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.     

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.     

Green methodology based on dispersive liquid–liquid microextraction and micellar electrokinetic chromatography for 5‐nitroimidazole analysis in water samples

Dispersive liquid–liquid microextraction has been proposed as an extraction technique combined with micellar electrokinetic chromatography (MEKC) for the analysis of eight 5‐nitroimidazole compounds, including some metabolites, in water samples. Determination has been carried out using a diode array detector, employing 20 mM sodium phosphate and 150 mM SDS as separation buffer. Separation has taken place under a voltage of 25 kV and a temperature of 20°C. Samples were prepared in a buffer without micelles and they were hydrodynamically injected at 50 mbar for 25 s, producing a sweeping effect on the analytes for increasing sensitivity. Different factors involved in the dispersive liquid–liquid microextraction procedure were optimized, such as sample pH, nature, and volume of extraction and dispersive solvents in the mixture, percentage of NaCl added to sample and shaking time after the injection of the extraction and dispersive solvents. The method was characterized for water samples, achieving detection limits lower than 2.4 μg/L. Trueness was checked in river, tap, and bottled water. Dispersive liquid–liquid microextraction combined with MEKC constitutes an easy, cheap, and green alternative for 5‐nitroimidazole analysis in environmental water 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.     

Low‐density solvent‐based vortex‐assisted surfactant‐enhanced emulsification liquid–liquid microextraction and its application

For the first time, the low‐density solvent‐based vortex‐assisted surfactant‐enhanced emulsification liquid–liquid microextraction, followed by GC‐flame photometric detection has been developed for the determination of eight organophosphorus pesticides in aqueous samples. A small volume of organic extraction solvent (toluene) was dispersed into the aqueous samples by the assistance of surfactant and vortex agitator. The extraction was performed in a special disposable polyethylene pipette, allowing using the reagents with lower density than water as extraction solvents. The influence parameters were systemically investigated and optimized: toluene (30 μL) and Triton X‐100 (0.2 mmol/L) were used as the extraction solvent and the surfactant, respectively, and the extraction was performed for 1 min under room temperature without adding sodium chloride. Under the optimum conditions, the validation parameters such as the RSD (n = 6; 2.1–11.3%), LOD (0.005 and 0.05 μg/L), and linear range (0.1–50.0 μg/L with correlation coefficients (0.9958–0.9992) showed the method was satisfying. The proposed method has been successfully applied to the determination of the organophosphorus pesticides in real samples with recoveries between 82.8 and 100.2%.     

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.     

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.     

High‐density extraction solvent‐based solvent de‐emulsification dispersive liquid–liquid microextraction combined with MEKC for detection of chlorophenols in water samples

For the first time, the high‐density solvent‐based solvent de‐emulsification dispersive liquid–liquid microextraction (HSD‐DLLME) was developed for the fast, simple, and efficient determination of chlorophenols in water samples followed by field‐enhanced sample injection with reverse migrating micelles in CE. The extraction of chlorophenols in the aqueous sample solution was performed in the presence of extraction solvent (chloroform) and dispersive solvent (acetone). A de‐emulsification solvent (ACN) was then injected into the aqueous solution to break up the emulsion, the obtained emulsion cleared into two phases quickly. The lower layer (chloroform) was collected and analyzed by field‐enhanced sample injection with reverse migrating micelles in CE. Several important parameters influencing the extraction efficiency of HSD‐DLLME such as the type and volume of extraction solvent, disperser solvent and de‐emulsification solvent, sample pH, extraction time as well as salting‐out effects were optimized. Under the optimized conditions, the proposed method provided a good linearity in the range of 0.02–4 μg/mL, low LODs (4 ng/mL), and good repeatability of the extractions (RSDs below 9.3%, n = 5). And enrichment factors for three phenols were 684, 797, and 233, respectively. This method was then utilized to analyze two real environmental samples from wastewater and tap water and obtained satisfactory results. The obtained results indicated that the developed method is an excellent alternative for the routine analysis in the environmental field.     

Determination of aromatic amines from textiles using dispersive liquid–liquid microextraction

A dispersive liquid–liquid microextraction procedure coupled with GC‐MS is described for preconcentration and determination of banned aromatic amines from textile samples. Experimental conditions affecting the microextraction procedure were optimized. A mixture of 30 μL chlorobenzene (extraction solvent) and 800 μL ACN (disperser solvent), 5 min extraction time, and 5 mL aqueous sample volume were chosen for the best extraction efficiency by the proposed procedure. Satisfactory linearity (with correlation coefficients >0.9962) and repeatability (<9.78%) were obtained for all 20 aromatic amines; detection limits attained were much lower than the standardized liquid–liquid method. The proposed method has advantages of being quicker and easier to operate, and lower consumption of organic solvent.     

Vortex‐assisted surfactant‐enhanced‐emulsification liquid–liquid microextraction of biogenic amines in fermented foods before their simultaneous analysis by high‐performance liquid chromatography

A simple, rapid, sensitive, and environmentally friendly method, based on modified dispersive liquid–liquid microextraction coupled with high‐performance liquid chromatography was developed for the simultaneous determination of five biogenic amines in fermented food samples. Biogenic amines were derivatized with 9‐fluorenylmethyl chloroformate, extracted by vortex‐assisted surfactant‐enhanced emulsification liquid–liquid microextraction, and then analyzed by high‐performance liquid chromatography. Five biogenic amine compounds were separated within 30 min using a C₁₈ column and gradient elution with acetonitrile and 1% acetic acid. Factors influencing the derivatization and extraction efficiency such as type and volume of extraction solvent, type, and concentration of surfactant, pH, salt addition, and vortex time were optimized. Under the optimum conditions, the method provided the enrichment factors in the range of 161–553. Good linearity was obtained from 0.002–0.5 mg/L for cadaverine and tyramine, 0.003–1 mg/L for tryptamine and histamine, and 0.005–1 mg/L for spermidine with coefficient of determination (R²) > 0.992. The limits of detection ranged from 0.0010 to 0.0026 mg/L. The proposed method was successfully applied to analysis of biogenic amines in fermented foods such as fermented fish (plaa‐som), wine and beer where good recoveries were obtained in the range of 83.2–112.5%     

Cyclodextrin‐assisted dispersive liquid–liquid microextraction for the preconcentration of carbamazepine and clobazam with subsequent sweeping micellar electrokinetic chromatography

A new version of dispersive liquid–liquid microextraction, namely, cyclodextrin‐assisted dispersive liquid–liquid microextraction, with subsequent sweeping micellar electrokinetic chromatography has been developed for the preconcentration and sensitive detection of carbamazepine and clobazam. α‐Cyclodextrin and chloroform were used as the dispersive agent and extraction solvent, respectively. After the extraction, carbamazepine and clobazam were analyzed using micellar electrokinetic chromatography with ultraviolet detection. The detection sensitivity was further enhanced using the sweeping technique. Under optimal extraction and stacking conditions, the calibration curves of carbamazepine and clobazam were linear over a concentration range of 2.0–200.0 ng/mL. The method detection limits at a signal‐to‐noise ratio of 3 were 0.6 and 0.5 ng/mL with sensitivity enhancement factors of 3575 and 4675 for carbamazepine and clobazam, respectively. This developed method demonstrated high sensitivity enhancement factors and was successfully applied to the determination of carbamazepine and clobazam in human urine samples. The precision and accuracy for urine samples were less than 4.2 and 6.9%, respectively.     

Temperature‐controlled ionic liquid dispersive liquid‐phase microextraction for the sensitive determination of triclosan and triclocarban in environmental water samples prior to HPLC‐ESI‐MS/MS

A novel dispersive liquid‐phase microextraction method without dispersive solvents has been developed for the enrichment and sensitive determination of triclosan and triclocarban in environmental water samples prior to HPLC‐ESI‐MS/MS. This method used only green solvent 1‐hexyl‐3‐methylimidazolium hexafluorophosphate as extraction solvent and overcame the demerits of the use of toxic solvents and the instability of the suspending drop in single drop liquid‐phase microextraction. Important factors that may influence the enrichment efficiencies, such as volume of ionic liquid, pH of solutions, extraction time, centrifuging time and temperature, were systematically investigated and optimized. Under optimum conditions, linearity of the method was observed in the range of 0.1–20 μg/L for triclocarban and 0.5–100 μg/L for triclosan, respectively, with adequate correlation coefficients (R>0.9990). The proposed method has been found to have excellent detection sensitivity with LODs of 0.04 and 0.3 μg/L, and precisions of 4.7 and 6.0% (RSDs, n=5) for triclocarban and triclosan, respectively. This method has been successfully applied to analyze real water samples and satisfactory results were achieved.     

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.     

An efficient biosorption‐based dispersive liquid‐liquid microextraction with extractant removal by magnetic nanoparticles for quantification of bisphenol A in water samples by gas chromatography‐mass spectrometry detection

In this work, a simple, fast, sensitive, and environmentally friendly method was developed for preconcentration and quantitative measurement of bisphenol A in water samples using gas chromatography with mass spectrometry. The preconcentration approach, namely biosorption‐based dispersive liquid‐liquid microextraction with extractant removal by magnetic nanoparticles was performed based on the formation of microdroplet of rhamnolipid biosurfactant throughout the aqueous samples, which accelerates the mass transfer process between the extraction solvent and sample solution. The process is then followed by the application of magnetic nanoparticles for easy retrieval of the analyte‐containing extraction solvent. Several important variables were optimized comprehensively including type of disperser solvent and desorption solvent, rhamnolipid concentration, volume of disperser solvent, amount of magnetic nanoparticles, extraction time, desorption time, ionic strength, and sample pH. Under the optimized microextraction and gas chromatography with mass spectrometry conditions, the method demonstrated good linearity over the range of 0.5–500 µg/L with a coefficient of determination of R² = 0.9904, low limit of detection (0.15 µg/L) and limit of quantification (0.50 µg/L) of bisphenol A, good analyte recoveries (84–120%) and acceptable relative standard deviation (1.8–14.9%, n = 6). The proposed method was successfully applied to three environmental water samples, and bisphenol A was detected in all samples.     

Determination of phthalate esters in liquor samples by vortex‐assisted surfactant‐enhanced‐emulsification liquid–liquid microextraction followed by GC–MS

A novel method using vortex‐assisted surfactant‐enhanced‐emulsification liquid–liquid microextraction has been developed for the extraction of phthalate esters (PAEs) in Chinese liquor samples prior to analysis by GC–MS. In the proposed method, a high‐density extraction solvent (carbon tetrachloride) was dispersed into samples with the aid of a surfactant (Triton X‐100) and vortex agitation, resulting in a short extraction equilibrium (30 s). After centrifugation, a single microdrop of solvent was easily collected for GC–MS analysis. Key factors that affected the extraction efficiency were optimized. Under the optimum conditions, linearity was found in the range from 0.05 to 50 μg/L. Coefficients of determination varied from 0.9938 to 0.9971. LODs, based on an S/N of 3, ranged from 4.9 to 13 ng/L. Enrichment factors varied from 140 to 184. Reproducibility and recoveries were assessed by testing a series of three liquor samples that were spiked with different concentration levels. Finally, the proposed method was successfully applied to the determination of PAEs in 16 Chinese liquor samples. In this work, high‐density‐solvent vortex‐assisted surfactant‐enhanced‐emulsification liquid–liquid microextraction was applied for the first time for the extraction of PAEs in Chinese liquor samples and was proved to be simple, rapid, and sensitive.     

Preconcentration and determination of methyl methacrylate by dispersive liquid–liquid microextraction

This article describes the preconcentration of methyl methacrylate in produced water by the dispersive liquid–liquid microextraction using extraction solvents lighter than water followed by gas chromatography. In the present experiments, 0.4 mL dispersive solvent (ethanol) containing 15.0 μL extraction solvent (toluene) was rapidly injected into the samples and followed by centrifuging and direct injection into the gas chromatograph equipped with flame ionization detector. The parameters affecting the extraction efficiency were evaluated and optimized including toluene (as extraction solvent), ethanol (as dispersive solvent), 15 μL and 0.4 mL (as the volume of extraction and dispersive solvents, respectively), pH 7, 20% ionic strength, and extraction's temperature and time of 20°C and 10 min, respectively. Under the optimum conditions, the figures of merits were determined to be LOD = 10 μg/L, dynamic range = 20–180 μg/L, RSD = 11% (n = 6). The maximum recovery under the optimized condition was determined to be 79.4%.     

Developing an alcoholic‐assisted dispersive liquid–liquid microextraction for extraction of pentachlorophenol in water

Optimization of alcoholic‐assisted dispersive liquid–liquid microextraction of pentachlorophenol (PCP) and determination of it with high‐performance liquid chromatography (UV‐Vis detection) was investigated. A Plackett‐Burman design and a central composite design were applied to evaluate the alcoholic‐assisted dispersive liquid–liquid microextraction procedure. The effect of seven parameters on extraction efficiency was investigated. The factor studied were type and volume of extraction and dispersive solvents, amount of salt, and agitation time. According to Plackett‐Burman design results, the effective parameters were type and volume of extraction solvent and agitation time. Next, a central composite design was applied to obtain optimal condition. The optimized conditions were obtained at 170‐μL 1‐octanol and 5‐min agitation time. The enrichment factor of PCP was 242 with limits of detection of 0.04 μg L^?1. The linearity was 0.1–100 μg L^?1 and the extraction recovery was 92.7%. RSD for intra and inter day of extraction of PCP were 4.2% and 7.8%, respectively for five measurements. The developed method was successfully applied for the determination of PCP in environmental water samples.     

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.     

Determination of phthalate esters in bottled water using dispersive liquid–liquid microextraction coupled with GC–MS

Dispersive liquid–liquid microextraction method was developed for the determination of the amount of phthalate esters in bottled drinking water samples and dispersive liquid–liquid microextraction samples were analyzed by GC–MS. Various experimental conditions influencing the extraction were optimized. Under the optimized conditions, very good linearity was observed for all analytes in a range between 0.05 and 150 μg/L with coefficient of determination (R²) between 0.995 and 0.999. The LODs based on S/N = 3 were 0.005–0.22 μg/L. The reproducibility of dispersive liquid–liquid microextraction was evaluated. The RSDs were 1.3–5.2% (n = 3). The concentrations of phthalates were determined in bottled samples available in half shell. To understand the leaching profile of these phthalates from bottled water, bottles were exposed to direct sunlight during summer (temperature from 34–57°C) and sampled at different intervals. Result showed that the proposed dispersive liquid–liquid microextraction is suitable for rapid determination of phthalates in bottled water and di‐n‐butyl, butyl benzyl, and bis‐2‐ethylhexyl phthalate compounds leaching from bottles up to 36 h. Thereafter, degradation of phthalates was observed.     

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.