Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in

A comparison of accelerated solvent extraction, Soxhlet extraction, and ultrasonic-assisted extraction for analysis of terpenoids and sterols in tobacco

  • Original Paper
  • Published:
Analytical and Bioanalytical Chemistry Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

The performance of accelerated solvent extraction in the analysis of terpenoids and sterols in tobacco samples was investigated and compared with those of Soxhlet extraction and ultrasonically assisted extraction with respect to yield, extraction time, reproducibility and solvent consumption. The results indicate that although the highest yield was achieved by Soxhlet extraction, ASE appears to be a promising alternative to classical methods since it is faster and uses less solvent, especially when applied to the investigation of large batch tobacco samples. However, Soxhlet extraction is still the preferred method for analyzing sterols since it gives a higher extraction efficiency than other methods.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Log in via an institution

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Institutional subscriptions

Fig. 1
Fig. 2
Fig. 3
Fig. 4

Similar content being viewed by others

References

  1. Chortyk OT, Scholtzhauer WS (1973) Beitr Tabakforsch 7:165–178

    CAS  Google Scholar 

  2. Schmeltz I, Tosk J, Hoffmann D (1976) Anal Chem 48:645–650

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  3. Scholtzhauer WS, Chortyk OT (1987) J Anal Appl Pyrolysis 12:193–222

    Article  Google Scholar 

  4. van Beek TA (2002) J Chromatogr A 967:21–55

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  5. Dinan L, Harmatha J, Lafont R (2001) J Chromatogr A 935:105–123

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  6. Richer BE, Jones BA, Ezzell JL, Porter NL, Avdaovie N, Pohl C (1996) Anal Chem 68:1033–1039

    Article  Google Scholar 

  7. Windal I, Miller DJ, De Pauw E, Hawthorne SB (2000) Anal Chem 72:3916–3921

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  8. Schnatz M, Nicols JJ, Wise SA (1997) Anal Chem 69:4210–4219

    Article  Google Scholar 

  9. Macnaughton SJ, Jenkins TL, Wimpee MH, Cormier MR, White DC (1997) J Microbiol Methods 31:19–27

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  10. Tomy GT, Stern GA (1999) Anal Chem 71:4860–4865

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  11. Chiron S, Roy S, Cottier R, Jeannot R (2000) J Chromatogr A 879:137–145

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  12. Porschmann J, Plugge J, Toth R (2001) J Chromatogr A 909:95–109

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  13. Croce V, Patrolecco L, Polesello S, Valsecchi S (2003) Chromatographia 58:145–149

    CAS  Google Scholar 

  14. de la Cal A, Eljarrat E, Barcelo D (2003) J Chromatogr A 1021:165–173

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  15. Parera J, Santos FJ, Galcer MT (2004) J Chromatogr A 1046:19–26

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  16. Harb JG, Aldstadt JH (2004) Anal Lett 37:2835–2850

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  17. Schafer K (1998) Anal Chim Acta 358:69–77

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  18. Benthin B, Henning D, Matthias H (1999) J Chromatogr A 837:211–219

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  19. Fitzpatrick LJ, Dean JR, Comber MHI, Harradine K, Evans KP, Pearson S (2000) J Chromatogr A 873:287–291

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  20. Lee HK, Koh HL, Ong ES, Woo SO (2002) J Sep Sci 25:160–166

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  21. Pallaroni L, von Holst C (2003) Anal Bioanal Chem 376:908–912

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  22. Rosenblum L, Garris ST, Morgan JN (2002) J AOAC Int 85:1167–1176

    PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  23. Pecorelli I, Galarini R, Bibi R, Floridi A, Casciarri E (2003) Anal Chim Acta 483:81–89

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  24. Cheng Y, Li SM (2004) Int J Environ Anal Chem 84:367–378

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  25. Breithaupt DE (2004) Food Chem 86:449–456

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  26. Stolker AAM, Brinkman UAT (2005) J Chromatogr A 1067:15–53

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  27. Popp P, Keil P, Moder M, Paschke A, Thuss U (1997) J Chromatogr A 774:203–211

    Article  Google Scholar 

Download references

Acknowledgements

This study is supported by the outstanding youth fund (No. 20325517) from National Scientific Foundation of China (NNSFC), and the Teaching and Research Award Program for Outstanding Young Teachers (TRAPOYT) in higher education institutions of the Ministry of Education (MOE), PR China.

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Department of Chemistry, University of Science and Technology of China, Hefei, Anhui, 230026, P.R. China

    Jinchao Shen & Xueguang Shao

  2. Department of Chemistry, Nankai University, Tianjin, 300071, P.R. China

    Xueguang Shao

Authors
  1. Jinchao Shen
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Xueguang Shao
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Xueguang Shao.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Cite this article

Shen, J., Shao, X. A comparison of accelerated solvent extraction, Soxhlet extraction, and ultrasonic-assisted extraction for analysis of terpenoids and sterols in tobacco. Anal Bioanal Chem 383, 1003–1008 (2005). https://doi.org/10.1007/s00216-005-0078-6

Download citation

  • Received:

  • Revised:

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s00216-005-0078-6

Keywords

Search

Navigation