Stir bar sorptive extraction applied to the determination of dicarboximide fungicides in wine

Sandra, Pat; Tienpont, Bart; Vercammen, Joeri; Tredoux, Andreas G. J.; Sandra, Tom; David, Frank

doi:10.1016/s0021-9673(01)01113-x

Cited by 140 publications

(53 citation statements)

References 22 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Unclassified

Order By: Relevance

“…Since the amount of PDMS coated on the stir bar is 25 -125 lL, 50 -250 times higher than that on an SPME fiber, this format results in a significantly increased recovery and extraction capacity [12]. Nowadays, SBSE has been widely applied to enrichment and sensitive analysis of hazardous compounds such as pesticides in wine [13,14], volatile phenols [8,9], and fungicides [15], and in environmental and biomedical analysis [16 -18]. Because of the apolar character of PDMS, SBSE has been applied mainly to extract nonpolar and weak polar compounds [19,20] unless polar analytes have been previously derivatized.…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

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

J of Separation Science

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

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.

show abstract

Section: Introductionmentioning

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

J of Separation Science

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…It is frequently used with stir bar sorptive extraction (SBSE) for the analysis of compounds in foods, beverages, biological samples, and so on. [16][17][18][19]. Because a TD instrument enables the direct introduction of a sample without any laborious extraction procedure, it is effective for analyzing trace amounts of compounds, particularly volatiles.…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Contribution of thermal desorption and liquid–liquid extraction for identification and profiling of impurities in methamphetamine by gas chromatography–mass spectrometry

Kuwayama

Inoue

Kanamori

et al. 2007

Forensic Science International

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Impurity profiling of methamphetamine (MA) using thermal desorption (TD) and gas chromatography-mass spectrometry (GC-MS) was examined. Using TD/GC-MS, impurities were extracted and separated under various conditions. Optimal chromatograms were obtained when a 20 mg MA sample was extracted at 120˚C for 3 min using a TD instrument, followed by separation of the extracts using a nonpolar capillary column coated with (5%-phenyl)-methylpolysiloxane.MA samples from nine different batches were analyzed under optimized conditions.Compounds related to the structure of MA, such as benzaldehyde, benzyl alcohol, amphetamine, cis-and trans-1,2-dimethyl-3-phenylaziridine, dimethylamphetamine, and N-acetylephedrine, were detected in the chromatograms without any laborious extraction procedure. Compounds such as ethanol, diethyl ether, and acetic acid, which are considered reagents and solvents for MA synthesis, were also detected in some of the chromatograms. The numbers and intensities of the peaks detected were different among the samples. Impurity profiling of MA using TD was compared with that using liquid-liquid extraction (LLE). Better reproducibility of peak areas was obtained using LLE, whereas higher intensities and numbers of peaks were detected using TD. Solvents were 2 extracted more effectively using TD. The nine batches of MA were classified using both extraction procedures. The nine batches were divided roughly into two groups using data from LLE. Subsequently, the groups were classified in detail using data from TD.TD can be used to provide supplemental information for LLE, and the combination of these extraction methods can be helpful for impurity profiling of MA.

show abstract

“…Sandra et al [275] determined fungicides in wine. The authors poured 10 mL of undiluted wine in a 20-mL headspace vial and used a stir bar containing 24 lL PDMS to stir the sample for 40 min at 1,400 rpm.…”

Section: Stir-bar Sorptive Extractionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Modern Methods of Sample Preparation for GC Analysis

Koning¹,

Janssen

Brinkman

2009

Chroma

113

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Today, a wide variety of techniques is available for the preparation of (semi-) solid, liquid and gaseous samples, prior to their instrumental analysis by means of capillary gas chromatography (GC) or, increasingly, comprehensive two-dimensional GC (GC 9 GC). In the past two decades, a large number of 'modern' sample-preparation techniques has been introduced, which have partly superseded their 'classical' counterparts. These novel techniques include off-line and on-line (sometimes semi-or fully automated) procedures, and exhaustive extraction as well as equilibrium techniques. In order to improve overall performance, aspects such as essentially organic solvent-less approaches, large-volume injection and miniaturization receive increasing attention. In most recent applications, mass spectrometric or element-selective detection have been used. The present review discusses the advantages and disadvantages, and relative performance, of most of the modern samplepreparation techniques and cites a number of illustrative applications for each of them.

show abstract

Stir bar sorptive extraction applied to the determination of dicarboximide fungicides in wine

Cited by 140 publications

References 22 publications

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

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

Contribution of thermal desorption and liquid–liquid extraction for identification and profiling of impurities in methamphetamine by gas chromatography–mass spectrometry

Modern Methods of Sample Preparation for GC Analysis

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About