Magnetomotive room temperature dicationic ionic liquid: A new concept toward centrifuge-less dispersive liquid–liquid microextraction

Physico-Chemical Properties of Magnetic Dicationic Ionic Liquids with Tetrahaloferrate Anions

A series of imidazolium-based symmetrical and asymmetrical dicationic ionic liquids (DcILs) with alkyl spacers of different length and with [FeCl3 Br]- as counter ion have been synthesized. The synthesized DcILs are characterized by using FTIR and Raman spectroscopy as well as mass spectrometry, along with single-crystal XRD analysis. Physicochemical properties such as solubility, thermal stability and magnetic susceptibility are also measured. These compounds show low melting points, good solubility in water and organic solvents, thermal stability, and paramagnetism. The products of molar susceptibility and temperature (χmol ⋅T) for the synthesized DcILs have been found between 4.05 to 4.79 emu mol-1  K Oe-1 and effective magnetic moment values have also been determined to be compared to that expected from the spin-only approximation.

Preconcentration and determination of five antidepressants from human milk and urine samples by stir bar filled magnetic ionic liquids using liquid-liquid-liquid microextraction-high performance liquid chromatography

A sensitive and straightforward liquid-liquid-liquid microextraction method was developed to preconcentrate and cleanup antidepressants, including mirtazapine, venlafaxine, escitalopram, fluoxetine, and fluvoxamine, from biological samples before analyzing with high-performance liquid chromatography. The essential novelty of this study is using magnetic ionic liquids as the extraction phase in the lumen of hollow fiber and preparing a liquid magnetic stir bar. In the method, polypropylene hollow fiber was utilized as the permeable membrane for the analyte extraction. Six magnetic ionic liquids consisting of the transition metal and rare earth compounds were synthesized and then injected hollow fiber lumen as acceptor phase to extract the antidepressants. Besides, 3-pentanol as a water-immiscible solvent was impregnated in the hollow fiber wall pores. The effective factors in the method were optimized with the central composition design. The resultant calibration curves were linear over the concentration range of 0.8-400.0 ng mL^-1 (R² ≥ 0.996). The method displayed the proper detection limit (0.11-0.24 ng mL^-1 ), the reasonable limit of quantification (≤0.79 ng mL^-1 ), wide linear ranges, high preconcentration factors (≥294.3), and suitable relative standard deviation (2.31-5.47%) for measuring antidepressant medications. Analysis of human milk and urine samples showed acceptable recoveries of 96.5-103.8% with excellent relative standard deviations lower than 5.95%. This article is protected by copyright. All rights reserved.

Liquid phase microextraction techniques combined with chromatography analysis: a review

Sample pretreatment is the first and the most important step of an analytical procedure. In routine analysis, liquid–liquid microextraction (LLE) is the most widely used sample pre-treatment technique, whose goal is to isolate the target analytes, provide enrichment, with cleanup to lower the chemical noise, and enhance the signal. The use of extensive volumes of hazardous organic solvents and production of large amounts of waste make LLE procedures unsuitable for modern, highly automated laboratories, expensive, and environmentally unfriendly. In the past two decades, liquid-phase microextraction (LPME) was introduced to overcome these drawbacks. Thanks to the need of only a few microliters of extraction solvent, LPME techniques have been widely adopted by the scientific community. The aim of this review is to report on the state-of-the-art LPME techniques used in gas and liquid chromatography. Attention was paid to the classification of the LPME operating modes, to the historical contextualization of LPME applications, and to the advantages of microextraction in methods respecting the value of green analytical chemistry. Technical aspects such as description of methodology selected in method development for routine use, specific variants of LPME developed for complex matrices, derivatization, and enrichment techniques are also discussed.

Dispersive liquid–liquid microextraction using magnetic room temperature ionic liquid for extraction of ultra-trace amounts of parabens

In this work, a dispersive liquid–liquid microextraction method using methyltrioctylammonium tetrachloroferrate was employed for the extraction of ultratrace amounts of parabens in water, beer and beverage samples.

Headspace single drop microextraction versus dispersive liquid-liquid microextraction using magnetic ionic liquid extraction solvents

A headspace single drop microextraction (HS-SDME) method and a dispersive liquid-liquid microextraction (DLLME) method were developed using two tetrachloromanganate ([MnCl₄^2-])-based magnetic ionic liquids (MIL) as extraction solvents for the determination of twelve aromatic compounds, including four polyaromatic hydrocarbons, by reversed phase high-performance liquid chromatography (HPLC). The analytical performance of the developed HS-SDME method was compared to the DLLME approach employing the same MILs. In the HS-SDME approach, the magnetic field generated by the magnet was exploited to suspend the MIL solvent from the tip of a rod magnet. The utilization of MILs in HS-SDME resulted in a highly stable microdroplet under elevated temperatures and long extraction times, overcoming a common challenge encountered in traditional SDME approaches of droplet instability. The low UV absorbance of the [MnCl₄^2-]-based MILs permitted direct analysis of the analyte enriched extraction solvent by HPLC. In HS-SDME, the effects of ionic strength of the sample solution, temperature of the extraction system, extraction time, stir rate, and headspace volume on extraction efficiencies were examined. Coefficients of determination (R²) ranged from 0.994 to 0.999 and limits of detection (LODs) varied from 0.04 to 1.0μgL^-1 with relative recoveries from lake water ranging from 70.2% to 109.6%. For the DLLME method, parameters including disperser solvent type and volume, ionic strength of the sample solution, mass of extraction solvent, and extraction time were studied and optimized. Coefficients of determination for the DLLME method varied from 0.997 to 0.999 with LODs ranging from 0.05 to 1.0μgL^-1. Relative recoveries from lake water samples ranged from 68.7% to 104.5%. Overall, the DLLME approach permitted faster extraction times and higher enrichment factors for analytes with low vapor pressure whereas the HS-SDME approach exhibited better extraction efficiencies for analytes with relatively higher vapor pressure.