Xuan Hung Nguyen , Duc Nam Vu , Quang Minh Bui , Quang Trung Nguyen , Anh Tuan Nguyen
{"title":"索氏和加速溶剂萃取(ASE)法分析灰分样品中二恶英/呋喃的比较效率:绿色化学的观点","authors":"Xuan Hung Nguyen , Duc Nam Vu , Quang Minh Bui , Quang Trung Nguyen , Anh Tuan Nguyen","doi":"10.1016/j.greeac.2025.100227","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<div><div>Soxhlet extraction method was developed several hundred years ago, remains the standard method for dioxin/furan extraction today. Accelerated solvent extraction (ASE), a modern technique, was designed to address some of the limitations of Soxhlet extraction, including longer extraction times, excessive solvent use, and limited automation. Fly ash and bottom ash samples collected from an aluminum scrap smelter were analyzed for dioxins and furans using both ASE and Soxhlet methods, followed by analysis on HRGC/HRMS equipment. The TEQ values of PCDD/Fs in the fly ash and bottom ash samples were found to be 3,689 ng TEQ/kg and 13.7 ng TEQ/kg, respectively. The congeners OCDF, OCDD, and 1,2,3,4,6,7,8-HpCDD were the most dominant in the fly ash samples. The recovery efficiency of the spiked 13C isotope standards and native standards, used to assess the extraction efficiency, was high and met the requirements set forth in US EPA 1613b method. Deviations in the results for the 17 dioxin/furan congeners in the fly ash and bottom ash samples extracted by the two methods ranged from -15.5 % to 25.6 % and -15.0 % to 32.9 %, respectively, both of which fall within the acceptable range according to AOAC guidelines for method performance. ASE extraction, performed under high temperature and pressure conditions, yields faster extraction times, reduced solvent usage, enhanced operator safety, lower energy consumption, and higher automation compared to Soxhlet extraction. The green score assessment results using AGREE Prep software indicate that the ASE extraction method is more environmentally friendly and safer than Soxhlet extraction.</div></div>","PeriodicalId":100594,"journal":{"name":"Green Analytical Chemistry","volume":"12 ","pages":"Article 100227"},"PeriodicalIF":6.2000,"publicationDate":"2025-02-18","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Comparative efficiency of soxhlet and accelerated solvent extraction (ASE) methods for dioxin/furan analysis in ash samples: A green chemistry perspective\",\"authors\":\"Xuan Hung Nguyen , Duc Nam Vu , Quang Minh Bui , Quang Trung Nguyen , Anh Tuan Nguyen\",\"doi\":\"10.1016/j.greeac.2025.100227\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"<div><div>Soxhlet extraction method was developed several hundred years ago, remains the standard method for dioxin/furan extraction today. Accelerated solvent extraction (ASE), a modern technique, was designed to address some of the limitations of Soxhlet extraction, including longer extraction times, excessive solvent use, and limited automation. Fly ash and bottom ash samples collected from an aluminum scrap smelter were analyzed for dioxins and furans using both ASE and Soxhlet methods, followed by analysis on HRGC/HRMS equipment. The TEQ values of PCDD/Fs in the fly ash and bottom ash samples were found to be 3,689 ng TEQ/kg and 13.7 ng TEQ/kg, respectively. The congeners OCDF, OCDD, and 1,2,3,4,6,7,8-HpCDD were the most dominant in the fly ash samples. The recovery efficiency of the spiked 13C isotope standards and native standards, used to assess the extraction efficiency, was high and met the requirements set forth in US EPA 1613b method. Deviations in the results for the 17 dioxin/furan congeners in the fly ash and bottom ash samples extracted by the two methods ranged from -15.5 % to 25.6 % and -15.0 % to 32.9 %, respectively, both of which fall within the acceptable range according to AOAC guidelines for method performance. ASE extraction, performed under high temperature and pressure conditions, yields faster extraction times, reduced solvent usage, enhanced operator safety, lower energy consumption, and higher automation compared to Soxhlet extraction. The green score assessment results using AGREE Prep software indicate that the ASE extraction method is more environmentally friendly and safer than Soxhlet extraction.</div></div>\",\"PeriodicalId\":100594,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Green Analytical Chemistry\",\"volume\":\"12 \",\"pages\":\"Article 100227\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":6.2000,\"publicationDate\":\"2025-02-18\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"\",\"citationCount\":\"0\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Green Analytical Chemistry\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"1085\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S2772577425000242\",\"RegionNum\":0,\"RegionCategory\":null,\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"\",\"JCRName\":\"\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Green Analytical Chemistry","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S2772577425000242","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"","JCRName":"","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0
摘要
索氏提取法是几百年前发展起来的,至今仍是提取二恶英/呋喃的标准方法。加速溶剂萃取(ASE)是一种现代技术,旨在解决索氏萃取的一些局限性,包括萃取时间长、溶剂使用过多和自动化程度有限。采用ASE法和索氏法对某废铝冶炼厂飞灰和底灰样品中的二恶英和呋喃进行了分析,并在HRGC/HRMS设备上进行了分析。粉煤灰和底灰样品中PCDD/Fs的TEQ值分别为3689 ng TEQ/kg和13.7 ng TEQ/kg。同源物OCDF、OCDD和1、2、3、4、6、7、8-HpCDD在粉煤灰样品中占主导地位。加标后的13C同位素标准品和本地标准品的回收率较高,符合美国EPA 1613b法的要求。两种方法提取的飞灰和底灰样品中17种二恶英/呋喃同系物的结果偏差范围分别为- 15.5% ~ 25.6%和- 15.0% ~ 32.9%,均在AOAC方法性能指南的可接受范围内。与索氏萃取相比,ASE萃取可在高温高压条件下进行,萃取时间更快,溶剂用量更少,操作人员安全性更高,能耗更低,自动化程度更高。采用AGREE Prep软件进行绿色评分评价结果表明,ASE提取法比索氏提取法更环保、更安全。
Comparative efficiency of soxhlet and accelerated solvent extraction (ASE) methods for dioxin/furan analysis in ash samples: A green chemistry perspective
Soxhlet extraction method was developed several hundred years ago, remains the standard method for dioxin/furan extraction today. Accelerated solvent extraction (ASE), a modern technique, was designed to address some of the limitations of Soxhlet extraction, including longer extraction times, excessive solvent use, and limited automation. Fly ash and bottom ash samples collected from an aluminum scrap smelter were analyzed for dioxins and furans using both ASE and Soxhlet methods, followed by analysis on HRGC/HRMS equipment. The TEQ values of PCDD/Fs in the fly ash and bottom ash samples were found to be 3,689 ng TEQ/kg and 13.7 ng TEQ/kg, respectively. The congeners OCDF, OCDD, and 1,2,3,4,6,7,8-HpCDD were the most dominant in the fly ash samples. The recovery efficiency of the spiked 13C isotope standards and native standards, used to assess the extraction efficiency, was high and met the requirements set forth in US EPA 1613b method. Deviations in the results for the 17 dioxin/furan congeners in the fly ash and bottom ash samples extracted by the two methods ranged from -15.5 % to 25.6 % and -15.0 % to 32.9 %, respectively, both of which fall within the acceptable range according to AOAC guidelines for method performance. ASE extraction, performed under high temperature and pressure conditions, yields faster extraction times, reduced solvent usage, enhanced operator safety, lower energy consumption, and higher automation compared to Soxhlet extraction. The green score assessment results using AGREE Prep software indicate that the ASE extraction method is more environmentally friendly and safer than Soxhlet extraction.