Recent developments in dispersive liquid–liquid microextraction

During the past 7 years and since the introduction of dispersive liquid–liquid microextraction (DLLME), the method has gained widespread acceptance as a simple, fast, and miniaturized sample preparation technique. Owing to its simplicity of operation, rapidity, low cost, high recovery, and low consumption of organic solvents and reagents, it has been applied for determination of a vast variety of organic and inorganic compounds in different matrices. This review summarizes the DLLME principles, historical developments, and various modes of the technique, recent trends, and selected applications. The main focus is on recent technological advances and important applications of DLLME. In this review, six important aspects in the development of DLLME are discussed: (1) the type of extraction solvent, (2) the type of disperser solvent, (3) combination of DLLME with other extraction methods, (4) automation of DLLME, (5) derivatization reactions in DLLME, and (6) the application of DLLME for metal analysis. Literature published from 2010 to April 2013 is covered.     

Circulation microchannel for liquid–liquid microextraction

A new method has been developed for liquid–liquid microextraction utilizing a circulation microchannel. A glass microchemical chip having a circular shallow microchannel in contact with a surrounding deeper microchannel was fabricated by a two-step photolithographic wet-etching technique. Surface modification reagent was selectively introduced to the shallow channel by utilizing capillary force, and the surface of the shallow channel was selectively made hydrophobic. With the aid of the hydrophobic/hydrophilic surface patterning, it was possible to keep organic solvent in the circular channel while the aqueous sample solution was continuously flowing in the deep channel. As a result, concentration extraction from sample solution to stationary extractant with a nanoliter scale volume became possible. Concentration extraction has been difficult in a multiphase continuous flow. Function of the newly developed microextraction system was verified with methyl red as a test sample, and concentration extraction to reach equilibrium was successfully carried out. A novel surface modification method utilizing frozen liquid as a masking material was also developed as a reverse process to make the shallow channel hydrophilic and the deep channel hydrophobic. Visualization of circulation motion inside the circular shallow channel induced by flow in the deep channel was observed with a particle tracing method.     

Extraction of pesticides in water samples using vortex-assisted liquid–liquid microextraction

A simple solvent microextraction method termed vortex-assisted liquid–liquid microextraction (VALLME) coupled with gas chromatography micro electron-capture detector (GC-μECD) has been developed and used for the pesticide residue analysis in water samples. In the VALLME method, aliquots of 30 μL toluene used as extraction solvent were directly injected into a 25 mL volumetric flask containing the water sample. The extraction solvent was dispersed into the water phase under vigorously shaking with the vortex. The parameters affecting the extraction efficiency of the proposed VALLME such as extraction solvent, vortex time, volumes of extraction solvent and salt addition were investigated. Under the optimum condition, enrichment factors (EFs) in a range of 835–1115 and limits of detection below 0.010 μg L⁻¹ were obtained for the determination of target pesticides in water. The calculated calibration curves provide high levels of linearity yielding correlation coefficients (r²) greater than 0.9958 with the concentration level ranged from 0.05 to 2.5 μg L⁻¹. Finally, the proposed method has been successfully applied to the determination of pesticides from real water samples and acceptable recoveries over the range of 72–106.3% were obtained.     

Determination of triazines in honey by dispersive liquid–liquid microextraction high-performance liquid chromatography

Dispersive liquid–liquid microextraction (DLLME) high-performance liquid chromatography (HPLC) was developed for extraction and determination of triazines from honey. A room temperature ionic liquid, 1-hexyl-3-methylimidazolium hexafluorophosphate [C₆MIM][PF_6.], was used as extraction solvent and Triton X 114 was used as dispersant. A mixture of 175 μL [C₆MIM][PF₆] and 50 μL 10% Triton X 114 was rapidly injected into the 20 mL honey sample by syringe. After extraction, phase separation was performed by centrifugation and the sedimented phase was analyzed by HPLC. Some experimental parameters, such as type and volume of extraction solvent, concentration of dispersant, pH value of sample solution, salt concentration and extraction time were investigated and optimized. The detection limits for chlortoluron, prometon, propazine, linuron and prebane are 6.92, 5.84, 8.55, 8.59 and 5.31 μg kg⁻¹, respectively. The main advantages of the proposed method are simplicity of operation, low cost, high enrichment factor and extraction solvent volume at microliter level. Honey samples were analyzed by the proposed method and obtained results indicated that the proposed method provides acceptable recoveries and precisions.     

Dispersive liquid–liquid microextraction in food analysis. A critical review

An extensive critical evaluation of the application of dispersive liquid–liquid microextraction (DLLME) combined with chromatographic and atomic-spectroscopic methods for the determination of organic and inorganic compounds is presented. The review emphasizes the procedures used for the prior treatment of food samples, which are very different from the DLLME procedures generally proposed for water samples. The main contribution of this work in the field of DLLME reviews is its critical review of the abundant literature showing the increasing interest and practical advantages of using DLLME and closely related microextraction techniques for food analysis.     

Evolution of dispersive liquid–liquid microextraction method

Dispersive liquid–liquid microextraction (DLLME) has become a very popular environmentally benign sample-preparation technique, because it is fast, inexpensive, easy to operate with a high enrichment factor and consumes low volume of organic solvent. DLLME is a modified solvent extraction method in which acceptor-to-donor phase ratio is greatly reduced compared with other methods. In this review, in order to encourage further development of DLLME, its combination with different analytical techniques such as gas chromatography (GC), high-performance liquid chromatography (HPLC), inductively coupled plasma-optical emission spectrometry (ICP-OES) and electrothermal atomic absorption spectrometry (ET AAS) will be discussed. Also, its applications in conjunction with different extraction techniques such as solid-phase extraction (SPE), solidification of floating organic drop (SFO) and supercritical fluid extraction (SFE) are summarized. This review focuses on the extra steps in sample preparation for application of DLLME in different matrixes such as food, biological fluids and solid samples. Further, the recent developments in DLLME are presented. DLLME does have some limitations, which will also be discussed in detail. Finally, an outlook on the future of the technique will be given.     

Dispersive liquid–liquid microextraction coupled to liquid chromatography for thiamine determination in foods

A miniaturized dispersive liquid–liquid microextraction (DLLME) procedure coupled to liquid chromatography (LC) with fluorimetric detection was evaluated for the preconcentration and determination of thiamine (vitamin B₁). Derivatization was carried out by chemical oxidation of thiamine with 5 × 10⁻⁵ M ferricyanide at pH 13 to form fluorescent thiochrome. For DLLME, 0.5 mL of acetonitrile (dispersing solvent) containing 90 μL of tetrachloroethane (extraction solvent) was rapidly injected into 10 mL of sample solution containing the derivatized thiochrome and 24% (w/v) sodium chloride, thereby forming a cloudy solution. Phase separation was carried out by centrifugation, and a volume of 20 μL of the sedimented phase was submitted to LC. The mobile phase was a mixture of a 90% (v/v) 10 mM KH₂PO₄ (pH 7) solution and 10% (v/v) acetonitrile at 1 mL min⁻¹. An amide-based stationary phase involving a ligand with amide groups and the endcapping of trimethylsilyl was used. Specificity, linearity, precision, recovery, and sensitivity were satisfactory. Calibration graph was carried out by the standard additions method and was linear between 1 and 10 ng mL⁻¹. The detection limit was 0.09 ng mL⁻¹. The selectivity of the method was judged from the absence of interfering peaks at the thiamine elution time for blank chromatograms of unspiked samples. A relative standard deviation of 3.2% was obtained for a standard solution containing thiamine at 5 ng mL⁻¹. The esters thiamine monophosphate and thiamine pyrophosphate can also be determined by submitting the sample to successive acid and enzymatic treatments. The method was applied to the determination of thiamine in different foods such as beer, brewer’s yeast, honey, and baby foods including infant formulas, fermented milk, cereals, and purees. For the analysis of solid samples, a previous extraction step was applied based on an acid hydrolysis with trichloroacetic acid. The reliability of the procedure was checked by analyzing a certified reference material, pig’s liver (CRM 487). The value obtained was 8.76 ± 0.2 μg g⁻¹ thiamine, which is in excellent agreement with the certified value, 8.6 ± 1.1 μg g⁻¹.     

Determination of priority pollutants in aqueous samples by dispersive liquid–liquid microextraction

A dispersive liquid–liquid microextraction (DLLME) method followed by high-performance liquid chromatography–triple quadrupole mass spectrometry has been developed for the simultaneous determination of linear alkylbenzene sulfonates (LAS C₁₀, C₁₁, C₁₂, and C₁₃), nonylphenol (NP), nonylphenol mono- and diethoxylates (NP₁EO and NP₂EO), and di-(2-ethylhexyl)phthalate (DEHP). The applicability of the method has been tested by the determination of the above mentioned organic pollutants in tap water and wastewater. Several parameters affecting DLLME, such as, the type and volume of the extraction and disperser solvents, sample pH, ionic strength and number of extractions, have been evaluated. Methanol (1.5 mL) was selected among the six disperser solvent tested. Dichlorobenzene (50 μL) was selected among the four extraction solvent tested. Enrichment factor achieved was 80. Linear ranges in samples were 0.01–3.42 μg L⁻¹ for LAS C₁₀–₁₃ and NP₂EO, 0.09–5.17 μg L⁻¹ for NP₁EO, 0.17–9.19 μg L⁻¹ for NP and 0.40–17.9 μg L⁻¹ for DEHP. Coefficients of correlation were higher than 0.997. Limits of quantitation in tap water and wastewater were in the ranges 0.009–0.019 μg L⁻¹ for LAS, 0.009–0.091 μg L⁻¹ for NP, NP₁EO and NP₂EO and 0.201–0.224 μg L⁻¹ for DEHP. Extraction recoveries were in the range from 57 to 80%, except for LAS C₁₀ (30–36%). The method was successfully applied to the determination of these pollutants in tap water and effluent wastewater from Seville (South of Spain). The DLLME method developed is fast, easy to perform, requires low solvent volumes and allows the determination of the priority hazardous substances NP and DEHP (Directive 2008/105/EC).     

One-step in-syringe ionic liquid-based dispersive liquid–liquid microextraction

Dispersive liquid–liquid microextraction (DLLME) has been proved to be a powerful tool for the rapid sample treatment of liquid samples providing at the same time high enrichment factors and extraction recoveries. A new, simple and easy to handle one step in-syringe set-up for DLLME is presented and critically discussed in this paper. The novel approach avoids the centrifugation step, typically off-line and time consuming, opening-up a new horizon on DLLME automation. The suitability of the proposal is evaluated by means of the determination of non-steroidal anti-inflammatory drugs in urine by liquid chromatography/ultraviolet detection. In the presented approach an ionic liquid is used as extractant. The target drugs can be determined in urine within the concentration range 0.02–10 μg mL⁻¹, allowing their determination at therapeutic and toxic levels. Limits of detection were in the range from 8.3 ng mL⁻¹ (indomethacin) to 32 ng mL⁻¹ (ketoprofen). The repeatability of the proposed method expressed as RSD (n = 5) varied between 2.5% (for ketoprofen) and 8.6% (for indomethacin).     

Determination of four heterocyclic insecticides by ionic liquid dispersive liquid–liquid microextraction in water samples

A novel microextraction method termed ionic liquid dispersive liquid–liquid microextraction (IL-DLLME) combining high-performance liquid chromatography with diode array detection (HPLC-DAD) was developed for the determination of insecticides in water samples. Four heterocyclic insecticides (fipronil, chlorfenapyr, buprofezin, and hexythiazox) were selected as the model compounds for validating this new method. This technique combines extraction and concentration of the analytes into one step, and the ionic liquid was used instead of a volatile organic solvent as the extraction solvent. Several important parameters influencing the IL-DLLME extraction efficiency such as the volume of extraction solvent, the type and volume of disperser solvent, extraction time, centrifugation time, salt effect as well as acid addition were investigated. Under the optimized conditions, good enrichment factors (209–276) and accepted recoveries (79–110%) were obtained for the extraction of the target analytes in water samples. The calibration curves were linear with correlation coefficient ranged from 0.9947 to 0.9973 in the concentration level of 2–100 μg/L, and the relative standard deviations (RSDs, n = 5) were 4.5–10.7%. The limits of detection for the four insecticides were 0.53–1.28 μg/L at a signal-to-noise ratio (S/N) of 3.     

Dispersive liquid–liquid–liquid microextraction combined with liquid chromatography for the determination of chlorophenoxy acid herbicides in aqueous samples

A novel sample preparation method “Dispersive liquid–liquid–liquid microextraction” (DLLLME) was developed in this study. DLLLME was combined with liquid chromatography system to determine chlorophenoxy acid herbicide in aqueous samples. DLLLME is a rapid and environmentally friendly sample pretreatment method. In this study, 25 μL of 1,1,2,2-tetrachloroethane was added to the sample solution and the targeted analytes were extracted from the donor phase by manually shaking for 90 s. The organic phase was separated from the donor phase by centrifugation and was transferred into an insert. Acceptor phase was added to this insert. The analytes were then back-extracted into the acceptor phase by mixing the organic and acceptor phases by pumping those two solutions with a syringe plunger. After centrifugation, the organic phase was settled and removed with a microsyringe. The acceptor phase was injected into the UPLC system by auto sampler. Fine droplets were formed by shaking and pumping with the syringe plunger in DLLLME. The large interfacial area provided good extraction efficiency and shortened the extraction time needed. Conventional LLLME requires an extraction time of 40–60 min; an extraction time of approximately 2 min is sufficient with DLLLME. The DLLLME technique shows good linearity (r² ≥ 0.999), good repeatability (RSD: 4.0–12.2% for tap water; 5.7–8.5% for river water) and high sensitivity (LODs: 0.10–0.60 μg/L for tap water; 0.11–0.95 μg/L for river water).     

TXRF determination of mercury(II) in water in combination with liquid–liquid microextraction

A highly selective hybrid way of TXRF determination of mercury(II) in drinking water at the level of n(10^–2–10⁰) μg/L is developed. The technique of preconcentration of mercury(II) ions includes directly suspended droplet microextraction with benzene in the form of an iodide molecular complex. The proposed method of determination is characterized by its high degree of sensitivity and reproducibility (c _min = 8 ng/L, s _r = 0.12 (100 ng/L)). The accuracy of the analysis results is confirmed by the introduced–found method.     

Comparison of dispersive liquid–liquid microextraction and hollow fiber liquid–liquid–liquid microextraction for the determination of fentanyl,alfentanil, and sufentanil in water and biological fluids by high-performance liquid chromatography

Dispersive liquid–liquid microextraction (DLLME) and hollow fiber liquid–liquid–liquid microextraction (HF-LLLME) combined with HPLC–DAD have been applied for the determination of three narcotic drugs (alfentanil, fentanyl, and sufentanil) in biological samples (human plasma and urine). Different DLLME parameters influencing the extraction efficiency such as type and volume of the extraction solvent and the disperser solvent, concentration of NaOH, and salt addition were investigated. In the HF-LLLME, the effects of important parameters including organic solvent type, concentration of NaOH as donor solution, concentration of H₂SO₄ as acceptor phase, salt addition, stirring rate, temperature, and extraction time were investigated and optimized. The results showed that both extraction methods exhibited good linearity, precision, enrichment factor, and detection limit. Under optimal condition, the limits of detection ranged from 0.4 to 1.9 μg/L and from 1.1 to 2.3 μg/L for DLLME and HF-LLLME, respectively. For DLLME, the intra- and inter-day precisions were 1.7–6.4% and 14.2–15.9%, respectively; and for HF-LLLME were 0.7–5.2% and 3.3–10.1%, respectively. The enrichment factors were from 275 to 325 and 190 to 237 for DLLME and HF-LLLME, respectively. The applicability of the proposed methods was investigated by analyzing biological samples. For analysis of human plasma and urine samples, HF-LLLME showed higher precision, more effective sample clean-up, higher extraction efficiency, lower organic solvent consumption than DLLME.     

Determination of tetramethrin in water by liquid microextraction–capillary electrophoresis

1. Download : Download full-size image

     

Determination of non-steroidal anti-inflammatory drugs in urine by the combination of stir membrane liquid–liquid–liquid microextraction and liquid chromatography

A stir membrane liquid phase microextraction procedure working under the three-phase mode is proposed for the first time for the determination of six anti-inflammatory drugs in human urine. The target compounds are isolated and preconcentrated using a special device that integrates the extractant and the stirring element. An alkaline aqueous solution is used as extractant phase while 1-octanol is selected as supported liquid membrane solvent. After the extraction, all the analytes are determined by liquid chromatography (LC) with ultraviolet detection (UV). The analytical method is optimized considering the main involved variables (e.g., pH of donor and acceptor phases, extraction time, stirring rate) and the results indicate that the determination of anti-inflammatory drugs at therapeutic and toxic levels is completely feasible. The limits of detection are in the range from 12.6 (indomethacin) to 30.7 μg/L (naproxen). The repeatability of the method, expressed as relative standard deviation (RSD, n = 5) varies between 3.4% (flurbiprofen) and 5.7% (ketoprofen), while the enrichment factors are in the range from 35.0 (naproxen) to 72.5 (indomethacin).     

Optimization of parameters for the alcoholic-assisted dispersive liquid–liquid microextraction of estrogens in water

Extraction and determination of estrogens in water samples were performed using alcoholic-assisted dispersive liquid–liquid microextraction (AA-DLLME) and high-performance liquid chromatography (UV/Vis detection). A Plackett–Burman design and a central composite design were applied to evaluate the AA-DLLME procedure. The effect of six parameters on extraction efficiency was investigated. The factors studied were volume of extraction and dispersive solvents, extraction time, pH, amount of salt and agitation rate. According to Plackett–Burman design results, the effective parameters were volume of extraction solvent and pH. Next, a central composite design was applied to obtain optimal condition. The optimized conditions were obtained at 220 μL 1-octanol as extraction solvent, 700 μL ethanol as dispersive solvent, pH 6 and 200 μL sample volume. Linearity was observed in the range of 1–500 μg L^?1 for E2 and 0.1–100 μg L^?1 for E1. Limits of detection were 0.1 μg L^?1 for E2 and 0.01 μg L^?1 for E1. The enrichment factors and extraction recoveries were 42.2, 46.4 and 80.4, 86.7, respectively. The relative standard deviations for determination of estrogens in water were in the range of 3.9–7.2 % (n = 3). The developed method was successfully applied for the determination of estrogens in environmental water samples.     

Ultrasound-assisted dispersive liquid–liquid microextraction for the determination of six pyrethroids in river water

A simple ultrasound-assisted dispersive liquid–liquid microextraction method combined with liquid chromatography was developed for the preconcentration and determination of six pyrethroids in river water samples. The procedure was based on a ternary solvent system to formatting tiny droplets of extractant in sample solution by dissolving appropriate amounts of water-immiscible extractant (tetrachloromethane) in watermiscible dispersive solvent (acetone). Various parameters that affected the extraction efficiency (such as type and volume of extraction and dispersive solvent, extraction time, ultrasonic time, and centrifuging time) were evaluated. Under the optimum condition, good linearity was obtained in a range of 0.00059–1.52 mg L⁻¹ for all analytes with the correlation coefficient (r²) > 0.999. Intra-assay and inter-assay precision evaluated as the relative standard deviation (RSD) were less than 3.4 and 8.9%. The recoveries of six pyrethroids at three spiked levels were in the range of 86.2–109.3% with RSD of less than 8.7%. The enrichment factors for the six pyrethroids were ranged from 767 to 1033 folds.     

Dispersive liquid–liquid microextraction using a surfactant as disperser agent

A novel and efficient surfactant-assisted dispersive liquid–liquid microextraction combined with high-performance liquid chromatography–photodiode array detection was developed for the determination of phenylurea herbicides in water samples. Based on this procedure, which is a dispersive-solvent-free technique, the extractant is dispersed in the aqueous sample using methyltrialkylammonium chloride. Compared with the conventional dispersive liquid–liquid microextraction, the new extraction method has many advantages such as higher extraction efficiency, low cost, reduced environmental hazards, and consumption of less extracting solvent. A few microliters of chloroform containing an appropriate amount of methyltrialkylammonium chloride (mixture of C8–C10) was used to extract the analytes from water samples. The main parameters relevant to the extraction process (namely, type of surfactant, selection of extractant solvent, extractant volume, surfactant concentration, ionic strength, and extraction time) were investigated. The performed analytical procedure showed limits of detection ranging from 2.3 to 18 ng/L, and precision ranges from 0.6% to 2.0% (as intra-day relative standard deviation, RSD) and from 1.3% to 8.3% (as inter-day RSD) depending on the analyte. The method showed good linearity between 0.04 and 40 μg/L with squared correlation coefficients better than 0.9920. This newly established approach was successfully applied to spiked real water samples.     

Direct determination of chlorophenols in water samples through ultrasound-assisted hollow fiber liquid–liquid–liquid microextraction on-line coupled with high-performance liquid chromatography

In this study we on-line coupled hollow fiber liquid–liquid–liquid microextraction (HF-LLLME), assisted by an ultrasonic probe, with high-performance liquid chromatography (HPLC). In this approach, the target analytes – 2-chlorophenol (2-CP), 3-chlorophenol (3-CP), 2,6-dichlorophenol (2,6-DCP), and 3,4-dichlorophenol (3,4-DCP) – were extracted into a hollow fiber (HF) supported liquid membrane (SLM) and then back-extracted into the acceptor solution in the lumen of the HF. Next, the acceptor solution was withdrawn on-line into the HPLC sample loop connected to the HF and then injected directly into the HPLC system for analysis. We found that the chlorophenols (CPs) could diffuse quickly through two sequential extraction interfaces – the donor phase – SLM and the SLM – acceptor phase – under the assistance of an ultrasonic probe. Ultrasonication provided effective mixing of the extracted boundary layers with the bulk of the sample and it increased the driving forces for mass transfer, thereby enhancing the extraction kinetics and leading to rapid enrichment of the target analytes. We studied the effects of various parameters on the extraction efficiency, viz. the nature of the SLM and acceptor phase, the compositions of the donor and acceptor phases, the fiber length, the stirring rate, the ion strength, the sample temperature, the sonication conditions, and the perfusion flow rate. This on-line extraction method exhibited linearity (r² ≥ 0.998), sensitivity (limits of detection: 0.03–0.05 μg L⁻¹), and precision (RSD% ≤ 4.8), allowing the sensitive, simple, and rapid determination of CPs in aqueous solutions and water samples with a sampling time of just 2 min.     

Dispersive liquid–liquid microextraction based on ionic liquid in combination with high-performance liquid chromatography for the determination of bisphenol A in water

A method termed dispersive liquid–liquid microextraction (DLLME) coupled with high-performance liquid chromatography-variable wavelength detection (HPLC-VWD) was developed. DLLME-HPLC-VWD is a method for determination of bisphenol A (BPA) in water samples. In this microextraction method, several parameters such as extraction solvent volume, sample volume, disperser solvent, ionic strength, pH, and disperser volume were optimised with the aid of interactive orthogonal array and a mixed level experiment design. First, an orthogonal array design was used to screen the significant variables for the optimisation. Second, the significant factors were optimised by using a mixed level experiment. Under the optimised extraction conditions (extraction solvent: ionic liquid [C₆MIM][PF₆], 60 µL; dispersive solvent: methanol, 0.4 mL; and pH = 4.0), the performance of the established method was evaluated. The response linearity of the method was observed in a range of 0.002–1.0 mg L^?1 (three orders of magnitude) with correlation coefficient (R ²) of 0.9999. The repeatability of this method was 4.2–5.3% for three different BPA levels and the enrichment factors were above 180. The extraction recovery was about 50% for the three different concentrations with 3.4–6.4% of RSD. Limit of detection of the method was 0.40 µg L^?1 at a signal-to-noise ratio of 3. In addition, the relative recovery of sample of Songhua River, tap water and barrel-drain water at different spiked concentration levels was ranged 95.8–103.0%, 92.6–98.6% and 87.2–95.3%, respectively. Compared with other extraction technologies, there have been the following advantages of quick, easy operation, and time-saving for the present method.