4.7 Review

Ionic liquids in solid-phase microextraction: A review

Journal

ANALYTICA CHIMICA ACTA
Volume 695, Issue 1-2, Pages 18-43

Publisher

ELSEVIER
DOI: 10.1016/j.aca.2011.03.034

Keywords

Ionic liquids; Polymeric ionic liquids; Solid-phase microextraction; Gas chromatography; Direct-immersion; Sample preparation

Funding

  1. University of Toledo
  2. Office of Undergraduate Research at The University of Toledo
  3. Division of Chemistry and the Separation and Purification Processes Program in the Chemical, Environmental, Bioengineering, and Transport Systems Division from the National Science Foundation [CHE-0748612]

Ask authors/readers for more resources

Solid-phase microextraction (SPME) has undergone a surge in popularity within the field of analytical chemistry in the past two decades since its introduction. Owing to its nature of extraction, SPME has become widely known as a quick and cost-effective sample preparation technique. Although SPME has demonstrated extraordinary versatility in sampling capabilities, the technique continues to experience a tremendous growth in innovation. Presently, increasing efforts have been directed towards the engineering of novel sorbent material in order to expand the applicability of SPME for a wider range of analytes and matrices. This review highlights the application of ionic liquids (ILs) and polymeric ionic liquids (PILs) as innovative sorbent materials for SPME. Characterized by their unique physico-chemical properties, these compounds can be structurally-designed to selectively extract target analytes based on unique molecular interactions. To examine the advantages of IL and PIL-based sorbent coatings in SPME, the field is reviewed by gathering available experimental data and exploring the sensitivity, linear calibration range, as well as detection limits for a variety of target analytes in the methods that have been developed. (C) 2011 Elsevier B.V. All rights reserved.

Authors

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

Reviews

Primary Rating

4.7
Not enough ratings

Secondary Ratings

Novelty
-
Significance
-
Scientific rigor
-
Rate this paper

Recommended

No Data Available
No Data Available