Related Experiment Video
Updated: May 6, 2026

A Simple Method for Automated Solid Phase Extraction of Water Samples for Immunological Analysis of Small Pollutants
Published on: January 1, 2016
Comparative evaluation of liquid-liquid extraction, solid-phase extraction and solid-phase microextraction for the
José Robles-Molina1, Bienvenida Gilbert-López, Juan F García-Reyes
1Analytical Chemistry Research Group (FQM-323), Department of Physical and Analytical Chemistry, Campus Las Lagunillas, Edif. B3, University of Jaén, 23071 Jaén, Spain.
Abstract:
The European Water Framework Directive (WFD) 2000/60/EC establishes guidelines to control the pollution of surface water by sorting out a list of priority substances that involves a significant risk to or via the aquatic systems. In this article, the analytical performance of three different sample preparation methodologies for the GC-MS/MS determination of multiclass organic contaminants-including priority comprounds from the WFD-in wastewater samples using gas chromatography-mass spectrometry was evaluated. The methodologies tested were: (a) liquid-liquid extraction (LLE) with n-hexane; (b) solid-phase extraction (SPE) with C18 cartridges and elution with ethyl acetate:dichloromethane (1:1 (v/v)), and (c) headspace solid-phase microextraction (HS-SPME) using two different fibers: polyacrylate and polydimethylsiloxane/carboxen/divinilbenzene. Identification and confirmation of the selected 57 compounds included in the study (comprising polycyclic aromatic hydrocarbons (PAHs), pesticides and other contaminants) were accomplished using gas chromatography tandem mass spectrometry (GC-MS/MS) with a triple quadrupole instrument operated in the multiple reaction monitoring (MRM) mode. Three MS/MS transitions were selected for unambiguous confirmation of the target chemicals. The different advantages and pitfalls of each method were discussed. In the case of both LLE and SPE procedures, the method was validated at two different concentration levels (15 and 150 ng L(-1)) obtaining recovery rates in the range 70-120% for most of the target compounds. In terms of analyte coverage, results with HS-SPME were not satisfactory, since 14 of the compounds tested were not properly recovered and the overall performance was worse than the other two methods tested. LLE, SPE and HS-SPME (using polyacrylate fiber) procedures also showed good linearity and precision. Using any of the three methodologies tested, limits of quantitation obtained for most of the detected compounds were in the low nanogram per liter range.
More Related Videos
Related Concept Videos
Gas Chromatography: Introduction
In GC, a sample is vaporized and mixed with an inert carrier gas (the mobile phase), which transports it through a...
Gas Chromatography–Mass Spectrometry (GC–MS)
A gas chromatograph consists of a long, narrow capillary column with a polysiloxane coating on the inner wall....
Extraction: Advanced Methods
Capillary Electrophoresis: Applications
Capillary zone electrophoresis (CZE) separates ionic components based on their electrophoretic mobility. It has been used to separate proteins, amino acids,...
High-Performance Liquid Chromatography: Elution Process
Gas Chromatography: Types of Columns and Stationary Phases
For an analyte to remain on the column for a sufficient amount of time, it must exhibit some level of compatibility (or...

