No abstract

Advances in the area of sample preparation are significant and have been growing significantly in recent years. This initial step of the analysis is essential and must be carried out properly, consisting of a complicated procedure with multiple stages. Consequently, it corresponds to a potential source of errors and will determine, at the end of the process, either a satisfactory result or a fail. One of the advances in this field includes the miniaturization of extraction techniques based on the conventional sample preparation procedures such as liquid‐liquid extraction and solid‐phase extraction. These modern techniques have gained prominence in the face of traditional methods since they minimize the consumption of organic solvents and the sample volume. As another feature, it is possible to reuse the sorbents, and its coupling to chromatographic systems might be automated. The review will emphasize the main techniques based on liquid‐phase microextraction, as well as those based upon the use of sorbents. The first group includes currently popular techniques such as single drop microextraction, hollow fiber liquid‐phase microextraction, and dispersive liquid‐liquid microextraction. In the second group, solid‐phase microextraction techniques such as in‐tube solid‐phase microextraction, stir bar sorptive extraction, dispersive solid‐phase extraction, dispersive micro solid‐phase microextraction, and microextraction by packed sorbent are highlighted. These approaches, in common, aim the determination of analytes at low concentrations in complex matrices. This article describes some characteristics, recent advances, and trends on miniaturized sample preparation techniques, as well as their current applications in food, environmental, and bioanalysis fields.

No abstract

The application of graphene-based sorbents in sample preparation techniques has increased significantly since 2011. These materials have good physicochemical properties to be used as sorbent and have shown excellent results in different sample preparation techniques. Graphene and its precursor graphene oxide have been considered to be good candidates to improve the extraction and concentration of different classes of target compounds (e.g., parabens, polycyclic aromatic hydrocarbon, pyrethroids, triazines, and so on) present in complex matrices. Its applications have been employed during the analysis of different matrices (e.g., environmental, biological and food). In this review, we highlight the most important characteristics of graphene-based material, their properties, synthesis routes, and the most important applications in both off-line and on-line sample preparation techniques. The discussion of the offline approaches includes methods derived from conventional solid-phase extraction focusing on the miniaturized magnetic and dispersive modes. The modes of microextraction techniques called stir bar sorptive extraction, solid phase microextraction, and microextraction by packed sorbent are discussed. The on-line approaches focus on the use of graphene-based material mainly in on-line solid phase extraction, its variation called in-tube solid-phase microextraction, and on-line microdialysis systems.

No abstract

No abstract

Solid-phase extraction coupled online with high performance liquid chromatography and tandem mass spectrometry was successfully applied to determine low concentrations of ceftiofur antibiotic in bovine milk samples. A silica-anchored ionic liquid was applied as sorbent material to be used as extraction phase in the proposed online system. The material was characterized by Fourier transform infrared spectroscopy and scanning electron microscopy. In order to improve the system reproducibility, the following experimental parameters were optimized: organic solvent percentage, time and sample loading flow rate. Subsequently, the method was validated presenting satisfactory results as adequate selectivity, good linearity and correlation coefficient higher than 0.98. The limit of detection and quantification were 0.1 and 0.7 μg/L, respectively. The precision of the methodology was evaluated as repeatability and intermediate precision, with relative standard deviation values lower than 15%. The accuracy of the method ranged from 72.8 to 137% and the minimum and maximum recovery values were 73.4 and 111.3%, respectively. After the validation, seven milk samples were analyzed and although ceftiofur was not detected in any of them the method was demonstrated to be efficient when applied to the analysis of milk samples fortified with the pollutant of interest.

No abstract