scholarly journals Liquid–Liquid Extraction and Solid Phase Extraction for Urinary Organic Acids: A Comparative Study from a Resource Constraint Setting

2016 ◽  
Vol 31 (4) ◽  
pp. 414-422 ◽  
Author(s):  
Chandrawati Kumari ◽  
Bijo Varughese ◽  
Siddarth Ramji ◽  
Seema Kapoor
2014 ◽  
Vol 69 (4) ◽  
Author(s):  
Norfahana Abd-Talib ◽  
Siti Hamidah Mohd-Setapar ◽  
Aidee Kamal Khamis

Over recent years, there has been an explosive growth of sample preparation techniques. Sample preparation is in most cases meant to be the isolation online or offline concentration of some components of interest or target analytes. Solid phase extraction (SPE) is a very popular technique nowadays in sample preparation. The principal is quite similar with liquid- liquid extraction (LLE) which involves partition of solutes between two phases. But, there are some differences between them and some benefits and limitations of difference types of SPE technique like presented in this paper.


2015 ◽  
Vol 51 (2) ◽  
pp. 393-401 ◽  
Author(s):  
Priscila Freitas-Lima ◽  
Flavia Isaura Santi Ferreira ◽  
Carlo Bertucci ◽  
Veriano Alexandre Júnior ◽  
Sônia Aparecida Carvalho Dreossi ◽  
...  

<p>Levetiracetam (LEV), an antiepileptic drug (AED) with favorable pharmacokinetic profile, is increasingly being used in clinical practice, although information on its metabolism and disposition are still being generated. Therefore a simple, robust and fast liquid-liquid extraction (LLE) followed by high-performance liquid chromatography method is described that could be used for both pharmacokinetic and therapeutic drug monitoring (TDM) purposes. Moreover, recovery rates of LEV in plasma were compared among LLE, stir bar-sorptive extraction (SBSE), and solid-phase extraction (SPE). Solvent extraction with dichloromethane yielded a plasma residue free from usual interferences such as commonly co-prescribed AEDs, and recoveries around 90% (LLE), 60% (SPE) and 10% (SBSE). Separation was obtained using reverse phase Select B column with ultraviolet detection (235 nm). Mobile phase consisted of methanol:sodium acetate buffer 0.125 M pH 4.4 (20:80, v/v). The method was linear over a range of 2.8-220.0 µg mL<sup>-1</sup>. The intra- and inter-assay precision and accuracy were studied at three concentrations; relative standard deviation was less than 10%. The limit of quantification was 2.8 µg mL<sup>-1</sup>. This robust method was successfully applied to analyze plasma samples from patients with epilepsy and therefore might be used for pharmacokinetic and TDM purposes.</p>


Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document