 NA NC NA
1,2,3,7,8-PeCDF 145 ± 28 146.11 100.77 240 ± 40 217.48 90.62
2,3,4,7,8-PeCDF 360 ± 70 354.27 98.41 620 ± 70 639.37 103.12
1,2,3,4,7,8-HxCDF 3400 ± 500 2913.12 85.68 321 ± 16 311.46 97.03
1,2,3,6,7,8-HxCDF 1090 ± 150 1028.89 94.39 186 ± 23 155.04 83.35
2,3,4,6,7,8-HxCDF 370 ± 50 295.34 79.82 126 ± 12 103.96 82.51
1,2,3,7,8,9-HxCDF 22 ± 10 17.06 77.54 NA NC NA
1,2,3,4,6,7,8-HpCDF NA NC NA NA NC NA
1,2,3,4,7,8,9-HpCDF NA NC NA NA NC NA
OCDF NA NC NA NA NC NA
Total PCDD/Fs (pg/g) 20,025 ± 2981 16865.53 84.22 1575 ± 174 1495.69 94.96
Total WHO-TEQs (pg/g) 6510 ± 895 5976.82 91.80 264 ± 28 262.22 99.32

NA, data not available.

NC, data not calculated.

WHO-TEQs, World Health Organization toxic equivalent.

Conclusion

Analysis of dioxins in environmental samples is generally performed by HRGC coupled to HRMS. However, we demonstrate that a GC–MS/MS analysis could be used as an alternative method, thanks to the recent technical advances in MS. In this study, a GC–MS/MS-based analytical method was developed to detect low concentrations of dioxins in soil. The method was validated according to the US EPA Method 1613 and EU Regulations 709/2014 guidelines using EPA-1613 standard solution. The results were satisfactory in terms of selectivity, linearity of sensitivity, and iLOQ. Furthermore, the accuracy of the analytical method was confirmed using CRMs BCR-529 and BCR-530, and the accuracy was successfully optimized. Thus, GC–MS/MS provides an alternative method for routine screening and quantification of dioxins in soil.

Acknowledgements

We thank to the following people for the critical reading and constructive suggestions: Yong-Seol Choi from BJC Customs Co., Ltd., Dr. Kae Kyoung Kwon from Korea Institute of Ocean Science and Technology, Republic of Korea, and Dr. Nguyễn Ngọc Sinh from Vietnam Association for Conservation of Nature and Environment (VACNE), Vietnam.

References

  • 1.

    Nording, M.; Nichkova, M.; Spinnel, E.; Persson, Y.; Gee, S. J.; Hammock, B. D.; Haglund, P. Anal. Bioanal. Chem. 2006, 385, 357366.

  • 2.

    Birnbaum, L.; Bosveld, B. T. C.; Brunström, B.; Cook, P.; Feeley, M.; Giesy, J. P.; Hanberg, A.; Hasegawa, R.; Kennedy, S. W.; Kubiak, T.; Larsen, J. C.; vanLeeuwen, F. X. R.; Liem, A. K. D.; Nolt, C.; Peterson, R. E.; Poellinger, L.; Safe, S.; Schrenk, D.; Tillitt, D.; Tysklind, M.; Younes, M.; Waern, F.; Zacharewski, T. Environ. Health Perspect. 2006, 106, 755792.

    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • 3.

    Do, L.; Lundstedt, S.; Haglund, P. Chemosphere 2013, 90, 24142419.

  • 4.

    Zheng, G. J.; Leung, A. O. W.; Jiao, L. P.; Wong, M. H. Environ. Int. 2008, 34, 10501061.

  • 5.

    Rappe C. Pure Appl. Chem. 1996, 68, 17811789.

  • 6.

    Stanmore B. R. Combust. Flame 2004, 136, 398427.

  • 7.

    Benedetti, P.; Guerriero, E.; Mosca, S.; Rotatori, M. J. Sep. Sci. 2017, 40, 34693478.

  • 8.

    Alawi, M. A.; Najjar, A. A.; Khoury, H. N. CLEAN – Soil Air Water 2014, 42, 979985.

  • 9.

    Chemicals UNEP , Central and North East Asia Regional Report, Regionally Based Assessment of Persistent Toxic Substances, United Nations Environment Programme 2002.

    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • 10.

    Abad, E.; Llerena, J. J.; Sauló, J.; Caixach, J.; Rivera, J. Chemosphere 2002, 46, 14351441.

  • 11.

    Reiner E. J. Mass Spectrom. Rev. 2010, 29, 526559.

  • 12.

    Focant, J.; Pirard, C.; Eppe, G. De Pauw, E. J. Chromatogr. A 2005, 1067, 265275.

  • 13.

    Hong, J.; Miki, Y.; Honda, K.; Toita, H. Chemosphere 2012, 88, 12871291.

  • 14.

    US EPA , Method 1613, Revision B: Tetra- through octa-chlorinated dioxins and furans by isotope dilution HRGC/HRMS, EPA 821-B94–0059, US Environmental Protection Agency, Washington, DC 1994.

    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • 15.

    Ábalos, M.; Cojocariu, C. I.; Silcock, P.; Roberts, D.; Pemberthy, D. M.; Sauló, J.; Abad, E. Anal. Bioanal. Chem. 2016, 408, 35113525.

  • 16.

    Zhang, H.; Bayen, S.; Kelly, B. Sci. Total Environ. 2015, 523, 219232.

  • 17.

    Sánchez-Avila, J.; Tauler, R.; Lacorte, S. Environ. Int. 2012, 46, 5062.

  • 18.

    García-Bermejo, Á .; Ábalos, M.; Sauló, J.; Abad, E.; González, M. J.; Gómara, B. Anal. Chim. Acta, 2015, 889, 156165.

  • 19.

    Bavel, B.; Geng, D.; Cherta, L.; Nácher-Mestre, J.; Portolés, T.; Ábalos, M.; Sauló, J.; Abad, E.; Dunstan, J.; Jones, R.; Kotz, A.; Winterhalter, H.; Malisch, R.; Traag, W.; Hagberg, J.; Jogsten, I. E.; Beltran, J.; Hernández, F. Anal. Chem. 2015, 87, 90479053.

    • Crossref
    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • 20.

    Organtini, K. L.; Haimovici, L.; Jobst, K. J.; Reiner, E. J.; Ladak, A.; Stevens, D.; Cochran, J. W.; Dorman, F. L. Anal. Chem. 2015, 87, 79027908.

    • Crossref
    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • 21.

    Sun, H.; Wang, P.; Li, H.; Li, Y.; Zheng, S.; Matsiko, J.; Hao, Y.; Zhang, W.; Wang, D.; Zhang, Q. Sci. China Chem. 2017, 60, 670677.

  • 22.

    Plaza Bolaños, P.; Garrido Frenich, A.; Martínez Vidal, J. L. J. Chromatogr. A 2007, 1167, 917.

  • 23.

    Onwudili, J. A.; Hajizadeh, Y.; Zainal, S.; Upton, J.; Williams, P. T. Talanta 2011, 87, 143151.

  • 24.

    Kishida, M.; Maekawa, T.; Bandow, H. Anal. Chim. Acta 2010, 659, 186193.

  • 25.

    L'Homme, B.; Scholl, G.; Eppe, G.; Focant, J. F. J. Chromatogr. A 2015, 1376, 149158.

  • 26.

    Commission Regulation (EU) No. 709/2014 of 20 June 2014 amending Regulation (EC) No. 152/2009 as regards the determination of the levels of dioxins and polychlorinated biphenyls.

    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • 1.

    Nording, M.; Nichkova, M.; Spinnel, E.; Persson, Y.; Gee, S. J.; Hammock, B. D.; Haglund, P. Anal. Bioanal. Chem. 2006, 385, 357366.

  • 2.

    Birnbaum, L.; Bosveld, B. T. C.; Brunström, B.; Cook, P.; Feeley, M.; Giesy, J. P.; Hanberg, A.; Hasegawa, R.; Kennedy, S. W.; Kubiak, T.; Larsen, J. C.; vanLeeuwen, F. X. R.; Liem, A. K. D.; Nolt, C.; Peterson, R. E.; Poellinger, L.; Safe, S.; Schrenk, D.; Tillitt, D.; Tysklind, M.; Younes, M.; Waern, F.; Zacharewski, T. Environ. Health Perspect. 2006, 106, 755792.

    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • 3.

    Do, L.; Lundstedt, S.; Haglund, P. Chemosphere 2013, 90, 24142419.

  • 4.

    Zheng, G. J.; Leung, A. O. W.; Jiao, L. P.; Wong, M. H. Environ. Int. 2008, 34, 10501061.

  • 5.

    Rappe C. Pure Appl. Chem. 1996, 68, 17811789.

  • 6.

    Stanmore B. R. Combust. Flame 2004, 136, 398427.

  • 7.

    Benedetti, P.; Guerriero, E.; Mosca, S.; Rotatori, M. J. Sep. Sci. 2017, 40, 34693478.

  • 8.

    Alawi, M. A.; Najjar, A. A.; Khoury, H. N. CLEAN – Soil Air Water 2014, 42, 979985.

  • 9.

    Chemicals UNEP , Central and North East Asia Regional Report, Regionally Based Assessment of Persistent Toxic Substances, United Nations Environment Programme 2002.

    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • 10.

    Abad, E.; Llerena, J. J.; Sauló, J.; Caixach, J.; Rivera, J. Chemosphere 2002, 46, 14351441.

  • 11.

    Reiner E. J. Mass Spectrom. Rev. 2010, 29, 526559.

  • 12.

    Focant, J.; Pirard, C.; Eppe, G. De Pauw, E. J. Chromatogr. A 2005, 1067, 265275.

  • 13.

    Hong, J.; Miki, Y.; Honda, K.; Toita, H. Chemosphere 2012, 88, 12871291.

  • 14.

    US EPA , Method 1613, Revision B: Tetra- through octa-chlorinated dioxins and furans by isotope dilution HRGC/HRMS, EPA 821-B94–0059, US Environmental Protection Agency, Washington, DC 1994.

    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • 15.

    Ábalos, M.; Cojocariu, C. I.; Silcock, P.; Roberts, D.; Pemberthy, D. M.; Sauló, J.; Abad, E. Anal. Bioanal. Chem. 2016, 408, 35113525.

  • 16.

    Zhang, H.; Bayen, S.; Kelly, B. Sci. Total Environ. 2015, 523, 219232.

  • 17.

    Sánchez-Avila, J.; Tauler, R.; Lacorte, S. Environ. Int. 2012, 46, 5062.

  • 18.

    García-Bermejo, Á .; Ábalos, M.; Sauló, J.; Abad, E.; González, M. J.; Gómara, B. Anal. Chim. Acta, 2015, 889, 156165.

  • 19.

    Bavel, B.; Geng, D.; Cherta, L.; Nácher-Mestre, J.; Portolés, T.; Ábalos, M.; Sauló, J.; Abad, E.; Dunstan, J.; Jones, R.; Kotz, A.; Winterhalter, H.; Malisch, R.; Traag, W.; Hagberg, J.; Jogsten, I. E.; Beltran, J.; Hernández, F. Anal. Chem. 2015, 87, 90479053.

    • Crossref
    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • 20.

    Organtini, K. L.; Haimovici, L.; Jobst, K. J.; Reiner, E. J.; Ladak, A.; Stevens, D.; Cochran, J. W.; Dorman, F. L. Anal. Chem. 2015, 87, 79027908.

    • Crossref
    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • 21.

    Sun, H.; Wang, P.; Li, H.; Li, Y.; Zheng, S.; Matsiko, J.; Hao, Y.; Zhang, W.; Wang, D.; Zhang, Q. Sci. China Chem. 2017, 60, 670677.

  • 22.

    Plaza Bolaños, P.; Garrido Frenich, A.; Martínez Vidal, J. L. J. Chromatogr. A 2007, 1167, 917.

  • 23.

    Onwudili, J. A.; Hajizadeh, Y.; Zainal, S.; Upton, J.; Williams, P. T. Talanta 2011, 87, 143151.

  • 24.

    Kishida, M.; Maekawa, T.; Bandow, H. Anal. Chim. Acta 2010, 659, 186193.

  • 25.

    L'Homme, B.; Scholl, G.; Eppe, G.; Focant, J. F. J. Chromatogr. A 2015, 1376, 149158.

  • 26.

    Commission Regulation (EU) No. 709/2014 of 20 June 2014 amending Regulation (EC) No. 152/2009 as regards the determination of the levels of dioxins and polychlorinated biphenyls.

    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • Collapse
  • Expand
The author instruction is available in PDF.
Please, download the file from HERE.
 
The Open Access statement together with the description of the Copyright and License Policy are available in PDF.
Please, download the file from HERE.
 

 

Senior editors

Editor(s)-in-Chief: Kowalska, Teresa

Editor(s)-in-Chief: Sajewicz, Mieczyslaw

Editors(s)

  • Danica Agbaba (University of Belgrade, Belgrade, Serbia)
  • Ivana Stanimirova-Daszykowska (University of Silesia, Katowice, Poland)
  • Monika Waksmundzka-Hajnos (Medical University of Lublin, Lublin, Poland)

Editorial Board

  • R. Bhushan (The Indian Institute of Technology, Roorkee, India)
  • J. Bojarski (Jagiellonian University, Kraków, Poland)
  • B. Chankvetadze (State University of Tbilisi, Tbilisi, Georgia)
  • M. Daszykowski (University of Silesia, Katowice, Poland)
  • T.H. Dzido (Medical University of Lublin, Lublin, Poland)
  • A. Felinger (University of Pécs, Pécs, Hungary)
  • K. Glowniak (Medical University of Lublin, Lublin, Poland)
  • B. Glód (Siedlce University of Natural Sciences and Humanities, Siedlce, Poland)
  • A. Gumieniczek (Medical University of Lublin, Lublin, Poland)
  • U. Hubicka (Jagiellonian University, Kraków, Poland)
  • K. Kaczmarski (Rzeszow University of Technology, Rzeszów, Poland)
  • H. Kalász (Semmelweis University, Budapest, Hungary)
  • K. Karljiković Rajić (University of Belgrade, Belgrade, Serbia)
  • I. Klebovich (Semmelweis University, Budapest, Hungary)
  • A. Koch (Private Pharmacy, Hamburg, Germany)
  • Ł. Komsta (Medical University of Lublin, Lublin, Poland)
  • P. Kus (Univerity of Silesia, Katowice, Poland)
  • D. Mangelings (Free University of Brussels, Brussels, Belgium)
  • E. Mincsovics (Corvinus University of Budapest, Budapest, Hungary)
  • Á. M. Móricz (Centre for Agricultural Research, Budapest, Hungary)
  • G. Morlock (Giessen University, Giessen, Germany)
  • A. Petruczynik (Medical University of Lublin, Lublin, Poland)
  • R. Skibiński (Medical University of Lublin, Lublin, Poland)
  • B. Spangenberg (Offenburg University of Applied Sciences, Germany)
  • T. Tuzimski (Medical University of Lublin, Lublin, Poland)
  • Y. Vander Heyden (Free University of Brussels, Brussels, Belgium)
  • A. Voelkel (Poznań University of Technology, Poznań, Poland)
  • B. Walczak (University of Silesia, Katowice, Poland)
  • W. Wasiak (Adam Mickiewicz University, Poznań, Poland)
  • I.G. Zenkevich (St. Petersburg State University, St. Petersburg, Russian Federation)

 

KOWALSKA, TERESA
E-mail: kowalska@us.edu.pl

SAJEWICZ, MIECZYSLAW
E-mail:msajewic@us.edu.pl

Indexing and Abstracting Services:

  • Science Citation Index
  • Sci Search
  • Research Alert
  • Chemistry Citation Index and Current Content/Physical
  • Chemical and Earth Sciences
  • SCOPUS
  • GoogleScholar
  • Index Copernicus
  • CABI

2021  
Web of Science  
Total Cites
WoS
652
Journal Impact Factor 2,011
Rank by Impact Factor Chemistry, Analytical 66/87
Impact Factor
without
Journal Self Cites
1,789
5 Year
Impact Factor
1,350
Journal Citation Indicator 0,40
Rank by Journal Citation Indicator Chemistry, Analytical 72/99
Scimago  
Scimago
H-index
29
Scimago
Journal Rank
0,27
Scimago Quartile Score Chemistry (miscellaneous) (Q3)
Scopus  
Scopus
Cite Score
2,8
Scopus
CIte Score Rank
General Chemistry 210/409 (Q3)
Scopus
SNIP
0,586

2020
 
Total Cites
650
WoS
Journal
Impact Factor
1,639
Rank by
Chemistry, Analytical 71/83 (Q4)
Impact Factor
 
Impact Factor
1,412
without
Journal Self Cites
5 Year
1,301
Impact Factor
Journal
0,34
Citation Indicator
 
Rank by Journal
Chemistry, Analytical 75/93 (Q4)
Citation Indicator
 
Citable
45
Items
Total
43
Articles
Total
2
Reviews
Scimago
28
H-index
Scimago
0,316
Journal Rank
Scimago
Chemistry (miscellaneous) Q3
Quartile Score
 
Scopus
393/181=2,2
Scite Score
 
Scopus
General Chemistry 215/398 (Q3)
Scite Score Rank
 
Scopus
0,560
SNIP
 
Days from
58
submission
 
to acceptance
 
Days from
68
acceptance
 
to publication
 
Acceptance
51%
Rate

2019  
Total Cites
WoS
495
Impact Factor 1,418
Impact Factor
without
Journal Self Cites
1,374
5 Year
Impact Factor
0,936
Immediacy
Index
0,460
Citable
Items
50
Total
Articles
50
Total
Reviews
0
Cited
Half-Life
6,2
Citing
Half-Life
8,3
Eigenfactor
Score
0,00048
Article Influence
Score
0,164
% Articles
in
Citable Items
100,00
Normalized
Eigenfactor
0,05895
Average
IF
Percentile
20,349
Scimago
H-index
26
Scimago
Journal Rank
0,255
Scopus
Scite Score
226/167=1,4
Scopus
Scite Score Rank
Chemistry (miscellaneous) 240/398 (Q3)
Scopus
SNIP
0,494
Acceptance
Rate
41%

 

Acta Chromatographica
Publication Model Online only
Gold Open Access
Submission Fee none
Article Processing Charge 400 EUR/article
Regional discounts on country of the funding agency World Bank Lower-middle-income economies: 50%
World Bank Low-income economies: 100%
Further Discounts Editorial Board / Advisory Board members: 50%
Corresponding authors, affiliated to an EISZ member institution subscribing to the journal package of Akadémiai Kiadó: 100%
Subscription Information Gold Open Access
Purchase per Title  

Acta Chromatographica
Language English
Size A4
Year of
Foundation
1992
Volumes
per Year
1
Issues
per Year
4
Founder Institute of Chemistry, University of Silesia
Founder's
Address
PL-40-007 Katowice, Poland, Bankowa 12
Publisher Akadémiai Kiadó
Publisher's
Address
H-1117 Budapest, Hungary 1516 Budapest, PO Box 245.
Responsible
Publisher
Chief Executive Officer, Akadémiai Kiadó
ISSN 2083-5736 (Online)

Monthly Content Usage

Abstract Views Full Text Views PDF Downloads
Jun 2022 0 7 8
Jul 2022 0 17 21
Aug 2022 0 15 19
Sep 2022 0 11 18
Oct 2022 0 17 30
Nov 2022 0 6 16
Dec 2022 0 0 2