Comparison of the applicability of electromembrane extraction and liquid‐phase microextraction for extraction of non‐polar basic drugs from different biological samples: Using clozapine as the model analyte

Abstract

Understanding and comparing the applicability of electromembrane extraction (EME) and liquid‐phase microextraction (LPME) is crucial for selecting an appropriate microextraction approach. In this work, EME and LPME based on supported liquid membranes were compared using biological samples, including whole blood, urine, saliva, and liver tissue. After optimization, efficient EME and LPME of clozapine from four biological samples were achieved. EME provided higher recovery and faster mass transfer for blood and liver tissue than LPME. These advantages were attributed to the electric field disrupting clozapine binding to interfering substances. For urine and saliva, EME demonstrated similar recoveries while achieving faster mass transfer rates. Finally, efficient EME and LPME were validated and evaluated combined with liquid chromatography‐tandem mass spectrometry (LC‐MS/MS). The coefficient of determination of all methods was greater than 0.999, and all methods showed acceptable reproducibility (≤14%), accuracy (90%–110%), and matrix effect (85%–112%). For liver and blood with high viscosity and complex matrices, EME‐LC‐MS/MS provided better sensitivity than LPME‐LC‐MS/MS. The above results indicated that both EME and LPME could be used to isolate non‐polar basic drugs from different biological samples, although EME demonstrated higher recovery rates for liver tissue and blood.