Application of solid phase microextraction for the determination of soil fumigants in water and soil samples

Fuster, Sonia; Beltrán, J.; López, Francisco J.; Hernández, Félix

doi:10.1002/jssc.200401888

Cited by 19 publications

(9 citation statements)

References 27 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…The extraction efficiency values obtained are comparable to similar methods that use DI‐SPME extraction for the determination of other compounds, such as polycyclic aromatic hydrocarbons , phthalate esters , and pesticides . It must be noted that, in several studies , the extraction efficiency was considerably improved when using HS‐SPME extraction instead of DI‐SPME, especially when analyzing non‐polar compounds. When extracting the headspace of a 50 mL vial in similar experimental conditions than those used in DI‐SPME (40°C instead of room temperature), extraction efficiency values of ∼2 and ∼7% were obtained for HMHA and 3MSH, respectively, at 5.0 ng/mL.…”

Section: Resultssupporting

confidence: 58%

Direct immersion solid‐phase microextraction with gas chromatography and mass spectrometry for the determination of specific biomarkers of human sweat in melted snow

Dallo

Battistel

Piazza

et al. 2016

J of Separation Science

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Direct immersion solid-phase microextraction with gas chromatography and mass spectrometry for the determination of specific biomarkers of human sweat in melted snowTo provide a reliable tool for investigating diffusion processes of the specific components of the human odor 3-hydroxy-3-methylhexanoic acid and 3-methyl-3-sulfanylhexan-1-ol through the snowpack, we developed and optimized an analytical method based on direct immersion solid-phase microextraction followed by gas chromatography with mass spectrometry. Direct immersion solid-phase microextraction was performed using polyacrylate fibers placed in aqueous solutions containing 3-hydroxy-3-methylhexanoic acid and 3-methyl-3-sulfanylhexan-1-ol. After optimization, absorption times of 120 min provided a good balance to shorten the analysis time and to obtain suitable amounts of extractable analytes. The extraction efficiency was improved by increasing the ionic strength of the solution. Although the absolute extraction efficiency ranged between 10 and 12% for 3-hydroxy-3-methylhexanoic acid and 2-3% for 3-methyl-3-sulfanylhexan-1-ol, this method was suitable for analyzing 3-hydroxy-3-methylhexanoic acid and 3-methyl-3-sulfanylhexan-1-ol concentrations of at least 0.04 and 0.20 ng/mL, respectively. The precision of the direct immersion solid-phase microextraction method ranged between 8 and 16%. The variability within a batch of six fibers was 10-18%. The accuracy of the method provided values of 88-95 and 86-101% for 3-hydroxy-3-methylhexanoic acid and 3-methyl-3-sulfanylhexan-1-ol, respectively. The limit of detection (and quantification) was 0.01 ng/mL (0.04 ng/mL) for 3-hydroxy-3-methylhexanoic acid and 0.06 ng/mL (0.20 ng/mL) for 3-methyl-3-sulfanylhexan-1-ol. The signal versus concentration was linear for both compounds (r 2 = 0.973-0.979). The stability of these two compounds showed that 3-hydroxy-3-methylhexanoic acid was more stable in water than 3-methyl-3-sulfanylhexan-1-ol. We applied the method to environmental samples in correspondence with an olfactory target buried previously.

show abstract

Section: Resultssupporting

confidence: 58%

Direct immersion solid‐phase microextraction with gas chromatography and mass spectrometry for the determination of specific biomarkers of human sweat in melted snow

Dallo

Battistel

Piazza

et al. 2016

J of Separation Science

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…Recently, many extraction methods have been oriented toward the development of miniaturized and simplified extraction process, and some solventless or solvent‐free sample pretreatment techniques have appeared, such as liquid–liquid microextraction (LLME) , microwave‐assisted extraction (MAE) , solid‐phase microextraction (SPME) , micro solid‐phase extraction (μ‐SPE) , dispersive liquid–liquid microextraction (DLLME) , and magnetic solid‐phase extraction (MSPE) . The reported methods such as DLLME , SPME , stir bar sorptive extraction (SBSE) , and MSPE have been established on extraction of fungicides from water or soil sample. But their drawbacks have already been discussed in the literature .…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Determination of fungicides in sediments using a dispersive liquid–liquid microextraction procedure based on solidification of floating organic drop

Dong

Huang

2014

J of Separation Science

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

A dispersive liquid-liquid microextraction procedure based on solidification of floating organic droplet has been investigated for the determination of fungicides (cyprodinil, difenoconazole, myclobutanil, and spiroxamine) in sediments by HPLC with diode array detection. In the overall extraction process, the extraction solvents can be separated easily from the sample solution, and the experiment time was shortened. Moreover, several parameters such as the type and volume of the extraction solvent and dispersive solvent, centrifugal speed, extraction time, and salt effect that affect the extraction efficiencies of the target fungicides were studied and optimized. Under the optimized conditions, the LOD for the target analytes were in the range of 0.1-0.5 μg/g. Satisfactory recoveries of the target analytes in the sediment samples were 81.00-99.00%, with RSDs (n = 5) that ranged from 1.8 to 6.5%. Finally, the simple, sensitive, and environmentally friendly method was successfully applied to determine the target fungicides in actual sediment samples.

show abstract

“…Another interesting approach for juice samples is the use of solid-phase microextraction (SPME), which has been successfully applied in pesticide residue analysis in water, soil, food, and biological samples (Beltran et al 2000(Beltran et al , 2003Kataoka et al 2000;Cervera et al 2011;Fuster et al 2005). SPME has gained in popularity since it minimizes sample preparation and also allows performing extraction and preconcentration in a single step.…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Comparison of Simple and Rapid Extraction Procedures for the Determination of Pesticide Residues in Fruit Juices by Fast Gas Chromatography–Mass Spectrometry

et al. 2013

Self Cite

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Three sample treatment methods, based on QuEChERS, solid-phase extraction (SPE) and solid-phase microextraction (SPME), were compared and evaluated in order to obtain the best conditions to determine pesticide residues in fruit juice by fast gas chromatography-mass spectrometry (single quadrupole GC-MS). Analysis were performed under selected ion monitoring, acquiring the three most abundant and/or specific ions for each analyte and using their relative intensity ratios as a confirmatory parameter. The 3 methodologies (QuEChERS, SPE and SPME) were validated taking 15 selected pesticides as model compounds, using commercial apple juice. QuEChERS procedure was based on the AOAC Official Method 2007.01, using acetonitrile (containing 1 % acetic acid) as extraction solvent and primary-secondary amine during the dispersive solid-phase extraction. Oasis hydrophilic-lipophilic balance cartridges were used for SPE, and polyacrylate fibers were used for direct immersion SPME procedure. Three isotopically labeled standards were added to the samples before extraction and used as surrogate standards. Validation parameters as recoveries, limits of detection, and limits of quantification (LOQ), as well as matrix effects and sample throughput, were obtained and compared for the three extraction procedures. QuEChERS was considered faster and led to the best quantitative results.In this way, validation was extended to up to 56 pesticides by applying QuEChERS in multi-fruit juice samples, obtaining LOQs ranging from 2 to 20 µg/L for most 2 compounds. Accuracy and precision were evaluated by means of recovery experiments at two concentration levels (10 and 100 µg/L), obtaining recoveries between 70 and 120 % in most cases and relative standard deviations below 15 %.Finally, the QuEChERS method was applied to the analysis of commercial juices, including mango-apple, pineapple, grapefruit and orange.

show abstract

Application of solid phase microextraction for the determination of soil fumigants in water and soil samples

Cited by 19 publications

References 27 publications

Direct immersion solid‐phase microextraction with gas chromatography and mass spectrometry for the determination of specific biomarkers of human sweat in melted snow

Direct immersion solid‐phase microextraction with gas chromatography and mass spectrometry for the determination of specific biomarkers of human sweat in melted snow

Determination of fungicides in sediments using a dispersive liquid–liquid microextraction procedure based on solidification of floating organic drop

Comparison of Simple and Rapid Extraction Procedures for the Determination of Pesticide Residues in Fruit Juices by Fast Gas Chromatography–Mass Spectrometry

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About