Warning: foreach() argument must be of type array|object, bool given in /var/www/html/web/app/themes/studypress-core-theme/template-parts/header/mobile-offcanvas.php on line 20

(a) Explain how dispersive liquid-liquid microextraction reduces the use of solvent in comparison with liquid-liquid extraction.

(b) What is the purpose of the disperser solvent, which is used in much greater volume than the extraction solvent?

Short Answer

Expert verified

(a)How dispersive liquid-liquid microextraction reduces the use of solvent in comparison with liquid-liquid extraction is explained.

(b)The purpose of the disperser solvent is explained.

Step by step solution

01

Derivation of liquid-liquid extraction and dispersive liquid-liquid microextraction.

  • The extraction technique can be used to purify compounds or separate compound mixtures, such as isolating a product from a reaction mixture (known as an extractive work-up). It can also be used to isolate natural products, such as caffeine from tea leaves.
  • Dispersive liquid-liquid microextraction (DLLME) is a quick and easy method for extracting and purifying organic compounds found in trace amounts in aqueous samples.
02

Working of liquid-liquid extraction and dispersive liquid-liquid microextraction.

a) Liquid-liquid extraction:

Liquid-liquid extraction would use of organic solvent to extract aqueous phase via continuous distillation.

Dispersive liquid-liquid microextraction:

Whereas, dispersive liquid-liquid microextraction would use of immiscible organic solvent and also of dispersant solvent in order to make cloudy emulsion for extraction

How the dispersive liquid-liquid microextraction reduces the use of solvent in comparison with liquid-liquid extraction is explained.

b) Disperser solvent can be mixed with both aqueous and organic phases, thereby lowering interfacial energy and also it would permit the formation of high-surface-area emulsion * rapid mass transfer

Hence the purpose of the disperser solvent, which is used in much greater volume than the extraction solvent is explained.

Unlock Step-by-Step Solutions & Ace Your Exams!

  • Full Textbook Solutions

    Get detailed explanations and key concepts

  • Unlimited Al creation

    Al flashcards, explanations, exams and more...

  • Ads-free access

    To over 500 millions flashcards

  • Money-back guarantee

    We refund you if you fail your exam.

Over 30 million students worldwide already upgrade their learning with Vaia!

One App. One Place for Learning.

All the tools & learning materials you need for study success - in one app.

Get started for free

Most popular questions from this chapter

When you flip a coin, the probability of its landing on each side is \(p = q = \frac{1}{2}\)in Equations 28-2 and 28-3. If you flip it \(n\)times, the expected number of heads equals the expected number of tails \( = np = nq = \frac{1}{2}n.\)The expected standard deviation for \(n\)flips is\({\sigma _n} = \sqrt {npq} \). From Table 4-1, we expect that \(68.3\% \)of the results will lie within \( \pm 1{\sigma _n}\) and \(95.5\% \)of the results will lie within\( \pm 2{\sigma _n}\).

(a) Find the expected standard deviation for the number of heads in \({\bf{1000}}\) coin flips.

(b) By interpolation in Table 4-1, find the value of \(z\)that includes \(90\% \)of the area of the Gaussian curve. We expect that \(90\% \)of the results will lie within this number of standard deviations from the mean.

(c) If you repeat the\({\bf{1000}}\)coin flips many times, what is the expected range for the number of heads that includes\(90\% \) of the results? (For example, your answer might be, "The range \({\bf{490}}\) to \({\bf{510}}\) will be observed \(90\% \)of the time.")

The following wet-ashing procedure was used to measure arsenic in organic soil samples by atomic absorption spectroscopy: A 0.1- to \({\bf{0}}.{\bf{5}} - \)g sample was heated in a \({\bf{150}} - {\bf{mL}}\) Teflon bomb in a microwave oven for \(2.5\;{\rm{min}}\) with \(3.5\;{\rm{mL}}\)of\(70\% \,\,\,{\rm{HN}}{{\rm{O}}_3}\). After the sample cooled, a mixture containing \(3.5\;{\rm{mL}}\)of \(70\% \,\,\,{\rm{HN}}{{\rm{O}}_3},1.5\;{\rm{mL}}\) of\(70\% \,\,{\rm{HCl}}{{\rm{O}}_4}\), and \(1.0\;{\rm{mL}}\) of \({{\rm{H}}_2}{\rm{S}}{{\rm{O}}_4}\)was added and the sample was reheated for three \({\bf{2}}.{\bf{5}} - {\bf{min}}\) intervals with 2 -min unheated periods in between. The final solution was diluted with \(0.2{\rm{M}}\,\,\,{\rm{HCl}}\)for analysis. Why was \({\rm{HCl}}{{\rm{O}}_4}\) not introduced until the second heating?

From their standard reduction potentials, which of the following metals would you expect to dissolve in \({\rm{HCl}}\)by the reaction\({\rm{M}} + n{{\rm{H}}^ + } \to {{\rm{M}}^{n + }} + \frac{n}{2}{{\rm{H}}_2}:{\rm{Zn}},{\rm{Fe}},{\rm{Co}},{\rm{Al}},{\rm{Hg}},{\rm{Cu}},{\rm{Pt}}\),\({\bf{Au}}\)?

(When the potential predicts that the element will not dissolve, it probably will not. If it is expected to dissolve, it may dissolve if some other process does not interfere. Predictions based on standard reduction potentials at \({\bf{2}}{{\bf{5}}^{^{\bf{o}}}}C\) are only tentative, because the potentials and activities in hot, concentrated solutions vary widely from those in the table of standard potentials.)

In 2002, workers at the Swedish National Food Administration discovered that heated, carbohydrate-rich foods, such as french fries, potato chips, and bread, contain alarming levels \((0.1to4\mu {\rm{g}}/{\rm{g}})\) of acrylamide, a known carcinogen\(36\).

After the discovery, simplified methods were developed to measure ppm levels of acrylamide in food. In one procedure,\(10\;{\rm{g}}\) of pulverized, frozen french fries were mixed for \(20\;{\rm{min}}\)with\(50\;{\rm{mL}}\) of \({{\rm{H}}_2}{\rm{O}}\)to extract acrylamide, which is very soluble in water \((216\;{\rm{g}}/100\;{\rm{mL}}).\)The liquid was decanted and centrifuged to remove suspended matter. The internal standard \(^2{{\rm{H}}_3}\)-acrylamide was added to\(1\;{\rm{mL}}\) of extract. A solid-phase extraction column containing \(100{\rm{mg}}\)of cation-exchange polymer with protonated sulfonic acid groups\(\left( { - {\rm{S}}{{\rm{O}}_3}{\rm{H}}} \right.)\) was washed twice with 1 -mL portions of methanol and twice with \(1 - {\rm{mL}}\)portions of water. The aqueous food extract \((1{\rm{mL}})\)was then passed through the column to bind protonated acrylamide \(\left( { - {\rm{NH}}_3^ + } \right)\)to sulfonate \(\left( { - {\rm{SO}}_3^ - } \right)on\)the column. The column was dried for\(30\;{\rm{s }}at\)\(0.3\)bar and then acrylamide was eluted with\(1\;{\rm{mL}}\) of \({{\rm{H}}_2}{\rm{O}}.\)Eluate was analyzed by liquid chromatography with a polar bonded phase. The chromatograms show the results moni- tored by ultraviolet absorbance or by mass spectrometry. The retention time of acrylamide is different on the two columns because they have different dimensions and different flow rates.

(a) What is the purpose of solid-phase extraction prior to chromatography? How does the ion-exchange sorbent retain acrylamide?

(b) Why are there many peaks when chromatography is monitored by ultraviolet absorbance?

(c) Mass spectral detection used selected reaction monitoring (Figure 22-33) with the \(m/z72 \to 55\)transition for acrylamide and \(75 \to 58fo{r^2}{{\rm{H}}_3}\)-acrylamide. Explain how this detection method works and suggest structures for the ions with \({\rm{m}}/{\rm{z}}72\)and 55 from acrylamide.

(d) Why does mass spectral detection give just one major peak?

(e) How is the internal standard used for quantitation with mass spectral detection?

(f) Where does \(^2{{\rm{H}}_3}\)-acrylamide appear with ultraviolet absorbance? With mass spectral selected reaction monitoring?

(g) Why does the mass spectral method give quantitative results even though retention of acrylamide by the ion-exchange sorbent is not quantitative and elution of acrylamide from the sorbent by \(1\;{\rm{mL}}\) of water might not be quantitative?

Chromatograms of acrylamide extract after passage through solid-phase extraction column. Left: Phenomenex Synergi Polar-RP 4- \(\mu {\rm{m}}\)column eluted with 96:4 \((vol/vol){{\rm{H}}_2}{\rm{O}}:{\rm{C}}{{\rm{H}}_3}{\rm{CN}}.\)Right: Phenomenex Synergi Hydro-RP 4- \(\mu {\rm{m}}\)column eluted with \(96:4:0.1(vol/vol/vol){{\rm{H}}_2}{\rm{O}}:{\rm{C}}{{\rm{H}}_3}{\rm{OH}}:{\rm{HC}}{{\rm{O}}_2}{\rm{H}}.\) (Data from L. Peng. T. Farkas, L. Loo, \({\rm{J}}.\)Teuscher, and \({\rm{K}}.\)Kallury, "Rapid and Reproducible Extraction of Acrylamide in French Fries Using a Single Solid-Phase Sorbent," Am. Lab. News Ed, October 2003, p. 10.)

What mass of sample in Figure 28-3 is expected to give a sampling standard deviation of \( \pm 6\% \)?

See all solutions

Recommended explanations on Chemistry Textbooks

View all explanations

What do you think about this solution?

We value your feedback to improve our textbook solutions.

Study anywhere. Anytime. Across all devices.

Sign-up for free