Accelerated solvent extraction combined with dispersive liquid–liquid microextraction before gas chromatography with mass spectrometry for the sensitive determination of phenols in soil samples

A method combining accelerated solvent extraction with dispersive liquid–liquid microextraction was developed for the first time as a sample pretreatment for the rapid analysis of phenols (including phenol, m‐cresol, 2,4‐dichlorophenol, and 2,4,6‐trichlorophenol) in soil samples. In the accelerated solvent extraction procedure, water was used as an extraction solvent, and phenols were extracted from soil samples into water. The dispersive liquid–liquid microextraction technique was then performed on the obtained aqueous solution. Important accelerated solvent extraction and dispersive liquid–liquid microextraction parameters were investigated and optimized. Under optimized conditions, the new method provided wide linearity (6.1–3080 ng/g), low limits of detection (0.06–1.83 ng/g), and excellent reproducibility (<10%) for phenols. Four real soil samples were analyzed by the proposed method to assess its applicability. Experimental results showed that the soil samples were free of our target compounds, and average recoveries were in the range of 87.9–110%. These findings indicate that accelerated solvent extraction with dispersive liquid–liquid microextraction as a sample pretreatment procedure coupled with gas chromatography and mass spectrometry is an excellent method for the rapid analysis of trace levels of phenols in environmental soil samples.     

Reversed‐phase vortex‐assisted liquid–liquid microextraction: A new sample preparation method for the determination of amygdalin in oil and kernel samples

A novel, simple, and rapid reversed‐phase vortex‐assisted liquid–liquid microextraction coupled with high‐performance liquid chromatography has been introduced for the extraction, clean‐up, and preconcentration of amygdalin in oil and kernel samples. In this technique, deionized water was used as the extracting solvent. Unlike the reversed‐phase dispersive liquid–liquid microextraction, dispersive solvent was eliminated in the proposed method. Various parameters that affected the extraction efficiency, such as extracting solvent volume and its pH, vortex, and centrifuging times were evaluated and optimized. The calibration curve shows good linearity (r² = 0.9955) and precision (RSD < 5.2%) in the range of 0.07–20 μg/mL. The limit of detection and limit of quantitation were 0.02 and 0.07 μg/mL, respectively. The recoveries were in the range of 96.0–102.0% with relative standard deviation values ranging from 4.0 to 5.1%. Unlike the conventional extraction methods for plant extracts, no evaporative and re‐solubilizing operations were needed in the proposed technique.     

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.     

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.     

Switchable‐hydrophilicity solvent liquid‐liquid microextraction versus dispersive liquid‐liquid microextraction prior to HPLC‐UV for the determination and isolation of piperine from Piper nigrum L

Switchable‐hydrophilicity solvent liquid‐liquid microextraction and dispersive liquid‐liquid microextraction were compared for the extraction of piperine from Piper nigrum L. prior to its analysis by using high‐performance liquid chromatography with UV detection. Under optimum conditions, limits of detection and quantitation were found as 0.2–0.6 and 0.7–2.0 μg/mg with the two methods, respectively. Calibration graphs showed good linearity with coefficients of determination (R²) higher than 0.9962 and percentage relative standard deviations lower than 6.8%. Both methods were efficiently used for the extraction of piperine from black and white pepper samples from different origins and percentage relative recoveries ranged between 90.0 and 106.0%. The results showed that switchable‐hydrophilicity solvent liquid‐liquid microextraction is a better alternative to dispersive liquid‐liquid microextraction for the routine analysis of piperine in food samples. A novel scaled‐up dispersive liquid‐liquid microextraction method was also proposed for the isolation of piperine providing a yield of 102.9 ± 4.9% and purity higher than 98.0% as revealed by NMR spectroscopy.     

Comparison of three different dispersive liquid–liquid microextraction modes performed on their most usual configurations for the extraction of phenolic,neutral aromatic,and amino compounds from waters

In this work we seek clues to select the appropriate dispersive liquid–liquid microextraction mode for extracting three categories of compounds. For this purpose, three common dispersive liquid–liquid microextraction modes were compared under optimized conditions. Traditional dispersive liquid–liquid microextraction, in situ ionic liquid dispersive liquid–liquid microextraction, and conventional ionic liquid dispersive liquid–liquid microextraction using chloroform, 1‐butyl‐3‐methylimidazolium tetrafluoroborate, and 1‐hexyl‐3‐methylimidazolium hexafluorophosphate as the extraction solvent, respectively, were considered in this work. Phenolic, neutral aromatic, and amino compounds (each category included six members) were studied as analytes. The analytes in the extracts were determined by high‐performance liquid chromatography with UV detection. For the analytes with polar functionalities, the in situ ionic liquid dispersive liquid–liquid microextraction mode mostly led to better results. In contrast, for neutral hydrocarbons without polar functionalities, traditional dispersive liquid–liquid microextraction using chloroform produced better results. In this case, where dispersion forces were the dominant interactions in the extraction, the refractive index of solvent and analyte predicted the extraction performance better than the octanol/water partition coefficient. It was also revealed that none of the methods were successful in extracting hydrophilic analytes (compounds with the log octanol/water partition coefficient <2). The results of this study could be helpful in selecting a dispersive liquid–liquid microextraction mode for the extraction of various groups of compounds.     

Dispersive solid‐phase extraction followed by vortex‐assisted dispersive liquid–liquid microextraction based on the solidification of a floating organic droplet for the determination of benzoylurea insecticides in soil and sewage sludge

A novel dispersive solid‐phase extraction combined with vortex‐assisted dispersive liquid–liquid microextraction based on solidification of floating organic droplet was developed for the determination of eight benzoylurea insecticides in soil and sewage sludge samples before high‐performance liquid chromatography with ultraviolet detection. The analytes were first extracted from the soil and sludge samples into acetone under optimized pretreatment conditions. Clean‐up of the extract was conducted by dispersive solid‐phase extraction using activated carbon as the sorbent. The vortex‐assisted dispersive liquid–liquid microextraction based on solidification of floating organic droplet procedure was performed by using 1‐undecanol with lower density than water as the extraction solvent, and the acetone contained in the solution also acted as dispersive solvent. Under the optimum conditions, the linearity of the method was in the range 2–500 ng/g with correlation coefficients (r) of 0.9993–0.9999. The limits of detection were in the range of 0.08–0.56 ng/g. The relative standard deviations varied from 2.16 to 6.26% (n = 5). The enrichment factors ranged from 104 to 118. The extraction recoveries ranged from 81.05 to 97.82% for all of the analytes. The good performance has demonstrated that the proposed methodology has a strong potential for application in the multiresidue analysis of complex matrices.     

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.     

Microwave-Assisted Extraction/Dispersive Liquid–Liquid Microextraction Coupled with DSI-GC-IT/MS for Analysis of Essential Oil from Three Species of Cardamom

A novel method of microwave-assisted extraction coupled with polyethylene Pasteur-pipette-based dispersive liquid–liquid microextraction applying low-density organic solvent (MAE-LDS-DLLME) was successfully developed for extraction and preconcentration of essential oil from three species of cardamom (Semen Alpiniae Katsumadai, Fructus Amomi Rotundus, and Semen Myristicae). The essential oil was analyzed by gas chromatography-ion trap/mass spectrometry (GC-IT/MS) using a ChromatoProbe direct sample introduction (DSI) device. The effects of various parameters affecting the extraction process, such as the type of extraction solvent and dispersive solvent, ionic strength, microwave power, and irradiation time, were investigated thoroughly and optimized. The optimal conditions were extraction solvent of toluene, dispersive solvent of methanol, microwave power of 80 W, irradiation time of 4.0 min, plant material amount of 0.1 g, and no addition of salt. Compared with hydrodistillation, MAE-DLLME-DSI-GC–MS is a simple, rapid, low-cost, efficient, and environmentally friendly method, and the essential oil contains higher amounts of oxygenated compounds, which play an important and valuable role in terms of their contribution to the fragrance of the essential oil. In this work, we also studied the main components of the three varieties of cardamom. Qualitative and quantitative differences in the components of the three essential oils were found to be present. Based on comparison of the main bioactive compounds of essential oil, a significant difference was found between Semen Alpiniae Katsumadai or Fructus Amomi Rotundus and Semen Myristicae. This study also provides a new approach for quality assessment of traditional Chinese medicines.     

Matrix solid‐phase dispersion with chitosan‐zinc oxide nanoparticles combined with flotation‐assisted dispersive liquid–liquid microextraction for the determination of 13 n‐alkanes in soil samples

In this study, chitosan‐zinc oxide nanoparticles were used as a sorbent of miniaturized matrix solid‐phase dispersion combined with flotation‐assisted dispersive liquid–liquid microextraction for the simultaneous determination of 13 n‐alkanes such as C₈H₁₈ and C₂₀H₄₂ in soil samples. The solid samples were directly blended with the chitosan nanoparticles in the solid‐phase dispersion method. The eluent of solid‐phase dispersion was applied as the dispersive solvent for the following flotation‐assisted dispersive liquid–liquid microextraction for further purification and enrichment of the target compounds prior to gas chromatography with flame ionization detection. Under the optimum conditions, good linearity with correlation coefficients in the range 0.9991 < r² < 0.9995 and low detection limits between 0.08 to 2.5 ng/g were achieved. The presented procedure combined the advantages of chitosan‐zinc oxide nanoparticles, solid‐phase dispersion and flotation‐assisted dispersive liquid–liquid microextraction, and could be applied for the determination of n‐alkanes in complicated soil samples with acceptable recoveries.     

Preconcentration and determination of 2‐mercaptobenzimidazole by dispersive liquid–liquid microextraction and experimental design

A method was developed to determine 2‐mercaptobenzimidazole in water and urine samples using dispersive liquid–liquid microextraction technique coupled with ultraviolet–visible spectrophotometry. It was essential to peruse the effect of all parameters that can likely influence the performance of extraction. The influence of parameters, such as dispersive and extraction solvent volume and sample volume, on dispersive liquid–liquid microextraction was studied. The optimization was carried out by the central composite design method. The central composite design optimization method resulted in 1.10 mL dispersive solvent, 138.46 μL extraction solvent, and 4.46 mL sample volume. Under the optimal terms, the calibration curve was linear over the range of 0.003–0.18 and 0.007–0.18 μg/mL in water and urine samples, respectively. The limit of detection and quantification of the proposed approach for 2‐mercaptobenzimidazole were 0.013 and 0.044 μg/mL in water samples and 0.016 and 0.052 μg/mL in urine samples, respectively. The method was successfully applied to determination of 2‐mercaptobenzimidazole in urine and water samples.     

Ionic‐liquid‐based,manual‐shaking‐ and ultrasound‐assisted,surfactant‐enhanced emulsification microextraction for the determination of three fungicide residues in juice samples

A novel manual‐shaking‐ and ultrasound‐assisted surfactant‐enhanced emulsification microextraction method was developed for the determination of three fungicides in juice samples. In this method, the ionic liquid, 1‐ethyl‐3‐methylimidazolium bis[(trifluoromethyl)sulfonyl]imide, instead of a volatile organic solvent was used as the extraction solvent. The surfactant, NP‐10, was used as an emulsifier to enhance the dispersion of the water‐immiscible ionic liquid into an aqueous phase, which accelerated the mass transfer of the analytes. Organic dispersive solvent typically required in common dispersive liquid–liquid microextraction methods was not necessary. In addition, manual shaking for 15 s before ultrasound to preliminarily mix the extraction solvent and the aqueous sample could greatly shorten the time for dispersing the ionic liquid into aqueous solution by ultrasound irradiation. Several experimental parameters affecting the extraction efficiency, including type and volume of extraction solvent, type and concentration of surfactant, extraction time, and pH, were optimized. Under the optimized conditions, good linearity with the correlation coefficients (γ) higher than 0.9986 and high sensitivity with the limit of detection ranging from 0.4 to 1.6 μg/L were obtained. The average recoveries ranged from 61.4 to 86.0% for spiked juice, with relative standard deviations from 1.8 to 9.7%. The proposed method was demonstrated to be a simple, fast, and efficient method for the analysis of the target fungicides in juice samples.     

A comparison of various modes of liquid–liquid based microextraction techniques: Determination of picric acid

Three modes of liquid–liquid based microextraction techniques – namely auxiliary solvent‐assisted dispersive liquid–liquid microextraction, auxiliary solvent‐assisted dispersive liquid–liquid microextraction with low‐solvent consumption, and ultrasound‐assisted emulsification microextraction – were compared. Picric acid was used as the model analyte. The determination is based on the reaction of picric acid with Astra Phloxine reagent to produce an ion associate easily extractable by various organic solvents, followed by spectrophotometric detection at 558 nm. Each of the compared procedures has both advantages and disadvantages. The main benefit of ultrasound‐assisted emulsification microextraction is that no hazardous chlorinated extraction solvents and no dispersive solvent are necessary. Therefore, this procedure was selected for validation. Under optimized experimental conditions (pH 3, 7 × 10^?5 mol/L of Astra Phloxine, and 100 μL of toluene), the calibration plot was linear in the range of 0.02–0.14 mg/L and the LOD was 7 μg/L of picric acid. The developed procedure was applied to the analysis of spiked water samples.     

Determination of 19 sulfonamides residues in pork samples by combining QuEChERS with dispersive liquid–liquid microextraction followed by UHPLC–MS/MS

A new simple and rapid pretreatment method for simultaneous determination of 19 sulfonamides in pork samples was developed through combining the QuEChERS method with dispersive liquid–liquid microextraction followed by ultra‐high performance liquid chromatography with tandem mass spectrometry. The sample preparation involves extraction/partitioning with QuEChERS method followed by dispersive liquid–liquid microextraction using tetrachloroethane as extractive solvent and the acetonitrile extract as dispersive solvent that obtained by QuEChERS. The enriched tetrachloroethane organic phase by dispersive liquid–liquid microextraction was evaporated, reconstituted with 100 μL acetonitrile/water (1:9 v/v) and injected into an ultra‐high performance liquid chromatography with a mobile phase composed of acetonitrile and 0.1% v/v formic acid under gradient elution and separated using a BHE C₁₈ column. Various parameters affecting the extraction efficiency were investigated. Matrix‐matched calibration curves were established. Good linear relationships were obtained for all analytes in a range of 2.0–100 μg/kg and the limits of detection were 0.04–0.49 μg/kg. Average recoveries at three spiking levels were in the range of 78.3–106.1% with relative standard deviations less than 12.7% (n = 6). The developed method was successfully applied to determine sulfonamide residues in pork samples.     

Simultaneous derivatization and air‐assisted liquid–liquid microextraction of some parabens in personal care products and their determination by GC with flame ionization detection

A simultaneous derivatization/air‐assisted liquid–liquid microextraction technique has been developed for the sample pretreatment of some parabens in aqueous samples. The analytes were derivatized and extracted simultaneously by a fast reaction/extraction with butylchloroformate (derivatization agent/extraction solvent) from the aqueous samples and then analyzed by GC with flame ionization detection. The effect of catalyst type and volume, derivatization agent/extraction solvent volume, ionic strength of aqueous solution, pH, numbers of extraction, aqueous sample volume, etc. on the method efficiency was investigated. Calibration graphs were linear in the range of 2–5000 μg/L with squared correlation coefficients >0.990. Enhancement factors and enrichment factors ranged from 1535 to 1941 and 268 to 343, respectively. Detection limits were obtained in the range of 0.41–0.62 μg/L. The RSDs for the extraction and determination of 250 μg/L of each paraben were <4.9% (n = 6). In this method, the derivatization agent and extraction solvent were the same and there is no need for a dispersive solvent, which is common in a traditional dispersive liquid–liquid microextraction technique. Furthermore, the sample preparation time is very short.     

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.     

Determination of four acidic nonsteroidal anti‐inflammatory drugs in wastewater samples by dispersive liquid–liquid microextraction based on solidification of floating organic droplet and high‐performance liquid chromatography

A simple, environmentally friendly, and sensitive dispersive liquid–liquid microextraction based on solidification of floating organic droplet for the extraction of four acidic nonsteroidal anti‐inflammatory drugs (ketoprofen, naproxen, ibuprofen, and diclofenac) from wastewater samples subsequent by high‐performance liquid chromatography analysis was developed. The influence of extraction parameters such as pH, the effect of solution ionic strength, type of extraction solvent, disperser solvent, and extraction solvent volume were studied. High enrichment factors (283–302) were obtained through the developed method. The method provides good linearity (r > 0.999) in a concentration range of 1–100 μg/L, good intra‐ and inter‐day precision (relative standard deviation < 7%) and low limits of quantification. The relative recoveries of the selected compounds were situated over 80% both in synthetic and real water samples. The developed method has been successfully applied for the analysis of the selected compounds in wastewater samples.     

In situ ionic‐liquid‐dispersive liquid–liquid microextraction of Sudan dyes from liquid samples

In situ ionic‐liquid‐dispersive liquid–liquid microextraction was introduced for extracting Sudan dyes from different liquid samples followed by detection using ultrafast liquid chromatography. The extraction and metathesis reaction can be performed simultaneously, the extraction time was shortened notably and higher enrichment factors can be obtained compared with traditional dispersive liquid–liquid microextraction. When the extraction was coupled with ultrafast liquid chromatography, a green, convenient, cheap, and efficient method for the determination of Sudan dyes was developed. The effects of various experimental factors, including type of extraction solvent, amount of 1‐hexyl‐3‐methylimidazolium chloride, ratio of ammonium hexafluorophosphate to 1‐hexyl‐3‐methylimidazolium chloride, pH value, salt concentration in sample solution, extraction time and centrifugation time were investigated and optimized for the extraction of four kinds of Sudan dyes. The limits of detection for Sudan I, II, III, and IV were 0.324, 0.299, 0.390, and 0.655 ng/mL, respectively. Recoveries obtained by analyzing the seven spiked samples were between 65.95 and 112.82%. The consumption of organic solvent (120 μL acetonitrile per sample) was very low, so it could be considered as a green analytical method.     

Quantitative determination of trace phenazopyridine in human urine samples by hyphenation of dispersive solid‐phase extraction and liquid‐phase microextraction followed by gas chromatography/mass spectrometry analysis

Magnetic dispersive solid‐phase extraction followed by dispersive liquid?liquid microextraction coupled with gas chromatography/mass spectrometry was applied for the quantitative analysis of phenazopyridine in urinary samples. Magnetic dispersive solid‐phase extraction was carried out using magnetic graphene oxide nanoparticles modified by poly(thiophene‐pyrrole) copolymer. The eluting solvent of this step was used as the disperser solvent for the dispersive liquid?liquid microextraction procedure. To reach the maximum efficiency of the method, effective parameters including sorbent amount, adsorption time, type and volume of disperser and extraction solvents, pH of the sample solution, and ionic strength as well as desorption time, and approach were optimized, separately. Characterization of the synthesized sorbent was studied by utilizing infrared spectroscopy, scanning electron microscopy, and energy‐dispersive X‐ray analysis. Calibration curve was linear in the range of 0.5?250 ng/mL (R² = 0.9988) with limits of detection and quantification of 0.1 and 0.5 ng/mL, respectively. Intra‐ and interday precisions (RSD%, n = 3) of the method were in the range of 4.6?5.4% and 4.0?5.5%, respectively, at three different concentration levels. Under the optimal condition, this method was successfully applied for the determination of phenazopyridine in human urine samples. The relative recoveries were obtained in the range of 85.0?89.0%.     

Development of a novel hollow‐fiber liquid‐phase microextraction based on oil‐in‐salt and its comparison with conventional one

A novel hollow‐fiber liquid‐phase microextraction based on oil‐in‐salt was proposed and introduced for the simultaneous extraction and enrichment of the main active compounds of hesperidin, honokiol, shikonin, magnolol, emodin, and β,β′‐dimethylacrylshikonin in a formula of Zi‐Cao‐Cheng‐Qi decoction and the single herb, Fructus Aurantii Immaturus , Cortex Magnoliae Officinalis , Radix et Rhizoma , and Lithospermum erythrorhizon , composing the formula prior to their analysis by high‐performance liquid chromatography. The results obtained by the proposed procedure were compared with those obtained by conventional hollow‐fiber liquid‐phase microextraction, and the proposed procedure mechanism was described. In the procedure, a hollow‐fiber segment was first immersed in organic solvent to fill the solvent in the fiber lumen and wall pore, and then the fiber was again immersed into sodium chloride solution to cover a thin salt membrane on the fiber wall pore filling organic solvent. Under the optimum conditions, the enrichment factors of the analytes were 0.6–109.4, linearities were 0.002–12 μg/mL with r ² ≥ 0.9950, detection limits were 0.6–12 ng/mL, respectively. The results showed that oil‐in‐salt hollow‐fiber liquid‐phase microextraction is a simple and effective sample pretreatment procedure and suitable for the simultaneous extraction and concentration of trace‐level active compounds in traditional Chinese medicine.