Chinese Journal of Chromatography ›› 2021, Vol. 39 ›› Issue (9): 1012-1020.DOI: 10.3724/SP.J.1123.2021.06027
• Articles • Previous Articles Next Articles
WANG Xingyi1,2, CHEN Yanlong1,*(), LI Gongke1,*()
Received:
2021-06-15
Online:
2021-09-08
Published:
2021-09-06
Contact:
CHEN Yanlong,LI Gongke
Supported by:
CLC Number:
WANG Xingyi, CHEN Yanlong, LI Gongke. Solid phase microextraction-high performance liquid chromatography of fluorinated covalent organic polymer to determine eugenol anesthetics in aquatic products[J]. Chinese Journal of Chromatography, 2021, 39(9): 1012-1020.
Add to citation manager EndNote|Ris|BibTeX
URL: https://www.chrom-china.com/EN/10.3724/SP.J.1123.2021.06027
Fig. 1 Preparation and application of the F-COP-SPME bar TAPB: 1,3,5-tris(4-aminophenyl)benzene; TFA: 2,3,5,6-tetrafluoroterephthalaldehyde; Sc(OTf)3: scandium (Ⅲ) triflate; F-COP: fluorinated covalent organic polymer.
Fig. 2 (a) Fourier transform infrared spectra of the F-COP, TAPB, and TFA, (b) X-ray diffraction pattern of the F-COP, (c) N2 adsorption-desorption isotherms and pore size distribution of the F-COP, and (d-f) scanning electron micrographs of the F-COP-SPME bar Magnifications: d. 90×; e. 110×; f. 1500×.
Fig. 3 Optimization of the F-COP-SPME bar extraction conditions (n=3) Other conditions: a. stirring rate, 500 r/min; desorption solvent, acetonitrile; desorption time, 10 min. b. extraction time, 30 min; desorption solvent, acetonitrile; desorption time, 10 min. c. extraction time, 30 min; stirring rate, 700 r/min; desorption time, 10 min. d. extraction time, 30 min; stirring rate, 700 r/min; desorption solvent, acetonitrile.
Fig. 4 Theoretical simulation of the adsorption ability and electron cloud distribution of the F-COP toward objects a,d. eugenol; b,e. eugenyl acetate; c,f. methyl eugenol.
Analyte | Linear equation | Linear range/ (μg/L) | Correlation coefficient (r2) | LOD/ (μg/kg) | RSDs/%a) | |
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
Intra-batch | Inter-batch | |||||
Eugenol | Y=6.48×104X+7.6×102 | 10-1000 | 0.9974 | 2.9 | 4.4 | 6.7 |
Eugenyl acetate | Y=4.17×104X+7.7×102 | 10-1000 | 0.9961 | 4.5 | 6.3 | 8.7 |
Methyl eugenol | Y=5.77×104X+9.8×102 | 10-1500 | 0.9963 | 3.3 | 5.8 | 7.3 |
Table 1 Analytical parameters for the detection of three kinds of eugenol anesthetics based on the F-COP-SPME-HPLC-UV
Analyte | Linear equation | Linear range/ (μg/L) | Correlation coefficient (r2) | LOD/ (μg/kg) | RSDs/%a) | |
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
Intra-batch | Inter-batch | |||||
Eugenol | Y=6.48×104X+7.6×102 | 10-1000 | 0.9974 | 2.9 | 4.4 | 6.7 |
Eugenyl acetate | Y=4.17×104X+7.7×102 | 10-1000 | 0.9961 | 4.5 | 6.3 | 8.7 |
Methyl eugenol | Y=5.77×104X+9.8×102 | 10-1500 | 0.9963 | 3.3 | 5.8 | 7.3 |
Method | Samples | Linear range/ (μg/L) | LODs/(μg/kg) | Ref. | |||
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
Eugenol | Eugenyl acetate | Methyl eugenol | |||||
SPE-GC-MS | fish | 5- | 500 | 0.4 | - | 0.2 | [ |
DSPE-HPLC-MS | shrimp, crab, carp | 5- | 500 | 1.47 | - | - | [ |
LLE-HPLC-UV | tilapia | 100- | 10000 | 30 | - | - | [ |
MISPE-HPLC-UV | grouper, prawn | 50- | 10000 | 15 | - | 15 | [ |
F-COP-SPME-HPLC-UV | tilapia, shrimp | 10- | 1000 | 2.9 | 4.5 | 3.3 | this work |
Table 2 Comparison of the developed method with other reported methods for the determination of eugenol anesthetics in aquatic products
Method | Samples | Linear range/ (μg/L) | LODs/(μg/kg) | Ref. | |||
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
Eugenol | Eugenyl acetate | Methyl eugenol | |||||
SPE-GC-MS | fish | 5- | 500 | 0.4 | - | 0.2 | [ |
DSPE-HPLC-MS | shrimp, crab, carp | 5- | 500 | 1.47 | - | - | [ |
LLE-HPLC-UV | tilapia | 100- | 10000 | 30 | - | - | [ |
MISPE-HPLC-UV | grouper, prawn | 50- | 10000 | 15 | - | 15 | [ |
F-COP-SPME-HPLC-UV | tilapia, shrimp | 10- | 1000 | 2.9 | 4.5 | 3.3 | this work |
Fig. 5 HPLC-UV chromatograms of tilapia and shrimp samples a. direct injection of sample solution; b. sample solution extracted by the F-COP-SPME bar; c. spiked sample solution (100 μg/kg) extracted by the F-COP-SPME bar.
Sample | Analyte | Found/ (μg/kg) | Spiked levels | ||||
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
50 μg/kg | 100 μg/kg | ||||||
Rec./ % | RSD/ % | Rec./ % | RSD/ % | ||||
Tilapia | eugenol | 101 | 76.7 | 10.6 | 80.1 | 8.5 | |
eugenyl acetate | ND | 81.2 | 11.8 | 98.7 | 11.2 | ||
methyl eugenol | ND | 87.9 | 11.5 | 92.4 | 10.2 | ||
Shrimp | eugenol | ND | 80.3 | 9.4 | 86.6 | 8.6 | |
eugenyl acetate | ND | 97.7 | 11.5 | 104 | 11.3 | ||
methyl eugenol | ND | 98.9 | 12.4 | 94.7 | 10.9 |
Table 3 Recoveries and RSDs of three kinds of eugenol anesthetics spiked in aquatic products (n=5)
Sample | Analyte | Found/ (μg/kg) | Spiked levels | ||||
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
50 μg/kg | 100 μg/kg | ||||||
Rec./ % | RSD/ % | Rec./ % | RSD/ % | ||||
Tilapia | eugenol | 101 | 76.7 | 10.6 | 80.1 | 8.5 | |
eugenyl acetate | ND | 81.2 | 11.8 | 98.7 | 11.2 | ||
methyl eugenol | ND | 87.9 | 11.5 | 92.4 | 10.2 | ||
Shrimp | eugenol | ND | 80.3 | 9.4 | 86.6 | 8.6 | |
eugenyl acetate | ND | 97.7 | 11.5 | 104 | 11.3 | ||
methyl eugenol | ND | 98.9 | 12.4 | 94.7 | 10.9 |
|
Viewed | ||||||
Full text |
|
|||||
Abstract |
|
|||||