Recent advances in sample preparation techniques and methods of sulfonamides detection – A review

Sulfonamides (SAs) have been the most widely used antimicrobial drugs for more than 70 years, and their residues in foodstuffs and environmental samples pose serious health hazards. For this reason, sensitive and specific methods for the quantification of these compounds in numerous matrices have been developed. This review intends to provide an updated overview of the recent trends over the past five years in sample preparation techniques and methods for detecting SAs. Examples of the sample preparation techniques, including liquid–liquid and solid-phase extraction, dispersive liquid–liquid microextraction and QuEChERS, are given. Different methods of detecting the SAs present in food and feed and in environmental, pharmaceutical and biological samples are discussed.     

Recent developments and applications of microextraction techniques in drug analysis

Sample preparation is important for isolating desired components from complex matrices and greatly influences their reliable and accurate analysis. Recent trends in sample preparation include miniaturization, automation, high-throughput performance, online coupling with analytical instruments, and low-cost operation through extremely low or no solvent consumption. Microextraction techniques, such as liquid-phase microextraction and solid-phase microextraction, have these advantages over the traditional approaches of liquid–liquid extraction and conventional solid-phase extraction. This review focuses primarily on these microextraction techniques developed over the last decade, and presents a summary of the characteristics of various approaches in drug analysis.     

Sample preparation techniques for the determination of trace residues and contaminants in foods

The determination of trace residues and contaminants in complex matrices, such as food, often requires extensive sample extraction and preparation prior to instrumental analysis. Sample preparation is often the bottleneck in analysis and there is a need to minimise the number of steps to reduce both time and sources of error. There is also a move towards more environmentally friendly techniques, which use less solvent and smaller sample sizes. Smaller sample size becomes important when dealing with real life problems, such as consumer complaints and alleged chemical contamination. Optimal sample preparation can reduce analysis time, sources of error, enhance sensitivity and enable unequivocal identification, confirmation and quantification. This review considers all aspects of sample preparation, covering general extraction techniques, such as Soxhlet and pressurised liquid extraction, microextraction techniques such as liquid phase microextraction (LPME) and more selective techniques, such as solid phase extraction (SPE), solid phase microextraction (SPME) and stir bar sorptive extraction (SBSE). The applicability of each technique in food analysis, particularly for the determination of trace organic contaminants in foods is discussed.     

State of the art of environmentally friendly sample preparation approaches for determination of PBDEs and metabolites in environmental and biological samples: A critical review

Green chemistry principles for developing methodologies have gained attention in analytical chemistry in recent decades. A growing number of analytical techniques have been proposed for determination of organic persistent pollutants in environmental and biological samples. In this light, the current review aims to present state-of-the-art sample preparation approaches based on green analytical principles proposed for the determination of polybrominated diphenyl ethers (PBDEs) and metabolites (OH-PBDEs and MeO-PBDEs) in environmental and biological samples. Approaches to lower the solvent consumption and accelerate the extraction, such as pressurized liquid extraction, microwave-assisted extraction, and ultrasound-assisted extraction, are discussed in this review. Special attention is paid to miniaturized sample preparation methodologies and strategies proposed to reduce organic solvent consumption. Additionally, extraction techniques based on alternative solvents (surfactants, supercritical fluids, or ionic liquids) are also commented in this work, even though these are scarcely used for determination of PBDEs. In addition to liquid-based extraction techniques, solid-based analytical techniques are also addressed. The development of greener, faster and simpler sample preparation approaches has increased in recent years (2003–2013). Among green extraction techniques, those based on the liquid phase predominate over those based on the solid phase (71% vs. 29%, respectively). For solid samples, solvent assisted extraction techniques are preferred for leaching of PBDEs, and liquid phase microextraction techniques are mostly used for liquid samples. Likewise, green characteristics of the instrumental analysis used after the extraction and clean-up steps are briefly discussed.     

Extraction of organic compounds with room temperature ionic liquids

Room temperature ionic liquids are novel solvents with a rather specific blend of physical and solution properties that makes them of interest for applications in separation science. They are good solvents for a wide range of compounds in which they behave as polar solvents. Their physical properties of note that distinguish them from conventional organic solvents are a negligible vapor pressure, high thermal stability, and relatively high viscosity. They can form biphasic systems with water or low polarity organic solvents and gases suitable for use in liquid–liquid and gas–liquid partition systems. An analysis of partition coefficients for varied compounds in these systems allows characterization of solvent selectivity using the solvation parameter model, which together with spectroscopic studies of solvent effects on probe substances, results in a detailed picture of solvent behavior. These studies indicate that the solution properties of ionic liquids are similar to those of polar organic solvents. Practical applications of ionic liquids in sample preparation include extractive distillation, aqueous biphasic systems, liquid–liquid extraction, liquid-phase microextraction, supported liquid membrane extraction, matrix solvents for headspace analysis, and micellar extraction. The specific advantages and limitations of ionic liquids in these studies is discussed with a view to defining future uses and the need not to neglect the identification of new room temperature ionic liquids with physical and solution properties tailored to the needs of specific sample preparation techniques. The defining feature of the special nature of ionic liquids is not their solution or physical properties viewed separately but their unique combinations when taken together compared with traditional organic solvents.     

Basic principles,recent trends and future directions of microextraction techniques for the analysis of aqueous environmental samples

Microextraction-based sample preparation techniques have exhibited remarkable importance in analytical chemistry since they were first developed in the 1980s. The application of these techniques involves efficient and, at the same time, environmentally-friendly analytical methodologies. They are also generally faster when compared with classical sample preparation techniques, requiring low solvent and sample volumes, and also allowing for automated or semi-automated procedures. This paper provides an overview of the basic principles of sample preparation techniques and the important applications and developments that have taken place in this area over the past five years. These procedures include solid-phase microextraction (SPME), stir bar sorptive extraction (SBSE), bar adsorptive microextraction (BAμE), rotating disk sorptive extraction (RDSE), micro solid-phase extraction (μ-SPE) and liquid-phase microextraction (LPME). The main variations are discussed with a focus on recent applications in the analysis of environmental water samples. Lastly, some of the trends and perspectives associated with these outstanding microextraction sample preparation approaches are highlighted.     

Recent Advances in Sample Preparation for Cosmetics and Personal Care Products Analysis

The use of cosmetics and personal care products is increasing worldwide. Their high matrix complexity, together with the wide range of products currently marketed under different forms imply a challenge for their analysis, most of them requiring a sample pre-treatment step before analysis. Classical sample preparation methodologies involve large amounts of organic solvents as well as multiple steps resulting in large time consumption. Therefore, in recent years, the trends have been moved towards the development of simple, sustainable, and environmentally friendly methodologies in two ways: (i) the miniaturization of conventional procedures allowing a reduction in the consumption of solvents and reagents; and (ii) the development and application of sorbent- and liquid-based microextraction technologies to obtain a high analyte enrichment, avoiding or significantly reducing the use of organic solvents. This review provides an overview of analytical methodology during the last ten years, placing special emphasis on sample preparation to analyse cosmetics and personal care products. The use of liquid–liquid and solid–liquid extraction (LLE, SLE), ultrasound-assisted extraction (UAE), solid-phase extraction (SPE), pressurized liquid extraction (PLE), matrix solid-phase extraction (MSPD), and liquid- and sorbent-based microextraction techniques will be reviewed. The most recent advances and future trends including the development of new materials and green solvents will be also addressed.     

Miniaturized preconcentration methods based on liquid–liquid extraction and their application in inorganic ultratrace analysis and speciation: A review

Liquid–liquid extraction (LLE) is widely used as a pre-treatment technique for separation and preconcentration of both organic and inorganic analytes from aqueous samples. Nevertheless, it has several drawbacks, such as emulsion formation or the use of large volumes of solvents, which makes LLE expensive and labour intensive. Therefore, miniaturization of conventional liquid–liquid extraction is needed. The search for alternatives to the conventional LLE using negligible volumes of extractant and the minimum number of steps has driven the development of three new miniaturized methodologies, i.e. single-drop microextraction (SDME), hollow fibre liquid-phase microextraction (HF-LPME) and dispersive liquid–liquid microextraction (DLLME). The aim of this paper is to provide an overview of these novel preconcentration approaches and their potential use in analytical labs involved in inorganic (ultra)trace analysis and speciation. Relevant applications to the determination of metal ions, metalloids, organometals and non-metals are included.     

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.     

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.     

Sample handling strategies for the determination of persistent trace organic contaminants from biota samples

Even after emergence of most advanced instrumental techniques for the final separation, detection, identification and determination of analytes, sample handling continues to play a basic role in environmental analysis of complex matrices. In fact, sample preparation steps are often the bottleneck for combined time and efficiency in many overall analytical procedures. Thus, it is not surprising that, in the last two decades, a lot of effort has been devoted to the development of faster, safer, and more environment friendly techniques for sample extraction and extract clean up, prior to actual instrumental analysis. This article focuses on the state of the art in sample preparation of environmental solid biological samples dedicated to persistent organic pollutants (POPs) analysis. Extraction techniques such as Soxhlet extraction, sonication-assisted extraction, supercritical fluid extraction (SFE), microwave-assisted extraction (MAE), pressurised liquid extraction (PLE) and matrix solid-phase dispersion (MSPD) are reviewed and their most recent applications to the determination of POPs in biota samples are provided. Additionally, classical as well as promising novel extraction/clean-up techniques such as solid phase microextraction (SPME) are also summarized. Finally, emerging trends in sample preparation able to integrate analytes extraction and their adequate clean-up are presented.     

Dispersive liquid–liquid microextraction with little solvent consumption combined with gas chromatography–mass spectrometry for the pretreatment of organochlorine pesticides in aqueous samples

Dispersive liquid–liquid microextraction with little solvent consumption (DLLME-LSC), a novel dispersive liquid–liquid microextraction (DLLME) technique with few solvent requirements (13 μL of a binary mixture of disperser solvent and extraction solvent in the ratio of 6:4) and short extraction time (90 s), has been developed for extraction of organochlorine pesticides (OCPs) from water samples prior to gas chromatography/mass spectrometry analysis. In DLLME-LSC, much less volume of organic solvent is used as compared to DLLME. The new technique is less harmful to environment and yields a higher enrichment factor (1885–2648-fold in this study). Fine organic droplets were formed in the sample solution by manually shaking the test tube containing the mixture of sample solution and extraction solvent. The large surface area of the organic solvent droplets increases the rate of mass transfer from the water sample to the extractant and produces efficient extraction in a short period of time. DLLME-LSC shows good repeatability (RSD: 4.1–9.7% for reservoir water; 5.6–8.9% for river water) and high sensitivity (limits of detection: 0.8–2.5 ng/L for reservoir water; 0.4–1.3 ng/L for river water). The method can be used on various water samples (river water, tap water, sea water and reservoir water). It can be used for routine work for the investigation of OCPs.     

Membrane-based microextraction techniques in analytical chemistry: A review

The use of membrane-based sample preparation techniques in analytical chemistry has gained growing attention from the scientific community since the development of miniaturized sample preparation procedures in the 1990s. The use of membranes makes the microextraction procedures more stable, allowing the determination of analytes in complex and “dirty” samples. This review describes some characteristics of classical membrane-based microextraction techniques (membrane-protected solid-phase microextraction, hollow-fiber liquid-phase microextraction and hollow-fiber renewal liquid membrane) as well as some alternative configurations (thin film and electromembrane extraction) used successfully for the determination of different analytes in a large variety of matrices, some critical points regarding each technique are highlighted.     

Tandem air-agitated liquid–liquid microextraction as an efficient method for determination of acidic drugs in complicated matrices

A rapid and simple microextraction method with a high sample clean-up, termed as tandem air-agitated liquid–liquid microextraction (TAALLME), is described. This method is based upon the tandem implementation of the air-agitated liquid–liquid microextraction (AALLME), and this approach improves the applicability of the dispersive liquid–liquid microextraction (DLLME) methods in complicated matrices. With very simple tools, the three non-steroidal anti-inflammatory drugs diclofenac, ibuprofen, and mefenamic acid were efficiently extracted, with an overall extraction time of 7 min. By performing the first AALLME, these acidic analytes, contained in an aqueous sample solution (donor phase, 8.0 mL), were extracted into the organic solvent (1,2-dichloroethane, 37 μL), and their simple back-extraction into the aqueous acceptor solution (pH, 10.01, 51 μL) was obtained in 2 min by a second implementation of AALLME. Response surface methodology (RSM) was used for optimization of the experimental parameters. The pH values 2.94 and 10.01 were obtained for the donor and acceptor phases, respectively, and the volumes 99.5 and 51 μL were obtained for the organic solvent and the acceptor phase, respectively, as the optimal extraction conditions. Under the optimized conditions, tandem AALLME-HPLC-UV provided a good linearity in the range of 0.5–4000 ng mL⁻¹, limits of detection (0.1–0.3 ng mL⁻¹), extraction repeatabilities (relative standard deviations (RSDs) below 7.7%, n = 5), and the enrichment factors (EFs) of 80–104. Finally, the applicability of the proposed method was evaluated by the extraction and determination of the drugs under study in the wastewater and human plasma samples.     

Analysis of volatile aldehyde biomarkers in human blood by derivatization and dispersive liquid–liquid microextraction based on solidification of floating organic droplet method by high performance liquid chromatography

A new dispersive liquid–liquid microextraction based on solidification of floating organic droplet method (DLLME-SFO) was developed for the determination of volatile aldehyde biomarkers (hexanal and heptanal) in human blood samples. In the derivatization and extraction procedure, 2,4-dinitrophenylhydrazine (DNPH) as derivatization reagent and formic acid as catalyzer were injected into the sample solution for derivatization with aldehydes, then the formed hydrazones was rapidly extracted by dispersive liquid–liquid microextraction with 1-dodecanol as extraction solvent. After centrifugation, the floated droplet was solidified in an ice bath and was easily removed for analysis. The effects of various experimental parameters on derivatization and extraction conditions were studied, such as the kind and volume of extraction solvent and dispersive solvent, the amount of derivatization reagent, derivatization temperature and time, extraction time and salt effect. The limit of detections (LODs) for hexanal and heptanal were 7.90 and 2.34 nmol L⁻¹, respectively. Good reproducibility and recovery of the method were also obtained. The proposed method is an alternative approach to the quantification of volatile aldehyde biomarkers in complex biological samples, being more rapid and simpler and providing higher sensitivity compared with the traditional dispersive liquid–liquid microextraction (DLLME) methods.     

Recent advances and trends in miniaturized sample preparation techniques

Advances in the area of sample preparation are significant and have been growing significantly in recent years. This initial step of the analysis is essential and must be carried out properly, consisting of a complicated procedure with multiple stages. Consequently, it corresponds to a potential source of errors and will determine, at the end of the process, either a satisfactory result or a fail. One of the advances in this field includes the miniaturization of extraction techniques based on the conventional sample preparation procedures such as liquid‐liquid extraction and solid‐phase extraction. These modern techniques have gained prominence in the face of traditional methods since they minimize the consumption of organic solvents and the sample volume. As another feature, it is possible to reuse the sorbents, and its coupling to chromatographic systems might be automated. The review will emphasize the main techniques based on liquid‐phase microextraction, as well as those based upon the use of sorbents. The first group includes currently popular techniques such as single drop microextraction, hollow fiber liquid‐phase microextraction, and dispersive liquid‐liquid microextraction. In the second group, solid‐phase microextraction techniques such as in‐tube solid‐phase microextraction, stir bar sorptive extraction, dispersive solid‐phase extraction, dispersive micro solid‐phase microextraction, and microextraction by packed sorbent are highlighted. These approaches, in common, aim the determination of analytes at low concentrations in complex matrices. This article describes some characteristics, recent advances, and trends on miniaturized sample preparation techniques, as well as their current applications in food, environmental, and bioanalysis fields.     

New developments in microextraction techniques in bioanalysis. A review

In recent years, the interest in new extraction methods with lower sample volume requirements, simpler equipment and handling, and lower reagent consumption, has led to the development of a series of microextraction methods based on extraction phases in the microliter order. Nowadays, many references can be found for several of these methods, which imply a wide range of applications referred to both the analyte and the sample nature. In this paper, recent developments in both well-established microextraction techniques (solid phase microextraction, hollow-fiber liquid phase microextraction, dispersive liquid–liquid microextraction, etc.) and recently appeared microextraction procedures (nanoextraction systems, microchip devices, etc.) for the clinical analysis of biological samples will be reviewed and discussed.     

Liquid–liquid–solid microextraction based on membrane-protected molecularly imprinted polymer fiber for trace analysis of triazines in complex aqueous samples

A novel liquid–liquid–solid microextraction (LLSME) technique based on porous membrane-protected molecularly imprinted polymer (MIP)-coated silica fiber has been developed. In this technique, a MIP-coated silica fiber was protected with a length of porous polypropylene hollow fiber membrane which was filled with water-immiscible organic phase. Subsequently the whole device was immersed into aqueous sample for extraction. The LLSME technique was a three-phase microextraction approach. The target analytes were firstly extracted from the aqueous sample through a few microliters of organic phase residing in the pores and lumen of the membrane, and were then finally extracted onto the MIP fiber. A terbutylazine MIP-coated silica fiber was adopted as an example to demonstrate the feasibility of the novel LLSME method. The extraction parameters such as the organic solvent, extraction and desorption time were investigated. Comparison of the LLSME technique was made with molecularly imprinted polymer based solid-phase microextraction (MIP-SPME) and hollow fiber membrane-based liquid-phase microextraction (HF-LPME), respectively. The LLSME, integrating the advantages of high selectivity of MIP-SPME and enrichment and sample cleanup capability of the HF-LPME into a single device, is a promising sample preparation method for complex samples. Moreover, the new technique overcomes the problem of disturbance from water when the MIP-SPME fiber was exposed directly to aqueous samples. Applications to analysis of triazine herbicides in sludge water, watermelon, milk and urine samples were evaluated to access the real sample application of the LLSME method by coupling with high-performance liquid chromatography (HPLC). Low limits of detection (0.006–0.02 μg L⁻¹), satisfactory recoveries and good repeatability for real sample (RSD 1.2–9.6%, n = 5) were obtained. The method was demonstrated to be a fast, selective and sensitive pretreatment method for trace analysis of triazines in complex aqueous samples.     

Ultrasound-assisted dispersive liquid–liquid microextraction combined with high-performance liquid chromatography-fluorescence detection for sensitive determination of biogenic amines in rice wine samples

Ultrasound-assisted dispersive liquid–liquid microextraction coupled with high-performance liquid chromatography-fluorescence detection was used for the extraction and determination of three biogenic amines including octopamine, tyramine and phenethylamine in rice wine samples. Fluorescence probe 2,6-dimethyl-4-quinolinecarboxylic acid N-hydroxysuccinimide ester was applied for derivatization of biogenic amines. Acetonitrile and 1-octanol were used as disperser solvent and extraction solvent, respectively. Extraction conditions including the type of extraction solvent, the volume of extraction solvent, ultrasonication time and centrifuging time were optimized. After extraction and centrifuging, analyte was injected rapidly into high-performance liquid chromatography and then detected with fluorescence. The calibration graph of the proposed method was linear in the range of 5–500 μg mL⁻¹ (octopamine and tyramine) and 0.025–2.5 μg mL⁻¹ (phenethylamine). The relative standard deviations were 2.4–3.2% (n = 6) and the limits of detection were in the range of 0.02–5 ng mL⁻¹. The method was applied to analyze the rice wine samples and spiked recoveries in the range of 95.42–104.56% were obtained. The results showed that ultrasound-assisted dispersive liquid–liquid microextraction was a very simple, rapid, sensitive and efficient analytical method for the determination of trace amount of biogenic amines.     

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.