Journal
MICROCHEMICAL JOURNAL
Volume 168, Issue -, Pages -Publisher
ELSEVIER
DOI: 10.1016/j.microc.2021.106358
Keywords
Gas flow-assisted DLPME; Green analytical chemistry; Parabens; Personal hygiene products
Categories
Funding
- RAZI laboratories of the Science and Research Branch, Islamic Azad University
Ask authors/readers for more resources
This study utilized gas flow-assisted dispersive liquid-phase microextraction combined with GC-FID for the analysis of parabens in hygienic products. By employing strategies such as dispersing the extraction solvent with gas flow, replacing sustainable solvents, and eliminating centrifugation steps, the extraction efficiency was effectively optimized. The method demonstrated good accuracy and stability with relative recoveries in the range of 96-103% and relative standard deviations of <4.2% in the tests.
Gas flow-assisted dispersive liquid-phase microextraction combined with GC-FID was employed for the analysis of parabens in hygienic products. Some strategies have been used to overcome the drawbacks of classic DLLME. In this regard, the flow of a neutral gas was employed to disperse the extraction solvent in the sample. Fatty alcohols as sustainable solvents were replaced by traditional toxic organic extraction solvents. The centrifugation step was deleted by using the salting-out phenomenon. Variables influencing the extraction efficiency, such as the type and volume of extraction, ionic strength, pH, and extraction time, were optimized based on the univariate technique. Under optimal conditions calibration models were linear in the range of 5-10,000 mu g L-1. The limits of detection were obtained in the 1.0-1.7 mu g L-1 range, and limits of quantitative measurement were between 3.4 and 5.7 mu g L-1. The relative standard deviations for repeatability and reproducibility of the method were obtained in the range of 2.05-3.89% and 6.45-9.55%, respectively. A spiking approach using standard material was applied to evaluate accuracy. The relative recoveries were found to be in the 96-103% range. In these tests, the relative standard deviations were < 4.2%, which specified proper accordance with the standard concentrations.
Authors
I am an author on this paper
Click your name to claim this paper and add it to your profile.
Reviews
Recommended
No Data Available