Hollow fibre liquid phase microextraction of parabens

Prichodko, Aleksandra; Jonusaite, Kristina; Vičkačkaitė, Vida

doi:10.2478/s11532-009-0047-6

Cited by 19 publications

(15 citation statements)

References 24 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…Numerous sample preparation methods have been applied in the extraction of parabens and=or SB from cosmetic, pharmaceutical, food and water samples including solvent extraction, [20] solid phase extraction (SPE), [18,20,27] supercritical fluid extraction (SFE), [24] and solid phase microextraction (SPME). [19,21] Recently, single drop microextraction (SDME), [29] hollow-fiber liquid phase microextraction (HFLPME), [30,31] and dispersive liquid-liquid microextraction (DLLME) [32] have been used for the extraction of parabens from cosmetic and water samples. These methods provide analyte extraction into a few microliters of an organic solvent as well as avoid some of the problems found in the SPME method such as sample carry-over and fiber degradation.…”

mentioning

confidence: 99%

Ultrasound-Assisted Emulsification Microextraction of Various Preservatives From Cosmetics, Beverages, and Water Samples

Yamini

Saleh

Rezaee

et al. 2012

Journal of Liquid Chromatography & Related Technologies

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

& In the present work, an efficient method based on ultrasound-assisted emulsification microextraction was developed for the determination of sodium benzoate (SB), p-hydroxybenzoic acid (PHBA), methyl-paraben (MP), ethyl-paraben (EP), and propyl-paraben (PP) in different samples. In this procedure, 40 lL of (5% w=v) aliquot 336 in 1-octanol was injected slowly into a 12-mL home-designed centrifuge glass vial containing an aqueous sample of the analytes that was located inside the ultrasonic water bath. The formed emulsion was centrifuged and the separated organic solvent was then injected into a 20-lL loop of high performance liquid chromatography coupled with UV detector. Under the optimum conditions, preconcentration factors (PFs) in the range of 109-490 were obtained. The performance of the proposed method was studied in terms of its linear range (LR, 0.6 lg=L up to 10000 lg=L), linearity (R 2 ! 0.9963), precision [RSD% 3.6; reproducibility, RSD (%) 9.8] and extraction recoveries (22.6-102.1%). Limits of detections (LODs) were 8.3, 1.2, 0.60, 0.42, and 0.25 lg=L for SB, PHBA, MP, EP, and PP, respectively. Finally, the applicability of the proposed method was evaluated by the extraction and determination of the target analytes from beverages, cosmetics, and water samples.

show abstract

mentioning

confidence: 99%

Ultrasound-Assisted Emulsification Microextraction of Various Preservatives From Cosmetics, Beverages, and Water Samples

Yamini

Saleh

Rezaee

et al. 2012

Journal of Liquid Chromatography & Related Technologies

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…Detection limits of the method developed were lower than those obtained in our laboratory using the same GC equipment and DLLME of underivatized parabens [11] (Table I). …”

Section: Quality Parametersmentioning

confidence: 60%

“…In recent years, a preconcentration method using microextraction techniques is gaining interest. Few articles have been reported on paraben preconcentration using solid-phase microextraction [1,20,22] and different liquid-phase microextraction techniques: single-drop microextraction [12,23], hollowfiber liquid-phase microextraction [24], and dispersive liquid-liquid microextraction (DLLME) [11,25].…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

See 1 more Smart Citation

Gas chromatographic determination of parabens afterin-situderivatization and dispersive liquid-liquid microextraction

Prichodko

Janenaite

Šmitienė

et al. 2012

Acta Chromatographica

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Summary. Dispersive liquid-liquid microextraction in combination with an in situ derivatization is suggested for parabens sampling and preconcentration. The derivatization was carried out with acetic anhydride under alkaline conditions maintained using dipotassium hydrogen phosphate. The effects of an extraction solvent type, extraction and disperser solvents volume, extraction time, and ionic strength of the solution on the extraction efficiency were investigated. Chlorobenzene containing n-hexadecane as internal standard was used as an extracting solvent and acetone was used as a disperser solvent. The calibration graphs were linear up to 10 mg mL −1 , correlation coefficients were 0.997-0.999, enrichment factors were from 70 for methylparaben to 210 for butylparaben, and detection limits were 22, 4.2, 3.3, and 2.5 μg L −1 for methylparaben, ethylparaben, propylparaben, and butylparaben, respectively. Repeatabilities of the results were acceptable with relative standard deviations up to 11%. A possibility to apply the proposed method for parabens determination in water samples was demonstrated.

show abstract

“…Low cost of the hollow fibre enables to dispose each extraction unit after a single extraction and thus to exclude cross-contamination problems from sample to sample and to avoid the need of regeneration of the extraction unit. HFLPME has been successfully applied for the determination of drugs [13,14], aromatic amines [15,16], pesticides [17,18], phthalates [19], parabens [20], aromatic carboxylic acids [21], phenols [21] and essential oils [22,23].…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Dispersion‐solidification liquid–liquid microextraction for volatile aromatic hydrocarbons determination: Comparison with liquid phase microextraction based on the solidification of a floating drop

Vičkačkaitė

Pusvaskiene

2009

J of Separation Science

Self Cite

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Two microextraction techniques--liquid phase microextraction based on solidification of a floating organic drop (LPME-SFO) and dispersive liquid-liquid microextraction combined with a solidification of a floating organic drop (DLLME-SFO)--are explored for benzene, toluene, ethylbenzene and o-xylene sampling and preconcentration. The investigation covers the effects of extraction solvent type, extraction and disperser solvents' volume, and the extraction time. For both techniques 1-undecanol containing n-heptane as internal standard was used as an extracting solvent. For DLLME-SFO acetone was used as a disperser solvent. The calibration curves for both techniques and for all the analytes were linear up to 10 microg/mL, correlation coefficients were in the range 0.997-0.998, enrichment factors were from 87 for benzene to 290 for o-xylene, detection limits were from 0.31 and 0.35 microg/L for benzene to 0.15 and 0.10 microg/L for o-xylene for LPME-SFO and DLLME-SFO, respectively. Repeatabilities of the results were acceptable with RSDs up to 12%. Being comparable with LPME-SFO in the analytical characteristics, DLLME-SFO is superior to LPME-SFO in the extraction time. A possibility to apply the proposed techniques for volatile aromatic hydrocarbons determination in tap water and snow was demonstrated.

show abstract

Hollow fibre liquid phase microextraction of parabens

Cited by 19 publications

References 24 publications

Ultrasound-Assisted Emulsification Microextraction of Various Preservatives From Cosmetics, Beverages, and Water Samples

Ultrasound-Assisted Emulsification Microextraction of Various Preservatives From Cosmetics, Beverages, and Water Samples

Gas chromatographic determination of parabens afterin-situderivatization and dispersive liquid-liquid microextraction

Dispersion‐solidification liquid–liquid microextraction for volatile aromatic hydrocarbons determination: Comparison with liquid phase microextraction based on the solidification of a floating drop

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About