Chinese Journal of Chromatography ›› 2026, Vol. 44 ›› Issue (2): 214-222.DOI: 10.3724/SP.J.1123.2025.04033
• Articles • Previous Articles
Received:2025-04-29
Online:2026-02-08
Published:2026-02-05
Contact:
TONG Yukui
CLC Number:
QI Wanting, TONG Yukui. Design of ZIF-L-based boronate affinity molecularly imprinted material and its application in the detection of ribavirin in environmental water[J]. Chinese Journal of Chromatography, 2026, 44(2): 214-222.
Add to citation manager EndNote|Ris|BibTeX
URL: https://www.chrom-china.com/EN/10.3724/SP.J.1123.2025.04033
Fig. 3 (a) APBA amount, (b) polymerization time, (c) adsorption pH and (d) RBV mass concentration on the adsorption performance of ZIF@B-MIPs and ZIF@B-NIPs to RBV (n=3) APBA: 3-aminophenylboronic acid; RBV: ribavirin; IF: imprinting factor.
Fig. 4 (a) Adsorption kinetics plot, (b) isothermal kinetics plot, (c) pseudo-second-order kinetic fitting curve, and (d) adsorption thermodynamics Langmuir model and Freundlich model fitting curves (n=3)
Fig. 5 Chromatograms of (a) selective and (c) competitive adsorption of RBV and three interfering substances by ZIF@B-MIPs; (b) selectivity and (d) competitively comparison of adsorption amount and imprinting factor using ZIF@B-MIPs and ZIF@B-NIPs (n=3)(i) before enrichment by ZIF@B-MIPs; (ii) after enrichment by ZIF@B-MIPs. URD: uridine; IOS: inosine; LMV: lamivudine.
| Adsorbents | Method | RSD/% | LOD/(mg/L) | LOQ | Ref. |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| MSPEa | HPLC-UV | - | - | 2.68 μg/L | [ |
| MIP-SPEb | HPLC-UV | 0.265 | 0.82 | 2.72 mg/L | [ |
| C@H@B-MIPs | HPLC-UV | 0.8-2.5 | 0.023 | 0.076 mg/L | [ |
| ZIF@B-MIPs | HPLC-UV | 0.3-2.1 | 0.038 | 0.081 mg/L | this work |
Table 1 Comparison of this method and those reported in the literature
| Adsorbents | Method | RSD/% | LOD/(mg/L) | LOQ | Ref. |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| MSPEa | HPLC-UV | - | - | 2.68 μg/L | [ |
| MIP-SPEb | HPLC-UV | 0.265 | 0.82 | 2.72 mg/L | [ |
| C@H@B-MIPs | HPLC-UV | 0.8-2.5 | 0.023 | 0.076 mg/L | [ |
| ZIF@B-MIPs | HPLC-UV | 0.3-2.1 | 0.038 | 0.081 mg/L | this work |
| Sample | Spiked/(mg/L) | Detected/(mg/L) | Recovery/% | RSD/% |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Tap water | 30 | 28.35 | 94.5 | 1.3 |
| 50 | 46.65 | 93.3 | 0.6 | |
| 60 | 52.32 | 87.2 | 0.3 | |
| River water | 30 | 25.14 | 83.8 | 2.1 |
| 50 | 42.25 | 84.5 | 1.1 | |
| 60 | 51.42 | 85.7 | 0.4 |
Table 2 Spiked recoveries of RBV in different samples at three levels (n=3)
| Sample | Spiked/(mg/L) | Detected/(mg/L) | Recovery/% | RSD/% |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Tap water | 30 | 28.35 | 94.5 | 1.3 |
| 50 | 46.65 | 93.3 | 0.6 | |
| 60 | 52.32 | 87.2 | 0.3 | |
| River water | 30 | 25.14 | 83.8 | 2.1 |
| 50 | 42.25 | 84.5 | 1.1 | |
| 60 | 51.42 | 85.7 | 0.4 |
Fig. 7 Chromatograms of (a) RBV standard solution, spiked Songhua river water sample (30 mg/L RBV) (b) after enrichment with ZIF@B-MIPs and (c) fraction eluting with MeOH-HAc
|
| Viewed | ||||||
|
Full text |
|
|||||
|
Abstract |
|
|||||
