分散液相微萃取-高效液相色谱法测定水中丙溴磷农药

应用分散液相微萃取(DLLME)技术,建立了水中丙溴磷农药的高效液相色谱(HPLC)分析方法。考察了萃取剂、分散剂、萃取剂体积、分散剂体积、时间、盐度和pH等因素对分散液相微萃取的影响,并确定了最佳萃取条件为:15μL三氯乙烷(萃取剂)和700μL乙腈(分散剂),混匀后,加入水样,室温静置2min,以3000r/min离心2min,吸取3μL沉积相,进行HPLC分析。在此优化条件下,富集倍数达到270,检出限为2μg/L,相对标准偏差(RSD)为1.4%～6.1%(n=6);标准加入回收率为81.9%～118%。本方法操作简单,成本低,结果令人满意。     

分散液-液微萃取-气相色谱法快速检测番茄中3种拟除虫菊酯类农药

建立了快速(quick)、简单(easy)、便宜(cheap)、有效(effective)、可靠(rugged)和安全(safe)(QuEChERS)的分散液-液微萃取(DLLME)-气相色谱快速测定番茄中拟除虫菊酯类农药残留的方法。样品经乙腈提取,N-丙基乙二胺(PSA)净化,采用DLLME富集,用气相色谱法分析。考察了联苯菊酯、甲氰菊酯和氟氰菊酯在番茄中的残留测定,同时考察了萃取剂种类与体积、分散剂体积以及萃取时间等因素对萃取效率的影响,以40 μL氯仿为萃取剂,1000 μL乙腈为分散剂,萃取时间为60 s。结果表明: 3种拟除虫菊酯类农药在番茄中的检出限分别为0.5、0.5、0.3 μg/kg。在1、10和50 μg/kg添加水平下,联苯菊酯、甲氰菊酯和氟氰菊酯在番茄中的平均回收率分别为89%～109%、92.5%～105%和90%～108%,相对标准偏差分别为2.5%～7.6%、2.8%～5.7%、3.8%～9.1%。该方法简便、快速、安全、价格低廉,重现性好,可用于番茄中拟除虫菊酯类农药的快速检测。     

离子液体和氯代溶剂分散液-液微萃取/高效液相色谱法联用富集和分析环境水样中酞酸酯类污染物的对比研究

以4种室温离子液体和4种氯代溶剂为萃取剂,与高效液相色谱(HPLC)联用,对比研究了分散液-液微萃取(DLLME)对5种痕量酞酸酯类化合物(PAEs)的富集分离性能。以1-辛基-3-甲基咪唑六氟磷酸盐([OMim][PF6])和建议研究四氯化碳替代品为典型萃取溶剂优化了萃取条件。结果表明,在1.00～100μg/L范围内色谱峰面积与PAEs浓度成良好的线性关系(相关系数>0.995);对于10.0μg/L加标混合样品,平均加标回收率88.2%～103.3%,RSD在2.1%～6.8%之间(n=5),LOD在0.01～0.08μg/L范围内(S/N=3)。与四氯化碳相比,[OMim][PF6]作为DLLME的萃取溶剂对PAEs的富集倍数较高,水相盐效应影响较小。超声波辅助微萃取(USA)可在2 min达到平衡,建立的USA-DLLME-HPLC方法可用于黄河水样和城生活区污水样品中痕量PAEs的富集分离和测定。     

蔬菜中甲胺磷等5种有机磷农药残留量的分散液-液微萃取/气质联用技术检测

建立了分散液-液微萃取/气相色谱质谱(DLLME/GC-MS)联用技术分析蔬菜样品中甲胺磷、甲拌磷、甲基对硫磷、毒死蜱和乐果5种有机磷农药残留的新方法。优化后的萃取条件:10μL氯苯为萃取剂,1.0 mL丙酮为分散剂,萃取时间为3 m in。5种有机磷农药均具有良好的线性关系,相关系数不低于0.995,加标回收率为60%~95%,相对标准偏差为2.8%~9.1%,检出限为0.001~0.140 mg/kg。应用于蔬菜中有机磷农药残留的检测,结果满意。     

基于低共熔溶剂的萃取分离技术及其应用研究进展

随着绿色化学的发展,开发和应用符合绿色化学要求的溶剂和方法备受关注。作为离子液体类似物,低共熔溶剂(deep eutectic solvent, DES)是通过氢键受体(hydrogen bond acceptor, HBA)和氢键供体(hydrogen bond donator, HBD)的氢键作用而形成的一种混合物,具有环境友好、制备简单、成本低、可生物降解等优点,在很多领域均有越来越广泛的应用。DES可以从不同样品中萃取和分离不同的目标化合物,其作为萃取溶剂具有独特的优势,可以获得较高的萃取效率且样品基质对分析过程的影响较小。在分散液液微萃取(dispersive liquid-liquid micro-extraction, DLLME)程序中,DES可以萃取复杂基质中的残留药物、金属离子和生物活性成分;与传统的萃取方法相比,该方法具有对有机试剂需求少,萃取效率更高等明显优势。而且,在DLLME中加入DES作为分散剂,能够加速萃取剂在样品溶液中的扩散,具有小型化、成本低等优点。相比于传统分散剂甲醇、乙腈的高挥发性、易燃性,DES的高稳定性、低毒性使其在绿色化学领域中更具有优势,应用更广。因此,DES与DLLME的结合近年来发展迅速。不仅如此,DES与固相萃取联合应用也具有广泛的应用前景,在与固相萃取小柱和搅拌棒联合应用时,DES可以作为洗脱剂,氢键供体及氢键给体的用量之比是洗脱效率的重要考察因素之一。在与磁性材料联用时,DES能与磁性多壁碳纳米管、磁性氧化石墨烯等纳米复合材料结合,通过氢键、π-π作用力和静电作用力等特异性吸附目标分析物。并且能够参与磁性凝胶和分子印迹聚合物的合成,推动磁性材料向绿色化学的方向发展,进一步拓展DES的应用。作为一类新兴的绿色溶剂,DES在化合物的萃取分离技术方面受到广泛关注,在不同的萃取技术中扮演了不同的角色,并表现出良好的性能,因此逐渐成为绿色化学领域的研究重点。该文整合了DES在萃取分离技术中的研究进展,介绍了DES的制备、性质和分类,对DES在DLLME和固相萃取中的应用进行了总结和归类,并展望了DES在萃取分离技术中的应用前景,为DES未来的应用提供参考。     

分散液液微萃取-衍生化高效液相色谱-荧光检测法测定环境水样中4种酚类内分泌干扰物

为实现小体积环境水样中酚类化合物的准确、快速、高灵敏测定,通过分散液液微萃取(DLLME)和荧光衍生化的结合,建立了高效液相色谱-荧光检测(HPLC-FLD)双酚A、壬基酚、辛基酚和对特辛基酚的分析方法。考察并优化了DLLME和衍生化条件,结果表明,最优的DLLME条件为萃取剂氯仿用量70μL,分散剂乙腈用量400μL,漩涡振荡3 min,高速离心2 min。以2-[2-(7 H-二苯并[a,g]咔唑-乙氧基)]-乙基氯甲酸酯(DBCEC-Cl)为柱前衍生试剂,在pH10.5的Na2CO3-NaHCO3缓冲液/乙腈溶液、50℃下衍生反应3 min得到稳定的衍生产物,于10min内实现了4种酚衍生物的分离。方法的检出限为0.9~1.6 ng/L,定量限为3.8~7.1 ng/L,具有良好的线性、精密度和回收率,与以往报道的方法相比具有一定的优势和实用性,可用于造纸厂废水、湖水、生活废水、自来水中4种酚类内分泌干扰物的测定。     

离子液体-分散液液微萃取-比色法测定水样中痕量铁

建立了基于分散液液微萃取(DLLME)-数字成像比色(DIC)法测定水样中Fe的方法。在乙酸-乙酸钠缓冲溶液中,Fe(Ⅲ)被盐酸羟胺还原成Fe(Ⅱ)后与邻菲罗啉作用生成橙红色络合物。以离子液体[C6M IM][PF6]为萃取剂,乙腈为分散剂,采用涡旋辅助的分散液液微萃取方法对该络合物进行萃取和富集后,直接通过手机比色装置对Fe进行测定。优化了手机比色装置参数和分散液液微萃取的萃取剂种类及用量、分散剂种类及用量等条件。结果表明,在最佳条件下,方法的线性范围为24～200μg/L,相关系数(r~2)为0.9973,检出限为3μg/L,加标回收率为90.0%～108.0%,相对标准偏差(RSD)为0.8%～1.8%。该方法可用于测定环境水样中痕量Fe。     

超声辅助分散液-液微萃取/高效液相色谱联用富集分析环境水样中邻苯二甲酸酯类化合物

建立了超声波辅助分散液-液微萃取(DLLME)与高效液相色谱(HPLC)联用对环境水样中痕量邻苯二甲酸二甲酯(DMP)、邻苯二甲酸二乙酯(DEP)、邻苯二甲酸二丁酯(DBP)、邻苯二甲酸二(2-乙基己基)酯(DEHP)和邻苯二甲酸二辛酯(DOP)富集分离测定的方法,优化了色谱分离条件,考察了萃取剂与分散剂的种类与用量、萃取时间和离子强度对超声辅助DLLME/HPLC的影响。在优化实验条件下,邻苯二甲酸酯色谱峰面积与其浓度在1.00～100μg.L-1范围内呈良好的线性关系,相关系数均大于0.996,平均加标回收率为91%～103%,相对标准偏差(RSDs,n=5)为2.0%～6.8%,5种邻苯二甲酸酯类化合物的检出限(S/N=3)分别为0.08、0.04、0.03、0.01、0.07μg.L-1。建立的方法用于环境水样中邻苯二甲酸酯的测定,平均加标回收率为85%～119%,RSDs(n=3)为2.3%～11.1%。该方法适用于环境水样中痕量邻苯二甲酸酯类化合物的富集分析。     

分散液液微萃取-高效液相色谱法快速测定酱油中的苯甲酸和山梨酸

本文采用以络合萃取为萃取机理的分散液液微萃取(DLLME)方法,结合高效液相色谱(HPLC)法,建立了酱油中苯甲酸和山梨酸的快速检测方法。实验考察了重要萃取参数,包括萃取剂种类及用量、分散剂种类及用量、pH值、萃取时间以及盐浓度等。结果表明,苯甲酸和山梨酸均在10～1 000μg/L的浓度范围内线性良好,相关系数分别为0.9984、0.9986。苯甲酸和山梨酸的检出限分别为2.2、2.0μg/L。该方法被成功应用于酱油中苯甲酸和山梨酸的分析检测,加标回收率在89.5%～105.5%之间,相对标准偏差(RSD)为1.9%～4.1%(n=3)。方法具有操作简单、方便快速、环境友好等优点,适用于酱油中苯甲酸和山梨酸的快速检测。     

稀土萃取分离工艺研究新进展

综述了近年来我们实验室在稀土萃取分离工艺研究方面取得的一些新进展。主要有:(1)稀土萃取分离工艺的计算机一步放大;(2)回流启动技术;(3)三出口新工艺;(4)稀土料液浓缩新方法;(5)稀土与非稀土元素的分离;(6)专家系统技术在稀土萃取分离工艺控制中的应用。     

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.     

Sequential dispersive liquid–liquid microextraction for the determination of aryloxyphenoxy‐propionate herbicides in water

A novel dispersive liquid–liquid microextraction (DLLME) method followed by HPLC analysis, termed sequential DLLME, was developed for the preconcentration and determination of aryloxyphenoxy‐propionate herbicides (i.e. haloxyfop‐R‐methyl, cyhalofop‐butyl, fenoxaprop‐P‐ethyl, and fluazifop‐P‐butyl) in aqueous samples. The method is based on the combination of ultrasound‐assisted DLLME with in situ ionic liquid (IL) DLLME into one extraction procedure and achieved better performance than widely used DLLME procedures. Chlorobenzene was used as the extraction solvent during the first extraction. Hydrophilic IL 1‐octyl‐3‐methylimidazolium chloride was used as a dispersive solvent during the first extraction and as an extraction solvent during the second extraction after an in situ chloride exchange by bis[(trifluoromethane)sulfonyl]imide. Several experimental parameters affecting the extraction efficiency were studied and optimized with the design of experiments using MINITAB® 16 software. Under the optimized conditions, the extractions resulted in analyte recoveries of 78–91%. The correlation coefficients of the calibration curves ranged from 0.9994 to 0.9997 at concentrations of 10–300, 15–300, and 20–300 μg L^?1. The relative SDs (n = 5) ranged from 2.9 to 5.4%. The LODs for the four herbicides were between 1.50 and 6.12 μg L^?1.     

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.     

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.     

Selective extraction of emerging contaminants from water samples by dispersive liquid-liquid microextraction using functionalized ionic liquids

Functionalized ionic liquids containing the tris(pentafluoroethyl)trifluorophosphate (FAP) anion were used as extraction solvents in dispersive liquid-liquid microextraction (DLLME) for the extraction of 14 emerging contaminants from water samples. The extraction efficiencies and selectivities were compared to those of an in situ IL DLLME method which uses an in situ metathesis reaction to exchange 1-butyl-3-methylimidazolium chloride (BMIM-Cl) to 1-butyl-3-methylimidazolium bis[(trifluoromethyl)sulfonyl]imide (BMIM-NTf(2)). Compounds containing tertiary amine functionality were extracted with high selectivity and sensitivity by the 1-(6-amino-hexyl)-1-methylpyrrolidinium tris(pentafluoroethyl)trifluorophosphate (HNH(2)MPL-FAP) IL compared to other FAP-based ILs and the BMIM-NTf(2) IL. On the other hand, polar or acidic compounds without amine groups exhibited higher enrichment factors using the BMIM-NTf(2) IL. The detection limits for the studied analytes varied from 0.1 to 55.1 μg/L using the traditional IL DLLME method with the HNH(2)MPL-FAP IL as extraction solvent, and from 0.1 to 55.8 μg/L using in situ IL DLLME method with BMIM-Cl+LiNTf(2) as extraction solvent. A 93-fold decrease in the detection limit of caffeine was observed when using the HNH(2)MPL-FAP IL compared to that obtained using in situ IL DLLME method. Real water samples including tap water and creek water were analyzed with both IL DLLME methods and yielded recoveries ranging from 91% to 110%.     

Determination of organic compounds in water using dispersive liquid-liquid microextraction

A new microextraction technique termed dispersive liquid-liquid microextraction (DLLME) was developed. DLLME is a very simple and rapid method for extraction and preconcentration of organic compounds from water samples. In this method, the appropriate mixture of extraction solvent (8.0 microL C2Cl4) and disperser solvent (1.00 mL acetone) are injected into the aqueous sample (5.00 mL) by syringe, rapidly. Therefore, cloudy solution is formed. In fact, it is consisted of fine particles of extraction solvent which is dispersed entirely into aqueous phase. After centrifuging, the fine particles of extraction solvent are sedimented in the bottom of the conical test tube (5.0 +/- 0.2 microL). The performance of DLLME is illustrated with the determination of polycyclic aromatic hydrocarbons (PAHs) in water samples by using gas chromatography-flame ionization detection (GC-FID). Some important parameters, such as kind of extraction and disperser solvent and volume of them, and extraction time were investigated. Under the optimum conditions the enrichment factor ranged from 603 to 1113 and the recovery ranged from 60.3 to 111.3%. The linear range was 0.02-200 microg/L (four orders of magnitude) and limit of detection was 0.007-0.030 microg/L for most of analytes. The relative standard deviations (RSDs) for 2 microg/L of PAHs in water by using internal standard were in the range 1.4-10.2% (n = 5). The recoveries of PAHs from surface water at spiking level of 5.0 microg/L were 82.0-111.0%. The ability of DLLME technique in the extraction of other organic compounds such as organochlorine pesticides, organophosphorus pesticides and substituted benzene compounds (benzene, toluene, ethyl benzene, and xylenes) from water samples were studied. The advantages of DLLME method are simplicity of operation, rapidity, low cost, high recovery, and enrichment factor.     

Determination of volatile nitrosamines in meat products by microwave-assisted extraction and dispersive liquid-liquid microextraction coupled to gas chromatography-mass spectrometry

Microwave-assisted extraction (MAE) and dispersive liquid-liquid microextraction (DLLME) coupled with gas chromatography-mass spectrometry (GC-MS) were evaluated for use in the extraction and preconcentration of volatile nitrosamines in meat products. Parameters affecting MAE, such as the extraction solvent used, and DLLME, including the nature and volume of the extracting and disperser solvents, extraction time, salt addition and centrifugation time, were optimized. In the MAE method, 0.25g of sample mass was extracted in 10mL NaOH (0.05M) in a closed-vessel system. For DLLME, 1.5mL of methanol (disperser solvent) containing 20μL of carbon tetrachloride (extraction solvent) was rapidly injected by syringe into 5mL of the sample extract solution (previously adjusted to pH 6), thereby forming a cloudy solution. Phase separation was performed by centrifugation, and a volume of 3μL of the sedimented phase was analyzed by GC-MS. The enrichment factors provided by DLLME varied from 220 to 342 for N-nitrosodiethylamine and N-nitrosopiperidine, respectively. The matrix effect was evaluated for different samples, and it was concluded that sample quantification can be carried out by aqueous calibration. Under the optimized conditions, detection limits ranged from 0.003 to 0.014ngmL(-1) for NPIP and NMEA, respectively (0.12-0.56ngg(-1) in the meat products).     

A dispersive liquid-liquid microextraction using a switchable polarity dispersive solvent. Automated HPLC-FLD determination of ofloxacin in chicken meat

In this article, dispersive liquid-liquid microextraction (DLLME), based on the use of so-called switchable polarity dispersive solvent (SPDS) for microextraction, is presented for the first time. The new extraction technique makes use of a mixture of extraction solvent (dichloromethane) and the SPDS (acrylic acid). This mixture is injected into the aqueous sample solution, which was previously fortified with the alkaline agent (NaOH). The SPDS is dissolved in aqueous phase and a cloudy solution consisting of fine droplets of extraction solvent fully dispersed in the aqueous phase is observed. Simultaneously, as a consequence of the fast neutralization reaction, the SPDS investigated is converted into water-soluble salt and phase separation is achieved because the SPDS switches its polarity. Conversion of the SPDS excludes the negative influence of the conventional dispersive solvents used in DLLME on the solubility of target analytes in aqueous phase and, as a result, increases the DLLME efficiency.     

Determination of 13 endocrine disrupting chemicals in sediments by gas chromatography–mass spectrometry using subcritical water extraction coupled with dispersed liquid–liquid microextraction and derivatization

In this study, a sample pretreatment method was developed for the determination of 13 endocrine disrupting chemicals (EDCs) in sediment samples based on the combination of subcritical water extraction (SWE) and dispersed liquid–liquid microextraction (DLLME). The subcritical water that provided by accelerated solvent extractor (ASE) was the sample solution (water) for the following DLLME and the soluble organic modifier that spiked in the subcritical water was also used as the disperser solvent for DLLME in succession. Thus, several important parameters that affected both SWE and DLLME were investigated, such as the extraction solvent for DLLME (chlorobenzene), extraction time for DLLME (30 s), selection of organic modifier for SWE (acetone), volume of organic modifier (10%) and extraction temperature for SWE (150 °C). In addition, good chromatographic behavior was achieved for GC–MS after derivatisation by using N,O-bis(trimethylsilyl) trifluoroacetamide (BSTFA). As a result, proposed method sensitive and reliable with the limits of detection (LODs) ranging from 0.006 ng g⁻¹ (BPA) to 0.639 ng g⁻¹ (19-norethisterone) and the relative standard deviations (RSDs) between 1.5% (E2) and 15.0% (DES). Moreover, the proposed method was compared with direct ASE extraction that reported previously, and the results showed that SWE–DLLME was more promising with recoveries ranging from 42.3% (dienestrol) to 131.3% (4,5α-dihydrotestosterone), except for diethylstilbestrol (15.0%) and nonylphenols (29.8%). The proposed method was then successfully applied to determine 13 EDCs sediment of Humen outlet of the Pearl River, 12 of target compounds could be detected, and 10 could be quantitative analysis with the total concentration being 39.6 ng g⁻¹, and which indicated that the sediment of Humen outlet was heavily contaminated by EDCs.     

Evaluation of dispersive liquid-liquid microextraction for the simultaneous determination of chlorophenols and haloanisoles in wines and cork stoppers using gas chromatography-mass spectrometry

Dispersive liquid-liquid microextraction (DLLME) coupled with gas chromatography-mass spectrometry (GC-MS) was evaluated for the simultaneous determination of five chlorophenols and seven haloanisoles in wines and cork stoppers. Parameters, such as the nature and volume of the extracting and disperser solvents, extraction time, salt addition, centrifugation time and sample volume or mass, affecting the DLLME were carefully optimized to extract and preconcentrate chlorophenols, in the form of their acetylated derivatives, and haloanisoles. In this extraction method, 1mL of acetone (disperser solvent) containing 30μL of carbon tetrachloride (extraction solvent) was rapidly injected by a syringe into 5mL of sample solution containing 200μL of acetic anhydride (derivatizing reagent) and 0.5mL of phosphate buffer solution, thereby forming a cloudy solution. After extraction, phase separation was performed by centrifugation, and a volume of 4μL of the sedimented phase was analyzed by GC-MS. The wine samples were directly used for the DLLME extraction (red wines required a 1:1 dilution with water). For cork samples, the target analytes were first extracted with pentane, the solvent was evaporated and the residue reconstituted with acetone before DLLME. The use of an internal standard (2,4-dibromoanisole) notably improved the repeatability of the procedure. Under the optimized conditions, detection limits ranged from 0.004 to 0.108ngmL(-1) in wine samples (24-220pgg(-1) in corks), depending on the compound and the sample analyzed. The enrichment factors for haloanisoles were in the 380-700-fold range.