Skip to main content
. 2024 Mar 30;18(1):63. doi: 10.1186/s13065-024-01171-w

Table 2.

Comparison of the figures of merit of the developed methods with different sorbents reported in the literature

Matrix Extraction method/Instrument used Adsorbent Adsorption capacity (mg of Pd2+ ions/g of the adsorbent) EF LOD
(µg/L)
Linear range
(µg/L)
RSD (%) Ref.
Water SPE/UV1 UiO-66-Pyta2 294.1 NM3 1.9 NM 1.7 [50]
Sulfide ores SPE/FIA-FAAS4 SSPS5 NM NM 5.0 NM 0.7 [51]
Road dust MSPE/FAAS6 MGOSDN7 41.4 250 0.0012 0.003-2.5 2.2 [52]
Soil D-µ-MSPE/FAAS8 MN-SDS/5-Br-PDA9 NM NM 0.12 NM 1.8 [53]
Water and wastewater SPE/UV Fe3O4@SiO2@-MIP-202 194.52 245 1.05 10.00-1500.00 1.8 This work

1SPE/UV: Solid-phase extraction/spectrophotometer; 2Pyta: Pyridyltriazol; 3NM: not mentioned; 4SPE/FIA-FAAS: Solid-phase extraction/flow injection analysis-flame atomic absorption spectrometry; 5SSPS: 4-(n-octyl)diethylenetriamine and hyper cross-linked polystyrene; 6MSPE/FAAS: Magnetic solid phase extraction/flame atomic absorption spectrometry; 7MGOSDN: Magnetic graphene oxide silicon dioxide nanocomposite; 8D-µ-MSPE/FAAS: Dispersive micro magnetic solid phase extraction/flame atomic absorption spectrometry; 9MN-SDS/5-Br-PDA: Magnetic nanoparticles coated by sodium dodecyl sulfate and 2-(5-bromo-2-pyridylazo)-5-diethyl aminophenol ligand