Comparative analysis of conventional and greener extraction methods and method validation for analyzing PAHs in
Lochan Singh1, Tripti Agarwal1
1Department of Agriculture and Environmental Sciences, National Institute of Food Technology Entrepreneurship and Management (NIFTEM), Kundli, Sonipat, Haryana 131028, India.
Abstract:
This study compared different extraction methods [sonication, alkaline hydrolysis, supramolecular solvent microextraction (SUPRAS) and Quick, Easy, Cheap, Effective, Rugged and Safe (QuEChERS)] along with their greenness. An analytical method was validated for determination of USEPA's listed 16 polycyclic aromatic hydrocarbons' (PAHs) in cooked chicken and roasted coffee using high pressure liquid chromatography-fluorescence detector (HPLC-FLD) with a C18 column. The recoveries with QuEChERS ranged between 62.26 and 103.85% (except Naphthalene and Fluorene) and 52.63-78.69% (except Naphthalene) for chicken and coffee respectively while poor recoveries were observed with conventional methods. With SUPRAS, heavy PAHs' recovery in chicken was 71.33-112.23%. Limits of detection (LOD) were 0.03-0.06 ng/mL, regression coefficient values were 0.97-0.99 for 6.25-37.50 ng/mL quantification range. Relative standard deviation was found to be below 22%. The time and energy consumption per sample was 42.50 and 69.06 fold and 77.52 and 139.50 fold less with SUPRAS and QuEChERS method respectively as compared to alkaline hydrolysis.
