Effectiveness extraction efficiency

All analytical methods must be validated in accordance with international guidelines [59-61] prior to application. As discussed in the first part of this book, minimum criteria that need to be met to in order to satisfy these guidelines are selectivity, matrix effects, extraction efficiency, process efficiency, processed sample stability, linearity, accuracy, precision, and freeze-thaw stability. 

The extraction efficiency, therefore, is almost 75%. When the same calculation is carried out at a pH of 5.00, the extraction efficiency is 60%, but the extraction efficiency is only 3% at a pH of 7.00. As expected, extraction efficiency is better at more acidic pHs when HA is the predominate species in the aqueous phase. A graph of extraction efficiency versus pH for this system is shown in Figure 7.23. Note that the extraction efficiency is greatest for pHs more acidic than the weak acid s piQ and decreases substantially at pHs more basic than the pi A- A ladder diagram for HA is superimposed on the graph to help illustrate this effect. 

Microwave extraction realized at 120 °C for 30 min with Hexane -Acetone (3 2 V/V) as the extraction solvent was identified as the most effective extraction procedure for isolation of TPH from biotic matrices. The aim of this research is to develop a silica gel and alumina fractionation procedure for plant sample extraction. Column chromatography with two solvents (chloroform and hexane dichloromethane) as a mobile phase were used for clean-up of extract. In this research the efficiency of recovery received from chloroform as a mobile phase. 

The effect of different pai ameters such as temperature, pressure, modifier volume, dynamic and static extraction time on the SFE of the plant were investigated. The orthogonal array experimental design method was chosen to determine experimental plan, (5 ). In this design the effect of five parameters and each at five levels were investigated on the extraction efficiency and selectivity [4]. 

If the sample and standard have essentially the same matrices (e.g., air particulates or river sediments), one can go through the total measurement process with both the sample and the standard in order to (a) check the accuracy of the measurement process used (compare the concentration values obtained for the standard with the certified values) and (b) obtain some confidence about the accuracy of the concentration measurements on the unknown sample since both have gone through the same chemical measurement process (except sample collection). It is not recommended, however, that pure standards be used to standardize the total chemical measurement process for natural matrix type samples chemical concentrations in the natural matrices could be seriously misread, especially since the pure PAH probably would be totally extracted in a given solvent, whereas the PAH in the matrix material probably would not be. All the parameters and matrix effects. Including extraction efficiencies, are carefully checked in the certification process leading to SRM s. 

A reliable chromatographic method has been developed for the quantitative aneilysis of hydrophobic impurities in water-soluble polymeric dyes. The method utilizes both the molecular sieve effect of normal gel permeation chromatography and solute-column packing interaction, modified by solvent composition. This method eliminates the need to extract the impurities from the polymeric dye with 100 extraction efficiency, as would be required for an ordinary liquid chromatographic analysis. 

Results. Various solvent mixtures were tested for extraction efficiency. The test sample was a bone-dry sediment reference material containing 24.6 ppm of Arochlor 1242. This reference material is a real sediment from New Bedford Harbor which was homogenized and carefully assayed for PCB s by the Cincinnati EPA facility. Figure 3 shows recovery of 1242 using (1) hexane alone, (2) hexane and water (1 1), (3) hexane, water, and ethyl ether, (4) ethyl ether and water, (5) ethyl ether, water, and methanol, (6) methanol and hexane (1 1), and (7) water, methanol, and hexane (1 4 5). This last combination appears to give the best recovery. When added in this order to a dry sample, the effect of the water is to wet the sample, thus permitting extraction by methanol. The extracted PCB is partitioned almost exclusively into the hexane from the aqueous methanol. Final recovery is calculated from initial weight and hexane volume. 

The development of a robust analytical method is a complex issue. The residue analyst has available a vast array of techniques to assist in this task, but there are a number of basic rules that should be followed to produce a reliable method. The intention of this article is to provide the analyst with ideas from which a method can be constructed by considering each major component of the analytical method (sample preparation, extraction, sample cleanup, and the determinative step), and to suggest modern techniques that can be used to develop an effective and efficient overall approach. The latter portion emphasizes mass spectrometry (MS) since the current trend for pesticide residue methods is leading to MS becoming the method of choice for simultaneous quantitation and confirmation. This article also serves to update previous publications on similar topics by the authors. ... 

SFE. SFE has been established as the extraction method of choice for solid samples. The usefulness of SFE for soil samples has been demonstrated for carbamate,organophosphorus and organochlorine pesticides. However, SFE is more effective in extracting nonpolar than polar residues. In order to obtain a greater extraction efficiency for the polar residues of imidacloprid, the addition of 20% methanol as modifier is required. Extraction at 276 bar and 80 °C with a solvent consisting of supercritical carbon dioxide modified with methanol (5%) for 40 min gives a recovery of 97% (RSD = 3.6%, n = 10). It is possible to use process-scale SFE to decontaminate pesticide residues from dust waste. ... 

The extraction rate of mepanipyrim with refluxing was higher than that with shaking (30 min) and sonication (Ultrasonic, 600 W, 28 kHz, 30 min). For the solvent system, acetone and acetonitrile showed almost similar extraction efficiencies. Methanol was found to be a less effective extraction solvent. Mepanipyrim was unstable in the acidic solution and alkaline solution under reflux conditions at 80 °C. The extraction rate of mepanipyrim under these conditions decreased to about 50% and 20%, respectively. Therefore, neutral solution was used as the extraction solvent in this method. 

PFE is based on the adjustment of known extraction conditions of traditional solvent extraction to higher temperatures and pressures. The main reasons for enhanced extraction performance at elevated temperature and pressure are (i) solubility and mass transfer effects and (ii) disruption of surface equilibria [487]. In PFE, a certain minimum pressure is required to maintain the extraction solvent in the liquid state at a temperature above the atmospheric boiling point. High pressure elevates the boiling point of the solvent and also enhances penetration of the solvent into the sample matrix. This accelerates the desorption of analytes from the sample surface and their dissolution into the solvent. The final result is improved extraction efficiency along with short extraction time and low solvent requirements. While pressures well above the values required to keep the extraction solvent from boiling should be used, no influence on the ASE extraction efficiency is noticeable by variations from 100 to 300 bar [122]. 

Reaction is terminated by acetonitrile quenching, or by liquid-liquid extraction with water-immiscible organic solvent, provided that the extraction efficiency and the effect of the organic solvent on product stability are tested at the small scale. Based on properties of product, the pH of the reaction mixture should be adjusted before termination to allow maximal recovery of the product. For example, acid is usually added to the acyl-glucuronide product mixture at the end of the reaction to minimize acyl migration. 

The introduction of a solvent extraction process and an increasing flow of solvent in order to improve extraction efficiency constitute an increased environmental loading on the system. How might one take account of such effects in the simulation program ... 

Lagenfeld et al. [48] studied the effect of temperature and pressure on the supercritical fluid extraction efficiencies of polyaromatic hydrocarbons and polychlorobiphenyls in soils. At 50°C raising the pressure from 350 to 650atm had no effect on recoveries. 

The use of solid-phase micro-extraction (SPME) for the qualitative and quantitative determination of LAS in wastewater samples was investigated by Ceglarek et al. [7]. When examining the effect of salt addition on the extraction efficiency, NaCl, commonly used in SPME to improve extraction yields, turned out to be unsuitable because of the formation of [(NaCl) CiP clusters in the ESI-MS (prior to injection LAS was desorbed from the fibre by methanolAvater (50 50)), the formation of which were assumed to be responsible for the quantitative suppression of the LAS signals. These quenching effects were excluded when using ammonium acetate instead of NaCl. 

Matrix effects can influence significantly the extraction efficiency and signal intensity. For heavily contaminated samples such as sewage sludge, this problem is particularly relevant, and therefore the use of internal standards is essential in these applications. Internal standards applied in the extraction procedures for non-ionic surfactants include perinaphtenone [8], 4-fluoro-4,-hydroxyl-benzophenone [5] and 4-bro-mophenyl acetic acid [9]. More appropriate are internal standards from the same compound class butylphenol [10], heptylphenol [11],... 

Poulsen, T. G. et al., 1999, Predicting Soil-Water and Soil-Air Transport Properties and Their Effects on Soil-Vapor Extraction Efficiency Ground Water Monitoring and Remediation, Vol. 119, No. 3, pp. 61-70. 

---