| Literature DB >> 35423972 |
R Mirzajani1, F Kardani1, Z Ramezani2.
Abstract
In this work, electrospun polyacrylonitrile/reduced graphene oxide-amino-halloysite/bimetallic metal-organic framework (PAN/rGO-amino-HNT/Co0.5Zn0.5(MeIm)2) nanofiber film was synthesized and investigated as a novel adsorbent for the ultrasonic-assisted thin-film microextraction (UA-TFME) of fatty acid methyl esters (FAMEs), including palmitic methyl ester (PAME), oleic methyl ester (OAME), stearic methyl ester (SAME), and linoleic methyl ester (LAME), from dairy products. The hybrid nanocomposite was obtained via bonding halloysite nanotubes to reduced graphene oxide, followed by loading with bimetallic metal-organic frameworks. The determination of FAMEs with nanofiber film was performed in two stages of desorption and absorption where, initially, the analytes were adsorbed onto the nanofiber film and then desorbed with organic solvent. In this study, ultrasound was used for both the adsorption and desorption stages. The advantages of ultrasonication are extensive, overcoming the shortcomings of conventional techniques in terms of energy consumption and solvent use, allowing a shorter treatment time with a low cost of implementation. Based on PAN/rGO-amino-HNT/Co0.5Zn0.5(MeIm)2 thin film, a microextraction-gas chromatography-flame ionization detection (TFME-GC-FID) method was developed. Experimental parameters affecting the extraction and desorption steps were optimized. The desorption parameters, including desorption time and the properties of the desorption solvent, were investigated one factor at a time. Then, effective parameters in the adsorption step were optimized using a Box-Behnken design and Design-Expert 7 software. Under the optimal conditions, the method detection limits (S/N = 3) were in the range of 0.03-0.06 μg L-1 and the limits of quantification (S/N = 10) were within 0.11-0.23 μg L-1. The relative standard deviations for intra-day and inter-day precision were 2.4-4.7% and 2.6-3.4%, respectively. In the present work, the UA-TFME method was successfully applied for the quantification of fatty acid methyl esters in dairy products (milk, yogurt, cheese, yogurt soda and butter samples) for the first time. The fatty acids were transesterified using standard procedures and were subjected to UA-TFME treatment prior to GC-FID determination. The developed method possesses the advantages of simplicity, rapidity, cost-effectiveness, sensitivity, and non-invasiveness. This journal is © The Royal Society of Chemistry.Entities:
Year: 2021 PMID: 35423972 PMCID: PMC8697828 DOI: 10.1039/d0ra07674k
Source DB: PubMed Journal: RSC Adv ISSN: 2046-2069 Impact factor: 3.361
Fig. 1The overall strategy used for the preparation of the rGO-amino-HNT/Co0.5Zn0.5(MeIm)2 nanocomposite.
Fig. 2A schematic diagram of the design of the technique used to construct the desired thin film.
Fig. 3FTIR spectra of (a) halloysite, (b) amino-HNT, and (c) reduced graphene oxide-amino-halloysite/bimetallic metal–organic frameworks.
Fig. 4Scanning electron micrographs of (a) graphene oxide, (b) reduced oxide graphene, (c) reduced graphene oxide-amino-halloysite, (d) bimetallic metal–organic framework Co0.5Zn0.5(MeIm)2, (e) reduced graphene oxide-amino-halloysite bimetallic metal–organic frameworks, and (f) nanofiber thin film.
Fig. 5A general picture of the steps of the thin-film microextraction procedure.
Fig. 6(a) The effects of desorption solvents on the extraction efficiency (A: toluene; B: cyclohexane; C: n-hexane; D: dichloromethane; and E: chloroform). (b) The effects of the desorption solvent volume on the extraction efficiency. (c) The effects of the desorption time on the extraction efficiency.
Analysis of variance (ANOVA) for the BBD
| Source | SS |
| MS |
|
| Status |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Model | 632.08 | 9 | 70.23 | 66.89 | <0.0001 | Significant |
|
| 3.13 | 1 | 3.13 | 2.98 | <0.0001 | Significant |
|
| 12.378 | 1 | 378.12 | 360.12 | 0.1451 | Significant |
|
| 0.32 | 1 | 32.0 | 30.48 | 0.0027 | Significant |
|
| 25.6 | 1 | 6.25 | 5.95 | 0.0587 | Significant |
|
| 4.00 | 1 | 4.0 | 3.81 | 0.01084 | |
|
| 1.00 | 1 | 1.00 | 0.95 | 0.3799 | Significant |
|
| 174.52 | 1 | 174.52 | 166.21 | <0.0001 | Significant |
|
| 42.06 | 1 | 42.06 | 40.05 | 0.0015 | Significant |
|
| 9.75 | 1 | 9.75 | 9.29 | 0.0285 | Significant |
| Residual error | 5.25 | 5 | 1.05 | |||
| Lack-of-fit | 3.25 | 3 | 1.08 | 1.08 | 0.5129 | Not significant |
| Pure error | 2.00 | 2 | 1.00 | |||
| Total | 637.33 | 14 | ||||
|
| 0.991 | |||||
|
| 0.976 |
Fig. 7(a) 3D plots of significant factors: (a) pH vs extraction time (min); (b) pH vs. NaCl (% w/v); and (c) extraction time (min) vs NaCl (% w/v).
Figures of merit for the proposed method for the determination of fatty acid methyl esters via the TFME-GC-FID method
| Name | LR (μg L−1) | LOD (μg L−1) | LOQ (μg L−1) | ( | EF | RSD | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Single film | Film to film | ||||||
| PAME | 0.03–500 | 0.06 | 0.23 | 0.997 | 418 | 2.1 | 4.4 |
| SAME | 0.03–500 | 0.06 | 0.22 | 0.996 | 384 | 2.4 | 5.3 |
| OAME | 0.03–500 | 0.03 | 0.11 | 0.996 | 387 | 3.2 | 3.6 |
| LAME | 0.03–500 | 0.05 | 0.18 | 0.997 | 385 | 2.5 | 5.1 |
Enrichment factor.
Obtained results from the determination of intra-day and inter-day precision values towards fatty acid methyl esters via the TFME-GC-FID method
| Compound | Added (μg L−1) | Found (μg L−1) |
| RSD (%) | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Inter-day | Intra-day | ||||
| PAME | 0.15 | 14.89 | 99.2 | 4.7 | 3.6 |
| 70.0 | 68.92 | 98.45 | 4.4 | 1.3 | |
| 400.0 | 394.64 | 98.66 | 4.2 | 6.2 | |
| SAME | 0.15 | 14.92 | 98.4 | 4.7 | 4.3 |
| 70.0 | 68.76 | 98.22 | 4.4 | 2.5 | |
| 400.0 | 398.92 | 99.73 | 4.2 | 4.1 | |
| OAME | 0.15 | 4.881 | 99.2 | 4.7 | 4.4 |
| 70.0 | 68.85 | 98.35 | 4.4 | 2.6 | |
| 400.0 | 385.85 | 96.46 | 4.2 | 4.5 | |
| LAME | 0.15 | 4.921 | 99.46 | 4.7 | 4.2 |
| 70.0 | 67.96 | 97.08 | 4.2 | 3.3 | |
| 400.0 | 386.85 | 96.71 | 4.7 | 4.2 | |
Obtained results from the determination of fatty acid methyl esters in spiked dairy product samples via the TFME-GC-FID method (n = 5)
| Sample | Added (μg L−1) | ||||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 15 | 70 | 250 | |||||
| Found (±SD) |
| Found |
| Found |
| ||
| Milk | PAME | 14.86 (3.3) | 99.7 (4.1) | 69.92 (3.8) | 95.9 (3.2) | 249.92 (3.8) | 95.5 (3.6) |
| SAME | 14.73 (4.1) | 99.3 (3.6) | 64.18 (5.3) | 97.6 (3.1) | 241.76 (3.3) | 97.6 (3.8) | |
| OAME | 14.93 (3.1) | 97.8 (4.3) | 68.90 (4.1) | 95.5 (4.1) | 235.97 (4.2) | 95.5 (3.6) | |
| LAME | 14.96 (2.7) | 99.9 (5.1) | 66.89 (4.2) | 96.7 (3.2) | 241.66 (4.7) | 96.7 (3.5) | |
| Yogurt | PAME | 14.76 (3.8) | 100 (5.4) | 66.95 (4.1) | 98.4 (4.5) | 246.73 (3.3) | 98.4 (3.7) |
| SAME | 14.94 (3.6) | 99.8 (4.3) | 69.97 (6.6) | 95.9 (5.1) | 241.97 (5.2) | 95.9 (5.6) | |
| OAME | 14.86 (3.4) | 100 (3.3) | 65.80 (4.8) | 98.0 (3.6) | 245.23 (4.8) | 98.0 (4.3) | |
| LAME | 14.88 (5.1) | 97.7 (3.1) | 67.52 (6.2) | 99.0 (3.8) | 245.92 (3.8) | 99.0 (4.2) | |
| Cheese | PAME | 14.81 (3.3) | 97.5 (3.8) | 65.96 (5.3) | 97.1 (4.7) | 245.15 (4.2) | 97.1 (3.3) |
| SAME | 14.87 (2.8) | 97.8 (3.4) | 69.97 (4.9) | 95.9 (5.1) | 239.97 (4.2) | 95.9 (3.5) | |
| OAME | 14.85 (5.1) | 100 (4.4) | 65.80 (4.1) | 98.0 (6.1) | 243.43 (3.8) | 98.0 (4.5) | |
| LAME | 14.68 (4.2) | 97.7 (3.3) | 67.52 (4.7) | 99.0 (5.3) | 238.68 (5.4) | 99.0 (4.6) | |
| Yogurt soda | PAME | 14.96 (2.3) | 97.5 (5.2) | 65.96 (5.3) | 97.1 (5.5) | 256.14 (5.2) | 97.1 (3.7) |
| SAME | 14.91 (2.8) | 99.6 (3.7) | 66.15 (6.5) | 98.4 (6.3) | 244.27 (5.2) | 98.4 (4.3) | |
| OAME | 14.87 (3.1) | 99.5 (3.5) | 67.17 (6.5) | 97.1 (5.2) | 246.62 (3.8) | 97.1 (3.4) | |
| LAME | 14.74 (4.5) | 97.2 (3.8) | 69.98 (4.7) | 95.9 (5.8) | 245.55 (3.6) | 95.9 (3.2) | |
| Butter | PAME | 14.93 (3.4) | 97.8 (3.6) | 68.90 (6.7) | 95.5 (4.8) | 235.97 (4.4) | 95.5 (5.2) |
| SAME | 14.81 (4.1) | 97.5 (4.7) | 65.96 (4.8) | 97.1 (4.2) | 245.15 (3.8) | 97.1 (4.1) | |
| OAME | 14.76 (5.2) | 100 (5.6) | 66.95 (5.1) | 98.4 (3.3) | 246.73 (5.2) | 98.4 (3.6) | |
| LAME | 14.88 (3.2) | 97.7 (3.7) | 67.52 (5.5) | 99.0 (4.3) | 245.92 (2.8) | 99.0 (4.5) | |
A comparison of the present method studied with other methods for the determination of fatty acid methyl ester compounds
| Method | Sample | LR (μg L−1) | LOD (μg L−1) | RSD | Ref. |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Vac-HSSPME-GC-FID | Dairy products | 0.005–14 (mg L−1) | 0.14–1 | <10 |
|
| HS-SPME-GC-FID | Cheese | 0.3–25 | 0.15–0.3 | <10 |
|
| HS-SPME-GC-MS | Products of | 2.5–50 (mg L−1) | 1.3–2.1 | <5 |
|
| HS-SPME-GC-MS | Zooplanktons | 0.5–200 | 0.01–6.07 | <5.7 |
|
| SPME-GC-MS | Lung tissue | 0.5–500 | 0.5–1.1 | <4.4 |
|
| HF-LPME-GC-FID | Vegetable oils | 10–5000 | 4.73–13.21 (ng L−1) | <12.5 |
|
| In-tube SPME-HPLC-UV | Coffee | 0.2–10.0 (mg kg−1) | 3.0–394.0 (μg kg−1) | <14.3 |
|
| HS-SDME-GC-FID | Oxidation products | 0.13–850 (mg L−1) | 0.02–0.3 (mg L−1) | <5.0 |
|
| TFME-GC-FID | Dairy products | 0.03–5000 | 0.03–0.06 | <5.3 | This work |
Vacuum-assisted headspace solid-phase microextraction-gas chromatographic-flame ionization detection.
Headspace solid-phase microextraction-gas chromatographic-flame ionization detection.
Headspace solid-phase microextraction-gas chromatographic-mass spectrometry.
Solid-phase microextraction-gas chromatographic-mass spectrometry.
Solid-phase microextraction-gas chromatographic-mass spectrometry.
Hollow fiber liquid-phase microextraction technique, followed by gas chromatography-flame ionization detection (GC-FID).
In-tube solid-phase microextraction-gas chromatographic-flame ionization detection.
Headspace single-drop microextraction coupled with gas chromatography flame ionization detection.
Thin film microextraction-gas chromatography-flame ionization detection.
Quality assurance of the proposed method, comparing with the method reported by Amer et al. (2013)
| Compound | Validation according to the Amer | This work | ||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Linear range (μg L−1) |
| LOD (μg L−1) | Linear range (μg L−1) |
| LOD (μg L−1) | |
| PAME | 500.0–50 000 | 0.992 | 166.0 | 0.03–500 | 0.997 | 0.06 |
| SAME | 500.0–50 000 | 0.995 | 200.0 | 0.03–500 | 0.996 | 0.06 |
| OAME | 500.0–50 000 | 0.993 | 250.0 | 0.03–500 | 0.996 | 0.03 |
| LAME | 500.0–50 000 | 0.995 | 250.0 | 0.03–500 | 0.997 | 0.05 |
| Factor | Level | ||
|---|---|---|---|
| Low (−1) | Central (0) | High (+1) | |
| (A) pH | 3 | 7 | 11 |
| (B) NaCl (% w/v) | 0 | 5 | 10 |
| (C) Extraction time (min) | 5 | 10 | 15 |
| Run | ( | ( | ( | Recovery (%) |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| 1 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 96 |
| 2 | 0 | +1 | +1 | 86 |
| 3 | −1 | −1 | 0 | 90 |
| 4 | +1 | 0 | −1 | 85 |
| 5 | 0 | 0 | −1 | 95 |
| 6 | +1 | −1 | 0 | 93 |
| 7 | −1 | 0 | +1 | 86 |
| 8 | +1 | +1 | 0 | 77 |
| 9 | 0 | −1 | −1 | 95 |
| 10 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 94 |
| 11 | +1 | 0 | +1 | 90 |
| 12 | 0 | −1 | +1 | 99 |
| 13 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 85 |
| 14 | −1 | +1 | 0 | 79 |
| 15 | 0 | +1 | −1 | 80 |