4.7 Article

Reversed-phase dispersive liquid-liquid microextraction with central composite design optimization for preconcentration and HPLC determination of oleuropein

期刊

TALANTA
卷 80, 期 5, 页码 1926-1931

出版社

ELSEVIER SCIENCE BV
DOI: 10.1016/j.talanta.2009.10.051

关键词

Reversed-phase DLLME; Oleuropein; Olive; HPLC; Multivariate optimization

向作者/读者索取更多资源

A reversed-phase dispersive liquid-liquid microextraction (RP-DLLME) method was developed for the preconcentration and direct HPLC determination of oleuropein in olive's processing wastewater (OPW) and olive leaves extracts. In conventional DLLME, the sedimented phase is a micro-drop of a chlorinated organic solvent that is not compatible with RP-HPLC Therefore, solvent evaporation and reconstitution with an appropriate solvent is often required. In RP-DLLME, this problem was overcome by overturning the solvent polarity in the ordinary DLLME and replacing the organic solvent with water. A central composite chemometncs design was used for multivariate optimization of the effects of five different parameters influencing the extraction efficiency of the method. In the optimized conditions, a mixture of 1 4 mL of an ethyl acetate extract of sample and 40 mu L water (pH 5 0) was rapidly injected into 5.3 mL of cyclohexane. After centrifugation of the formed cloudy mixture, a micro-drop of the aqueous phase was sedimented at the conical bottom of the centrifuge tube. This phase, that contained the preconcentrated and partially purified analyte. was directly injected into an RP-HPLC column for analysis. A mean extraction recovery of 102 5 (+/- 4.5)% with enrichment factors exceeding 38, was obtained for five replicated analysis The detection limit of the method (3 sigma) for OE was 0 021 mu g L(-1) for OPW and 2 x 10(-3) mg kg(-1) for olive leaves samples. The results showed that, RP-DLLME is a promising technique which is quick, easily operated and can be directly coupled to HPLC. (C) 2009 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

4.7
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