## 3 Results and Discussion
### Interference Investigations and Analytical Merits for the Application of the Fabricated SSC-MOFs
\begin{table}
\begin{tabular}{c c c c} \hline \hline \multirow{2}{*}{**Interfering Ions**} & \multirow{2}{*}{**Added as**} & \multicolumn{2}{c}{**Concentration**} & \multirow{2}{*}{**Recovery\%**} \\  & & & **(mg-L\({}^{-1}\))** & \\ \hline \hline \(\text{NO}_{3}\text{${}^{-}$}\) & Al(\(\text{NO}_{3}\))\({}_{3}\) & 500 & 98.2 \(\pm\) 0.1 \\ \hline \(\text{Cl}\text{${}^{-}$}\) & KCl & 1500 & 99.5 \(\pm\) 0.5 \\ \hline \(\text{F}\text{${}^{-}$}\) & NaF & 400 & 94.2 \(\pm\) 1.1 \\ \hline \(\text{CO}_{3}\text{${}^{2-}$}\) & Na\({}_{2}\)CO\({}_{3}\) & 500 & 96.0 \(\pm\) 0.6 \\ \hline \(\text{SO}_{4}\text{${}^{2-}$}\) & Na\({}_{2}\)SO\({}_{4}\) & 800 & 92.9 \(\pm\) 0.9 \\ \hline \(\text{K}\text{${}^{*}$}\) & KCl & 1000 & 93.3 \(\pm\) 1.0 \\ \hline \(\text{Mg}\text{${}^{2+}$}\) & MgCl\({}_{2}\) & 800 & 100.0 \(\pm\) 0.2 \\ \hline \(\text{Ca}\text{${}^{2+}$}\) & CaCl\({}_{2}\) & 500 & 99.5 \(\pm\) 0.1 \\ \hline \(\text{Na}\text{${}^{+}$}\) & Na\({}_{3}\)PO\({}_{4}\) & 5000 & 94.2 \(\pm\) 0.8 \\ \hline \(\text{Fe}\text{${}^{3+}$}\) & Fe(\(\text{NO}_{3}\))\({}_{3}\) & 15 & 96.0 \(\pm\) 0.2.3 \\ \hline \(\text{Zn}\text{${}^{2+}$}\) & Ni(\(\text{NO}_{3}\))\({}_{2}\) & 20 & 93.3 \(\pm\) 0.5 \\ \hline \(\text{Cd}\text{${}^{2+}$}\) & Cd(\(\text{NO}_{3}\))\({}_{2}\) & 10 & 91.1 \(\pm\) 0.9 \\ \hline \(\text{Pb}\text{${}^{2+}$}\) & Pb(\(\text{NO}_{3}\))\({}_{2}\) & 10 & 95.6 \(\pm\) 0.5 \\ \hline \(\text{Ni}\text{${}^{2+}$}\) & Ni(\(\text{NO}_{3}\))\({}_{2}\) & 10 & 97.0 \(\pm\) 1.5 \\ \hline \(\text{Cu}\text{${}^{2+}$}\) & Cu(\(\text{NO}_{3}\))\({}_{2}\) & 20 & 97.8 \(\pm\) 1.1 \\ \hline \hline \end{tabular}
\end{table} 
Table 1: An evaluation of the ions interfering effect on the recovery%. \begin{table}
\begin{tabular}{c c c c c c c c} \hline \hline \multirow{2}{*}{\ \begin{tabular}{c} **Intra-Day Validation** \\ \end{tabular}  } & \multicolumn{6}{c}{**Inter-Day Validation**} \\ \cline{2-9}  & & \multicolumn{2}{c}{**First Day**} & \multicolumn{2}{c}{**Second Day**} & \multicolumn{2}{c}{**Third Day**} \\ \cline{2-9}  & & & & & & & & \\ \cline{2-9} \multirow{2}{*}{ \begin{tabular}{c} **Concentration** \\ **of Standard** \\ **Solution** \\ **(mg-L\({}^{-1}\))** \\ \end{tabular}  } & \multirow{2}{*}{**Concentration**} & \multirow{2}{*}{**Concentration**} & \multirow{2}{*}{**Concentration**} & \multirow{2}{*}{**Concentration**} & \multirow{2}{*}{**Concentration**} & \multirow{2}{*}{**Concentration**} & \multirow{2}{*}{**Concentration**} & \multirow{2}{*}{**Concentration**} & \multirow{2}{*}{**Concentration**} \\  & & & & & & & & \\ \hline
0.01 & 0.0100 & 1.59 & 0.0099 & 1.91 & 0.0101 & 2.22 & 0.0099 & 2.46 \\ \hline
0.03 & 0.0300 & 1.38 & 0.0299 & 1.92 & 0.0300 & 2.47 & 0.0299 & 2.56 \\ \hline
0.05 & 0.0499 & 2.32 & 0.0495 & 1.97 & 0.0497 & 2.14 & 0.0499 & 2.92 \\ \hline \in the range between 92 and 100 for all the tested samples. The effective application of the developed microextraction procedures with the successful recovery of arsenic(III) from food extracts and water samples make them suitable for arsenic(III)-monitoring service applications in a broad range of environmental samples. However, in this study, the arsenic(III) concentration in most of the food samples was within the limits permitted by the FAO and the WHO, and some previous investigations reported arsenic(III) contamination in various environmental samples from the Kingdom of Saudi Arabia [82, 83, 84, 85, 86].