4.6 Article

Microextraction of mebendazole across supported liquid membrane forced by pH gradient and electrical field

期刊

出版社

ELSEVIER SCIENCE BV
DOI: 10.1016/j.jpba.2010.12.006

关键词

Hollow fiber membrane; Liquid phase microextraction; Electromembrane; High performance liquid chromatography; Mebendazole

资金

  1. Research Council of Alzahra University

向作者/读者索取更多资源

In the present study, extraction of mebendazole across a supported-liquid membrane (SLM) was performed based on two different driving forces: (1) pH gradient over the SLM, and (2) electrical field sustained over the SLM. The extracted drug concentration was studied using reversed-phase HPLC-UV. At passive extraction conditions, mebendazole was extracted from alkaline samples (0.01 mmol L-1 NaOH) into 1-undecanol immobilized in the pores of a porous hollow fiber of polypropylene (SLM), and then transported into 25 mu L of 100 mM HCl as the acceptor solution. Under electrokinetic migration conditions, mebendazole transported under applied voltage from acidic solutions (100 mmol L-1 HCl) through 2-nitrophenyl octyl ether (NPOE) immobilized in the pores of hollow fiber, into 25 mu L of 100 mmol L-1 HCl as the acceptor solution. The effects of several factors including the nature of organic solvent, pH of donor and acceptor solutions, extraction time and stirring speed on the extraction efficiency of the drug were investigated and optimized. Under optimal conditions, preconcentration factors (PF) of 211 and 190 were obtained for the drug based on passive transport and electromembrane extraction (EME), respectively. Also, linear range of 0.5-1000 mu g L-1 with estimation of coefficient higher than 0.994 was obtained for both of the proposed methods. The results showed that EME has higher speed in comparison with simple passive transport. The methods were successfully applied to extract mebendazole from plasma and urine samples and satisfactory results were obtained. (C) 2010 Elsevier B.V. All rights reserved.

作者

我是这篇论文的作者
点击您的名字以认领此论文并将其添加到您的个人资料中。

评论

主要评分

4.6
评分不足

次要评分

新颖性
-
重要性
-
科学严谨性
-
评价这篇论文

推荐

暂无数据
暂无数据