Comparison of three‐phase hollow fiber liquid‐phase microextraction based on reverse micelle with conventional two‐phase hollow fiber liquid‐phase microextraction and their applications for analysis of cinnamic acids in traditional Chinese medicines

Abstract

A novel three‐phase hollow fiber liquid‐phase microextraction was developed based on reverse micelle as extraction solvent and acceptor phase, and compared with conventional two‐phase hollow fiber liquid‐phase microextraction. Both procedures were used in the extraction and concentration of four cinnamic acids (caffeic acid, p‐hydroxycinnamic acid, ferulic acid, and cinnamic acid) in traditional Chinese medicines prior to high‐performance liquid chromatography analysis. Parameters affecting the two procedures were investigated and optimized to obtain the optimum enrichment factors. The mechanism of the developed procedure was explored and elucidated by comparison with conventional two‐phase hollow fiber liquid‐phase microextraction. Under the optimized conditions, the analytes’ enrichment factors were between 50 and 118 for the proposed procedure, and 31–96 for conventional two‐phase mode. Satisfactory linear ranges (r2 ≥ 0.99), detection limits (0.1–0.6 ng/mL), precisions (<9.2%), and accuracies (recoveries: 80–123.1%) were observed for the two procedures. The results showed that the enrichment capacity of the proposed procedure for the cinnamic acids is better than that of conventional two‐phase procedure, and both are eco‐friendly, simple, and effective for the enrichment and detection of cinnamic acids in traditional Chinese medicines.

Hydroxyl‐rich ferrofluid for efficient liquid phase microextraction of cinnamic acid derivatives in traditional Chinese medicine

“…The analytical features of the proposed HRFF-LPME were compared with those of previously reported methods [25][26][27][28][29][30][31][32][33][34][35][36] for the analysis of cinnamic acid derivatives in dif-ferent sample matrices. It can be seen in Table S4, that the amount of extractant required in the proposed approach is lower than that of other studies except hollow fiber liquid phase microextraction [28,29] and magnetic solid phase extraction based on layered double hydroxide coated MNPs [34].…”

“…The analytical features of the proposed HRFF-LPME were compared with those of previously reported methods [25][26][27][28][29][30][31][32][33][34][35][36] for the analysis of cinnamic acid derivatives in dif-ferent sample matrices. It can be seen in Table S4, that the amount of extractant required in the proposed approach is lower than that of other studies except hollow fiber liquid phase microextraction [28,29] and magnetic solid phase extraction based on layered double hydroxide coated MNPs [34]. In term of time consumption, with the exception of dispersive liquid-liquid microextraction [30][31][32] and insyringe binary-solvent liquid phase microextraction [26], the present method has a shorter total time (including extraction and desorption time) than other mentioned approaches.…”

Continuous‐flow microwave‐assisted extraction coupled with online single drop microextraction prior to GC‐MS for determination of amide herbicides in rice samples

“…Recently, liquid‐phase microextraction (LPME) which has overcome many of the disadvantages of traditional liquid–liquid extraction and has been developed as a solvent‐minimizing sample preparation technique has attracted increasing attention [5,6]. Single‐drop microextraction (SDME), hollow fiber membrane LPME [7], and dispersive liquid–liquid microextraction, (DLLME) [8,9] were typical LPME modes. SDME only requires inexpensive equipment and less solvent to implement, which was successfully developed and applied to the determination of nucleic acids [10], active metabolites [11], pesticides [12,13], and antibiotics [14].…”