Headspace single drop and hollow fiber liquid phase microextractions for HPLC determination of phenols

Development and validation of stir bar sorptive extraction of polar phenols in water followed by HPLC separation in poly(vinylpyrrolididonedivinylbenzene) monolith An effective and simple method for polar phenols in water matrix was developed by using stir bar sorptive extraction (SBSE) based on a hydrophilic poly(vinylpyrrolididone-divinylbenzene) (VPDB) monolithic material and HPLC analysis. To achieve optimum extraction performance for phenols, several parameters, including extraction and desorption time, desorption solvent, pH value, and ionic strength of sample matrix, were investigated. Under the optimized experimental conditions, eight phenols were directly enriched from water samples and analyzed by HPLC-DAD. The detection limits (S/N = 3) and quantification limits (S/N = 10) of the proposed method for the target compounds were achieved within the range of 0.72 -1.37 and 2.40 -4.27 ng/mL from spiked water, respectively. Recoveries of eight phenolic compounds were found in the range of 55.2 -95.9%. The calibration curves showed the linearity ranging from 5 to 150 ng/mL with linear regression coefficient R 2 values above 0.98. Method repeatability presented as intra-and interday precisions were also found with the RSDs less than 4.10 and 7.61%, respectively. The distribution coefficients between VPDB and water (K VPDB/W ) for phenolic compounds were also calculated and compared with K O/W . Finally, the proposed method was successfully applied to the determination of the target compounds in tap water, sea water and wastewater samples.

Section: Validation Of the Sbsevp-ld-hplc/dad Methodsmentioning

confidence: 99%

Development and validation of stir bar sorptive extraction of polar phenols in water followed by HPLC separation in poly(vinylpyrrolididone‐divinylbenzene) monolith

Huang¹,

Qiu

Yuan

2009

“…As can be seen from Table , LODs of 2‐methylphenol and 2,4,6‐trichlorophenol obtained in this work are lower than those in refs. , while LODs of 3‐nitrophenol, 4‐chlorophenol, and 2‐nitrophenol are comparable or higher than those listed methods.…”

Section: Resultsmentioning

confidence: 79%

Graphene oxide reinforced polymeric ionic liquid monolith solid‐phase microextraction sorbent for high‐performance liquid chromatography analysis of phenolic compounds in aqueous environmental samples

Sun

Feng

et al. 2015

A graphene oxide reinforced polymeric ionic liquids monolith was obtained by copolymerization of graphene oxide doped 1-(3-aminopropyl)-3-(4-vinylbenzyl)imidazolium 4-styrenesulfonate monomer and 1,6-di-(3-vinylimidazolium) hexane bihexafluorophosphate cross-linking agent. Coupled to high-performance liquid chromatography, the monolith was used as a solid-phase microextraction sorbent to analyze several phenolic compounds in aqueous samples. Under the optimized extraction and desorption conditions, linear ranges were 5-400 μg/L for 3-nitrophenol, 2-nitrophenol, and 2,5-dichlorophenol and 2-400 μg/L for 4-chlorophenol, 2-methylphenol, and 2,4,6-trichlorophenol (R(2) = 0.9973-0.9988). The limits of detection were 0.5 μg/L for 3-nitrophenol and 2-nitrophenol and 0.2 μg/L for the rest of the analytes. The proposed method was used to determine target analytes in groundwater from an industrial park and river water. None of the analytes was detected. Relative recoveries were in the range of 75.5-113%.

“…To improve the sensitivity and selectivity of the analysis, the use of an appropriate sample preparation technique before instrumental analysis is often necessary. Several methods such as liquid–liquid microextraction (LLME) , single drop microextraction (SDME) , dispersive liquid–liquid microextraction (DLLME) , hollow fiber liquid‐phase microextraction (HF‐LPME) , SPE , magnetic solid‐phase extraction (MSPE) , micro‐solid‐phase extraction (μ‐SPE) , dispersive micro‐solid‐phase extraction (dμ‐SPE) , magnetic micro‐solid‐phase extraction (Mμ‐SPE) , direct immersion solid‐phase microextraction (DI‐SPME) , and headspace solid‐phase microextraction (HS‐SPME) have been used for extraction and/or preconcentration of CPs in different matrices.…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Polyurethane/polystyrene‐silica electrospun nanofibrous composite for the headspace solid‐phase microextraction of chlorophenols coupled with gas chromatography

Eskandarpour

Sereshti

Najarzadekan

et al. 2016

A novel electrospun composite nanofiber-based adsorbent (polyurethane/polystyrene-silica) was fabricated, characterized, and used in the headspace solid-phase microextraction of the acetylated derivatives of chlorophenols in water samples before gas chromatography with micro electron capture detection. The surface morphology, chemical composition, thermal stability, and structure of the fibers were investigated by scanning electron microscopy, Fourier transform infrared spectroscopy, thermogravimetric analysis, and Brunauer-Emmett-Teller and Barrett-Joyner-Halenda techniques. The effect of the main parameters influencing the efficiency of the method including extraction temperature, salt concentration, and extraction time was investigated and the optimized conditions were obtained. The linear dynamic ranges were 0.1-800 ng/mL. The relative standard deviations (n = 3) and the limits of detection were 2.64-9.57% and 0.0234-0.830 ng/mL, respectively. The relative recoveries for real samples (river water and sewage of our university campus) were between 90.8 and 111%.