Up-and-down-shaker-assisted dispersive liquid–liquid microextraction coupled with gas chromatography–mass spectrometry for the determination of fungicides in wine

Chu, Shang-Ping; Tseng, Wan-Chi; Kong, Po-Hsin; Huang, Chi‐Hsiang; Chen, Jung-Hsuan; Chen, Pai‐Shan; Huang, Shang‐Da

doi:10.1016/j.foodchem.2015.04.015

Cited by 29 publications

(7 citation statements)

References 28 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…To overcome the issue regarding efficient mixing of the dispersion solvent in the sample, several means of dispersion have been developed in order to control with high precision the kinetic energy administered. Extraction solvent dispersion was accomplished by ultrasound-assisted emulsification-microextraction (USAEME) [67], vortex-assisted mixing (VA) [68,69], microwave-assisted extraction (MAE) [70][71][72], supercritical-fluid extraction (SFE) [73], subcritical-water extraction (SWE) [74], accelerated solvent extraction (ASE) [75], magnetic stirring [76], airflow [77], robotic up-and-down shaking [78,79], pulsed flows [80], single-step vigorous solvent injection [81], and repeated aspiration/injection as in air-assisted DLLME (AADLLME) [82]. Effervescence-assisted DLLME has also been proposed.…”

Section: The Solvent Dispersionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Liquid phase microextraction techniques combined with chromatography analysis: a review

Dugheri

Mucci

Bonari

et al. 2020

Acta Chromatographica

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Sample pretreatment is the first and the most important step of an analytical procedure. In routine analysis, liquid–liquid microextraction (LLE) is the most widely used sample pre-treatment technique, whose goal is to isolate the target analytes, provide enrichment, with cleanup to lower the chemical noise, and enhance the signal. The use of extensive volumes of hazardous organic solvents and production of large amounts of waste make LLE procedures unsuitable for modern, highly automated laboratories, expensive, and environmentally unfriendly. In the past two decades, liquid-phase microextraction (LPME) was introduced to overcome these drawbacks. Thanks to the need of only a few microliters of extraction solvent, LPME techniques have been widely adopted by the scientific community. The aim of this review is to report on the state-of-the-art LPME techniques used in gas and liquid chromatography. Attention was paid to the classification of the LPME operating modes, to the historical contextualization of LPME applications, and to the advantages of microextraction in methods respecting the value of green analytical chemistry. Technical aspects such as description of methodology selected in method development for routine use, specific variants of LPME developed for complex matrices, derivatization, and enrichment techniques are also discussed.

show abstract

Section: The Solvent Dispersionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Liquid phase microextraction techniques combined with chromatography analysis: a review

Dugheri

Mucci

Bonari

et al. 2020

Acta Chromatographica

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…On the other hand, the dispersive liquid-liquid microextraction (DLLME), developed by Rezaee et al, in 2006 [9], is recognized for its simplicity, low cost, and high ER. Thus far, DLLME has been applied for the extraction of a wide range of compounds from wine, such as phenols [10], phthalic acid esters [11], mycotoxins [12] and pesticides [13][14][15][16][17][18][19][20][21]. As far as this last category is concerned, to the best of our knowledge, only four methods applied the DLLME by using a green extraction solvent, such as 1-undecanol [14] and 1-octanol [15], or 1-dodecanol [16] and a hydrophobic eutectic solvent based on thymol and octanoic acid [17].…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…Thus far, DLLME has been applied for the extraction of a wide range of compounds from wine, such as phenols [10], phthalic acid esters [11], mycotoxins [12] and pesticides [13][14][15][16][17][18][19][20][21]. As far as this last category is concerned, to the best of our knowledge, only four methods applied the DLLME by using a green extraction solvent, such as 1-undecanol [14] and 1-octanol [15], or 1-dodecanol [16] and a hydrophobic eutectic solvent based on thymol and octanoic acid [17]. However, these last two methods have been developed for the extraction of less than five compounds.…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Hydrophobic Eutectic Solvent-Based Dispersive Liquid-Liquid Microextraction Applied to the Analysis of Pesticides in Wine

2022

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

A green solvent-based DLLME/HPLC-MS method for the determination of 19 pesticides in wine samples has been developed. The extractant solvent is a hydrophobic eutectic mixture composed of L-menthol and butylated hydroxytoluene in a molar ratio of 3:1. The endogenous ethanol of wine has been used as dispersive solvent, in order to avoid the solidification of the extracts under 19 °C. The mobile phase composition, the elution gradient and the sample injection volume were optimized in order to make this hydrophobic mixture compatible with conventional reversed phase chromatography and electrospray ionization. The method was validated in matrix, using a wine free from the target compounds. Average recovery as high as 80%, precision between 3 and 14%, and limits of detection and quantification much lower than the maximum residue levels (MRLs) for grapes and wines fixed by the EU regulation, make this multiresidue method fitted for the purpose, with the further advantages of being quick, cheap and in compliance with the green analytical chemistry. From the analysis of 11 commercial wines it was found that just in a bio sample the target compounds were not detectable or lower than quantification limit; as for the other samples, the most widespread and abundant pesticides were methoxyfenozide and boscalid, but their levels were much lower than the relative MRLs.

show abstract

“…The most common analytical method used for the trace determination of triazoles, particularly flusilazole residues in water, is chromatography e.g., liquid chromatography-tandem mass spectrometry (LC-MS/MS) (García-Valcárcel and Tadeo, 2011; Fu et al, 2017), high-performance liquid chromatography (HPLC) with ultraviolet light, diode-array detection (DAD), photodiode-array (PDA) detection (Bordagaray et al, 2013, 2014; Qi et al, 2014; Ma et al, 2016; Zhang Y. H. et al, 2016), gas chromatography (GC) with nitrogen-phosphorous detection (NPD) or electron capture detection (ECD) (Lozowicka et al, 2015; Im et al, 2016), and GC-mass spectrometry (GC-MS) (Tseng et al, 2014; Chu et al, 2015), and with tandem MS (GC-MS/MS) (Xu et al, 2013). Nevertheless, these chromatographic techniques necessitate experienced workers, costly devices, and lengthy specimen preparation.…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Supramolecular Fluorescence Probe Based on Twisted Cucurbit[14]uril for Sensing Fungicide Flusilazole

et al. 2019

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

The host-guest complex of the common dye, thioflavin T (ThT), and twisted cucurbit[14]uril ( t Q[14]) was selected as a fluorescent probe to determine non-fluorescent triazole fungicides, including flusilazole, azaconazole, triadimefon, tebuconazole, tricyclazole, flutriafol, penconazole, and triadimenol isomer A, in an aqueous solution. The experimental results reveal that the ThT@ t Q[14] probe selectively responded to flusilazole with significant fluorescence quenching and a detection limit of 1.27 × 10 −8 mol/L. In addition, the response mechanism involves not only a cooperation interaction—ThT occupies a side-cavity of the t Q[14] host and the triazole fungicide occupies another side-cavity of the t Q[14] host—but also a competition interaction in which both ThT and the triazole fungicide occupy the side-cavities of the t Q[14] host.

show abstract

Up-and-down-shaker-assisted dispersive liquid–liquid microextraction coupled with gas chromatography–mass spectrometry for the determination of fungicides in wine

Cited by 29 publications

References 28 publications

Liquid phase microextraction techniques combined with chromatography analysis: a review

Liquid phase microextraction techniques combined with chromatography analysis: a review

Hydrophobic Eutectic Solvent-Based Dispersive Liquid-Liquid Microextraction Applied to the Analysis of Pesticides in Wine

Supramolecular Fluorescence Probe Based on Twisted Cucurbit[14]uril for Sensing Fungicide Flusilazole

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About