4.2 Article

Headspace Single Drop Microextraction Using Micellar Ionic Liquid Extraction Solvents

Journal

CHROMATOGRAPHIA
Volume 72, Issue 5-6, Pages 393-402

Publisher

SPRINGER HEIDELBERG
DOI: 10.1365/s10337-010-1675-x

Keywords

Column liquid chromatography; Polycyclic aromatic hydrocarbons; Single drop microextraction; Micellar extraction; Micelle ionic liquids

Funding

  1. National Science Foundation [CHE-0748612]

Ask authors/readers for more resources

A headspace single drop microextraction (SDME) method using extraction solvents comprised of micellar ionic liquids (ILs) was used to perform the extraction of 17 aromatic compounds from aqueous solution and coupled with liquid chromatography. The effects of various experimental parameters including type of micellar IL extraction solvent, stir rate, extraction time, volume of the microdroplet, and addition of organic solvent were investigated and optimized. Two different micellar solutions were formed by dissolving 1-decyl-3-methylimidazolium bromide ([DMIM][Br]) and sodium dodecyl sulfate (SDS) in 1-butyl-3-methylimidazolium chloride ([BMIM][Cl]). It was observed that the enrichment factors of the 17 studied compounds were all enhanced with the micellar ionic liquid extraction solvent compared to the neat [BMIM][Cl] IL. The highest sensitivity was obtained with the [BMIM][Cl]-[DMIM][Br] micellar solution for polycyclic aromatic hydrocarbons (PAHs) with high molecular weight and fused rings while the [BMIM][Cl]-SDS micellar solution was proven to be more sensitive for smaller, more polar molecules. The detection limits were lower when utilizing the [BMIM][Cl]-SDS and [BMIM][Cl]-[DMIM][Br] extraction solvents compared to the neat [BMIM][Cl] extraction solvent. The reproducibility of the extraction method at 20 A degrees C using extraction solvents composed of [BMIM][Cl]-SDS and [BMIM][Cl]-[DMIM][Br] ranged from 6.7 to 14.0 and 4.2 to 14.7%, respectively.

Authors

I am an author on this paper
Click your name to claim this paper and add it to your profile.

Reviews

Primary Rating

4.2
Not enough ratings

Secondary Ratings

Novelty
-
Significance
-
Scientific rigor
-
Rate this paper

Recommended

No Data Available
No Data Available