Different miniaturized extraction methodologies followed by GC–MS/MS analysis for the determination of UV filters in beach sand

Abstract

Four different miniaturized methodologies were developed and applied to the analysis of 11 UV filters in sand samples. These approaches were based on ultrasound and vortex extractions, on-column lixiviation, and ultrasound extraction followed by solid-phase microextraction. Gas chromatography with tandem mass spectrometry was used for quantitative analysis. The analytical performance provided by the four methods was evaluated in terms of linearity, accuracy, precision, and limits of quantification. Lixiviation was discarded since it provided the lowest recoveries and the highest limits of quantification. In contrast, ultrasound and vortex extractions, and ultrasound extraction followed by solid-phase microextraction were suitable, with recoveries in general >85% and limits of quantification at the low ng/g level. Moreover, ultrasound extraction followed by solid-phase microextraction allowed using external calibration with aqueous standards and it provided higher sensitivity, with limits of quantification in general one order of magnitude lower than those achieved with the other techniques. The methodologies were applied for the analysis of four marine sand samples, and the results were statistically compared performing an analysis of variance. Eight out of the eleven target UV filters were detected. Octocrylene was found at very high concentrations (up to 1000 ng/g) followed by ethylhexyl salicylate, 4-methylbenzylidene camphor, homosalate, and 2-ethylhexyl methoxycinnamate.

Occurrence and Distribution of UV Filters in Beach Sediments of the Southern Baltic Sea Coast

“…Of the five examined UV filters, the most commonly reported organic UV filters in beach sand were BP-3 and 4-MBC with a concentration typically in the ng•g S2, Supplementary Materials). As ensues from the reported data, the concentration of BP-3 and 4-MBC determined in core sediments collected on the Polish coast is much lower than in Maspalomas [46] and on the western Spanish coast [48]. Generally, it fits the expectations concerning the beach sediments and their correlation with the scale of touristic pressure.…”

“…Although some of UV filters have been reported to cause significant environmental threat [7,18,23,24,44], reporting of UV filter abundance in beach sediments is rare and only a few studies have examined their occurrence and profiles in these kind of environmental samples [45][46][47][48]. Moreover, many authors focus only on selected compounds, which is reasonable due to frequent changes in legal acts specifying the conditions for using UV filters in PCPs.…”

“…The following are available online at http://www.mdpi.com/2073-4441/12/11/3024/s1, Table S1: An occurrence of the selected UV-filters in organisms living in marine and freshwater habitats (d.w.-dry weight, l.w.-lipid weight, n.d.-not detected, OD-PABA-2-ethylhexyl 4-(dimethyloamino) benzoate, BP-4-benzophenone-4, IMC-3-methylbutyl-(2E)-3-(4-methoxyphenyl)-acrylate) [61][62][63][64][65][66], Table S2: UV-filters content in saline and freshwater samples [8,23,31,35,[44][45][46][47][48][53][54][55]63,[67][68][69][70][71][72][73][74][75][76][77], Table S3: Statistical assessment of UV-filters concentration according to four independent factors: location, season, distance and core depth as well as their mutual combinations.…”

Dispersive liquid‐liquid microextraction based on a new hydrophobic deep eutectic solvent for the determination of phenolic compounds in environmental water samples

“…In recent years, miniaturized sample preparation techniques, such as SPME and LPME, have become more and more popular in analytical field, in which less solvent or solvent‐free sample preparation process could be realized with simple, economic, and environment‐friendly characteristics [1]. Accordingly, they have been widely used in environmental, biological, and medical analysis [1–3].…”

Modified dispersive solid‐phase extraction and cleanup followed by GC‐MS/MS analysis to quantify ultraviolet filters and synthetic musk compounds in soil samples

“…To the authors' best knowledge, the UVFs under scrutiny in this paper have been mostly studied in specific soils, like beach sand, and few studies are available regarding SMCs. Analyzing the available works, soil samples were generally extracted and cleaned up either by ultrasound (USE), vortex, on-column lixiviation [14], SPME [14][15][16], pressurized liquid extraction (PLE) [6,[17][18][19][20][21], stir-bar sorptive extraction (SBSE) [22], SPE [23], or using a solid-liquid extraction approach (SLE) [24,25]. Although PLE, SBSE, and SPME are methods with good performances, the equipment required is not always available in all laboratories.…”