Abstract
Background: A new technique was designed for determining copper in an aqueous solution. Copper was determined by a hybrid system microfluidic coupled with flow injection. The homemade microfluidic chip (MFC) is used for injecting copper and 2,9-Dimethyl-1,10-phenanthroline (2,9 DMP) reagent as a merging zone technique, whereas uric acid is used as a reducing agent and carrier.
Methods: A microfluidic chip was made by a Computer Numerical Control (CNC) laser machine using the AutoCAD application for the study of copper by the hybrid system. The chip contains two microchannels with a volume of 60 μL for copper(II) and 2,9 DMP reagent. As a carrier solution and reducing agent, 40 mg/L of uric acid was pumped at a flow rate of 5.2 mL/min. Conditions of the coupled technique and analyses were measured at 454 nm.
Results: This system's approach has a linear range, a detection limit (S/N = 3), and a quantitation limit (S/N = 10) at 0.1-25 mg/L (r2 0.9979), 0.03 and 0.09 mg/L, respectively. Also, there was a repeatability of analyses (n = 7) with an average RSD of 0.97 % for concentrations of 5, 10, and 20 mg/L. The dispersion coefficients were 1.977, 1.789, and 1.555 for the three concentrations 5,10, and 20 mg/L, respectively. The recovery of copper in the aqueous solution was estimated to be 103.5%. Dead volume and throughput were zero and 62 per hour, respectively. Sandell’s sensitivity and molar absorptivity were 2.467×10-3 μg/cm2 and 1.947×105 L/mol cm, respectively.
Conclusion: The analysis in the novel hybrid microfluidic-flow injection system is efficient, simple, and fast, and it can be used to determine the concentration of copper in an aqueous solution. The homemade microfluidic chip is a low-cost component that uses only an small volume of copper and reagent during analysis.
Graphical Abstract
[http://dx.doi.org/10.4172/2375-4397.1000180]
[http://dx.doi.org/10.3390/molecules24122320] [PMID: 31238523]
[http://dx.doi.org/10.1260/0263-6174.32.6.443]
[http://dx.doi.org/10.2174/15734110113090990014]
[http://dx.doi.org/10.9790/5736-1305032734]
[http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/978-1-4939-1441-8_20]
[http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.microc.2013.04.010]
[http://dx.doi.org/10.2174/1573411011107030225]
[http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.talanta.2006.09.031] [PMID: 19071587]
[http://dx.doi.org/10.1177/0004563217744809] [PMID: 29153026]
[http://dx.doi.org/10.2116/analsci.20.171] [PMID: 14753278]
[http://dx.doi.org/10.2116/analsci.19.731] [PMID: 12769374]
[http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.aca.2010.04.012] [PMID: 20441870]
[http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.talanta.2005.02.019] [PMID: 18970145]
[http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.microc.2020.105457]
[http://dx.doi.org/10.1021/acsomega.0c01770] [PMID: 32715224]
[http://dx.doi.org/10.3390/ijms22042011] [PMID: 33670545]
[http://dx.doi.org/10.3390/mi12030319] [PMID: 33803689]
[http://dx.doi.org/10.1039/C6AY02718K]
[http://dx.doi.org/10.3390/chemosensors9040060]
[http://dx.doi.org/10.1038/s41598-020-65639-0] [PMID: 32457333]
[http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.lwt.2019.108828]
[http://dx.doi.org/10.1134/S1061934818030061]
[http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/S0039-9140(02)00128-5] [PMID: 18968686]
[http://dx.doi.org/10.1002/jccs.200500085]
[http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.talanta.2009.10.024] [PMID: 20152415]
[http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.talanta.2009.02.035] [PMID: 19615507]
[http://dx.doi.org/10.24688/jfia.26.1_37]
[http://dx.doi.org/10.24688/jfia.24.1_9]
[http://dx.doi.org/10.3791/59376] [PMID: 30958462]
[http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.arabjc.2010.04.004]
[http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.jtusci.2017.02.001]
[http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.kijoms.2017.09.002]
[http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.foodchem.2014.09.023] [PMID: 25308690]
[http://dx.doi.org/10.31838/ijpr/2018.10.03.030]
[http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.sab.2008.03.018]
[http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/16583655.2018.1521710]