| Literature DB >> 32806630 |
Theodoros G Chatzimitakos1, Constantine D Stalikas1.
Abstract
Even though instrumental advancements are constantly being made in analytical chemistry, sample preparation is still considered the bottleneck of analytical methods. To this end, researchers are developing new sorbent materials to improve and replace existing ones, with the ultimate goal to improve current methods and make them more efficient and effective. A few years ago, an alternative trend was started toward sample preparation: the use of sponge or sponge-like materials. These materials possess favorable characteristics, such as negligible weight, open-hole structure, high surface area, and variable surface chemistry. Although their use seemed promising, this trend soon reversed, due to either the increasing use of nanomaterials in sample preparation or the limited scope of the first materials. Currently, with the development of new materials, such as melamine sponges, along with the advancement in nanotechnology, this topic was revived, and various functionalizations were carried out on such materials. The new materials are used as sorbents in sample preparation in analytical chemistry. This review explores the development of such materials, from the past to the present and into the future, as well as their use in analytical chemistry.Entities:
Keywords: carbon foams; melamine sponges; polyurethane foams; sample preparation
Mesh:
Substances:
Year: 2020 PMID: 32806630 PMCID: PMC7465383 DOI: 10.3390/molecules25163673
Source DB: PubMed Journal: Molecules ISSN: 1420-3049 Impact factor: 4.411
Figure 1Number of published reports on the use of nanomaterials in sample preparation; source: PubMed.
Summary of the analytical methods developed, between 1990 and 2005, based on polyurethane foams (PUFs), SP: spectrophotometry; ETAAS: electrothermal atomic absorption spectrometry; XRF: X-ray fluorescence spectrometry; AAS: atomic absorption spectrometry; ICP-AES: inductively coupled plasma atomic emission spectrometry; PAH: polycyclic aromatic hydrocarbon.
| Analyte | Ligand | Sample | Extraction Time (min) | Analytical Technique | LOD | Reference |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Ge | Molybdate | Water | 60 | XRF | 70 | [ |
| Zn2+ | Thiocyanate | Cadmium-rich matrices | 10 | SP | 20 | [ |
| I, Hg, Au, Fe, Sb, Th, Mo, Re, U, benzene, chloroform, phenol | - | Water | 30 | SP | - | [ |
| Fe3+ | Thiocyanate | Water and rice flour | 50 | SP | 450 | [ |
| Fe3+ | Thiocyanate | Water | 5 | SP | - | [ |
| Cu2+ | Diethyl dithiocarbamate | Water | 40 | ETAAS | - | [ |
| Zn2+ | Thiocyanate | Aluminum matrices | 10 | ICP-AES | 0.02 | [ |
| Th | 2-Ethylhexylphosphonic acid | Water | 30 | XRF | 4.0 | [ |
| U | Salicylate | Water | 50 | XRF | 5.5 | [ |
| Mo | Thiocyanate | Steel and pure iron | 10 | ICP-AES | 0.9 | [ |
| Mo | Thiocyanate | Water, peach, apple, and citrus leaves | - | ETAAS | 0.08 | [ |
| AsO43− and PO43− | Molybdate | Water | - | SP | 5.4 and 1.66 | [ |
| Ni | Thiocyanate | Silicates and alloys | - | SP | 77 | [ |
| Ru3+ | 3-Hydroxy-2-methyl-l,4-naphthoquinonexime | Water | 3–5 | SP | 20 | [ |
| TI1+ and TI3+ | 9, 10 Phenathaquinone monomethyl thlio semicarbazone | Water and lead solutions | 30 | SP | 2.76 | [ |
| As, Bi, Hg, Sb, Se, Sn, | Dithiocarbamate | Water | - | ETAAS | 0.06–0.3 | [ |
| PAHs | - | Diesel exhaust | GC/MS | - | [ | |
| PAHs | - | Water | 30 | Solid-matrix spectrofluorimetry | 0.02 | [ |
| Cu2+ | - | Dried shrimp | SP | 1.2 | [ | |
| Co, Fe, Zn, Cd, Ni, Hg | Thiocyanates (for Co, Fe, Zn), 1-(2-pyridylazo)-2-naphthol (for Ni, Hg, Cd) | Water | 180 | SP | - | [ |
| Co2+ | thiocyanate | Water | 5 | SP | - | [ |
| PAHs | - | ambient air | 960 | GC/MS | - | [ |
| As, Bi, Pb, Sb, Sn, Se, Hg | Dithiocarbamate | Waste Water and seawater | 60 | ICP-AES | 0.03–30 | [ |
| chlorobenzenes | ambient air | 1320 | GC/MS | - | [ | |
| Two-ring aromatic hydrocarbons, chlorinated phenols, guaiacols, and benzenes | - | Ambient air | 720 | GC/electron capture detection | 200–500 | [ |
| Cd, Co, Cu, Hg, Ni, and Pb | Hexamethylene ammonium hexamethylene dithiocarbamate | Oxalic acid | - | AAS or ICP-AES | 0.1–0.3 | [ |
| Zn | Thiocyanate | Water | 5 | SP | 0.9 | [ |
| Ni2+ | Dimethylglyoxime | Water | 15 | SP | 0.5 | [ |
| acaricides | - | Water | 10 | SP | - | [ |
| Co2+ | Thiocyanate | Water | 2 | Gamma-spectrometer | - | [ |
| Al | Thiocyanate | Rhyolite, syenite, andesite, basalt, iron ore | 30 | SP | 30 | [ |
| Dimethote, azodrine, lannate | - | Water | 10 | SP | - | [ |
| As | - | Water | 60 | XRF | 36 | [ |
| Polychlorinated | - | Diesel exhaust, | <20 | GC/MS | - | [ |
| Ag | - | Water | 20 | SP | - | [ |
| Ascorbic acid | Molybdosilicic heteropolyacid | Fruit juices and pharmaceutical preparations | 6.5 | SP | 0.6–40 | [ |
| Zn, Hg, In | Thiocyanate | Water | 30 | [ |
Summary of the analytical methods developed, between 2005 and the present, based on PUFs. HPLC-UV: high-performance liquid chromatography with ultraviolet detection.
| Analyte | Functionalization Agent | Sample | Extraction Time (min) | Analytical Technique | LOD | Reference |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Cu2+ | Eriochrome Black T | Water | 30 | Flame atomic absorption spectrometry | 20–100 | [ |
| Cd2+ | 3-Sulfonamoyl-phenyl-spiro[4-oxo-thiazolidin-2,2′steroid] | Industrial wastewater | 20 | Flame atomic absorption spectrometry | 30–100 | [ |
| Fe3+, Cu2+, Cr3+, Co2+, and Mn2+ | β-Naphthol | Water | Flame atomic absorption spectroscopy | [ | ||
| Penicillin G, amoxicillin, and ampicillin | Methylene blue | Pharmaceuticals and milk | - | Flow injection analysis/solid-phase extraction | 12, 15, and 19 | [ |
| Sulfathiazole, sulfamethizole, sulfadiazine, and sulfanilamide | Graphene oxide | Cow milk | 15 | HPLC-UV | 50 | [ |
| Au3+ | Cytosine | Geological samples | - | Inductively coupled plasma optical emission spectrometry | 0.006 | [ |
Figure 2Field-emission (FE)-SEM images of carbon foam. Source: Reproduced from [65], with permission from Elsevier.
Analytical methods developed based on carbon-based foams. RSD: relative standard deviation.
| Precursors for Carbon Foam | Analyte | Sample | Analytical Technique | LOD (μg·L−1) | Recoveries (%) | RSD (%) | Reference |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Carbonization of melamine sponges | bisphenol A, 4- | Well water, rainwater, and wastewater | Sequential injection analysis | 0.02–0.04 | >89.0 | 2.8–6.3 | [ |
| Graphene oxide/polypyrrole | Sulfathiazole, | Honey and milk | HPLC-UV | 0.00104–0.00150 | 62.3–109.0 | >11.2 | [ |
| Graphene oxide/polypyrrole | Indole-3-butyric acid, indole-3-propionic acid, and 1-naphthaleneacetic acid | Papaya juice | HPLC-UV | 0.0012–0.0017 | 89.4–105.6 | <3 | [ |
| Graphene oxide | Organic UV filters (UV-P, UV-234, | Water and cosmetic products | HPLC-UV | 0.02–0.08 | 89–105 | <8.1 | [ |
| Zinc nitrate and sucrose | Naphthalene, biphenyl, acenaphthene, fluorene, and phenanthrene | Wastewater | GC/MS | 0.29–8.4 | 91.8–102 | 3.8–10.9 | [ |
Figure 3SEM images at different magnifications showing the distribution of ZnO nanoparticles over the surface of carbon foam. Source: Reproduced from [12], with permission from Elsevier.
Analytical methods developed based on carbon foams with metals.
| Sorbent | Analyte | Sample | Analytical Technique | LOD (μg·L−1) | Recoveries (%) | RSD (%) | Reference |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Zinc oxide-incorporated carbon foam | Organochlorine pesticides | Milk | GC/MS | 0.19–1.64 | 85.1–100.7 | 2.3–10.2 | [ |
| Metal organic framework/chitosan | Parabens | Water | UPLC–MS/MS | 0.09–0.45 | 78.75–102.1 | <7.4 | [ |
| Zeolitic imidazolate framework-8@graphene oxide sponge | Sex hormones | Milk and milk products | HPLC | 520–2110 | 83.8–108.4 | <0.39 | [ |
| Nickel foam functionalized with polydopamine | Sudan dyes | Tomato | Ion mobility spectrometry | 0.005–0.25 | 81%–91.3 | <15.5 | [ |
Figure 4SEM images of MeS before (A) and after (B) functionalization with graphene (GMeS). Source: Reproduced from [10], with permission from Elsevier.
Figure 5Images of (A) water droplet on the surface of a GMeS; (B) contact angle of a water droplet; (C) MeS and GMes in a glass beaker with water; (D) GMeS immersed in water; (E) GMeS on top of a dandelion flower. Source: Reproduced from [10], with permission from Elsevier.
Figure 6Copper mirror formed on the surface of the reaction glass beaker during the decoration of MeS (A). The produced CuMeS (B) and its behavior in water (C,D). Source: Reproduced from [11], with permission from Elsevier.
Analytical methods developed based on melamine sponges. MWCNT: multi-walled carbon nanotube.
| Functionalization Moieties | Analyte | Sample | Analytical Technique | LOD (μg·L−1) | Recoveries (%) | RSD (%) | Reference |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| β-Cyclodextrin/graphene oxide | Flavonoids |
| HPLC | 0.5–2 | 77.9–102.6 | 3.5–6.8 | [ |
| Polyvinylidene difluoride-MIL-101(Cr)/MWCNTs- | Triazines | Corn | HPLC–MS/MS | 0.01–0.04 | 90.3–116.5 | 1.08–12.32 | [ |
| Graphene | Sulfonamides | Milk, eggs, and lake water | HPLC-UV | 0.03–0.44 | 90–108 | <10.1 | [ |
| Copper sheets | Sulfonamides | Milk and lake water | HPLC-UV | 0.075–0.35 | 88–97 and 89–102 | 6.8–9.9 | [ |
| Urea–formaldehyde co-oligomers | Fenbufen, flurbiprofen, benzophenone-8, butylparaben, cumylphenol, 4-octylphenol, chlorpyrifos, trifluralin, deltamethrin, tonalide | Lake water | HPLC-UV | 0.01–0.33 | 92–100 | 5.6–8.4 | [ |
| β-Cyclodextrin | Malachite green | Crayfish and squid | HPLC-Vis | 0.21 | 88.6–100.8 | - | [ |
| Polyaniline | Perfluorooctanoic acid and perfluorooctane sulfonate | Human serum and urine | HPLC/MS | - | 79–91 | 5.5–8.2 | [ |
| Trichloromethylsilane | Benzene, toluene, ethylbenzene, | Hookah, gulf water, and petrochemical wastewater | GC/MS | 0.005–0.0010 | 91–105 | <13 | [ |
| Ni–Co layered double hydroxides | Gallic acid, | Fruit | HPLC-UV | 0.15–0.35 | 89.7–95.3 | <10 | [ |
| Silica monolith | Dipeptides (Tyr–Gly, Phe–Gly, Tyr–Val, Tyr–Ala, 3-I-Tyr–Ala, 3,5-dI-Tyr–Ala) | Water | HPLC–MS/MS | 0.00002−0.0013 | 100 | 2–3 | [ |