Development of a dispersive liquid-liquid microextraction technique for the analysis of aryloxyphenoxy-propionate herbicides in soy-based foods

Lubomirsky, Ester; Padró, Juan M.; Reta, Mario

doi:10.1016/j.microc.2016.06.015

Cited by 17 publications

(4 citation statements)

References 32 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…In general, an increase in ionic strength frequently results in better extraction performance with salting out, which has an impact on the analyte partitioning coefficients between the aqueous and organic phases. In contrast, the addition of salt increases the ionic liquid’s solubility in water, resulting in low recovery [ 47 ]. Different NaCl concentrations (0%, 2%, 4%, 8%, and 12%, w / v ) were added to deionized water to assess the impact of the ionic strength on the effectiveness of extraction and enrichment.…”

Section: Resultsmentioning

confidence: 99%

Ionic Liquid-Dispersive Micro-Extraction and Detection by High Performance Liquid Chromatography–Mass Spectrometry for Antifouling Biocides in Water

Zhou

et al. 2023

Molecules

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

A simple analytical method was developed and evaluated for the determination of two antifouling biocides using an ionic liquid-dispersive liquid–liquid micro-extraction (IL-DLLME) and a high-performance liquid chromatography–electrospray ionization mass spectrometry (LC-ESI-MS) analysis. Irgarol 1051 and Sea-Nine 211 were extracted from deionized water, lake water, and seawater using IL 1-hexyl-3-methylimidazolium hexafluorophosphate ([HMIm][PF6]) and ethyl acetate as the extraction solvent and the dispersion solvent. Several factors were considered, including the type and volume of extraction and dispersive solvent, IL amount, sample pH, salt effect, and cooling temperature. The developed method resulted in a recovery range of 78.7–90.3%, with a relative standard deviation (RSD, n = 3) less than 7.5%. The analytes were enriched greater than 40-fold, and the limits of detection (LOD) for two antifouling biocides were 0.01–0.1 μg L−1. The method was effectively applied for the analysis of real samples of freshwater as well as samples of seawater.

show abstract

Section: Resultsmentioning

confidence: 99%

Ionic Liquid-Dispersive Micro-Extraction and Detection by High Performance Liquid Chromatography–Mass Spectrometry for Antifouling Biocides in Water

Zhou

et al. 2023

Molecules

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…The density of the used IL is higher than that of the water. Therefore, the convenience of this work is that it is easy to take the extractant from the bottom of a conical tube due to the low viscosity, very low water solubility and higher density [79]. Meanwhile, compared to ILs with the anion [PF 6 ], the ILs with [NTf 2 ] as the anion are generally more hydrophobic.…”

Section: Conventional Il-dllmementioning

confidence: 99%

Ionic Liquid-Assisted DLLME and SPME for the Determination of Contaminants in Food Samples

Cai

Guo²,

Yao

et al. 2022

Separations

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Developing effective and green methods for food analysis and separation has become an urgent issue regarding the ever-increasing concern of food quality and safety. Ionic liquids (ILs) are a new chemical medium and soft functional material developed under the framework of green chemistry and possess many unique properties, such as low melting points, low-to-negligible vapor pressures, excellent solubility, structural designability and high thermal stability. Combining ILs with extraction techniques not only takes advantage of ILs but also overcomes the disadvantages of traditional extraction methods. This subject has attracted intensive research efforts recently. Here, we present a brief review of the current research status and latest developments regarding the application of IL-assisted microextraction, including dispersive liquid–liquid microextraction (DLLME) and solid-phase microextraction (SPME), in food analysis and separation. The practical applications of ILs in determining toxic and harmful substances in food specimens with quite different natures are summarized and discussed. The critical function of ILs and the advantages of IL-based microextraction techniques over conventional extraction techniques are discussed in detail. Additionally, the recovery of ILs using different approaches is also presented to comply with green analytical chemistry requirements.

show abstract

“…All If only sensitivity and selectivity of techniques are considered, MS and tandem MS/MS have been shown to be good choices in the pesticide residue analysis. However, such sensitive detectors are often very specialized and expensive, and many laboratories do not possess them (Lubomirsky et al, 2016). Therefore, we use HPLC-DAD for the analysis of fomesafen and quizalofop-p-ethyl in beans.…”

Section: Samples and Solutionsmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…The matrix curve (0.02, 0.2, 0.4, 1, and 5 mg/kg) can be obtained by adding five standard working solutions to the blank sample matrix solution, with other conditions being the same as for the standard curve. When the signal-tonoise ratio was 3 (Lubomirsky et al, 2016), the concentration was at the limits of detection (LODs). The LODs for fomesafen and quizalofop-p-ethyl (Table 2) were 0.002 and 0.001 mg/kg, respectively.…”

Section: Standard Curve and Limits Of Quantificationmentioning

confidence: 99%

Determination of fomesafen and quizalofop-p-ethyl in beans using modified QuEChERS-HPLC-DAD

Tang

Cao

et al. 2020

qas

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

An improved quick, easy, cheap, effective, rugged, and safe (QuEChERS) method combined with high-performance liquid chromatography (HPLC) coupled to diode array detection was established for the determination of fomesafen and quizalofop-p-ethyl in beans. It is simple and efficient and can be used in most laboratories. This method optimizes four chromatographic conditions, namely, mobile phase, mobile phase ratio, flow rate, and detection wavelength. The effects of extraction agent, extraction dose, extraction time, NaCl amount, and adsorbent on the pretreatment effect were studied. The recoveries were high (92.4–117.8%), and repeatability was good (relative standard deviation [RSD] ranged from 0.35 to 4.36%). The standard solutions ranged from 0.1 to 25 ?g/mL. The detection limits of fomesafen and quizalofop-p-ethyl were 0.005 and 0.003 mg/kg, respectively.

show abstract

Development of a dispersive liquid-liquid microextraction technique for the analysis of aryloxyphenoxy-propionate herbicides in soy-based foods

Cited by 17 publications

References 32 publications

Ionic Liquid-Dispersive Micro-Extraction and Detection by High Performance Liquid Chromatography–Mass Spectrometry for Antifouling Biocides in Water

Ionic Liquid-Dispersive Micro-Extraction and Detection by High Performance Liquid Chromatography–Mass Spectrometry for Antifouling Biocides in Water

Ionic Liquid-Assisted DLLME and SPME for the Determination of Contaminants in Food Samples

Determination of fomesafen and quizalofop-p-ethyl in beans using modified QuEChERS-HPLC-DAD

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About