Chinese Journal of Chromatography ›› 2024, Vol. 42 ›› Issue (8): 749-757.DOI: 10.3724/SP.J.1123.2023.08012
• Articles • Previous Articles Next Articles
WANG Ye*(), XIE Jianchen, HUANG Lingjie, XIA Zhicheng
Received:
2023-08-17
Online:
2024-08-08
Published:
2024-08-01
Supported by:
CLC Number:
WANG Ye, XIE Jianchen, HUANG Lingjie, XIA Zhicheng. Rapid determination of nine preservatives in tobacco flavor by three phase-hollow fiber-liquid phase microextraction-high performance liquid chromatography[J]. Chinese Journal of Chromatography, 2024, 42(8): 749-757.
Add to citation manager EndNote|Ris|BibTeX
URL: https://www.chrom-china.com/EN/10.3724/SP.J.1123.2023.08012
Fig. 2 Ultraviolet absorption spectra of the nine target analytes BA: benzoic acid; SA: sorbic acid; MeP: methylparaben; EtP: ethylparaben; iPrP: isopropylparaben; PrP: propylparaben; iBuP: isobutylparaben; BuP: butylparaben; BzP: benzylparaben.
Fig. 3 Effects of volume fraction of acetic acid on separation efficiencies of the nine target analytes Peak identifications: 1. BA; 2. SA; 3. MeP; 4. EtP; 5. iPrP; 6. PrP; 7. iBuP; 8. BuP; 9. BzP.
Fig. 4 Effects of (a) extraction solvent type, (b) sample phase pH, (c) acceptor phase pH, (d) sample phase volume, (e) extraction time and (f) mass fraction of sodium chloride on the extraction recoveries (ERs) or enrichment factors (EFs) of the nine target analytes (n=3)
Compound | Linear range/ (μg/L) | r | LOD/ (mg/kg) | LOQ/ (mg/kg) | EFs | ERs/% | |||
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
3.75 mg/kga | 37.5 mg/kgb | 3.75 mg/kga | 37.5 mg/kgb | ||||||
BA | 2.0-2000 | 0.9997 | 0.02 | 0.08 | 91.1 | 74.9 | 18.2 | 15.0 | |
SA | 2.0-2000 | 0.9967 | 0.03 | 0.10 | 45.5 | 37.3 | 9.1 | 7.5 | |
MeP | 2.0-1000 | 0.9990 | 0.03 | 0.11 | 34.5 | 32.1 | 6.9 | 6.4 | |
EtP | 2.0-1000 | 0.9989 | 0.04 | 0.13 | 56.6 | 51.1 | 11.3 | 10.2 | |
iPrP | 2.0-1000 | 0.9990 | 0.03 | 0.10 | 67.8 | 55.8 | 13.6 | 11.2 | |
PrP | 2.0-1000 | 0.9980 | 0.03 | 0.10 | 68.3 | 61.4 | 13.7 | 12.3 | |
iBuP | 2.0-1000 | 0.9977 | 0.04 | 0.13 | 46.9 | 41.3 | 9.4 | 8.3 | |
BuP | 2.0-1000 | 0.9996 | 0.04 | 0.14 | 38.1 | 30.6 | 7.6 | 6.1 | |
BzP | 4.5-2250 | 0.9997 | 0.07 | 0.24 | 40.6 | 32.5 | 8.1 | 6.5 |
Table 1 Linear ranges, correlation coefficients (r), limits of detection (LODs) and quantification (LOQs), EFs and ERs of the nine target analytes (n=5)
Compound | Linear range/ (μg/L) | r | LOD/ (mg/kg) | LOQ/ (mg/kg) | EFs | ERs/% | |||
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
3.75 mg/kga | 37.5 mg/kgb | 3.75 mg/kga | 37.5 mg/kgb | ||||||
BA | 2.0-2000 | 0.9997 | 0.02 | 0.08 | 91.1 | 74.9 | 18.2 | 15.0 | |
SA | 2.0-2000 | 0.9967 | 0.03 | 0.10 | 45.5 | 37.3 | 9.1 | 7.5 | |
MeP | 2.0-1000 | 0.9990 | 0.03 | 0.11 | 34.5 | 32.1 | 6.9 | 6.4 | |
EtP | 2.0-1000 | 0.9989 | 0.04 | 0.13 | 56.6 | 51.1 | 11.3 | 10.2 | |
iPrP | 2.0-1000 | 0.9990 | 0.03 | 0.10 | 67.8 | 55.8 | 13.6 | 11.2 | |
PrP | 2.0-1000 | 0.9980 | 0.03 | 0.10 | 68.3 | 61.4 | 13.7 | 12.3 | |
iBuP | 2.0-1000 | 0.9977 | 0.04 | 0.13 | 46.9 | 41.3 | 9.4 | 8.3 | |
BuP | 2.0-1000 | 0.9996 | 0.04 | 0.14 | 38.1 | 30.6 | 7.6 | 6.1 | |
BzP | 4.5-2250 | 0.9997 | 0.07 | 0.24 | 40.6 | 32.5 | 8.1 | 6.5 |
Compound | 0.15 mg/kgc | 3.75 mg/kgd | 37.5 mg/kge | |||||
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
Recovery/% | RSD/% | Recovery/% | RSD/% | Recovery/% | RSD/% | |||
BA | 95.3 | 5.2 | 98.1 | 8.0 | 90.9 | 6.2 | ||
SA | 105.1 | 7.8 | 102.3 | 7.8 | 102.3 | 8.0 | ||
MeP | 97.4 | 6.9 | 115.7 | 9.3 | 82.2 | 7.1 | ||
EtP | 82.6 | 8.6 | 86.7 | 10.6 | 91.7 | 6.8 | ||
iPrP | 82.4 | 4.9 | 114.7 | 9.1 | 88.5 | 3.2 | ||
PrP | 96.5 | 4.3 | 112.6 | 9.7 | 87.9 | 3.7 | ||
iBuP | 97.8 | 9.8 | 87.8 | 8.4 | 107.6 | 11.5 | ||
BuP | 114.9 | 10.0 | 95.6 | 11.2 | 90.8 | 10.5 | ||
BzP | 112.0 | 15.0 | 104.7 | 13.3 | 93.2 | 14.5 |
Table 2 Recoveries and relative standard deviations (RSDs) of the nine target analytes (n=5)
Compound | 0.15 mg/kgc | 3.75 mg/kgd | 37.5 mg/kge | |||||
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
Recovery/% | RSD/% | Recovery/% | RSD/% | Recovery/% | RSD/% | |||
BA | 95.3 | 5.2 | 98.1 | 8.0 | 90.9 | 6.2 | ||
SA | 105.1 | 7.8 | 102.3 | 7.8 | 102.3 | 8.0 | ||
MeP | 97.4 | 6.9 | 115.7 | 9.3 | 82.2 | 7.1 | ||
EtP | 82.6 | 8.6 | 86.7 | 10.6 | 91.7 | 6.8 | ||
iPrP | 82.4 | 4.9 | 114.7 | 9.1 | 88.5 | 3.2 | ||
PrP | 96.5 | 4.3 | 112.6 | 9.7 | 87.9 | 3.7 | ||
iBuP | 97.8 | 9.8 | 87.8 | 8.4 | 107.6 | 11.5 | ||
BuP | 114.9 | 10.0 | 95.6 | 11.2 | 90.8 | 10.5 | ||
BzP | 112.0 | 15.0 | 104.7 | 13.3 | 93.2 | 14.5 |
Fig. 5 Chromatograms of tobacco flavor spiked sample (a) before and (b) after 3P-HF-LPME treatment The spiked levels were 84.4 mg/kg for BzP and 37.5 mg/kg for the other eight analytes. For peaks, see Fig. 3.
Sample No. | BA | SA | MeP | EtP | iPrP | PrP | iBuP | BuP | BzP |
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
1 | 55.4 | - | - | 0.3 | - | 0.1 | - | - | - |
2 | 21.9 | - | - | 0.7 | - | - | - | - | - |
3 | - | - | - | - | - | - | - | - | - |
4 | 30.3 | 1.4 | - | 2.0 | - | - | - | - | - |
5 | 3.5 | 14.1 | - | - | - | - | - | - | - |
6 | 3 | 12.6 | - | - | - | - | - | - | - |
7 | - | 13.7 | - | - | - | - | - | - | - |
8 | 9.3 | 13.9 | - | - | - | - | - | - | - |
9 | 19.3 | 61.5 | 0.1 | 0.1 | - | - | - | - | - |
10 | 36 | 5.8 | - | 0.1 | - | - | - | - | - |
Table 3 Test results of actual samples mg/kg
Sample No. | BA | SA | MeP | EtP | iPrP | PrP | iBuP | BuP | BzP |
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
1 | 55.4 | - | - | 0.3 | - | 0.1 | - | - | - |
2 | 21.9 | - | - | 0.7 | - | - | - | - | - |
3 | - | - | - | - | - | - | - | - | - |
4 | 30.3 | 1.4 | - | 2.0 | - | - | - | - | - |
5 | 3.5 | 14.1 | - | - | - | - | - | - | - |
6 | 3 | 12.6 | - | - | - | - | - | - | - |
7 | - | 13.7 | - | - | - | - | - | - | - |
8 | 9.3 | 13.9 | - | - | - | - | - | - | - |
9 | 19.3 | 61.5 | 0.1 | 0.1 | - | - | - | - | - |
10 | 36 | 5.8 | - | 0.1 | - | - | - | - | - |
Analytes | Sample pretreatments | Detection technique | Recoveries/ % | LODs/ (mg/kg) | Ref. | ||
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
BA, SA and four PBs | LLE | HPLC-UV | 93.2- | 98.5 | 1.8- | 6.0 | [ |
BA, SA and four PBs | LLE, UAE | HPLC-UV | 97.0- | 99.6 | 0.08- | 0.2 | [ |
BA, SA, four PBs and other eight analytes | LLE, UAE | UPLC-PDA | 93.0- | 121.0 | 0.48- | 2.51 | [ |
Six PBs | dSPE | SFC-MS/MS | 88.3- | 106.6 | 0.03- | 0.09 | [ |
BA, SA and seven PBs | 3P-HF-LPME | HPLC-DAD | 82.2- | 115.7 | 0.02- | 0.07 | this study |
Table 4 Comparison between this method and other methods
Analytes | Sample pretreatments | Detection technique | Recoveries/ % | LODs/ (mg/kg) | Ref. | ||
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
BA, SA and four PBs | LLE | HPLC-UV | 93.2- | 98.5 | 1.8- | 6.0 | [ |
BA, SA and four PBs | LLE, UAE | HPLC-UV | 97.0- | 99.6 | 0.08- | 0.2 | [ |
BA, SA, four PBs and other eight analytes | LLE, UAE | UPLC-PDA | 93.0- | 121.0 | 0.48- | 2.51 | [ |
Six PBs | dSPE | SFC-MS/MS | 88.3- | 106.6 | 0.03- | 0.09 | [ |
BA, SA and seven PBs | 3P-HF-LPME | HPLC-DAD | 82.2- | 115.7 | 0.02- | 0.07 | this study |
|
Viewed | ||||||
Full text |
|
|||||
Abstract |
|
|||||