4.8 Article

High-Throughput Liquid-Liquid Extractions with Nanoliter Volumes

期刊

ANALYTICAL CHEMISTRY
卷 92, 期 4, 页码 3189-3197

出版社

AMER CHEMICAL SOC
DOI: 10.1021/acs.analchem.9b04915

关键词

-

资金

  1. NIH [2R01EB003320-21]

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Current methods for liquid-liquid extractions generally require microliter to milliliter volumes of solvents and sample, long equilibration times, and manual procedures. Extraction methods for samples in microfluidic systems have been limited as this tool is difficult to implement on the nanoliter or smaller scale. We have developed slug-flow nanoextraction (SFNE), a method based on droplet microfluidics that allows multiple liquid-liquid extractions to be performed simultaneously in a capillary tube, using only 5 nL of sample and extraction solvent per extraction. Each two-phase slug is segmented from the others by immiscible carrier fluid. We found rapid extractions (<5 s), partition coefficients matching those achieved at larger scale extractions, and potential to preconcentrate samples through volume manipulation. This method was used to accurately and rapidly determine octanol-water partition coefficients (K-ow), determining identical K-ow as the shake-flask method for acetaminophen, K-ow = 2.48 +/- 0.02. The measurement, along with calibration and 12 replicates, was complete within 5 min, consuming under 150 nL of solvent and sample. The method was also applied to extract analytes from complex biological samples prior to electrospray ionization-tandem mass spectrometry (ESI-MS/MS) at a rate of 6 s per sample, allowing for simultaneous determination of five different drugs spiked into human plasma, synthetic urine (SU), and artificial cerebral spinal fluid (aCSF) using ethyl acetate as the extraction phase. The signal-to-noise (S/N) for analytes improved up to 19-fold compared to direct ESI-MS of single-phase droplets (aqueous plugs segmented by carrier fluid), with limits of detection down to 7 nM (35 amol).

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

4.8
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