4.7 Article

Automated alkaline-induced salting-out homogeneous liquid-liquid extraction coupled with in-line organic-phase detection by an optical probe for the determination of diclofenac

期刊

TALANTA
卷 169, 期 -, 页码 156-162

出版社

ELSEVIER SCIENCE BV
DOI: 10.1016/j.talanta.2017.03.074

关键词

Alkaline-induced salting-out homogeneous liquid-liquid extraction; In-line organic-phase detection; Optical probe; Flow analysis; Diclofenac; Saliva; Pharmaceutical preparations

资金

  1. Russian Scientific Foundation [16-13-10117]
  2. Russian Government [MD-6597.2016.3]
  3. Scientific Grant Agency of the Ministry of Education, Science, Research and Sport of the Slovak Republic [VEGA 1/0010/15]
  4. International Visegrad Fund
  5. Russian Science Foundation [16-13-10117] Funding Source: Russian Science Foundation

向作者/读者索取更多资源

A fully automated alkaline-induced salting-out homogeneous liquid-liquid extraction (AI-SHLLE) procedure coupled with in-line organic-phase detection by an optical probe has been suggested. Diclofenac was used as a proof-of-concept analyte. The method is based on the oxidation of diclofenac with potassium ferricyanide in an alkaline medium followed by separation of the acetonitrile phase from the homogeneous sample solution and simultaneous extraction of the derivative. Sodium hydroxide serves as both the alkaline agent for the derivatization of diclofenac and as the salting-out agent for the acetonitrile-rich phase formation. Absorbance of the derivative in the acetonitrile-rich phase was measured in-line using an optical probe. The calibration graph was linear over the range of 2.5-60 mu mol L-1 with the regression coefficient equal to 0.9997. The LOD calculated from the calibration plot based on 3 sigma was 0.8 mu mol L-1. The sample throughput was 7 samples h(-1). The method was applied for the determination of diclofenac in spiked saliva samples and pharmaceutical preparations and the results were compared with those obtained by the reference method.

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