4.7 Article

Determination of β-sitosterol and cholesterol in oils after reverse micelles with Triton X-100 coupled with ultrasound-assisted back-extraction by a water/chloroform binary system prior to gas chromatography with flame ionization detection

期刊

ANALYTICA CHIMICA ACTA
卷 701, 期 2, 页码 232-237

出版社

ELSEVIER
DOI: 10.1016/j.aca.2011.05.047

关键词

beta-Sitosterol; Cholesterol; Reverse micelle; Ultrasound-assisted; Back-extraction; Triton X-100

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Ultrasonic back-extraction of Triton X-100 reverse micelles by a water/chloroform binary system and gas chromatography with flame ionization detection (GC-FID) was developed for extraction and determination of beta-sitosterol and cholesterol in soybean and sunflower oil samples. After the homogenization of the oil samples with Triton X-100, an aliquot of 200 mu L of methanol was added to the samples to form two phases. The clear Triton X-100 extract obtained by centrifugation was treated with a mixture of water (1000 mu L) and chloroform (300 mu L) for back-extraction of the analytes into the chloroform phase by ultrasonication. After centrifugation, the sedimented chloroform layer was withdrawn easily by a microsyringe and directly injected into the GC-FID system. The influence of several important parameters on the extraction efficiencies of the analytes was evaluated. Under optimized experimental conditions, the calibration graphs were linear in the range of 1.0-30.0 mg L-1 with coefficient of determination more than 0.994 for both analytes. The method detection limit values were in the range of 0.2-0.7 mg L-1. The lower limit of quantification values were in the range of 0.7-2.4 mg L-1. Intra-day relative standard deviations were in the range of 1.0-2.7%. This procedure was successfully applied with satisfactory results to the determination of beta-sitosterol and cholesterol in spiked oil samples. The relative mean recoveries of oil samples ranged from 93.6% to 105.0%. (C) 2011 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