Search

In recent years, application of nanomaterials as sorbent has gained the attention of researchers in bioanalysis. Different nanomaterials have been utilized as the sorbent in extraction techniques such as solid phase extraction, dispersive solid phase extraction, magnetic solid phase extraction, microextraction by packed sorbent, solid phase microextraction, dispersive μ-solid phase extraction, and stir bar sorptive extraction. In the present review, different nanomaterials which have recently been utilized as sorbent for bioanalysis are classified into six main groups, namely metallic, metallic and mixed oxide, magnetic, carbonaceous, silicon, and polymer-based nanomaterials. Application of these nanomaterials in different extraction techniques for bioanalysis has been reviewed. This study shows that magnetic nanomaterials have gained significant attention owing to their magnetic separation ability. In addition, the present review shows that there is a lack in the application of nanomaterials for on-line analysis procedures, most probably due to some intrinsic properties of nanomaterials such as spontaneous agglomeration.

Microextraction by packed sorbent (MEPS) is a new technique for sample preparation that can be connected on-line with LC or GC. In MEPS, approximately 1-2mg of the solid packing material is inserted into a syringe (100-250 microL) as a plug. Sample preparation takes place on the packed bed. The bed can be packed or coated to provide selective and suitable sampling conditions. The new method is very promising for extraction of drugs and metabolites from biological samples. In this paper, some factors affecting the performance of MEPS such as recovery, carry-over, leakage, washing volume and elution volume were studied using C18 and hydroxylated polystyrene-divinylbenzene copolymer (ENV+) as sorbents. Radioactively labelled bupivacaine in plasma samples was used as test analyte. For the extraction of this drug, using methanol/water 95:5 (v/v) (0.25% ammonium hydroxide) was used as elution solvent. The analyte response increased with increasing the elution volume and it was linear upp up to 100 microL utilizing liquid scintillation counter. Further, for concentrating the sample, we found that MEPS may be used such that the sample can be drawn through the needle, up and down, several times. The analyte leakage increases as the volume washing increases, though higher washing volumes may also result in cleaner extracts. To eliminate analyte carry-over, the sorbents were washed first with 3 x 250 microL elution solution and then with 3 x 250 microL washing solution. In addition, the reproducibility measurements show relatively good relative standard deviation (RSD) % values concerning analyte recovery and analyte leakage. The present study provides an understanding of basic aspects when optimizing methods for MEPS. In this study, MEPS was used off-line with liquid scintillation counter and on-line with LC-MS/MS.