Dispersive solid-phase extraction combined with dispersive liquid-liquid microextraction for the determination of polybrominated diphenyl ethers in plastic bottled beverage by GC-MS

A simple, inexpensive and reliable analytical method was developed for the determination of polybrominated diphenyl ethers (PBDEs) in polyethylene terephthalate (PET) bottled beverage using GC‐MS. The sample pretreatment using dispersive solid‐phase extraction (DSPE) for removing matrix and dispersive liquid–liquid microextraction (DLLME) for enriching analytes was performed. For the DSPE, different sorbents such as primary amine, secondary amine, C₁₈ and graphitized carbon black were tested for different sample matrices. By means of DSPE, 60–89% of the sample matrices could be removed. Acetonitrile solution obtained by DSPE cleanup was directly used as the dispersant for the subsequent DLLME, which made the combination of the DSPE with the DLLME much more straightforward. Under the optimal conditions, the enrichment factors (EFs) of PBDEs ranged from 199 to 292. Using matrix‐matched calibration, correlation coefficients above 0.994 were found and LODs ranged from 0.0023 to 0.15 μg/L. The recoveries were between 80 and 117% for beverages spiked at three different concentrations (1.0, 5.0 and 10 μg/L) with RSDs ranging from 3.7 to 14.7% (n=5). The results indicated that the combination of DSPE with DLLME was a powerful sample preparation tool for analysis of ultratrace analytes in complicated matrices.     

Tandem use of solid-phase extraction and dispersive liquid-liquid microextraction for the determination of mononitrotoluenes in aquatic environment

Solid‐phase extraction (SPE) in tandem with dispersive liquid–liquid microextraction (DLLME) has been developed for the determination of mononitrotoluenes (MNTs) in several aquatic samples using gas chromatography‐flame ionization (GC‐FID) detection system. In the hyphenated SPE‐DLLME, initially MNTs were extracted from a large volume of aqueous samples (100 mL) into a 500‐mg octadecyl silane (C₁₈) sorbent. After the elution of analytes from the sorbent with acetonitrile, the obtained solution was put under the DLLME procedure, so that the extra preconcentration factors could be achieved. The parameters influencing the extraction efficiency such as breakthrough volume, type and volume of the elution solvent (disperser solvent) and extracting solvent, as well as the salt addition, were studied and optimized. The calibration curves were linear in the range of 0.5–500 μg/L and the limit of detection for all analytes was found to be 0.2 μg/L. The relative standard deviations (for 0.75 μg/L of MNTs) without internal standard varied from 2.0 to 6.4% (n=5). The relative recoveries of the well, river and sea water samples, spiked at the concentration level of 0.75 μg/L of the analytes, were in the range of 85–118%.     

Dispersive liquid-liquid microextraction followed by gas chromatography–electron capture detection for determination of polychlorinated biphenyls in fish

A new method of dispersive liquid-liquid microextraction (DLLME) combined with GC-electron capture detection (GC-ECD) was proposed for the extraction and determination of four polychlorinated biphenyls (PCBs) congeners in fish samples. Acetone was used as extraction solvent for the extraction of PCBs from fish samples. The target analytes in the acetone solvent were rapidly transferred to chlorobenzene, which was used as extraction solvent in DLLME procedures. Under the optimum conditions, linearity was obtained in the concentration range from 1.25 to 1250 μg/kg for PCB 52, and 0.25 to 250 μg/kg for PCB 101, 138 and 153. Coefficients of correlation (r²) ranged from 0.9993 to 0.9999. The repeatability was tested by spiking fish samples at 10 μg/kg PCBs, and RSD% (n = 8) varied between 2.2 and 8.4%. The LODs were between 0.12 and 0.35 μg/kg. The enrichment factors of PCBs were from 87 to 123. The relative recoveries of the four PCB congeners for the perch, pomfret and yellow-fin tuna at spiking levels of 10, 20 and 50 μg/kg were in the range of 81.20–100.6%, 85.00–102.7% and 87.80–108.4%, respectively. The results demonstrated that DLLME combined with GC-ECD was a simple, rapid, and efficient technique for the extraction and determination of PCBs in fish samples.     

Dispersive liquid–liquid microextraction based on solidification of floating organic drop combined with field‐amplified sample injection in capillary electrophoresis for the determination of beta(2)‐agonists in bovine urine

Dispersive liquid–liquid microextraction based on solidification of floating organic drop (DLLME–SFO) was for the first time combined with field‐amplified sample injection (FASI) in CE to determine four β₂‐agonists (cimbuterol, clenbuterol, mabuterol, and mapenterol) in bovine urine. Optimum BGE consisted of 20 mM borate buffer and 0.1 mM SDS. Using salting‐out extraction, β₂‐agonists were extracted into ACN that was then used as the disperser solvent in DLLME–SFO. Optimum DLLME–SFO conditions were: 1.0 mL ACN, 50 μL 1‐undecanol (extraction solvent), total extraction time 1.5 min, no salt addition. Back extraction into an aqueous solution (pH 2.0) facilitated direct injection of β₂‐agonists into CE. Compared to conventional CZE, DLLME–SFO–FASI–CE achieved sensitivity enhancement factors of 41–1046 resulting in LODs in the range of 1.80–37.0 μg L^?1. Linear dynamic ranges of 0.15–10.0 mg L^?1 for cimbuterol and 15–1000 μg L^?1 for the other analytes were obtained with coefficients of determination (R²) ≥ 0.9901 and RSD% ≤5.5 (n = 5). Finally, the applicability of the proposed method was successfully confirmed by determination of the four β₂‐agonists in spiked bovine urine samples and accuracy higher than 96.0% was obtained.     

Concurrent extraction,clean‐up,and analysis of polybrominated diphenyl ethers,hexabromocyclododecane isomers,and tetrabromobisphenol A in human milk and serum

A method has been developed and validated for the concurrent extraction, clean‐up, and analysis of polybrominated diphenyl ethers (PBDEs), α‐, β‐, and γ‐hexabromocyclododecane (HBCD), and tetrabromobisphenol A (TBBPA) in human milk and serum. Milk and serum samples were extracted using accelerated solvent extraction with acetone/hexane 1:1, v/v and liquid–liquid extraction with methyl‐tert‐butyl ether/hexane 1:1, v/v, respectively. The removal of co‐extracted biogenic materials was achieved by gel permeation chromatography followed by sulfuric acid treatment. The fractionation of the PBDEs and HBCD/TBBPA was performed using a Supelco LC‐Si SPE cartridge. The detection of the PBDEs was then performed by GC–MS and that of the HBCDs and the TBBPA was performed using UPLC–MS/MS. The pretreatment procedure was optimized, and the characteristic ions and fragmentation of the analytes were studied by MS or MS/MS. A recovery test was performed using a matrix spiking test at concentrations of 0.05–10 ng/g. The recoveries ranged from 78.6–108.8% with RSDs equal to or lower than 14.04%. The LODs were 1.8–60 pg/g. The usefulness of the developed method was tested by the analysis of real human samples, and several brominated flame retardants in different samples were detected and analyzed.     

Dispersion‐solidification liquid–liquid microextraction for volatile aromatic hydrocarbons determination: Comparison with liquid phase microextraction based on the solidification of a floating drop

Two microextraction techniques – liquid phase microextraction based on solidification of a floating organic drop (LPME‐SFO) and dispersive liquid–liquid microextraction combined with a solidification of a floating organic drop (DLLME‐SFO) – are explored for benzene, toluene, ethylbenzene and o‐xylene sampling and preconcentration. The investigation covers the effects of extraction solvent type, extraction and disperser solvents' volume, and the extraction time. For both techniques 1‐undecanol containing n‐heptane as internal standard was used as an extracting solvent. For DLLME‐SFO acetone was used as a disperser solvent. The calibration curves for both techniques and for all the analytes were linear up to 10 μg/mL, correlation coefficients were in the range 0.997–0.998, enrichment factors were from 87 for benzene to 290 for o‐xylene, detection limits were from 0.31 and 0.35 μg/L for benzene to 0.15 and 0.10 μg/L for o‐xylene for LPME‐SFO and DLLME‐SFO, respectively. Repeatabilities of the results were acceptable with RSDs up to 12%. Being comparable with LPME‐SFO in the analytical characteristics, DLLME‐SFO is superior to LPME‐SFO in the extraction time. A possibility to apply the proposed techniques for volatile aromatic hydrocarbons determination in tap water and snow was demonstrated.     

Pressurized Liquid Extraction Combined with Dispersive Liquid‐liquid Micro‐extraction as an Efficient Sample Preparation Method for Determination of Volatile Components in Tobacco

The pressurized liquid extraction (PLE) followed by dispersive liquid–liquid micro‐extraction (DLLME) has been developed for extraction of volatile components in tobacco. 35 volatile components were detected by gas chromatography mass spectrometry (GC‐MS). Methanol–methyl tert‐butyl ether (MTBE) (8:2, v/v) was selected as PLE extraction solvent. The optimized DLLME procedure, 3 mL of pure water and 1.0 mL tobacco extract solution, 40 μL of chloroform as extraction solvent, 0.5 mL of acetonitrile as disperser solvent, was validated. Under the optimum conditions, the enrichment factors were in the range of 96‐159. The limits of detection were between 0.14 and 0.33 μg/kg. The repeatability of the proposed method, expressed as relative standard deviation, varied between 4.3 and 7.5% (n = 6). The recoveries of the analytes evaluated by fortification of tobacco samples were in the range of 84.7‐96.4%. Compared with the conventional sample preparation method for determination of volatile components in tobacco, the proposed method was quick and easy to operate, and had high‐enrichment factors and low consumption of organic solvent.     

Graphene oxide reinforced polymeric ionic liquid monolith solid‐phase microextraction sorbent for high‐performance liquid chromatography analysis of phenolic compounds in aqueous environmental samples

A graphene oxide reinforced polymeric ionic liquids monolith was obtained by copolymerization of graphene oxide doped 1‐(3‐aminopropyl)‐3‐(4‐vinylbenzyl)imidazolium 4‐styrenesulfonate monomer and 1,6‐di‐(3‐vinylimidazolium) hexane bihexafluorophosphate cross‐linking agent. Coupled to high‐performance liquid chromatography, the monolith was used as a solid‐phase microextraction sorbent to analyze several phenolic compounds in aqueous samples. Under the optimized extraction and desorption conditions, linear ranges were 5–400 μg/L for 3‐nitrophenol, 2‐nitrophenol, and 2,5‐dichlorophenol and 2–400 μg/L for 4‐chlorophenol, 2‐methylphenol, and 2,4,6‐trichlorophenol (R² = 0.9973–0.9988). The limits of detection were 0.5 μg/L for 3‐nitrophenol and 2‐nitrophenol and 0.2 μg/L for the rest of the analytes. The proposed method was used to determine target analytes in groundwater from an industrial park and river water. None of the analytes was detected. Relative recoveries were in the range of 75.5–113%.     

Evaluation of the combination of a dispersive liquid–liquid microextraction method with micellar electrokinetic chromatography coupled to mass spectrometry for the determination of estrogenic compounds in milk and yogurt

In this work, the suitability of a methodology based on dispersive liquid–liquid microextraction (DLLME) has been evaluated for the extraction of four endoestrogens (estriol, 17α‐estradiol, 17β‐estradiol, and estrone), an exoestrogen (17α‐etynylestradiol), and a mycotoxin (zearalenone), together with some of their major metabolites (2‐methoxyestradiol, α‐zearalanol, β‐zearalanol, α‐zearalenol, and β‐zearalenol) from different types of milk (whole and skimmed cow milk and semiskimmed goat milk) and whole natural yogurt. The methodology includes a previous protein precipitation with acidified ACN and a defatting step with n‐hexane. Separation of the analytes, determination, and quantification were developed by MEKC coupled to ESI‐MS using a BGE containing an aqueous solution of ammonium perfluorooctanoate as MS friendly surfactant. Calibration, precision, and accuracy studies of the described DLLME‐MEKC‐MS/MS method were evaluated obtaining a good linearity and LODs in the low micrograms per liter range.     

Macrocyclic polyamine‐functionalized silica as a solid‐phase extraction material coupled with ionic liquid dispersive liquid–liquid extraction for the enrichment of polycyclic aromatic hydrocarbons

In this study, silica modified with a 30‐membered macrocyclic polyamine was synthesized and first used as an adsorbent material in SPE. The SPE was further combined with ionic liquid (IL) dispersive liquid–liquid microextraction (DLLME). Five polycyclic aromatic hydrocarbons were employed as model analytes to evaluate the extraction procedure and were determined by HPLC combined with UV/Vis detection. Acetone was used as the elution solvent in SPE as well as the dispersive solvent in DLLME. The enrichment of analytes was achieved using the 1,3‐dibutylimidazolium bis[(trifluoromethyl)sulfonyl]imide IL/acetone/water system. Experimental conditions for the overall macrocycle‐SPE–IL‐DLLME method, such as the amount of adsorbent, sample solution volume, sample solution pH, type of elution solvent as well as addition of salt, were studied and optimized. The developed method could be successfully applied to the analysis of four real water samples. The macrocyclic polyamine offered higher extraction efficiency for analytes compared with commercially available C₁₈ cartridge, and the developed method provided higher enrichment factors (2768–5409) for model analytes compared with the single DLLME. Good linearity with the correlation coefficients ranging from 0.9983 to 0.9999 and LODs as low as 0.002 μg/L were obtained in the proposed method.     

Sensitive determination of amide herbicides in environmental water samples by a combination of solid‐phase extraction and dispersive liquid–liquid microextraction prior to GC–MS

In this paper, solid‐phase extraction (SPE) in combination with dispersive liquid–liquid microextraction (DLLME) has been developed as a sample pretreatment method with high enrichment factors for the sensitive determination of amide herbicides in water samples. In SPE–DLLME, amide herbicides were adsorbed quantitatively from a large volume of aqueous samples (100 mL) onto a multiwalled carbon nanotube adsorbent (100 mg). After elution of the target compounds from the adsorbent with acetone, the DLLME technique was performed on the resulting solution. Finally, the analytes in the extraction solvent were determined by gas chromatography–mass spectrometry. Some important extraction parameters, such as flow rate of sample, breakthrough volume, sample pH, type and volume of the elution solvent, as well as salt addition, were studied and optimized in detail. Under optimum conditions, high enrichment factors ranging from 6593 to 7873 were achieved in less than 10 min. There was linearity over the range of 0.01–10 μg/L with relative standard deviations of 2.6–8.7%. The limits of detection ranged from 0.002 to 0.006 μg/L. The proposed method was used for the analysis of water samples, and satisfactory results were achieved.     

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.     

Determination of metoserpate,buquinolate, and diclofenac in pork,eggs, and milk using liquid chromatography–tandem mass spectrometry

In this work, a method was developed for the simultaneous determination of residual metoserpate, buquinolate and diclofenac in pork, milk, and eggs. Samples were extracted with 0.1% formic acid in acetonitrile, defatted with n‐hexane, and filtered prior to analysis using liquid chromatography–tandem mass spectrometry. The analytes were separated on a C₁₈ column using 0.1% acetic acid and methanol as the mobile phase. The matrix‐matched calibration curves showed good linearity over a concentration range of 5–50 ng/g with coefficients of determination (R²) ≥0.991. The intra‐ and inter‐day accuracies (expressed as recovery percentage values) calculated using three spiking levels (5, 10, and 20 μg/kg) were 80–108.65 and 74.06–107.15%, respectively, and the precisions (expressed as relative standard deviation) were 2.86–13.67 and 0.05–11.74%, respectively, for the tested drugs determined in various matrices. The limits of quantification (1 and 2 μg/kg) were below the uniform residual level (0.01 mg/kg) set for compounds that have no specific maximum residue limit (MRL). The developed method was tested using market samples and none of the target analytes was detected in any of the samples. The validated method proved to be practicable for detection of the tested analytes in pork, milk, and eggs.     

Dicationic polymeric ionic‐liquid‐based magnetic material as an adsorbent for the magnetic solid‐phase extraction of organophosphate pesticides and polycyclic aromatic hydrocarbons

Magnetic particles modified with a dicationic polymeric ionic liquid are described as a new adsorbent in magnetic solid‐phase extraction. They were obtained through the copolymerization of a 1,8‐di(3‐vinylimidazolium)octane‐based ionic liquid with vinyl‐modified SiO₂@Fe₃O₄, and were characterized by FTIR spectroscopy, X‐ray diffraction, and vibrating sample magnetometry. The modified magnetic particles are effective in the extraction of organophosphate pesticides and polycyclic aromatic hydrocarbons. Also, they can provide different extraction performance for the selected analytes including fenitrothion, parathion, fenthion, phoxim, phenanthrene, and fluoranthene, where the extraction efficiency is found to be in agreement with the hydrophobicity of analytes. Various factors influencing the extraction efficiency, such as, the amount of adsorbent, extraction, and desorption time, and type and volume of the desorption solvent, were optimized. Under the optimized conditions, a good linearity ranging from 1–100 μg/L is obtained for all analytes, except for parathion (2–200 μg/L), where the correlation coefficients varied from 0.9960 to 0.9998. The limits of detection are 0.2–0.8 μg/L, and intraday and interday relative standard deviations are 1.7–7.4% (n = 5) and 3.8–8.0% (n = 3), respectively. The magnetic solid‐phase extraction combined with high‐performance liquid chromatography can be applied for the detection of trace targets in real water samples with satisfactory relative recoveries and relative standard deviations.     

悬浮固化-分散液液微萃取-液相色谱-串联质谱测定纺织废水中磷系阻燃剂

建立了悬浮固化-分散液液微萃取结合液相色谱-串联质谱测定纺织废水中5种痕量磷系阻燃剂的方法。通过对萃取过程中萃取剂、分散剂的种类与体积、盐浓度、溶液pH值等对萃取效率的影响因素优化,确立了最佳萃取条件。采用了密度小于水的十一烷醇（400 μL）为萃取剂,甲醇（300 μL）为分散剂,控制溶液pH值在6~9之间,NaCl添加量为2 g,萃取时间为涡旋2 min。在优化的萃取条件下,该方法在2~100 μg/L均有良好的线性关系,相关系数大于0.995,除二（2,3-二溴丙基）磷酸酯（BIS）的检出限为5 μg/L外,三（2-氯乙基）磷酸酯（TCEP）、三（1,3-二氯-异丙基）磷酸酯（TDCP）、三（1-氮丙啶基）氧化膦（TEPA）和三（2,3-二溴丙基）磷酸酯（TRIS）的检出限均为2 μg/L。后整理、染色和印花等实际废水样品加标试验表明,方法的平均回收率为71.6%~114.5%,RSD为2.7%~11.2%（n=6）。对11个样品进行检测,其中3个废水样品检出TCEP与TDCP化合物,含量为2.6~3.4 μg/L。本方法简单,快速,灵敏度好且环保绿色,能够对纺织废水中的5种痕量磷系阻燃剂进行准确的定性与定量检测。     

Residue analysis of tebufenozide and indoxacarb in chicken muscle,milk, egg and aquatic animal products using liquid chromatography–tandem mass spectrometry

We developed an analytical method using liquid–liquid extraction (LLE) and liquid chromatography–tandem mass spectrometry (LC‐MS/MS) to detect and quantify tebufenozide (TEB) and indoxacarb (IND) residues in animal and aquatic products (chicken muscle, milk, egg, eel, flatfish, and shrimp). The target compounds were extracted using 1% acetic acid (0.1% acetic acid for egg only) in acetonitrile and purified using n‐hexane. The analytes were separated on a Gemini‐NX C₁₈ column using (a) distilled water with 0.1% formic acid and 5 mm ammonium acetate and (b) methanol with 0.1% formic acid as the mobile phase. All six‐point matrix‐matched calibration curves showed good linearity with coefficients of determination (R²) ≥0.9864 over a concentration range of 5–50 μg/kg. Intra‐ and inter‐day accuracy was expressed as the recovery rate at three spiking levels and ranged between 73.22 and 114.93% in all matrices, with a relative standard deviation (RSD, corresponding to precision) ≤13.87%. The limits of quantification (LOQ) of all target analytes ranged from 2 to 20 μg/kg, which were substantially lower than the maximum residue limits (MRLs) specified by the regulatory agencies of different countries. All samples were collected from different markets in Seoul, Republic of Korea, and tested negative for tebufenozide and indoxacarb residues. These results show that the method developed is robust and may be a promising tool to detect trace levels of the target analytes in animal products.     

Ultrapreconcentration and determination of organophosphorus pesticides in water by solid‐phase extraction combined with dispersive liquid–liquid microextraction and high‐performance liquid chromatography

Solid‐phase extraction coupled with dispersive liquid–liquid microextraction was developed as an ultra‐preconcentration method for the determination of four organophosphorus pesticides (isocarbophos, parathion‐methyl, triazophos and fenitrothion) in water samples. The analytes considered in this study were rapidly extracted and concentrated from large volumes of aqueous solutions (100 mL) by solid‐phase extraction coupled with dispersive liquid–liquid microextraction and then analyzed using high performance liquid chromatography. Experimental variables including type and volume of elution solvent, volume and flow rate of sample solution, salt concentration, type and volume of extraction solvent and sample solution pH were investigated for the solid‐phase extraction coupled with dispersive liquid–liquid microextraction with these analytes, and the best results were obtained using methanol as eluent and ethylene chloride as extraction solvent. Under the optimal conditions, an exhaustive extraction for four analytes (recoveries >86.9%) and high enrichment factors were attained. The limits of detection were between 0.021 and 0.15 μg/L. The relative standard deviations for 0.5 μg/L of the pesticides in water were in the range of 1.9–6.8% (n = 5). The proposed strategy offered the advantages of simple operation, high enrichment factor and sensitivity and was successfully applied to the determination of four organophosphorus pesticides in water samples.     

Using dispersive liquid-liquid microextraction and liquid chromatography for determination of guaifenesin enantiomers in human urine

A simple, rapid, and efficient method, dispersive liquid–liquid microextraction (DLLME) coupled with high‐performance liquid chromatography‐fluorescence detector, has been developed for the determination of guaifenesin (GUA) enantiomers in human urine samples after an oral dose administration of its syrup formulation. Urine samples were collected during the time intervals 0–2, 2–4, and 4–6 h and concentration and ratio of two enantiomers was determined. The ratio of R‐(?) to S‐(+) enantiomer concentrations in urine showed an increase with time, with R/S ratios of 0.66 at 2 h and 2.23 at 6 h. For microextraction process, a mixture of extraction solvent (dichloromethane, 100 μL) and dispersive solvent (THF, 1 mL) was rapidly injected into 5.0 mL diluted urine sample for the formation of cloudy solution and extraction of enantiomers into the fine droplets of CH₂Cl₂. After optimization of HPLC enantioselective conditions, some important parameters, such as the kind and volume of extraction and dispersive solvents, extraction time, temperature, pH, and salt effect were optimized for dispersive liquid–liquid microextraction process. Under the optimum extraction condition, the method yields a linear calibration curve in the concentration range from 10 to 2000 ng/mL for target analytes. LOD was 3.00 ng/mL for both of the enantiomers.     

Determination of estrogens in environmental water samples using 1,3‐dipentylimidazolium hexafluorophosphate ionic liquid as extraction solvent in dispersive liquid–liquid microextraction

In this work, the potential of a symmetric dialkyl‐substituted ionic liquid (IL), 1,3‐dipenthylimidazolium hexafluorophosphate ([PPIm][PF₆]), as extraction solvent in dispersive liquid–liquid microextraction (DLLME) has been studied for the analysis of a group of three natural (estriol, 17β‐estradiol, and 17α‐estradiol) and four synthetic (17α‐ethynylestradiol, diethylstibestrol, dienestrol, and hexestrol) estrogenic compounds as well as one mycotoxin with estrogenic activity (zearalenone) in different types of water samples (Milli‐Q, mineral, and wastewater). Separation, determination, and quantification were developed by HPLC‐DAD and a fluorescence detector (FD) connected in series. Factors influencing the IL‐DLLME procedure (sample pH, amount of IL, type and volume of disperser solvent, ionic strength, and assistance of vortex agitation) were investigated and optimized by means of a step‐by‐step approach. Once the optimum extraction conditions were established (10 mL of water at pH 8, 60 mg of [PPIm][PF₆], 500 μL of ACN as disperser solvent and vortex agitation for 1 min), the calibration curves of the whole method (IL‐DLLME‐HPLC‐DAD/FD) were obtained and precision and accuracy were evaluated. It was demonstrated that the developed methodology was repeatable, accurate, and selective with limits of detection in the 0.30–0.57 μg/L and 13.8–37.1 μg/L range for FD and DAD, respectively. Relative recovery values were higher than 85% for the different types of water samples and the Student's t test demonstrated that there were not significant differences between the added and the found concentration.     

Miniaturized matrix solid‐phase dispersion combined with ultrasound‐assisted dispersive liquid–liquid microextraction for the determination of three pyrethroids in soil

A simple and miniaturized pretreatment procedure combining matrix solid‐phase dispersion (MSPD) with ultrasound‐assisted dispersive liquid–liquid microextraction (UA‐DLLME) technique was proposed in first time for simultaneous determination of three pyrethroids (fenpropathrin, cyhalothrin and fenvalerate) in soils. The solid samples were directly extracted using MSPD procedure, and the eluent of MSPD was used as the dispersive solvent of the followed DLLME procedure for further purification and enrichment of the analytes before GC‐ECD analysis. Good linear relationships were obtained for all the analytes in a range of 5.0–500.0 ng/g with LOQs (S/N=10) ranged from 1.51 to 3.77 ng/g. Average recoveries at three spiked levels were in a range of 83.6–98.5% with RSD≤7.3%. The present method combined the advantages of MSPD and DLLME, and was successfully applied for the determination of three pyrethroids in soil samples.