Comparison of various extraction techniques for the determination of polycyclic aromatic hydrocarbons in worms.
Two less laborious extraction methods, viz. (i) a simplified liquid extraction using light petroleum or (ii) microwave-assisted solvent extraction (MASE), for the analysis of polycyclic aromatic hydrocarbons (PAHs) in samples of the compost worm Eisenia andrei, were compared with a reference method. After extraction and concentration, analytical methodology consisted of a cleanup of (part) of the extract with high-performance gel permeation chromatography (HPGPC) and instrumental analysis of 15 PAHs with reversed-phase liquid chromatography with fluorescence detection (RPLC-FLD). Comparison of the methods was done by analysing samples with incurred residues (n=15, each method) originating from an experiment in which worms were exposed to a soil contaminated with PAHs. Simultaneously, the performance of the total lipid determination of each method was established. Evaluation of the data by means of principal component analysis (PCA) and analysis of variance (ANOVA) revealed that the performance of the light petroleum method for both the extraction of PAHs (concentration range 1-30 ng/g) and lipid content corresponds very well with the reference method. Compared to the reference method, the MASE method yielded somewhat lower concentrations for the less volatile PAHs, e.g., dibenzo[ah]anthracene and benzo[ghi]perylene and provided a significant higher amount of co-extracted material.
Mooibroek
D
D
Laboratory of Organic-Analytical Chemistry, National Institute of Public Health and the Environment (RIVM), PO. Box 1, 3720 BA, Bilthoven, The Netherlands.
Hoogerbrugge
R
R
Stoffelsen
B H G
BH
Dijkman
E
E
Berkhoff
C J
CJ
Hogendoorn
E A
EA
D000818:Animals; D002850:Chromatography, Gel; D009835:Oligochaeta / Q000737:chemistry*; D011084:Polycyclic Aromatic Hydrocarbons / Q000032:analysis* / Q000302:isolation & purification
D011084:Polycyclic Aromatic Hydrocarbons