Advertisement

Analytical and Bioanalytical Chemistry

, Volume 409, Issue 27, pp 6287–6303 | Cite as

Salting-out-enhanced ionic liquid microextraction with a dual-role solvent for simultaneous determination of trace pollutants with a wide polarity range in aqueous samples

Paper in Forefront

Abstract

In real aquatic environments, many occupational pollutants with a wide range of polarities coexist at nanogram to milligram per liter levels. Most reported microextraction methods focus on extracting compounds with similar properties (e.g., polarity or specific functional groups). Herein, we developed a salting-out-enhanced ionic liquid microextraction based on a dual-role solvent (SILM-DS) for simultaneous detection of tetracycline, doxycycline, bisphenol A, triclosan, and methyltriclosan, with log K ow ranging from −1.32 to 5.40 in complex milk and environmental water matrices. The disperser in the ionic-liquid-based dispersive liquid–liquid microextraction was converted to the extraction solvent in the subsequent salting-out-assisted microextraction procedures, and thus a single solvent performed a dual role as both extractant and disperser in the SILM-DS process. Acetonitrile was selected as the dual-role solvent because of its strong affinity for both ionic liquids and water, as well as the extractant in the salting-out step. Optimized experimental conditions were 115 μL [C8MIM][PF6] as extractor, 1200 μL acetonitrile as dual-role solvent, pH 2.0, 5.0 min ultrasound extraction time, 3.0 g Na2SO4, and 3.0 min vortex extraction time. Under optimized conditions, the recoveries of the five pollutants ranged from 74.5 to 106.9%, and their LODs were 0.12–0.75 μg kg−1 in milk samples and 0.11–0.79 μg L−1 in environmental waters. Experimental precision based on relative standard deviation was 1.4–6.4% for intraday and 2.3–6.5% for interday analyses. Compared with previous methods, the prominent advantages of the newly developed method are simultaneous determination of pollutants with a wide range of polarities and a substantially reduced workload for ordinary environmental monitoring and food tests. Therefore, the new method has great application potential for simultaneous determination of trace pollutants with strongly contrasting polarities in several analytical fields.

Graphical Abstract

A salting-out-enhanced ionic liquid microextraction based on a dual-role solvent (SILM-DS) was developed for simultaneous detection of tetracycline, doxycycline, bisphenol A, triclosan and methyltriclosan, with log K ow ranging from –1.32 to 5.40. The novelty of SILM-DS method lies in (1) simultaneous quantification of pollutants with contrasting polarity; (2) microextraction based on a dual-role solvent (as a disperser and extractant); (3) giving high recoveries for analytes with a wide range of polarities; and (4) reducing workload for ordinary environmental monitoring and food tests.

Keywords

Simultaneous quantification of pollutants with contrasting polarity Salting-out-enhanced ionic liquid microextraction Dual-role solvent Antibiotic detection Aqueous samples 

Notes

Acknowledgements

This work was jointly supported by the National Natural Science Foundation of China (21577107 and 21377100), the Zhejiang Provincial Public Benefit Project (2016C34011), and the Zhejiang Provincial Natural Science Foundation (LY16B070010).

Compliance with ethical standards

Conflict of interest

The authors declare that they have no conflict of interest.

Supplementary material

216_2017_579_MOESM1_ESM.pdf (69 kb)
ESM 1 (PDF 68 kb)

References

  1. 1.
    Vargas Mamani MC, Reyes Reyes FG, Rath S. Multiresidue determination of tetracyclines, sulphonamides and chloramphenicol in bovine milk using HPLC-DAD. Food Chem. 2009;117:545–52.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. 2.
    Gao JJ, Wang H, Qu JG, Wang HL, Wang XD. Development and optimization of a naphthoic acid-based ionic liquid as a “non-organic solvent microextraction” for the determination of tetracycline antibiotics in milk and chicken eggs. Food Chem. 2017;215:138–48.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. 3.
    Hansch C, Leo A, Hoekman D. Exploring QSAR - hydrophobic, electronic, and steric constants. Washington, DC: American Chemical Society; 1995. p. 177.Google Scholar
  4. 4.
    Fu L, Huang T, Wang S, Wang X, Su L, Li C, et al. Toxicity of 13 different antibiotics towards freshwater green algae Pseudokirchneriella subcapitata and their modes of action. Chemosphere. 2016;168:217–22.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. 5.
    Asimakopoulos AG, Thomaidis NS, Kannan K. Widespread occurrence of bisphenol A diglycidyl ethers, p-hydroxybenzoic acid esters (parabens), benzophenone type-UV filters, triclosan, and triclocarban in human urine from Athens. Sci Total Environ. 2014;470-471:1243–9.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. 6.
    Ying GG, Kookana RS, Dillon PJ. Sorption and degradation of five selected endocrine disrupting chemicals in aquifer material. Water Res. 2003;37:3785–91.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. 7.
    Gerona RR, Woodruff TJ, Dickenson CA, Pan J, Schwartz JM, Sen S, et al. Bisphenol-A (BPA), BPA glucuronide, and BPA sulfate in midgestation umbilical cord serum in a northern and central California population. Environ Sci Technol. 2013;47:12477–85.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. 8.
    Michalowicz J. Bisphenol A-sources, toxicity and biotransformation. Environ Toxicol Pharmacol. 2014;37:738–58.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. 9.
    Yusa V, Ye XY, Calafat AM. Methods for the determination of biomarkers of exposure to emerging pollutants in human specimens. Trends Anal Chem. 2012;38:129–42.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. 10.
    Perencevich EN, Wong MT, Harris AD. National and regional assessment of the antibacterial soap market: a step toward determining the impact of prevalent antibacterial soaps. Am J Infect Control. 2001;29:281–3.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. 11.
    Zhao JL, Zhang QQ, Chen F, Wang L, Ying GG, Liu YS, et al. Evaluation of triclosan and triclocarban at river basin scale using monitoring and modeling tools: implications for controlling of urban domestic sewage discharge. Water Res. 2013;47:395–405.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. 12.
    Latch DE, Packer JL, Stender BL, Vanoverbeke J, Arnold WA, Mcneill K. Aqueous photochemistry of triclosan: formation of 2,4-dichlorophenol, 2,8-dichlorodibenzo-p-dioxin, and oligomerization products. Toxicol Chem. 2005;24(3):517–25.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. 13.
    Gonzalo-Lumbreras R, Sanz-Landaluze J, Cámara C. Analytical performance of two miniaturised extraction methods for triclosan and methyltriclosan, in fish roe and surimi samples. Food Chem. 2014;146:141–8.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. 14.
    Coogan MA, Edziyie RE, La Point TW, Venables BJ. Algal bioaccumulation of triclocarban, triclosan, and methyl-triclosan in a north Texas wastewater treatment plant receiving stream. Chemosphere. 2007;67:1911–8.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. 15.
    Lv W, Chen Y, Li D, Chen X, Leszczynski J. Methyl-triclosan binding to human serum albumin: multi-spectroscopic study and visualized molecular simulation. Chemosphere. 2013;3:1125–30.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. 16.
    Renew JE, Huang CH. Simultaneous determination of fluoroquinolone, sulfonamide, and trimethoprim antibiotics in wastewater using tandem solid phase extraction and liquid chromatography-electrospray mass spectrometry. J Chromatogr A. 2004;1042:113–21.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. 17.
    Spietelun A, Marcinkowski Ł, de la Guardia M, Namieśnik J. Green aspects, developments and perspectives of liquid phase microextraction techniques. Talanta. 2014;119:34–45.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. 18.
    Sharifi V, Abbasi A, Nosrati A. Application of hollow fiber liquid phase microextraction and dispersive liquid–liquid microextraction techniques in analytical toxicology. J Food Drug Anal. 2016;24:264–76.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. 19.
    Vázquez MM, Vázquez PP, Galera MM, García MD. Determination of eight fluoroquinolones in groundwater samples with ultrasound-assisted ionic liquid dispersive liquid–liquid microextraction prior to high-performance liquid chromatography and fluorescence detection. Anal Chim Acta. 2012;748:20–7.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. 20.
    Vakh C, Pochivalov A, Andruch V, Moskvin L, Bulatov A. A fully automated effervescence-assisted switchable solvent-based liquid phase microextraction procedure: liquid chromatographic determination of ofloxacin in human urine samples. Anal Chim Acta. 2016;907:54–9.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. 21.
    ang H, Gao JJ, Yu NN, Qu JG, Fang F, Wang HL, et al. Development of a novel naphthoic acid ionic liquid and its application in “no-organic solvent microextraction” for determination of triclosan and methyltriclosan in human fluids and the method optimization by central composite design. Talanta. 2016;154:381–91.Google Scholar
  22. 22.
    Zhao RS, Liu YL, Chen XF, Yuan JP, Bai AY, Zhou JB. Preconcentration and determination of polybrominated diphenyl ethers in environmental water samples by solid-phase microextraction with Fe3O4-coated bamboo charcoal fibers prior to gas chromatography-mass spectrometry. Anal Chim Acta. 2013;769:65–71.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. 23.
    Pindado JO, Pérez Pastor RM. Estimation of measurement uncertainty of pesticides, polychlorinated biphenyls and polyaromatic hydrocarbons in sediments by using gas chromatography-mass spectrometry. Anal Chim Acta. 2012;724:20–9.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. 24.
    Wang HL, Gao M, Gao JJ, Yu NN, Hong H, Yu Q, et al. Determination of fluoroquinolone antibiotics via ionic-liquid-based, salt-induced, dual microextraction in swine feed. Anal Bioanal Chem. 2016;6105:408–22.Google Scholar
  25. 25.
    Hu XZ, Wu JH, Feng YQ. Molecular complex-based dispersive liquid–liquid microextraction: Analysis of polar compounds in aqueous solution. J Chromatogr A. 2010;1217:7010–6.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. 26.
    Wu LJ, Hu MZ, Li ZC, Song Y, Yu C, Zhang YP, et al. Determination of triazine herbicides in fresh vegetables by dynamic microwave-assisted extraction coupled with homogeneous ionic liquid microextraction high performance liquid chromatography. Anal Bioanal Chem. 2015;407:1753–62.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. 27.
    Huddleston JG, Visser AE, Reichert WM, Willauer HD, Broker GA, Rogers RD. Characterization and comparison of hydrophilic and hydrophobic room temperature ionic liquids incorporating the imidazolium cation. Green Chem. 2001;3:156–64.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. 28.
    Valente IM, Gonçalves LM, Rodrigues JA. Another glimpse over the salting-out assisted liquid–liquid extraction in acetonitrile/water mixtures. J Chromatogr A. 2013;1308:58–62.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. 29.
    Kamarei F, Ebrahimzadeh H, Yamini Y. Optimization of solvent bar microextraction combined with gas chromatography for the analysis of aliphatic amines in water samples. J Hazard Mater. 2010;178(1-3):747–52.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. 30.
    Konieczka P, Namieśnik J. Estimating uncertainty in analytical procedures based on chromatographic techniques. J Chromatogr A. 2010;1217(6):882–91.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  31. 31.
    Augusto F, Hantao LW, Mogollón NGS, Braga SCGN. New materials and trends in sorbents for solid-phase extraction. Trends Anal Chem. 2013;43(2):14–23.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  32. 32.
    Moral A, Sicilia MD, Rubio S, Pérez-Bendito D. Multifunctional sorbents for the extraction of pesticide multiresidues from natural waters. Anal Chim Acta. 2008;608(1):61.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  33. 33.
    Mirnaghi FS, Goryński K, Rodriguez-Lafuente A, Boyacı E, Bojko B, Pawliszyn J. Microextraction versus exhaustive extraction approaches for simultaneous analysis of compounds in wide range of polarity. J Chromatogr A. 2013;1316(21):37–43.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  34. 34.
    Tabani H, Asadi S, Nojavan S, Parsa M. Introduction of agarose gel as a green membrane in electromembrane extraction: an efficient procedure for the extraction of basic drugs with a wide range of polarities. J Chromatogr A. 2017;1497:47–55.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  35. 35.
    Faria HDD, Rosa MA, Silveira AT, Figueiredo EC. Direct extraction of tetracyclines from bovine milk using restricted access carbon nanotubes in a column switching liquid chromatography system. Food Chem. 2017;225:98–106.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  36. 36.
    Filippou O, Deliyanni EA, Samanidou VF. Fabrication and evaluation of magnetic activated carbon as adsorbent for ultrasonic assisted magnetic solid phase dispersive extraction of bisphenol A from milk prior to high performance liquid chromatographic analysis with ultraviolet detection. J Chromatogr A. 2016;1479:20–31.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  37. 37.
    Azzouz A, Rascon AJ, Ballesteros E. Simultaneous determination of parabens, alkylphenols, phenylphenols, bisphenol A and triclosan in human urine, blood and breast milk by continuous solid-phase extraction and gas chromatography-mass spectrometry. J Pharm Biomed Anal. 2016;119:16–26.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  38. 38.
    Wang H, Zhang J, Gao F, Yang Y, Dun HJ. Simultaneous analysis of synthetic musks and triclosan in human breast milk by gas chromatography tandem mass spectrometry. J Chromatogr B. 2011;879:1861–9.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  39. 39.
    Montes R, Rodríguez I, Rubí E, Cela R. Dispersive liquid–liquid microextraction applied to the simultaneous derivatization and concentration of triclosan and methyltriclosan in water samples. J Chromatogr A. 2009;1216:205–10.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer-Verlag GmbH Germany 2017

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Key Laboratory of Watershed Sciences and Health of Zhejiang Province, College of Public Health and ManagementWenzhou Medical UniversityWenzhouChina
  2. 2.College of Life SciencesWenzhou Medical UniversityWenzhouChina
  3. 3.College of Chemical EngineeringZhejiang University of TechnologyHangzhouChina

Personalised recommendations