**1. Introduction**

186 Chromatography – The Most Versatile Method of Chemical Analysis

21.10.2010, 4-7. http://eur-lex.europa.eu

Veterinary Institute in Pulawy. Vol. 52(No.4): 619-624.

Veterinary Institute in Pulawy Vol. 52(No.3): 435-440.

221 from 17.8.2002, 8-36. http://eur-lex.europa.eu

The Veterinary Institute in Pulawy Vol. 53(No.4): 707-712.

Universities, Agricultural Engineering, Vol. 9, Issue 1, URL: www.ejpau.media.pl/series/whole/engineering/index.html

approaches to uncertainty evaluation, Eurolab, Paris 2007.

from 17.06.2011, 7-24.. http://eur-lex.europa.eu

on inter-laboratory comparisons. Krmiva. Vol. 50 (No.6), 319-327.

Nordtest TR 537, Version 3, 2008. URL:www.nordicinnovation.net

http://eur-lex.europa.eu

Vol.47: 1-12.

preparation.

Edition 1993.

and calibration laboratories.

and food law, animal health and animal welfare rules. OJ L 165 from 30.04.2004, 1-141.

[15] Commission Regulation (EU) No 939/2010 of 20 October 2010 amending Annex IV to Regulation (EC) No 767/2009 on permitted tolerances for the compositional labeling of feed materials or compound feed as referred to in Article 11(5). OJ L 277 from

[16] Douša, M. & Břicháč, J. (2010). HPLC determination of vitamin in the animal feeds – the sources of errors and their reduction. Acta Universitatis Palackianae Olomucensis,

[17] Rubaj, J., Bielecka, G., Korol, W. & Kwiatek, K. (2008). Determination of Riboflavin in Premixture and Compound Feed by Liquid Chromatography Method. Bulletin of The

[18] Rubaj, J., Korol, W., Bielecka, G. & Kwiatek, K. (2008). Determination of Thiamine in Premixture and Compound Feed by Liquid Chromatography Method. Bulletin of The

[19] Commission Decision of 12 August 2002 implementing Council Directive 96/23/EC concerning the performance of analytical methods and the interpretation of results. OJ L

[20] International Standard FDIS 6498 (2012). Animal Feeding Stuffs – Guidelines for sample

[21] Coelho, M. (2002). Vitamin stability in premixes and feeds – A practical approach in ruminants diets. Proceedings 13th Annual Florida Ruminant Nutrition Symposium, 127- 145. [22] Rubaj, J., Bielecka, G., Korol, W. & Kwiatek, K. (2009). Determination of Canthaxanthin in Premixture and Compound Feed by Liquid Chromatography Method. Bulletin of

[23] Handbook for Calculation of Measurement Uncertainty in Environmental Laboratories.

[24] Standard EN ISO/IEC 17025:2005 General requirements for the competence of testing

[25] Matyka, S., Rubaj, J., Korol, W., Bielecka, G. (2006). Industrial feed mixtures with an addition of methionine hydroksy analog. Electronic Journal of Polish Agricultural

[26] Guide to the Expression of Uncertainty in Measurement (GUM). BIPM, IEC, IFCC, ISO, IUPAC, OIML. International Organization of Standardization, Geneva Switzerland, 1st

[27] Eurolab Technical Report 1/2007. Measurement uncertainty revisited: Alternative

[28] Korol, W., Rubaj, J., Bielecka, G. (2008) An interpretation system of feed analyses based

[29] Commission Regulation (EU) No 574/2011 of 16 June 2011 amending Annex I to the Directive 2002/32/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council as regards maximum levels for nitrite, melamine, Ambrosia spp. And carry-over of certain coccidiostats and histomonostats and consolidating Annexes I and II thereto. OJ L 159 Synthetic surfactants are among the most produced and used organic compounds worldwide. They are a wide range of chemicals characterized by their amphiphilic nature. Thus, their molecules consist of an hydrophilic / polar head group (either charged or uncharged) and an hydrophobic / nonpolar hydrocarbon tail. As a consequence, surfactants show solubility in polar and nonpolar liquids, ability to form micelles, adsorption to phase boundaries and reduction of the surface tension of water. They are economically important due to their specific properties that allow using them as washing, wetting, emulsifying and dispersing agents. Therefore, surfactants are mainly used in the formulation of detergents, personal care products, paints, textiles, pesticide formulations, pharmaceutical, and many other products [1, 2]. Many different types of these compounds have been synthesized, although they can be classified into three main groups according to their charge: (1) anionics, (2) non-ionics, and (3) cationics (Figure 1); the first and second groups accounting for the highest production volumes. Thus, the European Committee of Organic Surfactants and their Intermediates (CESIO) reported a production of 1200 ktons of anionic and 1400 ktons of non-ionic surfactants in Europe in 2010, which represents 90% of the total European production of surfactants.

Linear alkylbenzene sulfonates (LAS), alkyl ethoxysulfates (AES) and alkyl sulfates (AS) are the most widely used anionic surfactants. LAS are commercially available as a mixture containing homologues with alkyl chains ranging from 10 to 14 carbon units, and isomers resulting from the different attachment positions of the phenyl group along that chain (Figure 1a). The chemical structure of AS comprises a C12-16 alkyl chain with a terminal sulfate group. AES share the same structure than AS but they also have a variable number of ethylene oxide (EO) units (Figure 1b). All these compounds are commonly employed in household and laundry detergents, hand dishwashing liquids, shampoos, and other

© 2012 Lara-Martínet al., licensee InTech. This is an open access chapter distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution License (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/3.0), which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original work is properly cited. © 2012 Lara-Martín et al., licensee InTech. This is a paper distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution License (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/3.0), which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original work is properly cited.

Analysis of Surfactants in Environmental Samples by Chromatographic Techniques 189

Once used, the major fraction of synthetic surfactants are disposed down the drain to sewers, where it has been estimated that 50% by volume is degraded, 25% sorpted to suspended solids and 25% dissolved [14, 15]. Later, these chemicals are commonly removed between 81 and 99.9% in wastewater treatment plants (WWTPs) [16-18], although they are frequently detected in sewage effluents showing concentrations up to 872 µg/L for LAS [16], between 0.24 and 3 µg/L for AES [19], up to 4 µg/L for QACs [20], and from 0.2 to 23 µg/L for AEOs and APEOs [21, 22]. Secondary treatment in active sludge units is considered the most important process to eliminate surfactants through aerobic biodegradation, but a considerable fraction is also removed by sorption / precipitation in sludges originated from several decantations (Figure 2) (e.g., 15-37% of total LAS [14, 15, 23] and more than 90% of nonylphenol [24]). These sludges are also a potential source of contamination for soils, groundwater and adjacent rivers as they tend to contain high concentrations of organic contaminants and are often used in agriculture after anaerobic digestion. High levels of surfactants have been measured in treated sludges: up to 5400 mg/kg dry weight for LAS [15, 25], from 119.3 to 380.5 mg/kg for APEOs, AEOs and AES [25], and up to 5870 mg/kg for QACs [26, 27]. Any environmental compartment (surface waters, sediment, biota…) is susceptible of being contaminated by these compounds and/or their degradation metabolites [2, 28]. As example, a considerable number of studies have reported the presence of LAS in surface waters [29-31] at levels typically ranging from less than 1 ng/L to several hundreds of µg/L respectively, depending on the distance from urban wastewater discharge sources and the type of wastewater treatment. Available studies about the presence, environmental behavior and distribution of non-ionic surfactants are mainly focused on NPEOs (nonylphenol polyethoxylates, which are the major fraction of APEOs). Concentrations of these compounds have been reported in surface waters all around the world: <0.1 to 100 µg/L in rivers in Mexico [32], Holland [33], Japan [34] and Taiwan [29], and from <1 to 38.5 µg/L in coastal waters of United States [35], Italy [30], Spain [36] and Israel [37]. Levels of surfactants in surface sediments are usually higher by several orders of magnitude than those measured in water due to their moderate to high sorption capacity. Thus, the presence of LAS [31, 38-40] and NPEOs [22, 41-44] has been widely detected in sediments, with levels ranging from less than 1 to more than 200 mg/kg and from less than 0.1 to 28.5 mg/kg respectively. Available data concerning to the presence of aliphatic anionic (AES) and nonionic (AEOs) surfactants, as well as cationic surfactants of any class, are rather limited. There are only a few papers about the occurrence of AEOs [36, 40, 43, 44] and AES [19, 31] in sediments, showing levels ranging from <0.1 to 23 mg/kg. Some authors have also measured concentrations between <0.1 and 72 µg/L for AES [19, 31] and AEOs [36, 40, 43] in surface waters. QACs have been measured at levels ranging from less than 2 µg/L in surface

waters [20] to more than 100 mg/kg in sediments [45, 46].

Summarizing, huge volumes of surfactants are used every day, entering the environment, where these compounds and/or their degradation products may cause damage depending on their concentrations. Therefore, it becomes necessary developing reliable analytical methodologies that allow determining the levels of surfactants in environmental matrices, which may be complicated due several reasons. First, surfactants are often sold as commercial mixtures which can comprise hundreds of different homologues, isomers

**Figure 1.** Chemical structures of (a) linear alkylbenzene sulfonates (LAS), (b) alkyl ethoxysulfates (AES), (c) alcohol polyethoxylates (AEOs), (d) alkylphenol polyethoxylates (APEOs), and (e) quaternary ammonium-based compounds (QACs).

personal care products [3-5]. Among the nonionic surfactants, alcohol polyethoxylates (AEOs) are currently produced in the greatest volume (e.g., 747000 tons in Europe in 2000), and alkylphenol ethoxylates (APEOs) are in second place by volume as a consequence of the restrictions on their use in recent years, due to the estrogenicity showed by some of their degradation intermediates [6-8]. AEOs are a mixture of homologues having from 12 to 18 carbon atoms in their alkyl chain, which is connected via an ether bond to an ethylene oxide (Figure 1c). APEOs are mixtures of a wide range of ethoxymers (from 1 to 20 EO units), and isomers, depending on the degree of branching of the alkyl chain (Figure 1d). Both, AEOs and APEOs, are widely employed in domestic and industrial applications [9] (e.g., detergents, emulsifiers, wetting and dispersing agents, industrial cleaners, textile, pulp and paper processing). Finally, quaternary ammonium-based compounds (QACs) are the main class of cationic surfactants, being constituted of at least one hydrophobic hydrocarbon chain linked to a positively charged nitrogen atom, and other alkyl groups which are mostly short-chain substituents such as methyl or benzyl groups (Figure 1e). Major uses of QACs are as fabric softeners and antiseptic agents in laundry detergents as well as other industrial uses [2]. Since the 1960' s, the most commonly used active ingredient in fabric softeners has been dehydrogenated tallow dimethyl ammonium chloride (DTDMAC), with industry-wide European annual volumes exceeding 32000 tons through 1990. However, esterquat surfactants were introduced into the European market in the early 1990's because, due to their structure, they were more accessible to hydrolysis and biodegradation than DTDMAC. Hence, most fabric conditioners marketed now are comprised of esterquat types, with a volume of 130000 tons/year used in detergent products in the European Union [10-13].

Once used, the major fraction of synthetic surfactants are disposed down the drain to sewers, where it has been estimated that 50% by volume is degraded, 25% sorpted to suspended solids and 25% dissolved [14, 15]. Later, these chemicals are commonly removed between 81 and 99.9% in wastewater treatment plants (WWTPs) [16-18], although they are frequently detected in sewage effluents showing concentrations up to 872 µg/L for LAS [16], between 0.24 and 3 µg/L for AES [19], up to 4 µg/L for QACs [20], and from 0.2 to 23 µg/L for AEOs and APEOs [21, 22]. Secondary treatment in active sludge units is considered the most important process to eliminate surfactants through aerobic biodegradation, but a considerable fraction is also removed by sorption / precipitation in sludges originated from several decantations (Figure 2) (e.g., 15-37% of total LAS [14, 15, 23] and more than 90% of nonylphenol [24]). These sludges are also a potential source of contamination for soils, groundwater and adjacent rivers as they tend to contain high concentrations of organic contaminants and are often used in agriculture after anaerobic digestion. High levels of surfactants have been measured in treated sludges: up to 5400 mg/kg dry weight for LAS [15, 25], from 119.3 to 380.5 mg/kg for APEOs, AEOs and AES [25], and up to 5870 mg/kg for QACs [26, 27]. Any environmental compartment (surface waters, sediment, biota…) is susceptible of being contaminated by these compounds and/or their degradation metabolites [2, 28]. As example, a considerable number of studies have reported the presence of LAS in surface waters [29-31] at levels typically ranging from less than 1 ng/L to several hundreds of µg/L respectively, depending on the distance from urban wastewater discharge sources and the type of wastewater treatment. Available studies about the presence, environmental behavior and distribution of non-ionic surfactants are mainly focused on NPEOs (nonylphenol polyethoxylates, which are the major fraction of APEOs). Concentrations of these compounds have been reported in surface waters all around the world: <0.1 to 100 µg/L in rivers in Mexico [32], Holland [33], Japan [34] and Taiwan [29], and from <1 to 38.5 µg/L in coastal waters of United States [35], Italy [30], Spain [36] and Israel [37]. Levels of surfactants in surface sediments are usually higher by several orders of magnitude than those measured in water due to their moderate to high sorption capacity. Thus, the presence of LAS [31, 38-40] and NPEOs [22, 41-44] has been widely detected in sediments, with levels ranging from less than 1 to more than 200 mg/kg and from less than 0.1 to 28.5 mg/kg respectively. Available data concerning to the presence of aliphatic anionic (AES) and nonionic (AEOs) surfactants, as well as cationic surfactants of any class, are rather limited. There are only a few papers about the occurrence of AEOs [36, 40, 43, 44] and AES [19, 31] in sediments, showing levels ranging from <0.1 to 23 mg/kg. Some authors have also measured concentrations between <0.1 and 72 µg/L for AES [19, 31] and AEOs [36, 40, 43] in surface waters. QACs have been measured at levels ranging from less than 2 µg/L in surface waters [20] to more than 100 mg/kg in sediments [45, 46].

188 Chromatography – The Most Versatile Method of Chemical Analysis

ammonium-based compounds (QACs).

uses [2]. Since the 1960'

**Figure 1.** Chemical structures of (a) linear alkylbenzene sulfonates (LAS), (b) alkyl ethoxysulfates (AES), (c) alcohol polyethoxylates (AEOs), (d) alkylphenol polyethoxylates (APEOs), and (e) quaternary

personal care products [3-5]. Among the nonionic surfactants, alcohol polyethoxylates (AEOs) are currently produced in the greatest volume (e.g., 747000 tons in Europe in 2000), and alkylphenol ethoxylates (APEOs) are in second place by volume as a consequence of the restrictions on their use in recent years, due to the estrogenicity showed by some of their degradation intermediates [6-8]. AEOs are a mixture of homologues having from 12 to 18 carbon atoms in their alkyl chain, which is connected via an ether bond to an ethylene oxide (Figure 1c). APEOs are mixtures of a wide range of ethoxymers (from 1 to 20 EO units), and isomers, depending on the degree of branching of the alkyl chain (Figure 1d). Both, AEOs and APEOs, are widely employed in domestic and industrial applications [9] (e.g., detergents, emulsifiers, wetting and dispersing agents, industrial cleaners, textile, pulp and paper processing). Finally, quaternary ammonium-based compounds (QACs) are the main class of cationic surfactants, being constituted of at least one hydrophobic hydrocarbon chain linked to a positively charged nitrogen atom, and other alkyl groups which are mostly short-chain substituents such as methyl or benzyl groups (Figure 1e). Major uses of QACs are as fabric softeners and antiseptic agents in laundry detergents as well as other industrial

been dehydrogenated tallow dimethyl ammonium chloride (DTDMAC), with industry-wide European annual volumes exceeding 32000 tons through 1990. However, esterquat surfactants were introduced into the European market in the early 1990's because, due to their structure, they were more accessible to hydrolysis and biodegradation than DTDMAC. Hence, most fabric conditioners marketed now are comprised of esterquat types, with a volume of 130000 tons/year used in detergent products in the European Union [10-13].

s, the most commonly used active ingredient in fabric softeners has

Summarizing, huge volumes of surfactants are used every day, entering the environment, where these compounds and/or their degradation products may cause damage depending on their concentrations. Therefore, it becomes necessary developing reliable analytical methodologies that allow determining the levels of surfactants in environmental matrices, which may be complicated due several reasons. First, surfactants are often sold as commercial mixtures which can comprise hundreds of different homologues, isomers

Analysis of Surfactants in Environmental Samples by Chromatographic Techniques 191

or by filtering through a 0.45 µm membrane filter [16]. Then, aliquots are kept at low temperatures and are often analyzed within a short period of time (48 h) in order to minimize the biodegradation of surfactants. Solid samples (sewage sludges, soils or sediments) are also kept at low temperature once they are collected to avoid any degradation of the analytes during the transport to the laboratory. Later, they are usually dried in a heater [47], at room temperature [25], or frozen at -20 ºC and later freeze-dried [48]. Once dried, samples are milled and strained through a sieve to a particle size of less

Surfactants are often found at trace levels (ppb or less) in environmental matrices, frequently below the limits of detection of most analytical techniques. Therefore, it is necessary to carry out not only their extraction but also their isolation and preconcentration to achieve proper identification and quantification. Those methodologies more commonly used at this preliminary stage are commented next for both solid and aqueous samples.

For several decades now, Soxhlet extraction and solid-liquid extraction (SLE) have been the most commonly used techniques for the extraction of surfactants and many other organic compounds from solid matrices. These methodologies are cheap and allow simple extraction, although they have also several disadvantages, including the large volume of solvent needed (from 150 to 500 mL [27, 49, 50]), the long time required, which can take 4- 18 hours per sample [20, 51, 52], and the production of toxic liquid wastes. Soxtec is an alternative extraction method based on Soxhlet, but the addition of several boiling and rinsing steps reduces the extraction time to 45 min and solvent consumption to 50-100 mL [53, 54]. Application of ultrasounds followed by centrifugation or filtration to separate extracts from solid matrices is another cheap option for extracting surfactants due to the high extraction efficiency in a short time [40, 55, 56]. On the other hand, it also shows the same problems than SLE and Soxhlet extraction (high volume of organic solvents and toxic wastes). Table 1 summarizes the conditions used for the extraction of surfactants employing these conventional extraction techniques. As example, LAS and their degradation intermediates, sulfophenyl carboxylic acids (SPCs), have been extracted from sediments using methanol (MeOH) as solvent [50, 52, 57, 58] by means of Soxhlet extraction and SLE. For APEOs and their metabolites, methodologies have been similar to those used for LAS [30, 59, 60], although methanol tends to be substituted by other less polar solvents (e.g., hexane [51] or dichloromethane (DCM) [61]), in order to enhance the extractability of the more hydrophobic compounds such as nonylphenol (NP). With respect to the extraction of aliphatic surfactants (AEOs and AES) and their main degradation products (polyethylenglycols, PEGs) from solid matrices, most authors have employed methanol [19, 40, 62, 63] and dichloromethane [55, 64] during Soxhlet or Soxtec extraction, SLE and sonication. There are still a few studies dealing with the application of all these techniques for extraction of QACs [26, 27, 65], but acidified methanol is used as

than 2 mm, and then stored at 4 to -20 ºC for further extraction and analysis.

**2.1. Extraction from solid samples** 

solvent in most cases.

**Figure 2.** Flowsheet and sampling points of a wastewater treatment plant (WWTP). Figure shows mass balance of dissolved (d) and adsorbed/precipitated (a) of LAS and non-ionic surfactants. Absolute amount (average value in kg/day) and percentage with respect to raw water (adapted from reference [15]).

and/or ethoxymers with different physico-chemical properties. Separation and quantification of these components require the use of chromatographic techniques, mainly gas chromatography (GC) and liquid chromatography (LC). Achieving a successfully identification of every component in the mixture is also desirable for a better understanding of their environmental behavior as they may suffer differential degradation or sorption. There is also an additional challenge when dealing with target compounds that tend to be present at trace levels. In these cases it is necessary to develop reliable extraction, purification, and preconcentration protocols in order to remove as many interferences as possible before analysis without sacrificing high recovery values. Some of the techniques used to this end are also based on chromatographic techniques, such as solid phase extraction (SPE), directly derived from column chromatography. Thus, in this chapter we present the main problems posed by analysis of surfactants in environmental samples from two points of view:


## **2. Sample pre-treatment**

Correct sampling of environmental samples is indispensable to provide representative information of the environmental compartments from which they are taken and, on the other hand, it is important to preserve the target compounds during storage [1]. Generally, water samples are often immediately preserved upon collection by the addition of biocides such as formaldehyde up to a concentration of 4% [17, 47], chloroform or sodium azide [20], or by filtering through a 0.45 µm membrane filter [16]. Then, aliquots are kept at low temperatures and are often analyzed within a short period of time (48 h) in order to minimize the biodegradation of surfactants. Solid samples (sewage sludges, soils or sediments) are also kept at low temperature once they are collected to avoid any degradation of the analytes during the transport to the laboratory. Later, they are usually dried in a heater [47], at room temperature [25], or frozen at -20 ºC and later freeze-dried [48]. Once dried, samples are milled and strained through a sieve to a particle size of less than 2 mm, and then stored at 4 to -20 ºC for further extraction and analysis.

Surfactants are often found at trace levels (ppb or less) in environmental matrices, frequently below the limits of detection of most analytical techniques. Therefore, it is necessary to carry out not only their extraction but also their isolation and preconcentration to achieve proper identification and quantification. Those methodologies more commonly used at this preliminary stage are commented next for both solid and aqueous samples.

## **2.1. Extraction from solid samples**

190 Chromatography – The Most Versatile Method of Chemical Analysis

[15]).

two points of view:

**2. Sample pre-treatment** 

**Figure 2.** Flowsheet and sampling points of a wastewater treatment plant (WWTP). Figure shows mass balance of dissolved (d) and adsorbed/precipitated (a) of LAS and non-ionic surfactants. Absolute amount (average value in kg/day) and percentage with respect to raw water (adapted from reference

and/or ethoxymers with different physico-chemical properties. Separation and quantification of these components require the use of chromatographic techniques, mainly gas chromatography (GC) and liquid chromatography (LC). Achieving a successfully identification of every component in the mixture is also desirable for a better understanding of their environmental behavior as they may suffer differential degradation or sorption. There is also an additional challenge when dealing with target compounds that tend to be present at trace levels. In these cases it is necessary to develop reliable extraction, purification, and preconcentration protocols in order to remove as many interferences as possible before analysis without sacrificing high recovery values. Some of the techniques used to this end are also based on chromatographic techniques, such as solid phase extraction (SPE), directly derived from column chromatography. Thus, in this chapter we present the main problems posed by analysis of surfactants in environmental samples from

• Isolation and/or preconcentration of surfactants from different types of samples; • Separation, identification and quantification of analytes in properly prepared extracts.

Correct sampling of environmental samples is indispensable to provide representative information of the environmental compartments from which they are taken and, on the other hand, it is important to preserve the target compounds during storage [1]. Generally, water samples are often immediately preserved upon collection by the addition of biocides such as formaldehyde up to a concentration of 4% [17, 47], chloroform or sodium azide [20], For several decades now, Soxhlet extraction and solid-liquid extraction (SLE) have been the most commonly used techniques for the extraction of surfactants and many other organic compounds from solid matrices. These methodologies are cheap and allow simple extraction, although they have also several disadvantages, including the large volume of solvent needed (from 150 to 500 mL [27, 49, 50]), the long time required, which can take 4- 18 hours per sample [20, 51, 52], and the production of toxic liquid wastes. Soxtec is an alternative extraction method based on Soxhlet, but the addition of several boiling and rinsing steps reduces the extraction time to 45 min and solvent consumption to 50-100 mL [53, 54]. Application of ultrasounds followed by centrifugation or filtration to separate extracts from solid matrices is another cheap option for extracting surfactants due to the high extraction efficiency in a short time [40, 55, 56]. On the other hand, it also shows the same problems than SLE and Soxhlet extraction (high volume of organic solvents and toxic wastes). Table 1 summarizes the conditions used for the extraction of surfactants employing these conventional extraction techniques. As example, LAS and their degradation intermediates, sulfophenyl carboxylic acids (SPCs), have been extracted from sediments using methanol (MeOH) as solvent [50, 52, 57, 58] by means of Soxhlet extraction and SLE. For APEOs and their metabolites, methodologies have been similar to those used for LAS [30, 59, 60], although methanol tends to be substituted by other less polar solvents (e.g., hexane [51] or dichloromethane (DCM) [61]), in order to enhance the extractability of the more hydrophobic compounds such as nonylphenol (NP). With respect to the extraction of aliphatic surfactants (AEOs and AES) and their main degradation products (polyethylenglycols, PEGs) from solid matrices, most authors have employed methanol [19, 40, 62, 63] and dichloromethane [55, 64] during Soxhlet or Soxtec extraction, SLE and sonication. There are still a few studies dealing with the application of all these techniques for extraction of QACs [26, 27, 65], but acidified methanol is used as solvent in most cases.


Analysis of Surfactants in Environmental Samples by Chromatographic Techniques 193

Temperature: 120 ºC Pressure: 1500 psi

Temperature: 120 ºC Pressure: 1500 psi

Temperature: 100 ºC Pressure: 1500 psi

Pressure: 1500 psi

Time: 10 min Temperature: 100 ºC Pressure: 1500 psi, Time: 20 min

MeOH Time: 10 h,

Sludge SFE Water Time: 27 min SPE (carbograph 4) [25]

LAS Sludge SFE CO2 Time: 15 min Not required [75] QAC Sludge SFE CO2/MeOH Time: 45 min LLE (CHCl3, water)

NP, OP Sediment MAE DCM/MeOH Time: 25 min SPE (polyestyrene-

**Table 2.** Overview of modern extraction techniques applied to the extraction of surfactants and their

There is a wide variety of techniques to carry out purification and preconcentration of extracts from solid samples, as well as aqueous samples, before proceeding with analysis of

LAS Sludge MAE MeOH Time: 10 min Not required [66]

SPE (C18) [47]

SPE (C18) [71]

SPE (polymeric) [72]

[73]

[68]

[77]

[69]

SPE (aminopropyl silica)

> LC column (alumina)

+ LC column (anion exchange)

divinylbenzene)

metabolites under these conditions, so they suggested keeping the extraction temperature under 60 ºC in this case. Supercritical fluid extraction (SFE) is another extraction technique that has been recently applied to the extraction of ionic and non-ionic surfactants, using CO2 [75] or water [25] instead of toxic organic solvents to carry out the extraction in a short time and without requiring further clean-up steps [26]. Sometimes, the mobile phase (CO2, H2O) is modified with the addition of low molecular weight alcohols (e.g., MeOH) to improve the efficiency in the extraction of polar or ionic compounds [76, 77]. However, better extraction recoveries for nonpolar compounds, possibility of using water as extraction solvent and automation of PLE has result in a lower interest of using SFE instead PLE for extraction of

**Analytes Matrix Method Solvent Other conditions Clean-up Ref.** 

Sediment PLE MeOH Time: 15 min

Sediment PLE Acetone/hexane Time: 15 min

QAC Sediment PLE ACN/H2O Temperature: 120 ºC

PLE, MAE

LAS, SPC Soil PLE MeOH/H2O Time: 15 min

surfactants.

LAS, SPC, AES, AS, NPEO, APEC, AEO

NP1-5EO, OP1- 5EO, NP, OP

LAS, AS, AES, AEO, NPEO, NPEC, AP

metabolites from solid samples.

**2.2. Purification and preconcentration** 

NPEO, NP Sediment Soxhlet,

**Table 1.** Overview of conventional extraction techniques applied to the extraction of surfactants and their metabolites from solid samples.

New extraction methods have been developed within the last decade not only to save time, but also to reduce solvent consumption without losing extraction efficiency. Table 2 shows some examples of the application of new techniques for the extraction of surfactants from solid environmental matrices. Microwave-assisted extraction (MAE) is suitable for the extraction of different anionic [66] and non-ionic [67] surfactants from sediments and sludges. Extractions are often achieved quickly at 120 ºC using low solvent volumes (mainly MeOH [68] or DCM/MeOH [69]). Another advantage of MAE is that it can also be combined with Soxhlet extraction [70] in order to increase its efficiency. Less solvent demand and higher extraction rates compensate the high initial cost of acquiring a MAE unit. Pressurized fluid extraction (PFE), also known as accelerated solvent extraction (ASE) or pressurized liquid extraction (PLE), is a technique based on the use of high temperatures (100-200 ºC) and pressures (1500-3000 psi) to prevent solvents from boiling and to increase the kinetics of extraction. Therefore, PLE allows a faster extraction of organic compounds from solid samples (15-20 min per sample) with a lower uptake of organic solvent than more conventional techniques and without sacrificing high recovery values. Recently anionic [62, 71], cationic [72] and non-ionic [47, 73, 68] surfactants have been extracted using PLE and methanol or mixtures containing hexane, acetone, acetonitrile (ACN) or even water as solvents. However, Petrovic et al. [74] observed the volatilization of some APEOs and their metabolites under these conditions, so they suggested keeping the extraction temperature under 60 ºC in this case. Supercritical fluid extraction (SFE) is another extraction technique that has been recently applied to the extraction of ionic and non-ionic surfactants, using CO2 [75] or water [25] instead of toxic organic solvents to carry out the extraction in a short time and without requiring further clean-up steps [26]. Sometimes, the mobile phase (CO2, H2O) is modified with the addition of low molecular weight alcohols (e.g., MeOH) to improve the efficiency in the extraction of polar or ionic compounds [76, 77]. However, better extraction recoveries for nonpolar compounds, possibility of using water as extraction solvent and automation of PLE has result in a lower interest of using SFE instead PLE for extraction of surfactants.


**Table 2.** Overview of modern extraction techniques applied to the extraction of surfactants and their metabolites from solid samples.

### **2.2. Purification and preconcentration**

192 Chromatography – The Most Versatile Method of Chemical Analysis

Sonication

AS Sediment Soxhlet,

NPEO, NP Sediment Soxhlet,

QAC Sediment,

LAS, AES,

NPEO,

NPEO, OPEO, NP, OP, AEO

LAS, SPC, NPEO, NPEC, AEO, PEG

NP1-3EO,

their metabolites from solid samples.

**Analytes Matrix Method Solvent Other conditions Clean-up Ref.** 

OPEO, AEO Sludge SLE DCM Time: 2 h - [64] LAS Soil Soxtec MeOH Time: 45 min - [54]

**Table 1.** Overview of conventional extraction techniques applied to the extraction of surfactants and

New extraction methods have been developed within the last decade not only to save time, but also to reduce solvent consumption without losing extraction efficiency. Table 2 shows some examples of the application of new techniques for the extraction of surfactants from solid environmental matrices. Microwave-assisted extraction (MAE) is suitable for the extraction of different anionic [66] and non-ionic [67] surfactants from sediments and sludges. Extractions are often achieved quickly at 120 ºC using low solvent volumes (mainly MeOH [68] or DCM/MeOH [69]). Another advantage of MAE is that it can also be combined with Soxhlet extraction [70] in order to increase its efficiency. Less solvent demand and higher extraction rates compensate the high initial cost of acquiring a MAE unit. Pressurized fluid extraction (PFE), also known as accelerated solvent extraction (ASE) or pressurized liquid extraction (PLE), is a technique based on the use of high temperatures (100-200 ºC) and pressures (1500-3000 psi) to prevent solvents from boiling and to increase the kinetics of extraction. Therefore, PLE allows a faster extraction of organic compounds from solid samples (15-20 min per sample) with a lower uptake of organic solvent than more conventional techniques and without sacrificing high recovery values. Recently anionic [62, 71], cationic [72] and non-ionic [47, 73, 68] surfactants have been extracted using PLE and methanol or mixtures containing hexane, acetone, acetonitrile (ACN) or even water as solvents. However, Petrovic et al. [74] observed the volatilization of some APEOs and their

Hexane/ isopropanol, Hexane/ acetone

Time: 5 h, Temperature: 125 ºC Pressure: 1500 psi

Time: 18 h,

sludge Soxhlet MeOH/ HCl Time: 18 h LLE (CHCl3, water) [20]

Sludge Soxtec MeOH Time: 45 min SPE (C18) [53]

Sediment Sonication MeOH Time: 30 min x 3 SPE (HLB) [40]

SPE (C18) [62]

Not spec. SPE (cyanopropil) [51]

LLE (CHCl3, water) + SPE (anion exchange)

SPE (aminopropyl silica) + LC column (C18)

[65]

[60]

PLE MeOH

QAC Sediment Sonication MeOH/ HCl Time: 1 h x 3

OP1-3EO Sediment Sonication MeOH Time: 7 min

There is a wide variety of techniques to carry out purification and preconcentration of extracts from solid samples, as well as aqueous samples, before proceeding with analysis of

surfactants and their degradation metabolites. Liquid-liquid extraction (LLE) is among the first techniques that have been widely applied for the extraction of ionic and non-ionic surfactants. Target compounds are isolated from the sample according to their relative solubilities in two different immiscible o partially miscible liquid phases, usually water and an organic solvent. Several cationic [20, 65] and anionic compounds [78, 79] have been extracted from aqueous samples using chloroform, whereas dichloromethane [80] and ethyl acetate [81] have been used to isolate non-ionic surfactants from water. The main advantage of LLE is that it can be used to determine total concentration of these compounds in water in spite of their solid particle matter level. However, the tendency of surfactants to concentrate at phase boundaries leads to the formation of emulsions, and phase separation during LLE becomes very difficult. This can be avoided by the formation of liphopilic ion pairs between surfactants and ion-pair reagents [1] (e.g., disulphine blue dyes or LAS for cationic surfactants [65, 77, 82], methylene blue [78, 79, 83] or methylene green for anionic surfactants [84], modified Dragendorff reagent for non-ionic [81]).

Analysis of Surfactants in Environmental Samples by Chromatographic Techniques 195

to their neutral charge. Additionally, octadecylsilica has been applied to extract the most hydrophobic group of NPEOs metabolites, constituted by NP and short chain oligomers (NP1-3EOs), using mainly methanol, acetone or dichloromethane as elution solvents [60, 73]. SAX disks have been also used instead of conventional SPE cartridges to isolate nonylphenol polyethoxycarboxylates (NPECs), NPEO polar degradation products, from sludge extracts. Cassani and co-workers [93] also employed disks (C18) for determination of AEOs in sludge samples and wastewaters. Overall, most authors employ C18 [47, 55] and GBC cartridges [25, 88] because they are suitable for simultaneous isolation of a wide range of anionic (LAS and AES) and non-ionic (AEOs and NPEOs) surfactants, as well as their polar metabolites (PEGs, NPECs and SPCs), in a single stage by fractional elution using mixtures of hexane, dichloromethane, methanol, acetone and ethyl acetate. New polymeric materials are also currently being tested for the extraction of these compounds [51, 73, 69]. Thus, the hydrophilic-lipophilic copolymer Oasis HLB has been presented by Lara-Martín and co-workers [40] as an alternative for the simultaneous isolation of LAS, NPEOs, their carboxylated metabolites (SPCs and NPECs), and AEOs and their polar degradation intermediates (PEGs) from liquid samples in one single purification step. On the other hand, research on the isolation of cationic surfactants using SPE from water samples [94-97] and sediment extracts [72] is more limited. Nonpolar silica sorbents (e.g., C18) are not suitable for QACs because the strong interaction of these compounds with the silanol groups results in very broad elution bands [98]. This issue has been partially solved employing neutral polymeric sorbents instead [72, 96], although better results are obtained using sodium dodecyl sulphate (SDS) hemimicelles attached to alumina or anion exchange resins [94, 95, 97]. Despite this, LLE is still considered to be more effective than SPE for extraction of

In the past few years, advances in SPE have led to new related techniques such as matrix solid-phase dispersion (MSPD), which is used to extract and purify target compounds simultaneously from solid matrices. In the case of surfactants, this extraction protocol has been mainly applied to fish samples [99], where aliquots are taken and mixed with octadecyl silica in a column, in order to isolate LAS and SPCs, as well as non-ionic surfactants. Afterwards, strong non-polar solvents (e.g., hexane) and methanol are used to remove fats in a first clean-up stage and to extract surfactants after another elution, respectively. There are other simple and low cost extraction techniques which reduce the time needed for sample preparation, and decrease or eliminate solvent consumption [100-111]. As example, dispersive liquid-liquid microextraction (DLLME) is a novel method based on the migration of analytes to a cloudy solution, caused by the dispersion of the extraction solvent (low soluble in water, e.g., chloroform) as very fine droplets due to the appropriate mixture with a dispersant (soluble in water, e.g., acetone) in the aqueous sample. Then, these dispersed fine particles of the extraction phase containing analytes are sedimented in the bottom of a test tube by centrifugation [100]. The main difficulties associated with DLLME are the vulnerability of solvent drop to physic forces and automation issues. This problem of physical instability could be solved by the application of hollow fiber membranes which are impregnated by an organic solvent (e.g., 1-octanol) and placed into the water sample for

cationic surfactants from liquid samples [27].

Nowadays, solid-phase extraction (SPE) is the most extended purification and preconcentration technique for surfactants. LLE requires large amounts of sample (100-500 mL) and high consumption of toxic organic solvents, while SPE is generally faster and needs lower sample and solvent volumes (7-100 mL and 5-20 mL, respectively). Briefly, SPE consists on passing the aqueous sample or extract (mobile phase) through a specific material (solid phase) that retains analytes whereas water, salts and other interferences are discarded. Later, target compounds can be eluted from the solid phase using a minimal amount of solvent (few milliliters) so a clean and low volume extract is obtained. Table 3 shows general information about protocols developed for the isolation of surfactants using both SPE and LLE. SPE has been widely applied to isolate anionic surfactants from aqueous samples. More specifically, octadecylsilica (C18) has been used as the main solid phase to extract LAS and their degradation products (SPCs) from water samples [62, 71], while methanol is commonly employed as elution solvent. Due to the negative charge of these analytes, strong anionic-exchange (SAX) resins have been also employed, alone or combined with C18, for a better purification [52, 85], using a mixture of methanol and hydrochloric acid as elution solvent [57, 58]. Lowering the pH of the sample and/or adding significant amounts of salts such as sodium chloride [52, 71] (salting-out effect) is also convenient to improve the retention of most polar components (e.g., SPCs). Other authors have preferred using graphitized black carbon (GBC) [29, 86] or polystyrene-divinylbezene SDB-1 cartridges [87] instead, also showing good extraction recoveries. Other anionic surfactants (AES and AS) have been successfully isolated by octadecylsilica [62, 85] and GBC [25, 88] SPE cartridges from river, marine and wastewater samples, as well as sludge and sediment extracts. Regarding non-ionic surfactants, a wide variety of different protocols has been developed to extract AEOs and APEOs and their degradation products from liquid samples. Thus, GBC [89, 90] and silica (C2 to C18) cartridges [53, 91, 92], along with methanol, dichloromethane, ethyl acetate and/or acetonitrile as elution solvents, have been employed, sometimes combined with strong cationic-exchange (SCX) and SAX cartridges [90, 92] for the removal of potential anionic and cationic interferences as non-ionic compounds are not retained due to their neutral charge. Additionally, octadecylsilica has been applied to extract the most hydrophobic group of NPEOs metabolites, constituted by NP and short chain oligomers (NP1-3EOs), using mainly methanol, acetone or dichloromethane as elution solvents [60, 73]. SAX disks have been also used instead of conventional SPE cartridges to isolate nonylphenol polyethoxycarboxylates (NPECs), NPEO polar degradation products, from sludge extracts. Cassani and co-workers [93] also employed disks (C18) for determination of AEOs in sludge samples and wastewaters. Overall, most authors employ C18 [47, 55] and GBC cartridges [25, 88] because they are suitable for simultaneous isolation of a wide range of anionic (LAS and AES) and non-ionic (AEOs and NPEOs) surfactants, as well as their polar metabolites (PEGs, NPECs and SPCs), in a single stage by fractional elution using mixtures of hexane, dichloromethane, methanol, acetone and ethyl acetate. New polymeric materials are also currently being tested for the extraction of these compounds [51, 73, 69]. Thus, the hydrophilic-lipophilic copolymer Oasis HLB has been presented by Lara-Martín and co-workers [40] as an alternative for the simultaneous isolation of LAS, NPEOs, their carboxylated metabolites (SPCs and NPECs), and AEOs and their polar degradation intermediates (PEGs) from liquid samples in one single purification step. On the other hand, research on the isolation of cationic surfactants using SPE from water samples [94-97] and sediment extracts [72] is more limited. Nonpolar silica sorbents (e.g., C18) are not suitable for QACs because the strong interaction of these compounds with the silanol groups results in very broad elution bands [98]. This issue has been partially solved employing neutral polymeric sorbents instead [72, 96], although better results are obtained using sodium dodecyl sulphate (SDS) hemimicelles attached to alumina or anion exchange resins [94, 95, 97]. Despite this, LLE is still considered to be more effective than SPE for extraction of cationic surfactants from liquid samples [27].

194 Chromatography – The Most Versatile Method of Chemical Analysis

surfactants [84], modified Dragendorff reagent for non-ionic [81]).

surfactants and their degradation metabolites. Liquid-liquid extraction (LLE) is among the first techniques that have been widely applied for the extraction of ionic and non-ionic surfactants. Target compounds are isolated from the sample according to their relative solubilities in two different immiscible o partially miscible liquid phases, usually water and an organic solvent. Several cationic [20, 65] and anionic compounds [78, 79] have been extracted from aqueous samples using chloroform, whereas dichloromethane [80] and ethyl acetate [81] have been used to isolate non-ionic surfactants from water. The main advantage of LLE is that it can be used to determine total concentration of these compounds in water in spite of their solid particle matter level. However, the tendency of surfactants to concentrate at phase boundaries leads to the formation of emulsions, and phase separation during LLE becomes very difficult. This can be avoided by the formation of liphopilic ion pairs between surfactants and ion-pair reagents [1] (e.g., disulphine blue dyes or LAS for cationic surfactants [65, 77, 82], methylene blue [78, 79, 83] or methylene green for anionic

Nowadays, solid-phase extraction (SPE) is the most extended purification and preconcentration technique for surfactants. LLE requires large amounts of sample (100-500 mL) and high consumption of toxic organic solvents, while SPE is generally faster and needs lower sample and solvent volumes (7-100 mL and 5-20 mL, respectively). Briefly, SPE consists on passing the aqueous sample or extract (mobile phase) through a specific material (solid phase) that retains analytes whereas water, salts and other interferences are discarded. Later, target compounds can be eluted from the solid phase using a minimal amount of solvent (few milliliters) so a clean and low volume extract is obtained. Table 3 shows general information about protocols developed for the isolation of surfactants using both SPE and LLE. SPE has been widely applied to isolate anionic surfactants from aqueous samples. More specifically, octadecylsilica (C18) has been used as the main solid phase to extract LAS and their degradation products (SPCs) from water samples [62, 71], while methanol is commonly employed as elution solvent. Due to the negative charge of these analytes, strong anionic-exchange (SAX) resins have been also employed, alone or combined with C18, for a better purification [52, 85], using a mixture of methanol and hydrochloric acid as elution solvent [57, 58]. Lowering the pH of the sample and/or adding significant amounts of salts such as sodium chloride [52, 71] (salting-out effect) is also convenient to improve the retention of most polar components (e.g., SPCs). Other authors have preferred using graphitized black carbon (GBC) [29, 86] or polystyrene-divinylbezene SDB-1 cartridges [87] instead, also showing good extraction recoveries. Other anionic surfactants (AES and AS) have been successfully isolated by octadecylsilica [62, 85] and GBC [25, 88] SPE cartridges from river, marine and wastewater samples, as well as sludge and sediment extracts. Regarding non-ionic surfactants, a wide variety of different protocols has been developed to extract AEOs and APEOs and their degradation products from liquid samples. Thus, GBC [89, 90] and silica (C2 to C18) cartridges [53, 91, 92], along with methanol, dichloromethane, ethyl acetate and/or acetonitrile as elution solvents, have been employed, sometimes combined with strong cationic-exchange (SCX) and SAX cartridges [90, 92] for the removal of potential anionic and cationic interferences as non-ionic compounds are not retained due

In the past few years, advances in SPE have led to new related techniques such as matrix solid-phase dispersion (MSPD), which is used to extract and purify target compounds simultaneously from solid matrices. In the case of surfactants, this extraction protocol has been mainly applied to fish samples [99], where aliquots are taken and mixed with octadecyl silica in a column, in order to isolate LAS and SPCs, as well as non-ionic surfactants. Afterwards, strong non-polar solvents (e.g., hexane) and methanol are used to remove fats in a first clean-up stage and to extract surfactants after another elution, respectively. There are other simple and low cost extraction techniques which reduce the time needed for sample preparation, and decrease or eliminate solvent consumption [100-111]. As example, dispersive liquid-liquid microextraction (DLLME) is a novel method based on the migration of analytes to a cloudy solution, caused by the dispersion of the extraction solvent (low soluble in water, e.g., chloroform) as very fine droplets due to the appropriate mixture with a dispersant (soluble in water, e.g., acetone) in the aqueous sample. Then, these dispersed fine particles of the extraction phase containing analytes are sedimented in the bottom of a test tube by centrifugation [100]. The main difficulties associated with DLLME are the vulnerability of solvent drop to physic forces and automation issues. This problem of physical instability could be solved by the application of hollow fiber membranes which are impregnated by an organic solvent (e.g., 1-octanol) and placed into the water sample for


Analysis of Surfactants in Environmental Samples by Chromatographic Techniques 197

in SBSE bars, therefore improving the sensitivity of target compounds. Different types of fibers have been tested during application of SPME for isolation of anionic (polydimethylsiloxane (PDMS) [105], polyacrylate (PA) [106]) and non-ionic surfactants (carbowax/template resin (CWAX/TR) [107], PDMS/divinylbenzene (DVB), PA [108]). So far, the use of SBSE is limited to the extraction of NP and octylphenol (OP) from liquid samples [109]. Once they are captured by the polymer in the fiber or the bar, analytes are released by heat in the injection port of GC systems (thermal desorption), or by reduced amount of

**3. Separation, identification and quantification of synthetic surfactants** 

Over the last decades, analysis of surfactants in environmental samples has been carried out using several instrumental techniques. So far, spectrophotometric, potentiometric titrametration (PT) and tensammetric tecniques have been optimized to measure the total content of ionic [112-114] and non-ionic surfactants [115, 116], although their sensitivity and/or specifity tend to be low compared to chromatographic techniques coupled to several types of detectors. Generally, one of the main applications of spectrophotometric techniques has been routine environmental analysis due to their quickness and simplicity. They involve the formation of ion associates of analytes with specific ion-pair reagents and their extraction into appropriated organic solvents. After phase separation, the absorbance of the organic phase is measured. However, despite the advantages described above, the use of spectrophotometry generates very toxic wastes (e.g., chloroform) and is only limited to the analysis of total amount of surfactants [117-119]. PT and tensammetric techniques [120, 121] are based on the changes in electric properties caused by the presence of analytes in environmental samples. They can be only applied to the determination of total ionic and nonionic compounds, being impossible for both techniques to discriminate among individual components from surfactant mixtures. Besides, there are also issues associated with reproducibility and signal stability [113]. Nowadays, it is necessary to go beyond quantification of the total concentration of target analytes and, in most cases, chromatographic techniques (gas chromatography, GC, or high-performance liquid chromatography, HPLC) coupled to various types of detectors are preferred to separate and

Less frequently used than HPLC for analysis of surfactants, the main drawback of GC is that all anionic and non-ionic compounds and their metabolites need to be derivatized with specific agents to solve sensitivity, separation or volatilization issues before injecting them into the system. Most commonly used derivatizing agents are trifluoroethanol [29, 58], diazomethane [84], N,O-bis(trimethylsilyl)trifluoro acetamide (BSTFA) [53, 59, 122], acetic anhydride [61, 109] and hydrogen bromide [90], among other reactants. In any case, some low molecular mass metabolites of non-ionic surfactants (NP and short-chain NPEOs) have been analyzed directly by GC [67, 80] as they are volatile enough, although better results can be

solvents before injection on LC systems (liquid desorption).

identify each individual compound from surfactant mixtures.

**3.1. Gas chromatography** 

**Table 3.** Overview of LLE and SPE techniques used for clean-up and preconcentration of surfactants from environmental samples.

equilibrium extraction of the target compounds. Finally, the fiber is removed from the sample and extracted analytes are desorbed by diffusion into a different solvent (e.g., MeOH) [101]. This technique has been recently applied to isolation of cationic [101, 102], non-ionic [103] and anionic surfactants [104] from aqueous samples. Solid-phase microextraction (SPME) and stir-bar sorptive extraction (SBSE) can be also considered for rapid isolation of surfactants. Both techniques are based on the diffusion of analytes from the sample directly, without requiring any organic solvent, into a fiber or bar made of a specific polymer. The amount of polymer changes from 0.5 µL in SPME fibers up to 300 µL in SBSE bars, therefore improving the sensitivity of target compounds. Different types of fibers have been tested during application of SPME for isolation of anionic (polydimethylsiloxane (PDMS) [105], polyacrylate (PA) [106]) and non-ionic surfactants (carbowax/template resin (CWAX/TR) [107], PDMS/divinylbenzene (DVB), PA [108]). So far, the use of SBSE is limited to the extraction of NP and octylphenol (OP) from liquid samples [109]. Once they are captured by the polymer in the fiber or the bar, analytes are released by heat in the injection port of GC systems (thermal desorption), or by reduced amount of solvents before injection on LC systems (liquid desorption).
