Extraction of phthalic acid esters from soil samples using aqueous room temperature sonication coupled to bubble-in-drop single-drop microextraction

Bioprospecting of Essential Oil-Bearing Plants: Rapid Screening of Volatile Organic Compounds Using Headspace Bubble-in-Drop Single-Drop Microextraction for Gas Chromatography Analysis

“…The optimised conditions as described above were used in the comparison and the volume of the air bubble and droplet were taken from literature values. Using 2 μL drops while preserving the drop to bubble ratio of 2:1 (a 2 μL droplet to 1 μL air bubble) that was determined elsewhere [ 26 ] failed as BID-SDME assembly became relatively unstable, resulting in the loss of the droplet. The volumes were then scaled down by half, resulting in a 1 μL drop and 0.5 μL bubble, which were then compared against a 1 μL drop for SDME.…”

“…The BID-SDME method has been reported to increase the extraction kinetics of analytes through an increased surface area to volume ratio, thus contributing to a concentration effect. This method has been reported primarily for the direct immersion mode for analyses of different compounds in varying matrices that include plant, animal and environmental health [ 21 , 22 , 23 , 24 , 25 , 26 ]. It is noteworthy that so far, only a single report is found that describes the use of HS sampling of some VOCs using the BID-SDME method [ 27 ].…”

Unpacking Phthalates from Obscurity in the Environment

“…Subsequent modification simplified these methods using single solvents like toluene or introducing innovations like the bubble-in-drop (BID-)HS-SDME method. With these improvements, the LOD of these methods reached an ng mL −1 level for up to 17 PAEs in aqueous samples [ 49 , 50 ]. The instability of the drop resulting in poor reproducibility and low sensitivity can be considered drawbacks of the SDME methods.…”

“…It uses a hydrophobic porous hollow fiber, such as polypropylene, connected on one side to the needle tip of a micro syringe while leaving the other end suspended in the sample solution to protect the single drop [ 51 ]. This method achieved LODs in the range of 0.23–0.69 μg L −1 for PAEs and offered advantages such as low cost, full automation capability, and the disposability of the used fiber, minimizing cross-contamination risks [ 49 , 50 ]. However, HF-LPME suffers from the unavoidable manipulation of hollow fiber when placing it at the needle tip, which can introduce contamination and lead to fluctuating results [ 52 ].…”