| Literature DB >> 28208685 |
Abdulrahman Bahrami1, Farhad Ghamari2, Yadollah Yamini3, Farshid Ghorbani Shahna4, Abbas Moghimbeigi5.
Abstract
This work describes a new extraction method with hollow-fiber liquid-phase microextraction based on facilitated pH gradient transport for analyzing hippuric acid and mandelic acid in aqueous samples. The factors affecting the metabolites extraction were optimized as follows: the volume of sample solution was 10 mL with pH 2 containing 0.5 mol·L-1 sodium chloride, liquid membrane containing 1-octanol with 20% (w/v) tributyl phosphate as the carrier, the time of extraction was 150 min, and stirring rate was 500 rpm. The organic phase immobilized in the pores of a hollow fiber was back-extracted into 24 µL of a solution containing sodium carbonate with pH 11, which was placed inside the lumen of the fiber. Under optimized conditions, the high enrichment factors of 172 and 195 folds, detection limit of 0.007 and 0.009 µg·mL-1 were obtained. The relative standard deviation (RSD) (%) values for intra- and inter-day precisions were calculated at 2.5%-8.2% and 4.1%-10.7%, respectively. The proposed method was successfully applied to the analysis of these metabolites in real urine samples. The results indicated that hollow-fiber liquid-phase microextraction (HF-LPME) based on facilitated pH gradient transport can be used as a sensitive and effective method for the determination of mandelic acid and hippuric acid in urine specimens.Entities:
Keywords: HF-LPME; HPLC-UV; facilitated pH gradient transport; hippuric acid; mandelic acid; toluene and ethylbenzene metabolites
Year: 2017 PMID: 28208685 PMCID: PMC5371969 DOI: 10.3390/membranes7010008
Source DB: PubMed Journal: Membranes (Basel) ISSN: 2077-0375
The structures and physicochemical properties of toluene and ethylbenzene metabolites.
| Metabolite | Chemical Structure | Log p (O/W) | pka | Solubility in Water (g·L−1) |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Hippuric acid | 0.23 | 3.68 | 3.75 | |
| Mandelic acid | 0.66 | 3.75 | 16.8 |
Figure 1Effects of organic liquid membrane (a) and type and amount of carrier (b) on the extraction efficiency of hippuric acid (HA) and mandelic acid (MA) by hollow-fiber liquid-phase microextraction (HF-LPME). Extraction condition: 10 mL aqueous sample solution of 1 mg·L−1 metabolites (pH = 4); 24 µL acceptor phase sodium carbonate (pH = 10); stirring rate: 800 rpm; donor temperature 25 °C; 30 min extraction time and each test was performed in triplicate (n = 3). TOA: trioctylamine, TBP: tributyl phosphate, TOPO: trioctylphosphine oxide.
Figure 2Effects of sample pH (a) and acceptor pH (b) on extraction efficiency of HA and MA by HF-LPME. Extraction conditions: 10 mL aqueous sample solution of 1 mg·L−1 metabolites organic membrane phase: 1-octanol; donor temperature 25 °C; stirring rate 800 rpm: 30 min extraction time and each test was performed in triplicate (n = 3).
Figure 3Effects of stirring speed (a) and salinity (b) on extraction efficiency of HA and MA by HF-LPME. Extraction conditions: 10 mL aqueous sample solution of 1 mg·L−1 metabolites with pH = 2; organic membrane phase: 1-octanol; 24 µL acceptor phase sodium carbonate (pH = 11); donor temperature 25 °C and each test was performed in triplicate (n = 3).
Figure 4Effects of extraction temperature (a) extraction time (b) on extraction efficiency of HA and MA by HF-LPME. Extraction conditions: 10 mL aqueous sample solution of 1 mg·L−1 metabolites with pH = 2 containing 2 mol·L−1 NaCl; organic membrane phase: 1-octanol; 24 µL acceptor phase sodium carbonate (pH = 11); stirring rate: 500 rpm and each test was performed in triplicate (n = 3).
Analytical performance of the proposed HF-LPME–HPLC method for extraction of hippuric acid and mandelic acid in urine.
| Metabolite | Concentration (µg·mL−1) | Intra-Day RSD% | Inter-Day RSD% | LOD (µg·mL−1) | DLR (µg·mL−1) | EF | RR% | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| HA | 0.02 | 8.2 | 10.7 | 0.009 | 0.02–20 | 172 | 88–91 | 0.998 |
| 0.2 | 5.6 | 7.2 | ||||||
| 2 | 2.5 | 4.1 | ||||||
| MA | 0.02 | 2.9 | 7.5 | 0.007 | 0.02–10 | 195 | 84–94 | 0.997 |
| 0.2 | 4.7 | 8.2 | ||||||
| 2 | 3.6 | 8.6 |
Concentrations of toluene and ethylbenzene metabolites detected in human urine of exposed workers.
| No. of Sample Urine | Workplace | Mean ± SD (mg/g Creatinine) | |
|---|---|---|---|
| HA | MA | ||
| 1 | Petrol station | 376 ± 30 | 101 ± 10 |
| 2 | Petrol station | 483 ± 33 | 85 ± 9 |
| 3 | Petrol station | 221 ± 11 | 128 ± 12 |
| 4 | Car painting | 791 ± 78 | 180 ± 38 |
| 5 | Car painting | 344 ± 27 | 98 ± 38 |
| 6 | Car painting | 598 ± 47 | 125 ± 38 |
| 7 | Petrochemical plant | 287 ± 24 | 75 ± 21 |
| 8 | Petrochemical plant | 532 ± 42 | 121 ± 14 |
| 9 | Petrochemical plant | 435 ± 46 | 98 ± 18 |
Figure 5HPLC chromatograms of HA and MA after extraction under the optimized conditions as described in the text. (A) Blank urine sample from a person not exposed to benzene source; (B) spiked urine sample of the metabolites, at the concentration of 0.3 for ttMA and 1.5 µg·mL−1 for MA and HA; and (C) real sample from a person exposed to organic solvent source (petrol station worker).
Comparison of the HF-LPME–HPLC method compared to other reported conventional methods for extraction and determination of MA and HA in human urine.
| Analyte | Extraction | Determination | LOD (µg·mL−1) | LOQ (µg·mL−1) | RSD% | Ref. |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| HA | LPME | HPLC-UV | 0.009 | 0.02 | 2.5–10.7 | Proposed method |
| Derivatization | GC-MS | 0.017 | 0.05 | 6.2 | [ | |
| Dilution & filtration | HPLC-UV | 1.5 | 4.5 | 0.2–0.5 | [ | |
| SPE | GC-MS | 10 | 40 | 4.1–4.9 | [ | |
| SPE | LC/MS/MS | 0.005 | 0.015 | 3–10 | [ | |
| MA | LPME | HPLC-UV | 0.007 | 0.02 | 3.6–8.6 | Proposed method |
| SPE | HPLC-UV | 4 | 50 | 1.1–11.7 | [ | |
| Derivatization | GC-MS | 0.008 | 0.05 | 7.7 | [ | |
| Dilution &filtration | HPLC-UV | 7.6 | 22.8 | 0.4–2.6 | [ | |
| SPE | GC-MS | 1 | 10 | 2.5–7.4 | [ | |
| LLE | HPLC-UV | 5 | – | 3.9–4.4 | [ |
GC-FID: Gas Chromatography-Flame Ionization Detector; GC-MS: Gas Chromatography-Mass Spectrometry; LC/MS/MS: Liquid Chromatography Mass Spectrometry and Liquid Chromatography Tandem Mass Spectrometry.