Ionic liquid/ionic liquid dispersive liquid-liquid microextraction

In this article, a novel and simple microextraction method, termed ionic liquid/ionic liquid dispersive liquid–liquid microextraction (IL/IL‐DLLME), has been designed and developed for the rapid enrichment and analysis of environmental pollutants. Instead of using hazardous organic solvents, two kinds of ILs, hydrophobic IL and hydrophilic IL, were used as extraction solvent and disperser solvent in IL/IL‐DLLME step, respectively. Permethrin and biphenthrin, two of the often‐used pyrethroid pesticides, were used as model compounds. Factors that may affect the enrichment efficiencies were investigated and optimized in detail. Under optimum conditions, permethrin and biphenthrin exhibited a wide linear relationship over the range 1–100 μg/L. For permethrin and biphenthrin, the precisions were 4.65–7.78%, and limits of detection were found to be 0.28 and 0.83 μg/L, respectively. Satisfactory results were achieved when the present method was applied to analyze the target compounds in real‐world water samples with spiked recoveries over the range 84.1–113.5%. All these facts indicated that IL/IL‐DLLME is a simple and rapid alternative for the enrichment and analysis of environmental pollutants and will have a wide application perspective in the future.     

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.     

Comparison of two ultrasound‐enhanced microextractions combined with HPLC for determining acaricides in water

An ultrasound‐enhanced in situ solvent formation microextraction has been developed first time and compared with ultrasound‐enhanced ionic‐liquid‐assisted dispersive liquid–liquid microextraction for the HPLC analysis of acaricides in environmental water samples. A ionic liquid ([C₈MIM][PF₆]) was used as the green extraction solvent through two pathways. The experimental parameters, such as the type and volume of both of the extraction solvent disperser solvent, ultrasonication time, and salt addition, were investigated and optimized. The analytical performance using the optimized conditions proved the feasibility of the developed methods for the quantitation of trace levels of acaricides by obtaining limits of detection that range from 0.54 to 3.68 μg/L. The in situ solvent formation microextraction method possesses more positive characteristics than the ionic‐liquid‐assisted dispersive liquid–liquid microextraction method (except for spirodiclofen determination) when comparing the validation parameters. Both methods were successfully applied to determining acaricides in real water samples.     

Dispersive Liquid‐Liquid Microextraction Followed by HPLC‐DAD as an Efficient and Sensitive Technique for the Determination of Patulin from Apple Juice and Concentrate Samples

A simple and sensitive method based on dispersive liquid‐liquid microextraction (DLLME) in conjunction with high performance liquid chromatography‐diode array detection (HPLC‐DAD) has been developed for the quantitative analysis of patulin in apple juice and concentrate samples. The effect of extraction and disperser solvent (nature and volume), pH of sample solution, extraction time and extraction temperature was investigated. Under the optimal conditions the linear dynamic range of patulin was from 8.0 to 40.0 μg L^‐1 with a correlation coefficient of 0.9993 and a detection limit of 4.0 μg L^‐1. The relative standard deviation (RSD) was less than 5.9% (n = 5) and the recovery values were in the range of 94‐97%. Finally the proposed method was successfully applied for the analysis of patulin in apple juice and concentrate samples.     

Up‐and‐down shaker‐assisted ionic liquid‐based dispersive liquid—liquid microextraction of benzophenone‐type ultraviolet filters

Sun protection is an important part of our lives. UV filters are widely used to absorb solar radiation in sunscreens. However, excess UV filters constitute persistent groups of organic micropollutants present in the environment. An environmentally friendly ionic‐liquid‐based up‐and‐down shaker‐assisted dispersive liquid?liquid microextraction device combined with ultra‐performance liquid chromatography coupled with photodiode‐array detection has been developed to preconcentrate three UV filters (benzophenone, 2‐hydroxy‐4‐methoxybenzophenone, 2,2′‐dihydroxy‐4‐methoxybenzophenone) from field water samples. In this method, the optimal conditions for the proposed extraction method were: 40 μL [C₈MIM][PF₆] as extraction solvent and 200 μL methanol as disperser solvent were used to extract the UV filters. After up‐and‐down shaking for 3 min, the aqueous solution was centrifuged at 5000 rpm speed, then using microtube to collect the settled extraction solvent and using ultra‐performance liquid chromatography for further analysis. Quantification results indicated that the linear range was 2–1000 ng/mL. The LOD of this method was in the range 0.2–1.3 ng/mL with r² ≥ 0.9993. The relative recovery in studies of different types of field water samples was in the range 92–120%, and the RSD was 2.3–7.1%. The proposed method was also applied to the analysis of field samples.     

Ionic liquids dispersive liquid–liquid microextraction and high‐performance liquid chromatographic determination of irbesartan and valsartan in human urine

An environmentally friendly ionic liquids dispersive liquid–liquid microextraction (IL‐DLLME) method coupled with high‐performance liquid chromatography (HPLC) for the determination of antihypertensive drugs irbesartan and valsartan in human urine samples was developed. The HPLC separations were accomplished in less than 10 min using a reversed‐phase C₁₈ column (250 × 4.60 mm i.d., 5 µm) with a mobile phase containing 0.3 % formic acid solution and methanol (v/v, 3:7; flow rate, 1.0 mL/min). UV absorption responses at 236 nm were linear over a wide concentration range from 50 µg/mL to the detection limits of 3.3 µg/L for valsartan and 1.5 µg/L for irbesartan. The effective parameters on IL‐DLLME, such as ionic liquid types and their amounts, disperser solvent types and their volume, pH of the sample and extraction time were studied and optimized. The developed IL‐DLLME‐HPLC was successfully applied for evaluation of the urine irbesartan and valsartan profile following oral capsules administration. Copyright © 2012 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.     

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.     

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.     

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.     

Ionic Liquid‐Carbon Nanotube Modified Screen‐Printed Electrodes and Their Potential for Adsorptive Stripping Voltammetry

Compared with paraffin oil, the use of ionic liquids as a binder in carbon paste type electrodes was shown to greatly enhance the accumulation of analytes, as illustrated with 17α‐ethynylestradiol as a model. The ionic “liquid” n‐octyl‐pyridinium hexafluorophosphate [C₈py][PF₆] was most efficient among several ionic liquids investigated. Such preconcentration allowed a [C₈py][PF₆]‐multiwalled carbon nanotubes (MWCNTs) (95 : 5 w/w) composite electrode to be useful for adsorptive stripping voltammetry. Screen‐printed electrodes modified with [C₈py][PF₆]‐MWCNTs were developed and were able to achieve high sensitivity during adsorptive stripping voltammetric measurements under optimised conditions.     

Dispersive liquid-liquid microextraction of pesticides and metabolites from soils using 1,3-dipentylimidazolium hexafluorophosphate ionic liquid as an alternative extraction solvent

In this work, the use of the ionic liquid (IL) 1,3-dipentylimidazolium hexafluorophosphate ([PPIm][PF?]) as an alternative extractant for IL dispersive liquid-liquid microextraction (IL-DLLME) of a group of pesticides and metabolites (2-aminobenzimidazole, carbendazim/benomyl, thiabendazole, fuberidazole, carbaryl, 1-naphthol, and triazophos) from soils is described. After performing an initial ultrasound-assisted extraction (USE), the IL-DLLME procedure was applied for the extraction of these organic analytes from soil extracts. Separation and quantification was achieved by high-performance liquid chromatography (HPLC) with fluorescence detection (FD). Calibration, precision, and accuracy of the described USE-IL-DLLME-HPLC-FD method using [PPIm][PF?] as an alternative extractant was evaluated with two soils of different physicochemical properties. Accuracy percentages were in the range 93-118% with RSD values below 20%. A comparison of the performance of [PPIm][PF?] versus that of the so-common 1-hexyl-3-methylimidazolium hexafluorophosphate ([HMIm][PF?]) was accomplished. Results indicate a comparable extraction efficiency with both ILs, being slightly higher with [HMIm][PF?] for the metabolite 2-aminobenzimidazole, and slightly higher with [PPIm][PF?] for triazophos. In all cases, LODs were in the low ng/g range (0.02-14.2 ng/g for [HMIm][PF?] and 0.02-60.5 ng/g for [PPIm][PF?]). As a result, the current work constitutes a starting point for the use of the IL [PPIm][PF?] for further analytical approaches.     

Determination of four trace preservatives in street food by ionic liquid-based dispersive liquid-liquid micro-extraction

A rapid and simple ionic liquid-based dispersive liquid-liquid micro-extraction (DLLME) method has been developed to pre-concentrate four paraben preservatives (methylparaben, ethylparaben, propylparaben, and butylparaben) from street food (pancakes). Several potentially influential factors such as the type of ionic liquid and disperser solvent, extraction time, sample pH, ionic strength, and the volume of the ionic liquid and disperser solvent were investigated. The optimum experimental conditions for the proposed micro-extraction process were: 0.1 mL of 1-octyl-3-methylimidazolium hexafluorophosphate ([C₈MIM][PF₆]) as an extraction solvent, 0.1 mL of acetonitrile as a disperser solvent, 5 min extraction time, and sample ionic strength of 30 % sodium chloride in water sample at pH 6.0. The LODs and LOQs were in the range of 1.0–1.5 ng g⁻¹ and 3.5–4.5 ng g⁻¹, respectively. Spiking recoveries were in the range of 60.1–79.5 % and the associated RSDs were all in the range of 1.8–7.0 %. The results show that DLLME is a suitable method for the determination of parabens in pancake samples and ionic liquid is a good extractant in this process.     

Temperature‐controlled ionic liquid dispersive liquid‐phase microextraction combined with HPLC with ultraviolet detector for the determination of fungicides

Present study described a simple, environmental benign, easy to operate, and determination method for fungicides including thiram, metalaxyl, diethofencarb, myclobutanil, and tebuconazole. The method is based on temperature‐controlled ionic liquid dispersive liquid phase microextraction coupled to HPLC with ultraviolet detector. In the enrichment procedure, ionic liquid 1‐octyl‐3‐methylimidazolium hexafluorophosphate [C₈MIM][PF₆] was used as the extraction solvent. Variable affecting parameters such as the volume of [C₈MIM][PF₆], temperature, extraction time, centrifuging time, and salting‐out effect have been optimized in detail. Under the optimal conditions, this method has been found to have good linear relationship in the concentration range of 1.0–100 μg/L and excellent detection sensitivity with LODs (S/N = 3) in the range of 0.32–0.79 μg/L. Precisions of proposed method were in the range of 3.7–5.9% for intraday and 7.8–11.0% for interday (RSDs, n = 6). The proposed method was used for the analysis of real water samples and good spiked recoveries at two different spiked levels were achieved in the range of 84.6–102%.     

Liquid-phase microextraction with in-drop derivatization combined with microvolume fluorospectrometry for free and hydrolyzed formaldehyde determination in textile samples

A novel approach for preconcentration and speciation analysis of trace amount of mercury from water samples was proposed by dispersive liquid–liquid microextraction (DLLME) coupled to high performance liquid chromatography with diode array detection (HPLC-DAD). Mercury species (Hg²⁺, methylmercury (MeHg⁺) and phenylmercury (PhHg⁺)) were complexed with dithizone (DZ) to form hydrophobic chelates and then extracted into the fine drops of extraction solvent dispersed in the aqueous sample by dispersive solvent. After extraction, the sedimented phase was analyzed by HPLC-DAD. Some important parameters affecting the DLLME such as extraction solvent and dispersive solvent type and volume, concentration of dithizone solution, sample pH, extraction time and salt effect were investigated. Ionic liquid 1-hexyl-3-methylimidazolium hexafluorophosphate ([HMIM][PF₆]) was found to be a suitable extractant for the chelates. Under the optimized conditions (extraction solvent: 70 μL of ionic liquid 1-hexyl-3-methylimidazolium hexafluorophosphate ([HMIM][PF₆]); dispersive solvent: 0.75 mL of methanol containing dithizone (0.02%, m/v); pH: 4; extraction time: 5 min; and without salt addition), the limits of detection for Hg²⁺, MeHg⁺ and PhHg⁺ were 0.32, 0.96 and 1.91 μg L⁻¹ (S N⁻¹ = 3) respectively, and the relative standard deviation (RSD) was between 4.1 and 7.3% (n = 5). Three real water samples (tap water, river water and lake water) spiked with mercury species were detected by the developed method, and the relative recoveries obtained for Hg²⁺, MeHg⁺ and PhHg⁺ were 89.6–101.3%, 85.6–102.0% and 81.3–97.6%, respectively.     

Ultrasound assisted ionic liquid dispersive liquid phase extraction of lovastatin and simvastatin: A new pretreatment procedure

A fast and novel sample preparation procedure: ultrasound assisted ionic liquid (IL) dispersive liquid extraction for the concentration of lovastatin and simvastatin in aqueous samples was developed. An IL ([C₆MIM][PF₆]) was used as the extraction solvent, and the factors affecting the extraction efficiency such as initial temperature, the volume of IL, pH of water samples, cooling time, and salt concentration were optimized. In combination with HPLC‐UV, both lovastatin and simvastatin exhibited a good linear range of 1–100 ng/mL. The limits of detection (LODs) of lovastatin and simvastatin were 0.17 and 0.29 ng/mL, respectively. Precisions of the proposed method (RSDs, n = 9) were 4.12 and 4.52%, respectively. This method has been successfully applied for the analysis of target compounds in three real water samples and good spiking recoveries were obtained in the range of 90.0–102.2% for lovastatin and 80.5–112.0% for simvastatin. These results indicated that ultrasound assisted IL dispersive liquid phase extraction would have good application prospect in the pretreatment of environmental samples.     

Baylis-Hillman reaction in [bdmim][PF6] ionic liquid

A new use of ionic liquid [bdmim][PF₆] as solvent for the Baylis-Hillman reaction is presented. Unlike the commonly used [bmim][PF₆] that evidently reacts with electrophilic aldehydes under basic conditions, ionic liquid [bdmim][PF₆] is inert and the Baylis-Hillman reaction in [bdmim][PF₆] proceeds smoothly with better yield.     

Determination of Estrogens in Water Samples by Ionic Liquid-Based Dispersive Liquid-Liquid Microextraction Combined with High Performance Liquid Chromatography

Using 1-hexyl-3-methylimidazolium hexafluorophosphate ([C₆MIM][PF₆]) ionic liquid as extraction solvent, five estrogens including estrone (E₁), 17β-estradiol (E₂), estriol (E₃), 17α -ethynylestradiol (EE₂), and diethylstilbestrol (DES) in water samples were determined by dispersive liquid-liquid microextraction (DLLME) followed by high performance liquid chromatography with a photodiode array detector and a fluorescence detector (HPLC-DAD-FLD). The extraction procedure was induced by the formation of cloudy solution, which was composed of fine drops of [C₆MIM][PF₆] dispersed entirely into the sample solution with the help of a disperser solvent (acetone). Parameters including both extraction and disperser solvents and their volumes, extraction and centrifugal time, sample pH, and salt effect were investigated and optimized. Under the optimized conditions, 110–349 fold enrichment factors of analytes were obtained. The calibration curves were linear in the concentration range of 0.2–100 µg L^?1 for E₂, E₃, and EE₂ detected with FLD, and 1–100 µg L^?1 for E₁ and DES detected with DAD. The correlation coefficient of the calibration curve was between 0.9990 and 0.9997. The limits of detection (LOD, S/N = 3) for the five estrogens were in the range of 0.08–0.5 µg L^?1. The relative standard deviations (RSD) for six replication experiments at the concentration of 5.0 µg L^?1 were ≤5.7%. The proposed method was applied to the analysis of three water samples from different sources (river water, waste water, and sea water). The relative recoveries of spiked water samples are satisfied with 89.3–102.4% and 88.7–105.2% at two different concentration levels of 5.0 and 50.0 µg L^?1, respectively.     

Ionic liquid for single‐drop microextraction followed by high‐performance liquid chromatography‐ultraviolet detection to determine carbonyl compounds in environmental waters

A sensitive method based on ionic liquid for single‐drop liquid microextraction coupled with HPLC‐UV was developed for the determination of carbonyl compounds in environmental waters using 1‐octyl‐3‐methylimidazolium hexafluorophosphate [C₈min][PF₆] as extraction solvent and 2,4‐dinitrophenylhydrazine as derivatizing agent. The extraction parameters affecting the enrichment factors such as solvent volume, pH, extraction time and salt concentration were investigated. A homemade funnel form polytetrafluoroethylene sleeve was fixed at the tip of the syringe needle and this allowed the use of 10 μL drop of ionic liquid for direct immersion extraction. Under the optimal conditions, the remarkable enrichment factors up to 150‐fold were obtained depending on the target analytes. The method has been validated when rectilinear relationship was obtained between the concentrations of analytes and peak area in the range of 5–100 ng/mL, the correlation coefficients were from 0.995 to 0.998, and the limit of detection was in the range of 0.04–2.03 ng/mL. The method was applied to monitor the concentration of carbonyl compounds in environmental waters with spiked recovery in the range of 84.2–106.9%.     

Determination of cadmium and copper in water and food samples by dispersive liquid–liquid microextraction combined with UV–vis spectrophotometry

In this work, a new method based on dispersive liquid–liquid microextraction (DLLME) preconcentration using tetrachloromethane (CCl₄) as extraction solvent was proposed for the spectrophotometric determination of cadmium and copper in water and food samples. The influence factors relevant to DLLME, such as type and volume of extractant and disperser solvent, concentration of chelating reagents, pH, salt effect, were optimized. Under the optimal conditions, the limits of detection for cadmium and copper were 0.01 ng/L and 0.5 μg/L, with enhancement factors (EFs) of 3458 and 10, respectively. The tremendous contrast of EFs could come from the different maximum absorption wavelength caused by the different extraction acidity compared with some conventional works and the enhancement effect of acetone used as dilution solvent during the spectrophotometric determination. The proposed method was applied to the determination of water and food samples with satisfactory analytical results. The proposed method was simple, rapid, cost-efficient and sensitive, especially for the detection of cadmium.     

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%.