Premium
Evaluation of two membrane‐based microextraction techniques for the determination of endocrine disruptors in aqueous samples by HPLC with diode array detection
Author(s) -
Luiz Oenning Anderson,
Lopes Daniela,
Neves Dias Adriana,
Merib Josias,
Carasek Eduardo
Publication year - 2017
Publication title -
journal of separation science
Language(s) - English
Resource type - Journals
SCImago Journal Rank - 0.72
H-Index - 102
eISSN - 1615-9314
pISSN - 1615-9306
DOI - 10.1002/jssc.201700583
Subject(s) - chromatography , high performance liquid chromatography , chemistry , aqueous solution , solid phase microextraction , membrane , analytical chemistry (journal) , gas chromatography–mass spectrometry , mass spectrometry , organic chemistry , biochemistry
In this study, the viability of two membrane‐based microextraction techniques for the determination of endocrine disruptors by high‐performance liquid chromatography with diode array detection was evaluated: hollow fiber microporous membrane liquid–liquid extraction and hollow‐fiber‐supported dispersive liquid–liquid microextraction. The extraction efficiencies obtained for methylparaben, ethylparaben, bisphenol A, benzophenone, and 2‐ethylhexyl‐4‐methoxycinnamate from aqueous matrices obtained using both approaches were compared and showed that hollow fiber microporous membrane liquid–liquid extraction exhibited higher extraction efficiency for most of the compounds studied. Therefore, a detailed optimization of the extraction procedure was carried out with this technique. The optimization of the extraction conditions and liquid desorption were performed by univariate analysis. The optimal conditions for the method were supported liquid membrane with 1‐octanol for 10 s, sample pH 7, addition of 15% w/v of NaCl, extraction time of 30 min, and liquid desorption in 150 μL of acetonitrile/methanol (50:50 v/v) for 5 min. The linear correlation coefficients were higher than 0.9936. The limits of detection were 0.5–4.6 μg/L and the limits of quantification were 2–16 μg/L. The analyte relative recoveries were 67–116%, and the relative standard deviations were less than 15.5%.