Development of a stir bar sorptive extraction method coupled to solidification of floating droplets dispersive liquid–liquid microextraction based on deep eutectic solvents for the extraction of acidic pesticides from tomato samples

Abstract

A stir bar sorptive extraction method coupled with deep eutectic solvent based solidification of floating organic droplets–dispersive liquid–liquid microextraction has been used for the simultaneous derivatization and extraction of some acidic pesticides in tomato samples. In this method, initially the analytes are adsorbed on a coated stir bar from tomato juice filled in a narrow tube. After extraction, the stir bar is removed and a water–miscible deep eutectic solvent is used to elute the analytes. Afterward, a derivatization agent and a water–immiscible deep eutectic solvent (as an extraction solvent) with melting point near to room temperature are added to the obtained eluant at µL–levels and the obtained mixture is rapidly injected into deionized water. Under the optimum conditions, the introduced method indicated high enhancement (1543–3353) and enrichment (2530–2999) factors, low limits of detection (7–14 ng/L) and quantification (23–47 ng/L), good linearity (r2 ≥ 0.9982), and satisfactory repeatabilities (relative standard deviation ≤12% for intra– and inter–day precisions at a concentration of 100 ng/L of each analyte). Finally, the proposed method was applied in analysis of the analytes in tomato samples.

Microextraction Techniques with Deep Eutectic Solvents

“…The LODs of the five acidic pesticides were 7 ng/L for dalapon, 9 ng/L for MCPA, 14 ng/L for 2,4-dichlorophenoxyacetic acid 7 for fenoxaprop, and 11 ng/L for haloxyfob. Lastly, their mean relative recoveries were 92-95%, 94%, 93-95%, 92-98%, and 94-99% for each compound, respectively [72].…”

Applications of porous frameworks in solid‐phase microextraction

“…In this mode, according to Figure 2C, the extraction phase is coated on a stirrer magnet that mass transfer is occurred by self‐stirring. Analytes can be desorbed thermally [37] or by adding eluent solvent [38]. SBSE is an in‐vial extraction and has no capability of on‐site sampling like F‐SPME.…”

Multivariate optimization of a combined static and dynamic supercritical fluid extraction method for trace analysis of pesticides pollutants in organic honey

“…The results obtained are summarized in Table 3. When compared to LLE with GC electron capture detection (LLE with GC-ECD) [38], LLE with GC-MS detection (LLE with GC-MS) [20], SFE with GC-ECD [28], SPE with GC-ECD [39], salt-induced homogenous liquid-liquid microextraction (salt-Induced HLLME with GC-FID) [40], air-assisted liquid-liquid microextraction (AALLME with GC-FID) [41], and stir bar sorptive extraction method coupled to solidification of floating droplets dispersive liquid-liquid microextraction (SBSE-DLLME with GC-MS) [42], the developed extraction and analysis method (SFE with HPLC-DAD) provided the highest or similar recoveries, better or comparable LODs, and good coefficient of determination. Most importantly, the proposed analytical method used neat sc-CO 2 as a solvent with only small volume of acetonitrile as an entrainer solvent, which makes our method greener than the other methods for honey samples.…”