Comparison of Two Extraction Procedures, SPE and DLLME, for Determining Plasticizer Residues in Hot Drinks at Vending Machines

Notardonato, Ivan; Passarella, Sergio; Iannone, Alessia; Fiore, Cristina Di; Russo, Mario Vincenzo; Protano, Carmela; Vitali, Matteo; Avino, Pasquale

doi:10.3390/pr9091588

Cited by 8 publications

(5 citation statements)

References 26 publications

(30 reference statements)

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…21 On the other hand, dispersive liquid–liquid microextraction (DLLME), a microextraction method, could be an interesting alternative to both SPE and LLE because of its simplicity, high throughput, high recovery rates and high enrichment factor. 22–26 DLLME is based on the use of a suitable extraction solvent injected at high velocity, i.e. , a few microlitres of a high-density organic solvent ( i.e.…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…21 On the other hand, dispersive liquid-liquid microextraction (DLLME), a microextraction method, could be an interesting alternative to both SPE and LLE because of its simplicity, high throughput, high recovery rates and high enrichment factor. [22][23][24][25][26] DLLME is based on the use of a suitable extraction solvent injected at high velocity, i.e., a few microlitres of a high-density organic solvent (i.e., dichloromethane, chlorobenzene, chloroform or carbon disulde) and a dispersion solvent that is highly miscible with the aqueous phase of the sample (i.e., methanol, acetonitrile or acetone). 27 In this article, the development of a generic sample preparation method via DLLME is presented and evaluated to help the user identify and estimate the concentration of plastic additives for leachable studies via a LC-HRMS screening platform and an in-house database (DELTA).…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

See 1 more Smart Citation

Development of a generic sample preparation method using dispersive liquid–liquid microextraction for the monitoring of leachable compounds in hospital pharmacy-prepared prefilled drug products

Bello,

Pezzatti,

Rudaz

et al. 2024

Anal. Methods

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Development of a generic sample preparation method using dispersive liquid–liquid microextraction for the monitoring of leachable compounds in hospital pharmacy-prepared prefilled drug products

Bello,

Pezzatti,

Rudaz

et al. 2024

Anal. Methods

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…The results obtained indicated that SPE is more sensitive and accurate compared to DLLME towards all PAHs accept for naphthalene.The low sensitivity of DLLME could be attributed to low extraction solvent or the inadequacy of micro-emulsion formed between extractant and solution (Notardonato et al, 2021). Naphthalene could be compatible with DLLME due to its high aqueous solubility which could result in it oversaturating the sorbent in SPE causing it to be washed away thus decreasing its concentration.…”

Section: Methods Validationmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…Compared to the DLLME, the SPE is a slow process, uses larger amounts of solvents and also requires the purchase of solid phase extraction cartridges which come at a cost. However, the SPE is a well-studied method that has been vastly used for extraction of different organic compounds (Notardonato et al, 2021). Once the PAHs have been extracted from the sample matrix, they may be determined satisfactorily using the high-performance liquid chromatography (HPLC) and gas chromatography (GC) technique with various detection techniques.…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…The underestimation of concentrations by DLLME could be a result of small extraction solvent employed which might have been saturated resulting to inefficient extraction of the PAHs from the sample. Also, the inadequacy formation of the micro-emulsion between extractant and solution may have an impact on the final concentration obtained(Notardonato et al, 2021).…”

mentioning

confidence: 99%

See 1 more Smart Citation

Comparison of extraction methods efficiency for the extraction of polycyclic aromatic hydrocarbons and phenolics in water matrices, sludge and sediment: sources of origin and ecological risk assessment.

Ndwabu

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Polycyclic aromatic hydrocarbons (PAHs) and phenolic compounds (PCs) are persistent and environmentally toxic compounds. This study therefore aimed to determine the levels of both PAHs and PCs in river water, wastewater, sludge and sediment samples. The evaluation of their origin source and ecological risk was also determined. The status of both these contaminants in South African environment is still not fully investigated, which is a gap this study intended to fill together with previous studies that have been carried-out. The PAHs and PCs were extracted using different extraction methods which include a solid phase extraction (SPE) and dispersive liquid-liquid micro-extraction (DLLME) in water matrices. The microwave assisted extraction (MAE) and Ultrasonication (UE) coupled with either filtering (F) or F + SPE as a clean-up technique was used for extraction of solid samples. The analytes extracted form water or sediment were determined using GC-MS. The PAH %recoveries obtained under optimum conditions in liquid samples were determined to be 72.1 - 118% for SPE and 70.7 – 88.4% for DLLME while the LOD and LOQ were 5.00 – 18.0 ng/L and 10.0 – 44.0 ng/L for SPE while they were 6.00 – 20.0 ng/L and 11.0 – 63.0 ng/L for DLLME. The recovery test for PAHs in solid samples gave a range of 93.7% - 121% for UE and 79.6% - 122% for MAE while the LOD and LOQ ranged from 0.0250 μg/kg to 1.21 μg/kg & 0.0800 μg/kg to 3.54 μg/kg for MAE and from 0.0840 μg/kg to 0.215 μg/kg & 0.0190 μg/kg to 0.642 μg/kg for UE respectively. The LOD and LOQs for PCs in both water and solid matrices were 0.01 – 2.00 μg/L and 0.02 – 6.07 μg/L for SPE, 0.05 – 1.20 μg/kg and 0.17 – 3.17 μg/kg for MAE and 0.09 – 1.33 μg/kg and 0.26 - 3.54 μg/kg for UE correspondingly, their %recovery test gave ranges of 75.2 – 112% (SPE), 80.9 – 110% (MAE) and 79.3 – 119% (UE).The optimization and validation of these methods indicated that they can be used for the extraction of PAHs or PCs in liquid samples, however, SPE when compared to DLLME showed to be more accurate and sensitive. Moreover, in solid samples the clean-up method was a deciding factor, with F + SPE cleaned samples giving higher concentrations of both PCs and PAHs than the filtered ones in both MAE and UE. The concentrations of PAHs ranged from nd (not detected) to 1046 ng/L in river water and nd to 778 ng/L in wastewater samples with naphthalene showing dominance over all other PAHs in both water matrices. The PC concentrations at 4.12 to 1134 μg/L for wastewater and nd to 98.0 μg/L for river water were high but still within the maximum allowable limit except for 2.4-DCP (2.4 dichlorophenol) at Wdv4. The concentrations obtained from F + SPE cleaned samples were higher for both PAHs and PCs with a range from 95.96 to 926.0 μg/kg and 1.30 to 310 μg/kg compared to concentrations from filtered only samples at 21.61 to 380.6 μg/kg and 0.90 to 266 μg/kg respectively. Pyrene showed dominance over all other PAHs in both sludge and sediments while 2.4-DCP and PCP dominated the sludge and sediment samples respectively. PAHs were determined to be of petrogenic (water matrices) and pyrolytic (solid samples) origin and on average posed low (water matrices) and a medium to high (solid matrices) ecological risk. The ILCRderm values at 4.98 x 10-1 and 2.62 x 10-1 (DahA) and 5.92 x 10-2 and 5.34 x 10-2 (PCP) were highfor adults compared to that of children at 1.92 x 10-1 and 1.01 x 10-1 (DahA) and 1.39 x 10-2 and 1.26 x 10-2 (PCP) for both sediment and sludge samples respectively. The low values of ILCRderm for children indicates that the have a high risk exposure even at low concentrations of the contaminants. The findings of this study showed that both areas (uMsunduzi river and Darvill wastewater works (WWW) of interest are polluted with PAHs and PCs therefore, more regulations such as the National Environmental Management: Waste Act (NEMWA) are needed to ensure environmental, human and animal safety.

show abstract

Efficiency comparison of extraction methods for the determination of 11 of the 16 USEPA priority polycyclic aromatic hydrocarbons in water matrices: Sources of origin and ecological risk assessment

Ndwabu,

Malungana,

Mahlambi

2024

Integr Envir Assess & Manag

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

As a result of their toxicity, ease of analysis, and environmental occurrence, 16 polycyclic aromatic hydrocarbons (PAHs) were chosen as priority pollutants by the USEPA. Few studies have been conducted to assess the levels of PAHs in South Africa, especially KwaZulu Natal province, and no work has been done in the selected study area. Therefore, this study aimed to evaluate the levels of such PAHs in river water and wastewater samples and evaluate their source and ecological risk. The status of these PAHs in the South African environment has not been investigated fully, which is a gap this study intended to fill. The PAHs were determined using solid‐phase extraction (SPE) and dispersive liquid–liquid microextraction (DLLME) methods. The optimization and validation of these methods indicated that both methods can be used for the extraction of PAHs in liquid samples. This is because of the acceptable %recovery of 72.1%–118% for SPE and 70.7%–88.4% for DLLME with a %RSD less than 10% (indicating high precision) that was obtained. The limit of detection and limit of quantification ranged from 5.0 to 18 ng/L and 6.0–20 ng/L for SPE and from 10 to 44 ng/L and 11 to 63 ng/L for DLLME. These results demonstrated that SPE is more accurate and sensitive than DLLME, which was also confirmed by statistical analysis. The PAH concentration levels ranged from not detected (nd) to 1046 ng/L in river water and nd to 778 ng/L in wastewater samples with naphthalene demonstrating dominance over all other PAHs in both water matrices. The PAHs were found to be of petrogenic origin and posed low ecological risk on average. Integr Environ Assess Manag 2024;00:1–13. © 2024 The Authors. Integrated Environmental Assessment and Management published by Wiley Periodicals LLC on behalf of Society of Environmental Toxicology & Chemistry (SETAC).

show abstract

Comparison of Two Extraction Procedures, SPE and DLLME, for Determining Plasticizer Residues in Hot Drinks at Vending Machines

Cited by 8 publications

References 26 publications

Development of a generic sample preparation method using dispersive liquid–liquid microextraction for the monitoring of leachable compounds in hospital pharmacy-prepared prefilled drug products

Development of a generic sample preparation method using dispersive liquid–liquid microextraction for the monitoring of leachable compounds in hospital pharmacy-prepared prefilled drug products

Comparison of extraction methods efficiency for the extraction of polycyclic aromatic hydrocarbons and phenolics in water matrices, sludge and sediment: sources of origin and ecological risk assessment.

Efficiency comparison of extraction methods for the determination of 11 of the 16 USEPA priority polycyclic aromatic hydrocarbons in water matrices: Sources of origin and ecological risk assessment

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About