Applications of Fabric Phase Sorptive Extraction

Version	Summary	Created by	Modification	Content Size	Created at	Operation
1		Victoria Samanidou	--	2779	2023-07-17 18:19:06

This entry is adapted from the peer-reviewed paper 10.3390/separations5030040

Fabric phase sorptive extraction (FPSE) is a novel and green sample preparation technique introduced in 2014. FPSE utilizes a natural or synthetic permeable and flexible fabric substrate chemically coated with a sol-gel organic-inorganic hybrid sorbent in the form of ultra-thin coating, which leads to a fast and sensitive micro-extraction device. The flexible FPSE requires no modification of samples and allows direct extraction of analytes. Sol-gel sorbent-coated FPSE media possesses high chemical, solvent, and thermal stability due to the strong covalent bonding between the substrate and the sol-gel sorbent.

fabric phase sorptive extraction sample preparation chromatography applications microextraction green analytical chemistry

1. Introduction

It is well known that sample preparation is a very important and inevitable step in the chemical analysis workflow. Most of the real-life analytical samples cannot be directly analyzed with an injection into the analytical instrument. Furthermore, they have to be treated in a way that makes them compatible with the analytical instrument. Additionally, their collection and preparation require more than 80% of the analytical process time. As such, sample preparation is considered to be the most time-consuming but critical part of the whole analysis, which affects its effectiveness and performance. Therefore, the main purposes are the reduction of the matrix complexity and the separation and pre-concentration of the target analytes from the sample matrices in order to be ready for their introduction into the analytical instrument for identification and quantification ^[1]^[2].

As time passed, low-cost, fast, and environmentally-friendly procedures become necessary in order to improve quality of life and protect the environment. Scientists try to develop new analytical methodologies compliant with the principles of green analytical chemistry (GAC) ^[3]. Therefore, the classic sample preparation technique of liquid-liquid extraction (LLE) is replaced by solid-phase extraction (SPE), which has been widely accepted because of the simplicity of the device, the efficiency, the rapid separation process, the ability to extract polar compounds, no requirement of phase separation, and the lower organic solvent consumption ^[4]. To further minimize the amount of sample and solvent waste during the sample preparation step, to overcome some drawbacks of SPE is a multi-step procedure such as the requirement of solvent evaporation and sample reconstitution. Novel sorbent based micro-extraction techniques have been developed such as solid-phase micro-extraction (SPME) by Pawliszyn and co-workers in 1990, stir-bar sorptive extraction (SBSE) in 1999, magnetic solid-phase extraction technique (MSPE) in 1999, and micro-extraction in a packed syringe (MEPS) in 2004 ^[4]^[5].

It is estimated that the major drawbacks of most of the micro-extraction techniques are due to the primary contact surface area (PCSA) of the device and the coating technology that is applied to immobilize the sorbent on the substrate surface ^[2]. The PCSA is part of the surface area of the extraction media, which can be available for direct interaction with the analytes during the process. The augmentation in PCSA offers higher sorbent loading without any change in the coating technology. Therefore, more target analytes are adsorbed by the sorbent and reduction of the extraction equilibrium time is achieved. Additionally, the sorbent coating technology is very important. From all the alternative ones that have been developed, the sol-gel coating technology, proposed by Malik and co-workers, is the most flexible and convenient. There is a strong chemical bond between the sol-gel coated sorbent and the substrate, which leads to high solvent and chemical stability. Due to its inherent porosity, reduction of the extraction equilibrium time, and higher or equivalent sensitivity is achieved when compared to commercial SPME fibers. In summary, both the coating technology and the PCSA have to be increased, which results in a sensitive and fast sample preparation technique ^[6]^[7].

Based on these observations and developments, Kabir and Furton proposed a new, green sample preparation technique in 2014 called fabric phase sorptive extraction (FPSE). FPSE utilizes a natural or synthetic fabric substrate, which is chemically coated in the form of ultra-thin coating with sol-gel organic-inorganic hybrid sorbent as the extraction medium. Generally, the FPSE procedure consists of the following steps: first, the sol-gel sorbent coated FPSE media is submerged into a mixture of appropriate solvents to clean any undesirable impurities from the material and then it is rinsed with deionized water to remove the residues of organic solvents. Afterward, an amount of sample solution is transferred into a glass tube vial that contains a clean Teflon-coated magnetic stir bar inside and the FPSE media is introduced into the vial. The sample is magnetically stirred for an optimum extraction time where the sorption of the target analytes by the sorbent takes place. Subsequently, the FPSE device is removed from the vial and is brought in contact with the eluting solvent into another vial where desorption occurs and the retained analytes are back-extracted to this eluting system. Afterwards, the extract is centrifuged and filtered before being injected into the analytical instrument. The FPSE process is described schematically in Figure 1 ^[6]^[8]^[9]. The FPSE media can be reused for further extraction procedures by washing with a suitable solvent system and drying on a watch glass so that it can be ready for storage in an air-tight glass container for future use.

Figure 1. General presentation of fabric phase sorptive extraction.

The FPSE combines the extraction mode of SPME/SPE into a single technology platform. At the beginning of the whole procedure, the FPSE media is in contact with the sample or the aqueous solution along with the analytes of interest whose mass transfers the sorbent until an equilibrium between the sorbent and the sample matrix is established, which mimics the direct-immersion SPME (equilibrium extraction mode). The extraction process can be facilitated with magnetic stirring, sonication, and more. The porous network of sol-gel sorbent coating and the permeability of the substrate lead to the existing flow-through system, which mimics the solid phase extraction (exhaustive extraction mode) ^[7]^[10]. The fabric substrates that are used can be hydrophilic (cotton cellulose), hydrophobic (polyester), or both (cotton-polyester). The different nature of the substrates is very important and determines the selectivity and the polarity of the FPSE media. The strong chemical bonding between permeable fabric and porous sol-gel sorbent offers high chemical and solvent stability. Therefore, the FPSE device is reusable and can be exposed to any organic solvent or harsh chemical environment, which keeps its sorption capability unaffected. Additionally, it provides a high primary contact surface area (PCSA) for rapid analyte-sorbent interaction and, as a result, for rapid and efficient analyte extraction (fast extraction equilibrium). The flexible FPSE requires no modified samples but provides extraction of analytes directly from the sample matrices. Therefore, it eliminates any prior and post sample preparation procedure like filtration, centrifugation, solvent evaporation, and sample reconstitution, which avoids the risk of potential analyte loss, experimental errors, and sample preparation costs. A remarkable benefit of this two-step micro-extraction technique is the variety of the available sorbents that allows the application of the FPSE device in different kind of samples. Therefore, this simple, fast, and sensitive sample preparation technique can be successfully applied in environmental samples, biological samples, or food products ^[2]^[8]^[9]^[10]^[11]^[12]. Taking into account all the reported FPSE methods in the literature so far, it is concluded that the majority of them (57.14%) was applied to environmental samples while applications to food samples (25%) and finally to biological samples (17.86%) follow. All FPSE techniques reported in the literature and studied in the present entry are presented in Table 1 and classified according to the three sample categories in which they were applied. Experimental information of the FPSE methods, the target analytes, the samples, and the main analytical parameters obtained were included.

Table 1. Classification of the applications of the FPSE technique.

Analytical Technique	Fabric Substrate	Sol-Gel Coating	E.T. (min)	Elution System	Sample	Type of Analyte	Analyte	E.F.	LOD ng/L	LOQ ng/L	R%	Ref.
Environmental Samples
FPSE-HPLC-UV	Cellulose	PEG	40	MeOH-ACN	Tap-Pond-Reclaimed water	Substituted phenols	4-CP	-	30	-	91.0–109.5	^[2]
							3,5-DMP		10		73.2–90.7
							2,6-DCP		40		19.7–40.7
							2,4,6-TCP		20		26.9–57.0
							2,4-DIPP		20		35.8–90.8
FPSE-HPLC-UV	Cellulose	PTHF	25	MeOH	Ground-River water, WWTP, Soil, Sludge	Alkylphenols	4-TBP	-	182	601	90.1–96.0	^[13]
							4-SBP		179	599	90.6–96.3
							4-TAP		192	640	89.0–96.5
							4-CP		161	531	91.1–96.9
FPSE-HPLC-FLD	Cellulose	PTHF	20	MeOH	Ground-River-Drinking, WWTP, Hospital wastewater	Estrogens	BPA	13.9	42	139	88.7–96.4	^[12]
							E2	14.4	20	66	89.4–97.4
							EE2	14.7	36	119	89.0–98.0
FPSE-UHPLC-MS/MS	Cellulose	PTHF	20	MeOH	WWTP, Untreated Hospital wastewater, Tap water	Steroid hormones: Androgens Progestogens	NORET	-	33.5	-	79.3–95.4	^[14]
							NOR		1.7		79.5–103.5
							MGA		21.4		102.2–121.2
							PRO		6.9		79.8–96.9
							BOL		46.9		66.6–92.4
							NAN		50.7		82.2–102.4
							TES		2.2		75.6–91.8
							DHEA		264		77.6–92.7
							AND		63.6		70.0–98.9
							ADTD		19.4		65.9–97.8
FPSE-HS-GC-MS	Fiber glass	PDMDPS	-	He	Environmental air	Sexual pheromone	(3E,8Z,11Z)-	-	1.6 μg	5.3 μg	-	^[15]
							tetradecatrien-1-yl
							acetate
							(3E,8Z)-		0.8 μg	2.6 μg
							tetradecadien-1-yl
							acetate
FPSE-HPLC-UV	Cellulose	PTHF	20	ACN	Industrial-Ground water, Borcher-Oakay alloy	Heavy metal ions	Co(II)	-	20	66	89.6–98.7	^[16]
							Ni(II)		18	59	87.0–98.6
							Pd(II)		10	30	89.0–99.0

FPSE-HPLC-UV	Cellulose	PTHF	15	ACN	Industrial-Bore well-Drinking water	Heavy metal ions	Cr(III)	-	1	3	89.6–98.7	^[17]
							Cr(IV)		3	9	87.0–98.6

FDSE-FI-FAAS	Polyester	PDMDPS	1.5	MIBK	River-Coastal-Ditch water	Toxic metals	Lead	140	1800	6000	95.0–101.0	^[18]
FDSE-FI-FAAS	Polyester	PDMDPS	1.5	MIBK	River-Coastal-Ditch water	Toxic metals	Cadmium	38	400	1200	94.0–98.0	^[18]
FPSE-UHPLC-MS/MS	Polyester	PDMDPS	60	MeOH	Sewage water	UV stabilizers in personal care products	UV P	10	12.8–25.3	42.7–84.3	83–99	^[19]
							UV 329		12.2–19.8	40.7–66.0	51–65
							UV 326		51.6–60.7	172–202	49–65
							UV 328		9.44–18.1	31.5–60.3	43–64
							UV 327		36.2–38.6	121–129	65–87
							UV 571		40.0–44.3	133–148	49–57
							UV 360		6.01–7.34	20.0–24.5	35–63
FPSE-UHPLC-MS/MS	Polyester	PDMDPS	60	MeOH	Seawater	UV stabilizers in personal care products	UV P	25	5.63	18.8	-	^[20]
							UV 329		4.33	14.5
							UV 326		8.96	29.9
							UV 328		1.63	5.44
							UV 327		1.06	3.54
							UV 360		2.72	9.08
FPSE-LC-MS/MS	Cellulose	PEG	240	MeOH	River water, Effluent/influent wastewater	Pharmaceuticals Personal care products	MPB	-	10	50	9–27 ^a	^[21]
							CBZ		10	50	20–92 ^a
							PrPB		2	20	41–65 ^a
							DHB		5	50	44–74 ^a
							BzPB		1	20	45–67 ^a
							DHMB		2	20	50–74 ^a
							DICLO		1	20	44–73 ^a
							BP-3		2	20	59–93 ^a
							TCC		3	10	57–59 ^a
							TCS		50	200	43–54 ^a
DFPSE-LC-MS/MS	Cellulose	PEG	10	EtOAc	River water, Effluent/influent wastewater	Pharmaceuticals Personal care products	MPB	-	4	50	12–30 ^a	^[22]
							CBZ		4	50	18–53 ^a
							PrPB		2	50	20–64 ^a
							DHB		2	50	21–68 ^a
							BzPB		2	50	33–70 ^a
							DHMB		2	20	39–76 ^a
							DICLO		2	50	23–50 ^a
							BP-3		2	100	45–52 ^a
							TCC		8	50	15–49 ^a
							TCS		20	100	22–43 ^a
FPSE-GC-MS	Cellulose	PEG	120	EtOAc	River water, Effluent/influent WWTP	Non-steroidal Anti-inflammatory drugs	IBU	418	0.8	3	82–109 ^b	^[23]
							NAP	263	2	5	93–111 ^b
							KET	223	5	15	92–108 ^b
							DIC	162	2	7	94–116 ^b
FPSE-UHPLC-MS/MS	Cellulose	M-PEG	60	MeOH	Wastewater from WWTP, Wastewater from hospital effluent	Cytostatic drugs	ETO	-	7.403	24.68	44.49–78.57	^[24]
							CP		3.825	12.75	40.50–70.20
							VINC		98.04	326.8	42.18–82.82
							VINB		39.93	132.8	30.18–101.8
							TAM		0.093	0.309	81.90–200.5
Stir-FPSE-UPLC-DAD	Cellulose	PEG	60	MeOH	River-Stream water	Herbicides	Simazine	444	140	460	84–124	^[25]
							Atrazine	729	240	790	75–126
							Secbumeton	988	80	260	76–103
							Terbumeton	1165	80	260	75–104
							Propazine	996	110	360	75–97
							Prometryn	1286	470	1500	78–111
							Terbutryn	1411	80	260	78–99
Stir-FPSE-HPLC-DAD	Cellulose	PTHF	15	ACN	Wastewater, Reservoir water	Brominated flame retardants	TBBPA	-	30	-	93	^[26]
							TBBPA-BAE		20		95
							TBBPA-BDBPE		40		92–99
Stir-bar-FPSE-HPLC-DAD	Cellulose	PTHF	10	ACN	Wastewater, Reservoir water	Brominated flame retardants	TBBPA	-	10	-	92–95	^[26]
							TBBPA-BAE		50		90–97
							TBBPA-BDBPE		10		91–98
Food Samples
FPSE-UPLC-MS	Cellulose	PTHF	20	ACN	Food simulants	Non-volatile Additives Migrants	DEP	3.1	5.0 ^c	15 ^d	67.6	^[8]
							TBC	6.4	1.0 ^c	3 ^d	104.8
							DBM	6.6	3.0 ^c	10 ^d	112
							TBoAC	7.3	1.0 ^c	3 ^d	83.3
							TXIB	5.1	1.0 ^c	3 ^d	87.4
							DBP	5.8	10 ^c	30 ^d	91.5
							2EHAdip	-	1.0 ^c	3 ^d	9.1
							2EHseb	2.9	1.0 ^c	3 ^d	64.7
							IRGA38	-	1.0 ^c	3 ^d	78.1
							TOPAC	-	5.0 ^c	15 ^d	33.3
							IRGA1076	12	3.0 ^c	10 ^d	80.4
							IRGA168	-	3.0 ^c	10 ^d	45.7
							IRGA1010	-	3.0 ^c	10 ^d	67.6
							TINU326	11	10 ^c	25 ^d	72.1
							CHIMA81	1.8	2.0 ^c	10 ^d	100.8
							TINU327	3.2	10 ^c	30 ^d	80.6
							CYA1084	-	12 ^c	30 ^d	86.5
							HAAC12	-	7.0 ^c	20 ^d	53.1
FPSE-GC-MS	Cellulose	PEG	60	MeOH	Oranges	Freshness markers	Furfuryl alcohol	-	12.5 ^c	37.8 ^d	98.9	^[27]
							Butyric acid		150 ^c	445 ^d	70.1
							Cis-3-hexen-1-ol		12.5 ^c	37.0 ^d	93.7
							Ethyl butyrate		31.1 ^c	93.4 ^d	70.5
							Vanillin		31.0 ^c	93.0 ^d	89.4
							Ethyl isovalerate		10.0 ^c	42.5 ^d	80.8
							Linalool		10.0 ^c	40.7 ^d	102.1
							1-Octen-3-one		12.5 ^c	37.6 ^d	104.1
							Eugenol		12.5 ^c	37.8 ^d	86.7
							Octanal		11.1 ^c	33.4 ^d	106.5
							Ethyl octanoate		15.0 ^c	43.6 ^d	102.6
							Limonene		10.0 ^c	40.8 ^d	85.4
FPSE-HPLC-DAD	Cellulose	PEG	30	MeOH	Raw milk	Antibiotic drugs Amphenicols	TAP	-	-	-	90.5–103.3	^[9]
							FFC				92.3–103.3
							CAP				97.0–106.0
FPSE-HPLC-UV	Cellulose	PEG	30	MeOH-ACN	Raw milk	Antibiotic drugs Sulfonamides	SMTH	-	-	-	94.7–107.0	^[28]
							SIX				93.0–104.6
							SDMX				96.1–102.5
FPSE-HPLC-DAD	Cellulose	PEG	40	ACN	Intact bovine milk	Antibiotic drugs Penicillin	PENG	-	3.0 ^c	10.0 ^d	86.7–115.1	^[29]
							CLO		6.0 ^c	20.0 ^d	82.8–107.2
							DICLO		7.5 ^c	25.0 ^d	80.8–95.8
							OXA		9.0 ^c	30.0 ^d	82.6–92.4
FPSE-HPLC-UV	Cellulose	Graphene	40	MeOH-ACN	Cow milk, Human breast milk	Organic monomers	BPA	-	16.7 ^c	50 ^d	-	^[30]
							TEGDMA
							UDMA
							BisGMA
SAIL-FPSE-HPLC-DAD	Nonwoven Polypropylene	[HMIM]NTf2	2	ACN	Tea	Fungicides	Azoxystrobin	156–161	90–110	300–370	80.3–90.4	^[31]
							Chlorothalonil	86–93	180–230	600–770	78.1–84.9
							Cyprodinil	103	120–170	400–570	79.9–86.4
							Trifloxystrobin	217–234	100–120	330–400	81.2–101.2
Biological Samples
FPSE-HPLC-FLD	Cellulose	PHTF	20	MeOH	Urine	Estrogens	BPA	13.9	42	139	90.0–91.0	^[12]
							E2	14.4	20	66	90.7–90.9
							EE2	14.7	36	119	91.0–91.4
FPSE-UHPLC-MS/MS	Cellulose	PTHF	20	MeOH	Urine	Steroid Hormones: Androgens Progestogens	NORET	-	35.2	-	-	^[14]
							NOR		132.3
							MGA		11.1
							PRO		12.8
							BOL		37.9
							NAN		50.1
							TES		8.9
							DHEA		110.6
							AND		80
							ADTD		25.6
FPSE-HPLC-PDA	Cellulose	PEG	30	MeOH	Plasma Urine	Antimicrobial drugs Azoles	Ketoconazol	-	30,000	100,000	-	^[32]
							Terconazole
							Voriconazole
							Bifonazole
							Clotrimazole
							Tioconazole
							Econazole
							Butoconazole
							Miconazole
							Posaconazole
							Ravuconazole
							Anditraconazole
FPSE-HPLC-DAD	Cellulose	PEG	20	MeOH-ACN	Blood serum	Drugs Benzodiazepines	APZ	-	10,000	30,000	91.4–106.0	^[33]
							BRZ				87.6–97.6
							DZP				90.0–104.0
							LRZ				86.0–102.4
FPSE-HPLC-PDA	Cellulose	PEG PCAP-PDMS-PCAP	30	MeOH	Whole blood Plasma Urine	Inflammatory	Ciprofloxacin	25.8–29.1	20,000–10,0000	50,000–25,0000	-	^[34]
						bowel disease	Sulfasalazine	56.7–63.9
						drugs	Cortisone	26.9–105.4

LOD, Limit of detection, calculated as S/N = 3; LOQ, Limit of quantitation, calculated as S/N = 10; E.T., Extraction time; E.F., Enrichment factor; R%, Relative recovery %; Ref., Reference; ^a R_app(%)—Apparent recovery that includes the extraction recovery and matrix effect; ^b Relative recoveries from calibrations in ultrapure water; ^c,d LOD and LOQ in ng/g.

2. Fabric Phase Sorptive Extraction: Features of Merit—Comparison with Other Sample Extraction Techniques

Fabric phase sorptive extraction has eloquently integrated both the exhaustive extraction mechanism and the partitioning equilibrium driven extraction into a single technology platform. As such, FPSE possesses the advantages of both sample preparation techniques. Unlike commercially available extraction and micro-extraction techniques, FPSE does not require any special equipment or set-up. The FPSE membrane can be directly introduced into the sampling container for extraction and back-extraction tube for analyte elution. A battery-powered magnetic stirrer can diffuse the solution using a magnetic stir bar. Therefore, the technique is easily field deployable.

Due to the strong chemical bonding between the fabric substrate and the sol-gel sorbents, FPSE membranes can be exposed to any organic or organo-aqueous solvent including a harsh chemical environment (pH 1–13). This offers a unique opportunity for selecting a suitable solvent compatible with both GC and LC and for analyzing simultaneously using both the technique to obtain complementary and holistic chemical information of the sample. On the other hand, the lack of chemical anchorage between the extraction polymer and the substrate limit the solvent selection in most of the classical extraction and micro-extraction techniques.

Although FPSE membranes have been designed as a single use device (like SPE cartridges and disks) to minimize the memory effect from the previous extractions as well as to reduce the risk of cross contamination, it can be reused as many as 50 times without consuming a high volume of organic solvent in the cleaning process.

FPSE eliminates all sample pretreatment steps including filtration, centrifugation, and protein precipitation. It also eliminates solvent evaporation and sample reconstitution from the sample preparation workflow. These steps are often used in SPE.

The extraction time in FPSE varies widely from 20 min to several hours depending on the complexity of the sample matrix and the presence of competing but unwanted compounds in the sample. However, the extraction time can be substantially reduced if FPSE is carried out in a dynamic extraction mode (like an SPE disk). This advantage is only seen in FPSE among all the contemporary sample preparation techniques.

FPSE utilizes sol-gel coating technology for the sorbent coating on the fabric substrates. Unlike the conventional sorbent coating process (physical adhesion of the polymer on the substrate surface followed by free-radical cross-linking reaction), sol-gel coating is a precisely controllable chemical coating process that ensures high batch-to-batch reproducibility, which is a phenomenon of extreme importance in analytical chemistry.

One major advantage of FPSE over other extraction and micro-extraction techniques is its ability to fine tune the overall polarity and selectivity by judiciously selecting the fabric type (hydrophilic or hydrophobic), organic polymer (nonpolar to highly polar), and the inorganic precursor possessing different organic ligands. Conventional extraction and micro-extraction techniques offer limited selectivity towards the target analytes since the organic polymers (in micro-extraction techniques) or the organic ligands (in exhaustive extraction techniques) are the only source of selectivity.

FPSE offers a wide range of sorbents including polar, somewhat polar, nonpolar, cation exchanger, anion exchanger, and mixed mode sorbents. No other extraction and micro-extraction techniques offer such a broad spectrum of sorbent chemistries. In fact, FPSE is the first sample preparation technique that offers traditional SPE sorbents including C₈, C₁₈, cyano, diol, phenyl chemistries, and SPME sorbents including poly(dimethylsiloxane) and poly(ethylene glycol) polymeric materials coated on the fabric substrate. As such, FPSE has not only integrated the extraction mechanism of both exhaustive extraction and partitioning equilibrium-based micro-extraction techniques but also makes available all the important sorbent chemistries in both techniques.

In conclusion, FPSE has not only simplified and boosted eco-friendliness in the sample preparation workflow, it has substantially improved the overall sample preparation process.

As an example, Table 2 presents a comprehensive comparison of the performance of the FPSE technique with other sample extraction techniques that have been applied for determining four non-steroidal anti-inflammatory drugs. The selected publications are referred to the analysis using GC-MS so the techniques and numerical data are more comparable. Taking into account the characteristics about the extraction procedure, FPSE can be really practical and easily applicable because it can handle the larger sample volumes and offers the possibility of satisfactory extraction time. Comparing the analytical performance between the techniques, FPSE shows the lowest LOD and LOQ values, which are the most sensitive. In addition, RSDs are below 18% for FPSE, which presents presenting good precision while SPME can be the most repeatable. Lastly, the trueness values, which are expressed as relative recoveries, are quite satisfactory.

Table 2. Comparison of the FPSE with other extraction techniques regarding the determination of four non-steroidal anti-inflammatory drugs known as ibuprofen, naproxen, ketoprofen, and diclofenac.

Extraction Technique	Instrumentation	Sample Volume (mL)	E.T. (min)	LOD ng/L	LOQ ng/L	RSD%	R%	Ref.
FPSE	GC-MS	30	120	0.8–5	3–15	4–18	82–116	^[23]
SBSE	GC-MS	15	240	13–21 ^a	43–70	3–20	77–107	^[35]
SPME	GC-MS	22	40	–	15–40	4–9	–	^[36]
MEPS	GC-MS	5	6	3–110	11–360	3–13	60–160	^[37]

LOD, Limit of detection, calculated as S/N = 3; ^a LOD calculated as blank ±3 SD_blank; LOQ, Limit of quantitation, calculated as S/N = 10.

References

Samanidou, V.F. Trends in microextraction techniques for sample preparation. Separations 2018, 5, 1.
Kabir, A.; Mesa, R.; Jurmain, J.; Furton, K. Fabric phase sorptive extraction explained. Separations 2017, 4, 21.
Armenta, S.; Garrigues, S.; de la Guardia, M. The role of green extraction techniques in Green Analytical Chemistry. TrAC-Trends Anal. Chem. 2015, 71, 2–8.
Płotka-Wasylka, J.; Szczepańska, N.; de la Guardia, M.; Namieśnik, J. Miniaturized solid-phase extraction techniques. TrAC-Trends Anal. Chem. 2015, 73, 19–38.
Spietelun, A.; Marcinkowski, Ł.; de la Guardia, M.; Namieśnik, J. Recent developments and future trends in solid phase microextraction techniques towards green analytical chemistry. J. Chromatogr. A 2013, 1321, 1–13.
Kazantzi, V.; Anthemidis, A. Fabric sol-gel phase sorptive extraction technique: A review. Separations 2017, 4, 20.
Silva, F.; Universidade, S.; Fluminense, F.; Semaan, F.S. Sample preparation in food analysis: Practices, problems and future outlook. In Thermal Techniques and Their Applications; Locatelli, M., Celia, C., Eds.; Nova Science Publishers: New York, NY, USA, 2017; pp. 23–53. ISBN 978-1-53612-282-4.
Aznar, M.; Alfaro, P.; Nerin, C.; Kabir, A.; Furton, K.G. Fabric phase sorptive extraction: An innovative sample preparation approach applied to the analysis of specific migration from food packaging. Anal. Chim. Acta 2016, 936, 97–107.
Samanidou, V.; Galanopoulos, L.D.; Kabir, A.; Furton, K.G. Fast extraction of amphenicols residues from raw milk using novel fabric phase sorptive extraction followed by high-performance liquid chromatography-diode array detection. Anal. Chim. Acta 2015, 855, 41–50.
Samanidou, V.F. Fabric phase sorptive extraction in pharmaceutical analysis. Pharm. Anal. Acta 2015, 6, 6–8.
Kabir, A.; Locatelli, M.; Ulusoy, H. Recent trends in microextraction techniques employed in analytical and bioanalytical sample preparation. Separations 2017, 4, 36.
Kumar, R.; Gaurav; Heena; Malik, A.K.; Kabir, A.; Furton, K.G. Efficient analysis of selected estrogens using fabric phase sorptive extraction and high performance liquid chromatography-fluorescence detection. J. Chromatogr. A 2014, 1359, 16–25.
Kumar, R.; Gaurav; Kabir, A.; Furton, K.G.; Malik, A.K. Development of a fabric phase sorptive extraction with high-performance liquid chromatography and ultraviolet detection method for the analysis of alkyl phenols in environmental samples. J. Sep. Sci. 2015, 38, 3228–3238.
Guedes-Alonso, R.; Ciofi, L.; Sosa-Ferrera, Z.; Santana-Rodríguez, J.J.; Del Bubba, M.; Kabir, A.; Furton, K.G. Determination of androgens and progestogens in environmental and biological samples using fabric phase sorptive extraction coupled to ultra-high performance liquid chromatography tandem mass spectrometry. J. Chromatogr. A 2016, 1437, 116–126.
Alcudia-León, M.C.; Lucena, R.; Cárdenas, S.; Valcárcel, M.; Kabir, A.; Furton, K.G. Integrated sampling and analysis unit for the determination of sexual pheromones in environmental air using fabric phase sorptive extraction and headspace-gas chromatography-mass spectrometry. J. Chromatogr. A 2017, 1488, 17–25.
Heena Kaur, R.; Rani, S.; Malik, A.K.; Kabir, A.; Furton, K.G. Determination of cobalt (II), nickel (II) and palladium (II) Ions via fabric phase sorptive extraction in combination with high-performance liquid chromatography-UV detection. Sep. Sci. Technol. 2017, 52, 81–90.
Furton, K.G.; Rani, S.; Malik, A.K.; Kabir, A.; Furton, K.G. Speciation of Cr (III) and Cr (VI) ions via fabric phase sorptive extraction for their quantification via HPLC with UV detection speciation of Cr (III) and Cr (VI) ions via fabric phase sorptive extraction for their quantification via HPLC with UV. J. Chromatogr. Sep. Tech. 2016.
Anthemidis, A.; Kazantzi, V.; Samanidou, V.; Kabir, A.; Furton, K.G. An automated flow injection system for metal determination by flame atomic absorption spectrometry involving on-line fabric disk sorptive extraction technique. Talanta 2016, 156–157, 64–70.
Montesdeoca-Esponda, S.; Sosa-Ferrera, Z.; Kabir, A.; Furton, K.G.; Santana-Rodríguez, J.J. Fabric phase sorptive extraction followed by UHPLC-MS/MS for the analysis of benzotriazole UV stabilizers in sewage samples. Anal. Bioanal. Chem. 2015, 407, 8137–8150.
García-Guerra, R.B.; Montesdeoca-Esponda, S.; Sosa-Ferrera, Z.; Kabir, A.; Furton, K.G.; Santana-Rodríguez, J.J. Rapid monitoring of residual UV-stabilizers in seawater samples from beaches using fabric phase sorptive extraction and UHPLC-MS/MS. Chemosphere 2016, 164, 201–207.
Lakade, S.S.; Borrull, F.; Furton, K.G.; Kabir, A.; Fontanals, N.; Marcé, R.M. Comparative study of different fabric phase sorptive extraction sorbents to determine emerging contaminants from environmental water using liquid chromatography-tandem mass spectrometry. Talanta 2015, 144, 1342–1351.
Lakade, S.S.; Borrull, F.; Furton, K.G.; Kabir, A.; Marcé, R.M.; Fontanals, N. Dynamic fabric phase sorptive extraction for a group of pharmaceuticals and personal care products from environmental waters. J. Chromatogr. A 2016, 1456, 19–26.
Racamonde, I.; Rodil, R.; Quintana, J.B.; Sieira, B.J.; Kabir, A.; Furton, K.G.; Cela, R. Fabric phase sorptive extraction: A new sorptive microextraction technique for the determination of non-steroidal anti-inflammatory drugs from environmental water samples. Anal. Chim. Acta 2015, 865, 22–30.
Santana-Viera, S.; Guedes-Alonso, R.; Sosa-Ferrera, Z.; Santana-Rodríguez, J.J.; Kabir, A.; Furton, K.G. Optimization and application of fabric phase sorptive extraction coupled to ultra-high performance liquid chromatography tandem mass spectrometry for the determination of cytostatic drug residues in environmental waters. J. Chromatogr. A 2017, 1529, 39–49.
Roldán-Pijuán, M.; Lucena, R.; Cárdenas, S.; Valcárcel, M.; Kabir, A.; Furton, K.G. Stir fabric phase sorptive extraction for the determination of triazine herbicides in environmental waters by liquid chromatography. J. Chromatogr. A 2015, 1376, 35–45.
Huang, G.; Dong, S.; Zhang, M.; Zhang, H.; Huang, T. Fabric phase sorptive extraction: Two practical sample pretreatment techniques for brominated flame retardants in water. Water Res. 2016, 101, 547–554.
Aznar, M.; Úbeda, S.; Nerin, C.; Kabir, A.; Furton, K.G. Fabric phase sorptive extraction as a reliable tool for rapid screening and detection of freshness markers in oranges. J. Chromatogr. A 2017, 1500, 32–42.
Karageorgou, E.; Manousi, N.; Samanidou, V.; Kabir, A.; Furton, K.G. Fabric phase sorptive extraction for the fast isolation of sulfonamides residues from raw milk followed by high performance liquid chromatography with ultraviolet detection. Food Chem. 2016, 196, 428–436.
Samanidou, V.; Michaelidou, K.; Kabir, A.; Furton, K.G. Fabric phase sorptive extraction of selected penicillin antibiotic residues from intact milk followed by high performance liquid chromatography with diode array detection. Food Chem. 2017, 224, 131–138.
Samanidou, V.; Filippou, O.; Marinou, E.; Kabir, A.; Furton, K.G. Sol-gel-graphene-based fabric-phase sorptive extraction for cow and human breast milk sample cleanup for screening bisphenol A and residual dental restorative material before analysis by HPLC with diode array detection. J. Sep. Sci. 2017, 40, 2612–2619.
Yang, M.; Gu, Y.; Wu, X.; Xi, X.; Yang, X.; Zhou, W.; Zeng, H.; Zhang, S.; Lu, R.; Gao, H.; et al. Rapid analysis of fungicides in tea infusions using ionic liquid immobilized fabric phase sorptive extraction with the assistance of surfactant fungicides analysis using IL-FPSE assisted with surfactant. Food Chem. 2018, 239, 797–805.
Locatelli, M.; Kabir, A.; Innosa, D.; Lopatriello, T.; Furton, K.G. A fabric phase sorptive extraction-High performance liquid chromatography-Photo diode array detection method for the determination of twelve azole antimicrobial drug residues in human plasma and urine. J. Chromatogr. B 2017, 1040, 192–198.
Samanidou, V.; Kaltzi, I.; Kabir, A.; Furton, K.G. Simplifying sample preparation using fabric phase sorptive extraction technique for the determination of benzodiazepines in blood serum by high-performance liquid chromatography. Biomed. Chromatogr. 2016, 30, 829–836.
Kabir, A.; Furton, K.G.; Tinari, N.; Grossi, L.; Innosa, D.; Macerola, D.; Tartaglia, A.; Di Donato, V.; D’Ovidio, C.; Locatelli, M. Fabric phase sorptive extraction-high performance liquid chromatography-photo diode array detection method for simultaneous monitoring of three inflammatory bowel disease treatment drugs in whole blood, plasma and urine. J. Chromatogr. B 2018, 1084, 53–63.
Quintana, J.B.; Rodil, R.; Muniategui-Lorenzo, S.; López-Mahía, P.; Prada-Rodríguez, D. Multiresidue analysis of acidic and polar organic contaminants in water samples by stir-bar sorptive extraction-liquid desorption-gas chromatography-mass spectrometry. J. Chromatogr. A 2007, 1174, 27–39.
Rodríguez, I.; Carpinteiro, J.; Quintana, J.B.; Carro, A.M.; Lorenzo, R.A.; Cela, R. Solid-phase microextraction with on-fiber derivatization for the analysis of anti-inflammatory drugs in water samples. J. Chromatogr. A 2004, 1024, 1–8.
Noche, G.G.; Laespada, M.E.F.; Pavón, J.L.P.; Cordero, B.M.; Lorenzo, S.M. Microextraction by packed sorbent for the analysis of pharmaceutical residues in environmental water samples by in situ derivatization-programmed temperature vaporizer-gas chromatography-mass spectrometry. J. Chromatogr. A 2011, 1218, 9390–9396.

© Text is available under the terms and conditions of the Creative Commons Attribution (CC BY) license; additional terms may apply. By using this site, you agree to the Terms and Conditions and Privacy Policy.

Upload a video for this entry

Information

Subjects: Chemistry, Analytical

Contributors MDPI registered users' name will be linked to their SciProfiles pages. To register with us, please refer to https://encyclopedia.pub/register :

Eirini Zilfidou

Abuzar Kabir

Kenneth G. Furton

Victoria Samanidou

View Times: 175

Update Date: 17 Jul 2023

Table of Contents

Video Upload Options

Confirm

1. Introduction

2. Fabric Phase Sorptive Extraction: Features of Merit—Comparison with Other Sample Extraction Techniques

References