Synthesis of nano-pore size Al(III)-imprinted polymer for the extraction and preconcentration of aluminum ions

Article abstract of DOI:10.1007/s13738-012-0199-8

In this study, an ion imprinted polymer (IIP) was prepared for the selective separation and preconcentration of trace levels of aluminum. Al(III) IIP was synthesized in the presence of Al(III)-8-hydroxyquinoline (oxine) complex using styrene and ethylene glycol dimethacrylate as a monomer and crosslinker, respectively. The imprinted Al(III) ions were completely removed by leaching the IIP with HCl (50 % v/v) and were characterized by FTIR and scanning electron microscopy. The maximum sorption capacity for Al(III) ions was found to be 3.1 mg g^-1 at pH 6.0. Variables affecting the IIP solid phase extraction were optimized by the univariable method. Under the optimized conditions, a sample volume of 400 mL resulted in an enhancement factor of 194. The detection limit (defined as 3 S _b/m) was found to be 1.6 μg L^-1. The method was successfully applied to the determination of aluminum in natural water, fruit juice and cow milk samples.

Full text of DOI:10.1007/s13738-012-0199-8

J IRAN CHEM SOC (2013) 10:669–676
DOI 10.1007/s13738-012-0199-8
ORIGINAL PAPER
Synthesis of nano-pore size Al(III)-imprinted polymer
for the extraction and preconcentration of aluminum ions
•
Farid Shakerian Shayessteh Dadfarnia
•
Ali Mohammad Haji Shabani
Received: 18 August 2012 / Accepted: 30 November 2012 / Published online: 11 December 2012
Ó Iranian Chemical Society 2012
Abstract In this study, an ion imprinted polymer (IIP)
was prepared for the selective separation and preconcen-
tration of trace levels of aluminum. Al(III) IIP was syn-
thesized in the presence of Al(III)-8-hydroxyquinoline
(oxine) complex using styrene and ethylene glycol
dimethacrylate as a monomer and crosslinker, respectively.
The imprinted Al(III) ions were completely removed by
leaching the IIP with HCl (50 % v/v) and were character-
ized by FTIR and scanning electron microscopy. The
maximum sorption capacity for Al(III) ions was found to
be 3.1 mg g-1 at pH 6.0. Variables affecting the IIP solid
phase extraction were optimized by the univariable
method. Under the optimized conditions, a sample volume
of 400 mL resulted in an enhancement factor of 194. The
detection limit (defined as 3 Sb/m) was found to be
1.6 lg L-1. The method was successfully applied to the
determination of aluminum in natural water, fruit juice and
cow milk samples.
However, a considerable increase in the concentration of
this element has been occurred because of the increased
input of acids in the environment [1, 2]. The concentra-
tions of aluminum appear to be highest in acidified lakes,
air and in the ground water of acidified soils. In acidified
lakes, the number of fish and amphibians declines due to
the reactions of aluminum ions with proteins in the gills
of fish and the embryos of frogs. Aluminum may also
accumulate in plants and cause health problems for ani-
mals that consume these plants. Aluminum has been used
extensively in foodstuffs, utensils and packaging. The
World Health Organization considered in 1986 that
humans consumed about 30 mg of Al/day on average,
through water, foods and drugs [3]. Aluminum enters the
blood and accumulates in tissues such as bone, liver and
the central nervous system [4]. When its concentration
reaches a threshold level in the human body, it is believed
to cause renal failure in patients undergoing treatment
with peritoneal dialysis and hemodialysis [5]. Also, it
affects the nervous system which yields to diseases such
as dementia and encephalopathy [5], Alzheimer [6] and
Parkinson [7]. Thus, the development of a method for the
accurate determination of trace amounts of aluminum in
different matrices is an important task.
Keywords Ion imprinted polymer ꢀ Aluminum ꢀ
Solid phase extraction ꢀ Fruit juices ꢀ Cow milk
Introduction
Various analytical techniques such as atomic absorp-
tion spectrometry, inductively coupled plasma-optical
emission spectrometry (ICP-OES) and spectrofluorimetry
have been used for the determination of Al(III) in envi-
ronmental samples [8–10]. Flame atomic absorption
spectroscopy (FAAS) is among the most attractive tech-
niques for the determination of metal ions due to its good
selectivity, low cost, operational facilities and high speed
of analyses [11]. However, FAAS lacks the sensitivity
necessary for direct determination of analyte at low levels.
Thus, a separation and preconcentration step is usually
During the last decades, aluminum and its distribution in
the environment has been the topic of attention of many
scientists. The concentrations of dissolved aluminum
species in most natural waters are below the ppb level due
to the relatively low solubility of aluminum minerals.
F. Shakerian ꢀ S. Dadfarnia (&) ꢀ A. M. H. Shabani
Department of Chemistry, Faculty of Science, Yazd University,
Yazd 89195-741, Iran
e-mail: sdadfarnia@yazduni.ac.ir
123

670
J IRAN CHEM SOC (2013) 10:669–676
Reagents
required before measurement [12, 13]. The most widely
used techniques for separation and preconcentration of
aluminum are liquid–liquid extraction (LLE) [14], ion
exchange [15], solid phase extraction (SPE) [16] and
cloud point extraction (CPE) [17]. Solid phase extraction
is one of the most effective preconcentration methods
because of its simplicity, rapidity, ability to attain a high
preconcentration factor, and its low cost from a labor and
solvent consumption standpoint [18, 19]. A variety of
solid materials such as titanium dioxide and L-methionine
immobilized on controlled pore glass has been used for
the preconcentration of aluminum in real samples [20,
21]. Currently, one of the most important focuses in
relation to studies on SPE is the use of new sorbents.
Among different sorbents used in SPE methods, IIPs are
more convenient and effective for the selective separation
and preconcentration of metal ions from real samples. In
IIP, the selectivity of the sorbent is due to the three
dimensional structure (3D) of the complex which is based
on the coordination geometry and coordination number of
the ions, and consequently is correlated to the charges and
sizes of the ions. Ion imprinted polymers have found
various application in the separation, preconcentration and
purification of metal ions [22–27]; but, only a few studies
concerning the synthesis and use of the IIP for selective
extraction of aluminum have been reported in the litera-
ture [28, 29].
All chemicals were of the highest purity available from
Merck Company (Darmstadt, Germany) and were used as
received, except otherwise stated. Double distilled deion-
ized water was used throughout the work. A stock solution
of 1,000 mg L-1 of aluminum was prepared by dissolving
appropriate amount of AlCl3 in water. Working solutions
were prepared daily from the stock solution by proper
dilution with distilled water. 2,20-Azobisisobutyronitrile
(AIBN) was obtained from ACROS (New Jersey, USA)
and was used without further purification.
Synthesis of Al(III)-ion imprinted polymer
Ion imprinted polymer (Fig. 1) was prepared by thermal
polymerization. The synthesis of the polymer was done in
two steps, i.e. first, the stoichiometric complex between
oxine and Al(III) was formed, and then monomer, cross-
linker initiator was added for polymerization. The binary
complex of imprinted ion Al(III) with 8-hydroxyquinoline
(oxine) was prepared by stirring 3 mmol of oxine dissolved
in 10 mL of 2-methoxy ethanol containing 1 mmol of
aluminum for 30 min. This binary complex solution was
then mixed with styrene (5 mmol) as the monomer and
ethylene glycol dimethacrylate (EGDMA) as the cross-
linker (20 mmol) in the presence of 50 mg of AIBN as the
initiator. The solution was stirred until it was homogenized.
Then, it was cooled to 0 °C, purged with N2 for 10 min,
sealed and thermally polymerized in a water bath; the
temperature was slowly raised from room temperature to
60 °C and was maintained at 60 °C for 24 h. The resulting
polymer material was then washed thoroughly with
deionized water, dried, ground and sieved to obtain alu-
minum IIP particles. The synthesized IIP particles were
then treated with 100 mL of HCl (50 % v/v) for 2 h and the
removal of aluminum ion was followed by FAAS. This
process was continued until no aluminum ion was detected.
The IIP particles were then washed thoroughly with water
and were dried in oven at 70 °C for further use. Control
polymer (CP) particles were prepared under similar
experimental conditions without the target ion.
In this study, a selective IIP based on the Al(III)–oxine
complex has been synthesized. The polymer was then used
as a sorbent for the solid phase extraction of aluminum ion
prior to its determination by FAAS. The factors affecting
the separation and preconcentration of aluminum were
optimized by the univariable method. Finally, the proce-
dure was applied to the determination of aluminum ions in
various matrices.
Experimental
Apparatus
An Analytik Jena flame atomic absorption spectrometer
(model novAAÒ300, Jena, Germany) with deuterium lamp
background correction was used for all absorption mea-
surements. Aluminum hollow cathode lamp (Analytik Jena,
Jena, Germany) and C2H2/N2O flame were used for all
measurements. The operating conditions were as follows:
wavelength (main line) 309.3 nm, slit width 1.2 nm, and
lamp current 6.0 mA. The pH measurements were carried
out by a Metrohm pH meter (model 691, Herisau, Swit-
zerland) using a combined glass calomel electrode. A Hei-
dolph heater-stirrer (model MR 3002, Germany) was used
for polymer synthesis and experiments.
Preparation of real samples
Water samples were filtered through 0.45 lm Millipore
filter. The pH of the 400 mL of water samples were
adjusted to *6 and the analyte was determined according
to the given procedure.
The processed fruit juices, which were preserved in alu-
minum containers, were obtained from supermarket and
were digested according to the given procedure in the liter-
ature [30], i.e. 400 mL of each fruit juice was placed in a
123

J IRAN CHEM SOC (2013) 10:669–676
671
Fig. 1 The schematic
representation of synthesis of
Al(III) imprinted polymer
O
2-methoxy ethanol
15 min
N
N
3
+
Al (III)
Al
O
O
N
N
OH
1) EGDMA, Styrene, AIBN
2) N2, 0 °C, 10 min
3) 60 °C, 24 hr
leaching
O
HO
N
N
N
O
N
Al
O
OH
N
HO
N
beaker and a mixture of 20 mL of the concentrated nitric acid
and 10 mL of the hydrogen peroxide (30 % w/v) was added.
The mixture was heated for 30 min at 100 °C. Then,
*10 mL of the concentrated perchloric acid was added and
the mixture was further heated at 150 °C with stirring, until
the solution became clear. The digested sample was then
diluted to 400 mL with water, the pH was adjusted to *6 and
the analyte was determined according to the given proce-
dure. The blank sample was carried out in the same way.
The cow milk was prepared according to the previously
given procedure [31] as follows: To 400 mL of homoge-
nized cow milk, 2 mL of concentrated nitric acid was
added, and the sample was centrifuged for few minutes.
Then, the supernatant solution was taken, the pH was
adjusted to *6 by ammonia solution and was analyzed
according to the given procedure.
solution was filtered; the pH was adjusted to *6 and was
diluted with water to 400 mL. The aluminum was then
determined according to the given procedure.
IIP solid phase extraction
The pH of 400 mL of standard or sample solution containing
not more than 0.12 mg of aluminum was adjusted to *6
using either 1 % nitric acid or ammonia solution. 0.25 g of
Al(III)-IIP was added to the solution and the mixture was
stirred for 30 min. The sorbent was then separated by filtra-
tion and sorbed aluminum was eluted upon addition of 2 mL
of HCl (3 mol L-1) to the loaded IIP and stirring the mixture
for 20 min. The IIP was then separated and the Al(III) ions in
the resulting solution was measured by FAAS.
An appropriate amount of the standard material EURO-
Analysenkontrollprobr 678-1 (supplied by MBH Analytical
Ltd) was weighed into a beaker, 7 mL concentrated nitric
acid was added and the mixture was heated to near boiling
point. Next, 3 mL of hydrogen peroxide was added, and the
excess amount of hydrogen peroxide was removed by
heating the mixture to near dryness. Then *10 mL of
double distilled water was added to the residue, and the
Results and discussion
Characterization studies
FT-IR spectra of oxine, unleached and leached Al(III)-IIP
were recorded using KBr pellet method. Both spectra of
pure oxine and Al(III)-IIP show the characteristics
123

672
J IRAN CHEM SOC (2013) 10:669–676
stretching vibration bonds of OH at 3,654.89 and
3,448.17 cm-1, respectively. The shifting of OH peak
toward lower wave number in case of Al(III)-IIP can be
due to the formation of the complex [32]. The weakening
and shift of OH-stretching in the unleached imprinted
polymer in comparison with the leached polymer is due to
the interaction of the deprotonated OH group of oxine with
Al(III). The other characteristic peaks for the unleached
and leached Al(III)-IIP are: aliphatic CH at 2,956.15 and
2,956.22 cm-1; C=O at 1,732.10 and 1,731.56 cm-1; C–O
at 1,158.61 and 1,156.85 cm-1 and C=N at 1,471.51 and
1,455.95 cm-1. Furthermore, the increase in the C=N bond
frequency and strength in the unleached polymer in com-
parison with leached polymer is also an indication of
complex formation between Al(III) and oxine.
the univariable method. The effect of the sample pH on the
retention of aluminum was studied by varying the pH
within the range of 1.5–12.5. The results of this study are
shown in Fig. 3 and revealed that the recovery of alumi-
num is maximum in the pH range of about 4.0–9.0. The
progressive decrease in aluminum absorption at lower pH
is due to the incomplete complex formation and its reten-
tion to the sorbent, while the decrease in the extraction
efficiency at pH C 9 is probably due to the precipitation of
aluminum as its hydroxide. An optimum pH of *6 was
selected for the subsequent studies.
The desorption of aluminum from the sorbent was
studied using 2.5 mL of different eluents including
hydrochloric acid (1.5 mol L-1), nitric acid (1.5 mol L-1),
sulfuric acid (1.5 mol L-1) and ethanol; the recovery was
found to be higher with hydrochloric acid. The concen-
tration of hydrochloric acid was then varied between 0.5
and 5 mol L-1; the recovery was found to increase with
hydrochloric acid concentration up to 3 mol L-1 and then
leveled off at higher concentration. Therefore, an optimum
concentration of 3 mol L-1 of hydrochloric acid was
employed in further experiments.
The surface morphology of the resulted Al(III)-IIP and
CP was characterized by scanning electron microscopy
(SEM). The respective micrographs are shown in Fig. 2.
The increase in roughness of the surface of imprinted
polymer after removal of Al(III) ions in comparison with
the surface of control polymer is an indication of the
increase in the surface area. Furthermore, the pore size of
the imprinted polymer is in the nano-range, corresponding
to the size of the aluminum ion.
Demonstration of the preconcentration capability of the
extraction system is an important aspect of the method
development. A decrease in the eluent volume will increase
the preconcentration factor, but it may reduce the recovery
of analyte from the sorbent. The effect of different volumes
(1, 2, 3 and 4 mL) of 3 mol L-1 hydrochloric acid as
eluent on the desorption of 20 lg of aluminum from the
Optimization of aluminum IIP-SPE
In order to establish the best conditions for the sorption and
desorption of aluminum, the procedure was optimized by
Fig. 2 Scanning electron microscopy images. a–c Ion imprinted polymer and d–f control polymer with different zoom (a, d 10 K; b, e 20 K;
c, f 40 K)
123

J IRAN CHEM SOC (2013) 10:669–676
673
100
75
50
25
0
100
75
50
25
0
0
200
400
600
800
1000
0
2
4
6
8
10
12
14
Volume of aqueous phase (mL)
pH
Fig. 4 Effect of the volume of aqueous phase on the recovery of
Al(III) from the sorbent. Conditions: pH *6, equilibrium time for
sorption, 30 min; desorption time, 20 min; eluent volume, 2 mL;
eluent concentration, 3 mol L-1; amount of sorbent, 0.25 g; amount
of aluminum, 20 lg
Fig. 3 Effect of the pH on the recovery of Al(III) from the sorbent.
conditions: equilibrium time for sorption, 30 min; desorption time,
30 min; eluent volume, 2.5 mL; eluent hydrochloric acid, 2.5 mol L-1
amount of sorbent, 0.20 g; aqueous phase volume, 200 mL; amount of
;
aluminum, 20 lg
extraction efficiency. For this purpose, the effect of various
cations and anions on the recovery of 20 lg of aluminum
from 400 mL of aqueous sample solution at an initial mole
ratio of 1,000 (ion/aluminum) was studied. When inter-
ference was observed, the concentration of the interfering
ion was lowered. A relative error of less than 5 % was
considered to be within the range of experimental error.
The results of these studies (Table 1) indicate that the
presence of high concentrations of the possible interfering
ions in the sample had no significant effect on the recovery
of aluminum at trace levels. Thus, the method offers a high
selectivity for aluminum ions.
sorbent was examined and it was found that 2 mL of eluent
is sufficient for the quantitative recovery of the analyte.
Another important factor influencing the extraction
efficiency and speed of analysis is extraction time. In order
to have a good precision, sensitivity and speed, it is nec-
essary to select an extraction time that guarantees the
achievement of equilibrium between the sample and the
sorbent. The effect of the extraction time on the uptake of
analyte was examined by varying the extraction time from
5 to 50 min at the constant experimental conditions. The
results indicated that the extraction was relatively fast and
after 30 min, the uptake of aluminum was independent of
the extraction time; thus, an optimum time of 30 min for
the extraction was selected. Furthermore, the effect of time
on desorption of analyte from the sorbent was studied by
varying the elution time between 5 and 50 min. It was
found that after 20 min, the absorbance signal of aluminum
was maximum and independent of the elution time.
Sorbent capacity
The capacity of the synthesized IIP for the retention of
aluminum was determined by adding 1.0 g of IIP particles
into 200 mL of the aluminum solution (50 mg L-1) under
the optimum conditions. After 30 min, the sorbent was
separated and the concentration of aluminum remained in
solution was determined by FAAS. The capacity of IIP for
aluminum was determined from the differences in the
amount of aluminum in the initial and final solutions. The
capacity of IIP for aluminum was found to be 3.1 mg g-1
of sorbent which indicates that the sorbent has high
capacity for aluminum ions.
In order to explore the possibility of the enrichment of
low concentration of aluminum from the large sample
volume, the effect of sample volume on the extraction of
20 lg of aluminum from different aqueous volumes
(50–800 mL) at optimum conditions was examined. The
sorbent was then separated and the retained analyte was
eluted with 2 mL of hydrochloric acid (3 mol L-1) and its
concentration was determined. The results (Fig. 4) showed
that the recovery was quantitative (C95 %) for up to
500 mL of aqueous phase. Thus, the method has the
capability of achieving high concentration factor for the
separation and determination of aluminum.
Analytical performance
Standard solutions of aluminum (400 mL) were processed
in the SPE system and the calibration graph exhibited
linearity over the range of 25–300 lg L-1 with a deter-
mination coefficient (R2) of 0.9995. The equation of cali-
bration graph was A = 9.73 9 10-4 C ? 0.01 where A is
the absorbance and C is the concentration of aluminum in
lg L-1. The enhancement and preconcentration factors
Interferences study
A possible concern was that whether high enrichment
factors could be realized for real samples where other
cations or anions might compete with analyte and lower the
123

674
J IRAN CHEM SOC (2013) 10:669–676
Table 1 Effect of diverse ions on the recovery of 20 lg aluminum
from 400 mL of sample solution
Table 2 Determination of aluminum in water samples
Sample
Al(III) (lg L-1
Added Founda
)
Recovery
(%)
ETAAS
(lg L-1 a
Diverse ions
Mole ratio ([ion]/[Al(III)])
Recovery (%)
)
Ni2?
Co2?
Ag?
Cd2?
Zn2?
Cu2?
Na?
Mg2?
Pb2?
K?
1,000
1,000
1,000
1,000
1,000
1,000
1,000
1,000
1,000
1,000
1,000
1,000
1,000
1,000
750
95.3 1.5
98.0 0.9
102.5 2.3
97.9 2.7
95.8 1.2
98.4 1.9
95.8 2.1
99.5 1.2
103.0 1.6
98.7 2.6
99.4 2.9
101.2 1.4
104.0 1.5
96.5 1.8
97.5 2.5
97.9 1.2
102.5 0.8
Tap water
0
20
0
39.3 1.2
–
38.1 1.6
59.0 0.9
ND
98.5
–
–
Rain water
–
50
0
49.7 0.5
78.6 0.7
97.9 1.5
53.2 1.3
73.5 0.7
ND
99.4
–
–
River water 1
River water 2
Spring water
76.9 2.2
20
0
96.5
–
–
53.7 1.9
20
0
101.5
–
–
–
50
0
48.5 0.4
85.6 0.8
97.0
–
–
Cl-
Br-
I-
Persian Gulf
water
83.4 2.5
–
20
106.5 1.5 104.5
a
2-
Mean and standard deviation of three independent analyses
CO3
Ca2?
2-
SO4
Fe3?
750
reference material (EURO-Analysenkontrollprobr 678-1,
with the percentage composition of: Si = 1.727 0.036,
Ti = 0.127 0.008, Al = 0.276 0.026, Mn = 0.075
0.005, Mg = 0.573 0.025, Ca = 3.921 0.092, Na =
0.107 0.010, K = 0.111 0.011, P = 1.608 0.039,
S = 0.021 0.002, V = 0.115 0.007, F = 0.289
0.019 and Fe = 60.75 0.07). The concentration of alu-
minum in the sample was found to be 0.271 0.011 %
which is in good agreement with the accepted value of
0.276 0.026 %; thus, the procedure is suitable for the
sample type examined.
500
defined as the ratio of the slope of calibration curves with
and without preconcentration and the ratio of the sample
volume to the eluent volume were found to be 194 and 200,
respectively. Thus, the extraction is quantitative and the
recovery is about 97 %. The relative standard deviation
(RSD) for seven replicate measurements at 125 lg L-1
level was 3.2 %. The limit of detection and quantification
defined as the 3 and 10 Sb/m (where Sb is the standard
deviation of the blank and m is the slope of calibration
curve) were 1.6 and 5.6 lg L-1, respectively. The sorbent
was reused in more than 20 cycles without significant
change in its properties.
Table 3 Determination of aluminum in fruit juices and cow milk
samples
Samples
Al(III) (lg L-1
)
Recovery
(%)
ETAAS
(lg L-1 a
Application
)
Added
Founda
The procedure was applied to the determination of aluminum
in tap water, rain water, well water, river water [taken from
(1) Zayandeh rood, Esfahan/Iran and (2) Karoon rood,
Ahvaz/Iran], sea water (Persian Gulf), fruit juice (apple,
cherry, peach and orange juice) and cow milk samples pre-
served in aluminum containers. Reliability of method was
checked by the recovery experiments and by comparing the
results with the data obtained by electrothermal atomic
absorption spectrometry. The results of this investigation are
given in Tables 2 and 3. It can be seen that the recovery of the
spiked samples is good, and at 95 % confidence level, there is
no significant difference between the results of this study and
the data obtained by electrothermal atomic absorption
spectrometry. Furthermore, the proposed procedure was
applied to the determination of aluminum in a certified
Cherry juice
Peach juice
Apple juice
Orange juice
0
50
0
42.0 0.8
90.5 1.2
35.2 0.9
84.3 0.7
40.7 1.1
89.1 0.9
31.5 1.5
82.2 1.2
47.9 0.6
96.6 0.8
42.5 1.7
93.5 1.5
–
41.5 1.7
97.0
–
–
35.9 1.1
50
0
98.2
–
–
39.5 1.5
50
0
96.8
–
–
31.0 0.9
50
0
101.4
–
–
Cow milk 1
(2.5 % fat)b
47.2 2.1
50
0
97.4
–
–
Cow milk 2
(2.5 % fat)b
41.8 1.5
–
50
102.0
a
Mean and standard deviation of three independent analyses
Homogenized and pasteurized cow milk from different brands
b
123

J IRAN CHEM SOC (2013) 10:669–676
675
Table 4 Comparison of SPE methods used for determination of aluminum
Sample type
Sorbent
Determination
technique
Sample
volume
(mL)
Sorbent
capacity
(mg g-1
Enrichment RSD References
factor
(%)
)
Mineral water and Glycerol-bonded silica gel
green tea
FAAS
1,000
750
0.4
500
150
2.2 [33]
Water, dialysis
fluids and red
wine
Pyrocatechol violet (PV)
immobilized on Amberlite
XAD-1180
ETAAS
6.45
\10
[34]
[16]
Soil extracts and
ground waters
Tiron modified resin
ECR
spectrophotometry
50
5.6
20
–
Water samples
Tea infusion
Nano-titanium dioxide
Ion-exchange resin
ET-AAS, ICP-OES
FAAS
100
25
4.1
–
20
–
\5
\5
–
[21]
[15]
[29]
Aqueous solutions Ion imprinted polymer
Spectrofluorometer
ICP-OES
50
3.3
–
–
Water,
wastewater,
urine
Ion imprinted polymer
250
–
6.5 [35]
Natural waters,
fruit juices and
milk
Ion imprinted polymer
FAAS
400
3.1
194
3.2 This work
Comparison of the proposed method with other SPE
methods
References
1. K. Pyrazynaska, S. Gucer, E. Bulska, Water Res. 34, 359 (2000)
2. T.N. Shilimkar, S.S. Kolekar, M.A. Anuse, Sep. Purif. Technol.
42, 55 (2005)
3. R. Karbouj, I. Desloges, P. Nortier, Food Chem. Toxicol. 47, 571
(2009)
4. D.G. Themelis, F.S. Kika, J. Pharm. Biomed. Anal. 41, 1179
(2006)
5. A.C. Alfrey, Adv. Clin. Chem. 23, 69 (1983)
6. C.N. Martyn, D.J. Barker, C. Osmond, E.C. Harris, J.A. Edwardson,
R.F. Lacey, Lancet 1, 59 (1989)
7. D. Krewski, R.A. Yokel, E. Nieboer, D. Borchelt, J. Cohen, J.
Harry, S. Kacew, J. Lindsay, A.M. Mahfouz, V. Rondeau, J.
Toxicol. Environ. Health B Crit. Rev. 10, 1 (2007)
8. S. Khan, T.G. Kazi, J.A. Baig, N.F. Kolachi, H.I. Afridi, A.Q.
Shah, G.A. Kandhro, S. Kumar, Talanta 80, 158 (2009)
9. A. Sanz-Medel, A.B.S. Cabezuelo, R. Milacic, T.B. Polak,
Coord. Chem. Rev. 228, 373 (2002)
The figures of merit of the proposed method were com-
pared with some reported SPE methods for the separation
and preconcentration of aluminum prior to its determina-
tion. The results are summarized in Table 4. As can be
seen, the enrichment factor of the proposed method is
comparable with the previously reported methods and the
method is applicable for determination of aluminum in a
wider range of matrices. Furthermore, the capacity of the
prepared IIP is comparable to the previously synthesized
IIP for Al(III) [31]. It should also be noted that although the
capacity of IIP sorbents are lower than some of the other
sorbents, they are more specific.
10. B. Bocca, A. Alimonti, F. Petrucci, N. Violante, G. Sancesario,
G. Forte, O. Senofonte, Spectrochim. Acta Part B 59, 559 (2004)
11. F. Shakerian, S. Dadfarnia, A.M. Haji Shabani, M. Rohani,
Talanta 77, 551 (2008)
Conclusions
12. G. Khayatian, S. Hassanpoor, J. Iran. Chem. Soc. (2012). doi:
10.1007/s13738-012-0131-2
13. E.K. Paleologos, C.D. Stalikas, M.I. Karayannis, Analyst 126,
389 (2001)
14. D. Mohapatra, K. Hong-In, C.W. Nam, K.H. Park, Sep. Purif.
Technol. 56, 311 (2007)
15. S.B. Erdemoglu, K. Pyrzyniska, S. Gucer, Anal. Chim. Acta 411,
81 (2000)
16. M. Luo, S. Bi, J. Inorg. Biochem. 97, 173 (2003)
17. A.B. Tabrizi, Food Chem. 100, 1698 (2007)
18. N. Pourreza, A. Mouradzadegun, S. Mohammadi, J. Iran. Chem.
Soc. 8, 951 (2011)
19. M. Jamshidi, M. Ghaedi, K. Mortazavi, M. NejatiBiareh, M.
Soylak, Food Chem. Toxicol. 49, 1229 (2011)
20. P.H. Pacheco, R.A. Gil, P. Smichowski, G. Polla, L.D. Martinez,
Microchem. J. 89, 1 (2008)
It has been demonstrated that the synthesized aluminum IIP
adsorbed the corresponding guest Al(III) ions more effec-
tively than did the control polymer. The cross-linked
imprinted polymer has good chemical and physical stabil-
ity and can be used repetitively in more than 20 cycles
without significant change in properties. The Al(III)-IIP
showed good selectivity for Al(III) ions even in the pres-
ence of complex matrices, such as sea water, milk and fruit
juices. The procedure is simple, reproducible, and less
susceptible to contamination and offers an alternative
procedure to sensitive techniques such as electrothermal
atomic absorption spectrometry for the determination of
aluminum at trace levels.
123

676
J IRAN CHEM SOC (2013) 10:669–676
21. P. Matus, I. Hagarova, M. Bujdos, P. Divis, J. Kubova, J. Inorg.
Biochem. 103, 1473 (2009)
29. M. Andac, E. Ozyapi, S. Senel, R. Say, A. Denizli, Eng. Chem.
Res. 45, 1780 (2006)
22. S. Dai, M.C. Burleigh, Y.H. Ju, H.J. Gao, J.S. Lin, S.J. Penny-
cook, C.E. Barnes, Z.L. Xue, J. Am. Chem. Soc. 122, 992 (2000)
23. L. Ye, K. Mosbach, J. Am. Chem. Soc. 123, 2901 (2001)
24. A. Ersoz, A. Denizli, A. Ozcan, R. Say, Biosens. Bioelectron. 20,
2197 (2005)
30. M. Yaman, Mikrochim. Acta 129, 115 (1998)
31. F. Shakerian, S. Dadfarnia, A.M. Haji Shabani, J. Iran. Chem.
Soc. 6, 594 (2009)
32. P.S. Kalsi, Spectroscopy of Organic Compounds, 6th edn. (New
Age International (P) Ltd. Publishers, New Delhi, 2004)
33. A. Safavi, S. Momeni, N. Saghir, J. Hazard. Mater. 162, 333
(2009)
25. F. Shakerian, S. Dadfarnia, A.M. Haji Shabani, Food Chem. 134,
488 (2012)
26. M.H. Arbab-Zavar, M. Chamsaz, G. Zohuri, A. Darroudi, J.
Hazard. Mater. 185, 38 (2011)
27. M. Shamsipur, A. Besharati-Seidani, React. Funct. Polym. 71,
131 (2011)
34. I. Narin, M. Tuzen, M. Soylak, Talanta 63, 411 (2004)
35. M. Khajeh, M. Bohlooli, H. Hashemi, J. Macromol. Sci. Part A
Pure Appl. Chem. 46, 526 (2009)
28. S.M. Ng, R. Narayanaswamy, Anal. Bioanal. Chem. 386, 1235
(2006)
123