4.6 Article

Emulsification liquid-liquid microextraction based on deep eutectic solvents: an extraction method for the determination of sulfonamides in water samples

Journal

ANALYTICAL METHODS
Volume 9, Issue 32, Pages 4747-4753

Publisher

ROYAL SOC CHEMISTRY
DOI: 10.1039/c7ay01332a

Keywords

-

Funding

  1. Tianjin Municipal Natural Science Foundation of China [13JCYBJC42200]
  2. National Training Programs of Innovation and Entrepreneurship for Undergraduates of China [201610060013]

Ask authors/readers for more resources

In this study, a simple, inexpensive and sensitive method named emulsification liquid-liquid microextraction based on deep eutectic solvents (ELLME-DES) was used for the extraction of sulfonamides (SAs) from water samples, including sulfadiazine (SDZ), sulfamerazine (SMR), sulfametoxydiazine (SDD) and sulfamethoxazole (SMX). In a typical experiment, eight kinds of DESs (as water-miscible extraction solvents) were added to 1.5 mL of sample solution containing target analytes, respectively. A homogeneous solution was formed immediately. Injection of THF (as an emulsifying agent) into the homogeneous solution provided a turbid state. After extraction, phase separation (aqueous phase/ DES rich phase) was performed by centrifugation. The DES rich phase was withdrawn using a micro-syringe and submitted to isocratic reverse-phase HPLC with UV detection. Under optimum conditions obtained by response surface methodology (RSM) and the desirability function, the best conditions were when the parameters were 193 mL of DES4, 100 mu L of THF and an ultrasonication time of 17 min. The recoveries of SDZ, SMR, SDD and SMX were 86.54%, 88.48%, 80.78% and 74.65%, respectively. This procedure was successfully applied to the determination of target analytes in spiked water samples. It showed highly satisfactory results and potential for rapid extraction of SAs from water samples combining with the method of ELLME-DES.

Authors

I am an author on this paper
Click your name to claim this paper and add it to your profile.

Reviews

Primary Rating

4.6
Not enough ratings

Secondary Ratings

Novelty
-
Significance
-
Scientific rigor
-
Rate this paper

Recommended

No Data Available
No Data Available