scholarly journals Solid-phase extraction as sample preparation of water samples for cell-based and other in vitro bioassays

2018 ◽  
Vol 20 (3) ◽  
pp. 493-504 ◽  
Author(s):  
Peta A. Neale ◽  
Werner Brack ◽  
Selim Aït-Aïssa ◽  
Wibke Busch ◽  
Juliane Hollender ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Water Quality ◽  
Chemical Analysis ◽  
Sample Preparation ◽  
Solid Phase Extraction ◽  
Solid Phase ◽  
Water Quality Monitoring ◽  
Quality Monitoring ◽  
Phase Extraction ◽  
In Vitro Bioassays

Effect recovery for bioassays was evaluated and was similar to recovery by chemical analysis for the studied SPE methods, providing support of bioassay use for water quality monitoring.

scholarly journals Iron oxide xerogels for improved water quality monitoring of arsenic(iii) in resource-limited environments via solid-phase extraction, preservation, storage, transportation, and analysis of trace contaminants (SEPSTAT)

2021 ◽  
Author(s):  
Michael S. Bono ◽  
Emily B. Hanhauser ◽  
Chintan Vaishnav ◽  
A. John Hart ◽  
Rohit Karnik
Keyword(s):  
Water Quality ◽  
Iron Oxide ◽  
Solid Phase Extraction ◽  
Solid Phase ◽  
Water Quality Monitoring ◽  
Quality Monitoring ◽  
Phase Extraction ◽  
Solid Sorbents ◽  
Sample Contamination ◽  
Resource Limited

We show that iron oxide xerogels can quantitatively adsorb, store, and release aqueous arsenic(iii), enabling a new arsenic monitoring paradigm where sample contamination is adsorbed onto solid sorbents for transportation to laboratories for analysis.

Colorimetric-Solid Phase Extraction Technology for Water Quality Monitoring: Evaluation of C-SPE and Debubbling Methods in Microgravity

2007 ◽  
Author(s):  
April Hazen-Bosveld ◽  
Robert J. Lipert ◽  
John Nordling ◽  
Chien-Ju Shih ◽  
Lorraine Siperko ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Water Quality ◽  
Solid Phase Extraction ◽  
Solid Phase ◽  
Water Quality Monitoring ◽  
Quality Monitoring ◽  
Phase Extraction ◽  
Extraction Technology

Cannabinoids in Oral Fluid: Limiting Potential Sources of Cannabidiol Conversion to Δ9- and Δ8-Tetrahydrocannabinol

2021 ◽  
Author(s):  
Cynthia Coulter ◽  
Jarrad R Wagner
Keyword(s):  
Sample Preparation ◽  
Solid Phase Extraction ◽  
Conversion Rate ◽  
Oral Fluid ◽  
Solid Phase ◽  
Extraction Procedure ◽  
Base Hydrolysis ◽  
Extraction Column ◽  
Phase Extraction

Abstract In late 2019 the National Laboratory Certification Program (NLCP) published an article reporting on the potential analytical conversion of 7-carboxy-cannabidiol (CBD-COOH) to 11-nor-9-carboxy-Δ9-tetrahydrocannabinol-9-carboxylic acid (THC-COOH) in urine samples. (1) The same conversion is possible in oral fluid with the parent analyte cannabidiol (CBD) converting to Δ9-tetrahydrocannabinol (Δ9-THC) and Δ8-tetrahydrocannabinol (Δ8-THC) under strong acidic conditions. With the recent rise in states legalizing the use of THC and the availability of products containing only CBD, unless the analytical in vitro conversions are controlled, the detection of Δ9-THC or Δ8-THC in oral fluid may not clarify whether the donor was using a CBD product, licit or illicit THC product. Authentic oral fluid samples submitted for cannabinoid analysis were subjected to multiple sample preparation procedures and extraction methods to determine the conditions that allow CBD to convert to THC. CBD single analyte controls prepared from a certified THC-free source were added to the batch to monitor the rate of conversion. Samples were prepared using a base hydrolysis, solid phase extraction, derivatization, and analysis by liquid chromatography with tandem mass spectrometry (LC–MS-MS). The base hydrolysis and derivatization were tested independently and did not contribute to the conversion rate. Adjusting the pH of the sample preparation and extraction from pH 2.0 to pH 5.0 changed the conversion rate from 5% to 1%. A pH of 6.0 was not strong enough to extract the cannabinoids efficiently. Removing the acid component of the preparation and extraction procedure eliminated the conversion to THC; however, this did reduce the analyte recovery depending on which extraction column was used. Processing time also contributed to the conversion rate. With smaller trial runs, conversion was not always seen but with larger validation batches low level conversion of 1–2% was observed. A fully validated LC–MS-MS method utilizing solid-phase extraction was developed for CBD, Δ9-THC, Δ8-THC, and cannabinol (CBN). The method specifically targets those analytes found in oral fluid after CBD administration and those that are seen during in vitro CBD conversion. CBD administration was performed using a certified THC-free CBD control.

Recent Trends in the Development of Green Microextraction Techniques for the Determination of Hazardous Organic Compounds in Wine

2019 ◽  
Vol 15 (7) ◽  
pp. 788-800 ◽  
Author(s):  
Natasa P. Kalogiouri ◽  
Victoria F. Samanidou
Keyword(s):  
Sample Preparation ◽  
Solid Phase Extraction ◽  
Organic Compounds ◽  
Method Development ◽  
Solid Phase ◽  
Stir Bar Sorptive Extraction ◽  
Phase Extraction ◽  
Microextraction Techniques ◽  
Hazardous Organic Compounds

Background:The sample preparation is the most crucial step in the analytical method development. Taking this into account, it is easily understood why the domain of sample preparation prior to detection is rapidly developing. Following the modern trends towards the automation, miniaturization, simplification and minimization of organic solvents and sample volumes, green microextraction techniques witness rapid growth in the field of food quality and safety. In a globalized market, it is essential to face the consumers need and develop analytical methods that guarantee the quality of food products and beverages. The strive for the accurate determination of organic hazards in a famous and appreciated alcoholic beverage like wine has necessitated the development of microextraction techniques.Objective:The objective of this review is to summarize all the recent microextraction methodologies, including solid phase extraction (SPE), solid phase microextraction (SPME), liquid-phase microextraction (LPME), dispersive liquid-liquid microextraction (DLLME), stir bar sorptive extraction (SBSE), matrix solid-phase dispersion (MSPD), single-drop microextraction (SDME) and dispersive solid phase extraction (DSPE) that were developed for the determination of hazardous organic compounds (pesticides, mycotoxins, colorants, biogenic amines, off-flavors) in wine. The analytical performance of the techniques is evaluated and their advantages and limitations are discussed.Conclusion:An extensive investigation of these techniques remains vital through the development of novel strategies and the implication of new materials that could upgrade the selectivity for the extraction of target analytes.

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document