4.8 Article

Fiber-Sample Distance, An Important Parameter To Be Considered in Headspace Solid-Phase Microextraction Applications

期刊

ANALYTICAL CHEMISTRY
卷 92, 期 11, 页码 7478-7484

出版社

AMER CHEMICAL SOC
DOI: 10.1021/acs.analchem.9b05386

关键词

-

向作者/读者索取更多资源

To define and control the parameters which impact headspace solid-phase microextraction (HS-SPME), it is important to reach the highest level of reproducibility. The present study aims to assess, for the first time, the effect of fiber-sample distance during HS-SPME in pre-equilibrium conditions. Analyses were primarily performed on mixtures of standard volatiles compounds (alkanes, alcohols, organic acids) designed in our lab and then on various food matrices (wine, chicken, cheese, tea), repeating already published experiments. Extractions were performed varying fiber penetration depths (10-60 mm) at different times (10-60 min) and temperatures of extraction (30-80 degrees C). The study revealed that variation of the distance between the fiber and the sample into the vial clearly impacts the results obtained during HS-SPME when conditions are such that no equilibrium is reached in HS. For example, in wine analysis, the percentage of octanoic acid at 80 degrees C was higher at 40 mm (7.5 +/- 0.2%) than that at 20 mm (4.4 +/- 0.3%). Moreover, regardless of the extraction temperature, the lower the time of extraction, the stronger the dependence on the fiber-sample distance. Indeed, at 60 degrees C, the obtained response factors for octadecane at 20 and 40 mm of fiber penetration were 21.8 and 44.5, respectively, after 10 min of extraction, 54.1 and 71.0 after 30 min, and 79.4 and 82.4 after 60 min of extraction. The analyses have been here corroborated by a theoretical model based on the diffusion equation. Therefore, to improve the method robustness during HS-SPME studies, we suggest specifying the fiber penetration depth or the fiber-sample distance with the other parameters of extraction.

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