Continue

Soxhlet extraction lab report pdf

Michael UsarewiczMarie-H l ne Larue Introduction Hypothesis Methods and Materials Results Discussion Conclusion All products that we find on the market have information about nutrition written. Among them is the amount of fat found in the product. That was the interest of our experiment. The purpose of the
experiment was to demonstrate whether foods that claim to be low in fat are what they claim. And if that's the case, the difference in fat is determined. This fat was extracted using the Soxhlet device, which functions by dripping the clean ester through a fat-containing substance. The ether, being very non-polar, dissolves
the fat in the substance and allows it to pass through the filter and from the sample. The amount of fat in the substance can be determined by taking the mass of the substance before and after extraction. The chips were chosen as a substance because they contain very high levels of fat, but also because they were easy
to crumble and they were solid. Other substances high in fat are usually in the form of a gel or cream, which usually block the pores thimble, preventing fat extraction. Health Canada defines a low-fat product as having a fat content of 15% of the mass in a dry state. It also identifies a product that claims to have lower fat
to require that fat content be reduced by at least 25% (compared to a conventional product). If low-fat Pringles claim to be reduced in fat, they will have a lower fat content of at least 25% compared to conventional Pringles. The first part of our experiment was to determine how effective the Soxhlet method was. To do
this, a dough containing a certain amount of fat was prepared. To know the amount of fat placed in the dough, it was cooked with lard (pure fat) taken in a chemical laboratory and previously suspended, water and flour. So we knew that the only fat present in the test was one of the fats. The dough was weighed and
crushed into small pieces with a solution and a pestle. This was placed in a thimble, which was previously weighed and then placed in the Soxhlet apparatus. Then the experiment was started (heat was turned on) and 8 siphons were made. When they were made, the heat was turned off and the thimble was removed
and left in the bonnet of the smoke to dry. The following week, when the thimble containing the dough was completely dry, it was weighed. The difference in mass was then calculated and efficiency was determined by comparing the expected amount of fat with the observed amount of fat. The second part of our
experiment is to determine the amount of siphons that need to be done in order to get all the fat from the sample used. To do this, chips were bought (Yum Yum Riplet sour cream and onion taste of luxury) shredded into small pieces just like with dough. The method followed was the same as with the test. The thimble
was weighted as well as chips. These two masses were added together to give a total mass of thimbles containing chips. It was then placed in the Soxhlet machine and the experiment was started. The first time we did only one cycle and stopped the experiment. The thimble was taken out and left to dry as with the
confectionery experiment. A week after that, a dry thimble containing chips was weighted and the difference between the starting mass and the final mass was calculated and the amount of fat was found this way. The same experiment was done doing 3, 5, 8 and 13 cycles. Then a graph was made with the percentage of
fat found in each sample as the function of the number of cycles done. With this graph, you could find the number of siphons needed in order to get all the fat out of the samples by finding the value at which the level of the curve off. Another part of this experiment was to check whether the mass of the thimble containing
the chips could change during drying. If this were to happen, it would be because of humidity or because of some other factor. As it was done to put a known amount of chips in a glass and leave it in the same place as the thimble for a similar period of time, so that one could know if the mass of these chips would
change. If the mass change was significant enough, it would mean that it would have to be taken into account when detecting the mass of fat extracted from the sample. We then came to the final part of our experiment, which was to take a normal version of the product (Pringles) and compare it to its low-fat version.
What should have been determined in this experiment was if the difference in the amount of fat in both was significant enough to be able to say that one of them was very low in fat or if the difference was small to be taken into account. Two types of Pringles were therefore taken (low in fat and regular) and the fat was
extracted from several samples of each (three of them) using the same method as previously explained. An average percentage of fat found was then made for each type of Pringles. Two averages were then compared and conclusions were drawn about the product. Experiment #1 - Weight of the Confectionery Thimble
(g) 10.033 Cookie Weight (g) 20.850 Total Weight (g) 30.883 Final Weight (g) 23.338 Expected Fat Weight (g) 7.953 Observed Fat Weight (g) 7.545 Percent Efficiency) 94.87 Experiment #2 - Number of siphons required - Weight Of Thimble Siphons (g) Weight Crisps (g) Total Weight (g) Final Weight (g) Fat Weight (g)
Percentage of Fat (%) 1 10.433 20.190 30.623 26.325 4.298 21.29 3 9.710 20.116 29.826 23.626 6.200 30.82 5 10.571 20.188 24.233 6.526 32.33 8 10.281 20.195 30.476 23.887 6.589 32.63 13 10.176 20.184 20.184 184 30.360 23.788 6.572 32.56 Experiment for The Moisture Factor Weight Chip at 20/02/02 (g)
65.784 Chip Weight at 27/02/02 (g) 66.067 Percentage Point Change (%) 0.42835 Chip Weight at 27/02/02 (g) 69.744 Chip Weight at 13/03/02 (g) 69.795 Percentage Change (%) 0.073071 Experiment #3 - Pringles Kind Pringles - Weight Siphon Thimble (g) Weight Crisps (g) Total Weight (g) Final Weight (g) Fat Weight
(g) Percentage of Fat (%) Average percentage (%) Standard Deviation Regular Pringles 6 5.074 20.043 25.117 18.372 6.745 33.65 34.14 1.8 6 5.343 20.187 25.53 0 19.092 6.438 31.89 6 5.184 20.198 25.382 17.931 7.451 36.89 Low Fat Pringles 6 5.135 19.. 19.19456 24.591 20.609 3.982 20.47 21.95 0.9 6 5.085
20.072 25.157 20.610 4.2 547 22.65 6 5.030 20.192 25.222 20.633 4.589 22.73 Since Soxhlet has proven to be only about 95% effective, the resulting fat content may be slightly lower than the actual fat content in the product. However, the experiment is still considered effective because the goal was to compare the two
products, and both products were tested in the same way, which means they should have the same percentage of errors. Even the test that was conducted to test the effectiveness of the Soxhlet apparatus was a good degree of error, since the lard was used and the fat tends to stick to any container it put in. Aside from
this, the test should be fairly accurate, with little room for error, especially errors related to human intervention, as there was very little of this. All measurements were carried out by a balance with little human intervention, and no other measurements were taken, resulting in minimal uncertainty caused by the scientists. It
was found that the average fat content in regular Pringles chips was 34.14% and that the average fat content in low-fat Pringles was 21.95%. Given that taking 25% of the regular fat content yields a fat content of 25.61%, the average for fat-free Pringles is significant because it is 3.66% lower than the required amount.
Since it is required that foods that claim to be fat reduction are at least 25% less than conventional versions, fat reduction Pringles have been well within the required range. Academia.edu no longer supports the Internet Explorer.To browse the Academia.edu and the wider Internet faster and more securely, please take a
few seconds to update the browser. Soxhlet is mined with a variety of solvents such as hexane/dichlormethan, dichlormethan/light oil, cyclokhexan/acetone or hexane/acetone, or methanol, depending on the nature of the character and pesticides covered by the analytical method. From: Comprehensive Sampling and
Sample Preparation, 2012J. de Boer, in the Encyclopedia of Analytical Sciences (Second Edition), 2005Soxhlet extraction is a simple and effective method. It has been used for a wide range of samples such as soil, sediment, and animal and plant tissue. A wide range of solvents such as dichloromethane (DCM), pure or
mixed with acetone or hexagonal, and acetone-hexagonal mixtures can be used. The use of only non-polar solvents is not recommended. The minimum time required for regular Soxhlet mining is usually ∼ 8 hours. The sulfur present in sediments and soil samples is also extracted, and should be removed later by the
cleaning stepJ Kim, ... D.S. Chung, in the complex sampling and preparation of samples, 2012Soxhlet extraction is traditionally used for a solid sample with limited solubility in the solvent in the presence of insoluble impurities. The porous thimble, laden with a solid sample, is placed in the main chamber of the Soxhlet
extractor. By refluxing the solvent through the thimble using the capacitor and the siphon face arm, the extraction cycle is typically repeated many times. Soxhlet mining is a solid, well-established technique and allows unattended mining. However, this requires a long time of extraction and consumption of a large amount
of solvent. It is connected in off-line with CE. Since the volume of the extract is much larger than the typical injection volume for CE, the solvent is recreated in the CE separation solution after evaporation and then injected into the capillary. One report describes extracting chlorinated phenols from a textile sample using
an organic solvent, followed by an injection for CE without additional processing and separation using a non-ak-based launch buffer. Ziegler... J. Namie'nik, in comprehensive sampling and sample preparation, 2012Soxhlet extraction is widely used for many types of solid samples, especially biological and environmental
samples. For many years, Soxhlet's standard technology has been used regularly in almost all analytical laboratories. The regular Soxhlet is shown in figure 4.Figure 4. A regular Soxhlet extractor. The experimental Soxhlet extraction device consists of a distillation flask, a sample holder (thimble), a siphon and a
capacitor. The Soxhlet extraction procedure usually involves the following steps. First, the sample material is packed in filter paper and placed in a thimble. The pairs of fresh solvent produced in the distillation flask then pass through a thimble containing material that will be extracted and liquefied in the capacitor. When
the liquid reaches the overflow level in the thimble, the siphon aspirations the solution, and the liquid falls back into the distillation flask, instigating the extracted solutions in bulk Separating the solvent from the solvent takes takes in the distillation flask. The solution then stays in the flask and the fresh solvent vapors pass
back into the solid bed of the sample material. The operation is repeated until full production is achieved.4.5M.O. Nafiu, ... S.B. Adeyemi, in medicinal spices and vegetables from Africa, 2017Soxhlet extraction is required only where the desired compound has limited solubility in the solvent, and impurities are insoluble in
this solvent. If the desired compound has a high dissolation in the solvent, then simple filtration can be used to separate the compound from the insoluble substance. The advantage of this system is that instead of many servings of warm solvent, pass through the sample, only one batch of solvent is processed. This
method cannot be used for thermolabial compounds, as prolonged heating can lead to the degradation of compounds (Sutar et al., 2010). Rahi... Kshipra Misra, in the management of high-altitude pathophysiology, 2018Soxhlet extraction is widely used to extract valuable biologically active compounds from various
natural sources. In this extraction, a small amount of the dry sample is placed in the thimble, which is placed in the distillation flask, containing a solvent of special interest. After reaching the level of overflow, the thimble-holder solution is aspirated with a siphon, which unloads the solution back into the distillation flask.
This solution transfers the extracted solutions to the main liquid. The solution is left behind in the distillation flask, and the solvent moves back to the solid bed of the samples. This process is repeated until the mining is completed (Saim et al., 1997).K. Ridgway, ... S.P.D. Lalljie, in comprehensive sampling and sample
preparation, 2012Soxhlet extraction is an exhaustive extraction method widely applied to analysis that are fairly thermally stable. The extraction solvent is continuously cyclical, although the matrix, by boiling and condensing, with the sample collected in a hot solvent. The technique is not selective (except for the selection
of extraction solvent) and usually requires further cleaning and concentration. With the automated systems that are now available, several samples can be extracted simultaneously, reducing the time it takes to retrieve (usually 1-6 hours). Traditional methods use a significant amount of organic solvent (50-200 ml for a
sample of 10 g), although automated systems allow the use of smaller volumes of solvents. The technique is also combined with microwave extraction and ultrasonic extraction in an attempt to improve the efficiency of prey. Examples of soxhlet use to analyze traces of contaminants are the definition of polycililic aromatic
hydrocarbons (PAHs)8 and polychlorinated biphenyls (PCD).9Solange I. Mussatto, in Coffee in the area and Disease Prevention, 2015Soxhlet Extracting Solid Fluid Fluid (SLE) use of organic solvents are methods more commonly used to extract polyphenol compounds from natural sources because they usually
contribute to good extraction results and are easy to work with. However, such technologies (mainly Soxhlet mining) require high consumption of solvent and/or long-term extraction. Extraction time is a disadvantage because it is associated with high energy consumption and can seriously reduce sampling capacity; thus,
this is a disadvantage in terms of commercial applicability. SLE involves removing the desired component from a solid material using liquid (usually an organic solvent, such as ethanol, methanol, acetone, hexane, or ethyl acetate, pure or mixed in water), capable of soluble but not (or to a lesser extent) other components
of the solid matrix.21 The process consists of mixing solid material and solvent, and the mixture is maintained over time required to facilitate the transfer of the solvent from the solid body to the solvent. SLE has been used to extract polyphenol antioxidants from multiple sources. However, conditions that contribute to
high production efficiency, including solvent type, vary depending on each raw material. For example, acetone: water mixtures, especially at 60% in/in, were better than methanol, ethanol, hexagonal, ethyl acetate, water, methanol: water mixtures, and ethanol: water mixtures to extract antioxidant phenolic compounds
from the brewer's decontaminaced grains.22 Otherwise, ethanol and methanol were more effective than other solvents for extracting antioxidant polyphenol compounds from winery waste and monopetalum leaves Limoniastrum.23.24 Besides the type of solvent and its concentration, solvent:solid ratio: solid ratio, number
of extraction steps, pH, contact time, temperature and size of solid matrix particles are also key factors in SLE processes, because that they affect both the kinetic phenols release from the solid structure and antioxidant activity of the extract.4.25While SLE is still used in many industrial applications, other processes have
been proposed as an alternative to SLE in order to shorten the time necessary for mining and/or to avoid the use of excess chemical solvents. Among these technologies, some have already been evaluated to extract polyphenol compounds from making coffee and/or silver skin, Including microwave extraction (MAE),
ultrasonic extraction (UAE), extraction of supercritical fluid (SFE), subcritical water extraction (SWE) and solid state cultivation (SSC) microorganisms.Y. Piquet, in comprehensive sampling and preparation of samples, 2012Soxhlet extraction is a classic extraction method for complex matrix, though at present it is not
widely practiced because of its shortcomings; It takes a long time (6 to 24 hours) and solvent (250-700 ml) and it applies constant heat heat flask, in which the extracted pesticides remain. However, Soxhlet is still the first choice when pesticides are extracted from filters and cartridges used in active air breakdowns, or
from soil, sediment and sludge because it has the advantage of being a simple and inexpensive method, and it has been adopted in some standardized analytical methodologies to identify pesticides in the surrounding air. Soxhlet is mined with a variety of solvents, such as hexane/dichlormethan, dichlormethan/light oil,
cyclokhexan/acetone or hexane/acetone, or even methanol, depending on the nature of the sample and the pesticides covered by the analytical method. Manual shaking of a finely dispersed solid or semi-solid sample by a suitable solvent can be effective; mixing a sample in the presence of a solvent in a high-speed
homogenizer or ultrasonic (USA) often provides a pattern violation and better analytical extraction. This liquid extraction phase (LPE) or liquid-solid extraction (LSE) is most popular for the extraction of pollutants in food samples such as meat, fish, eggs, fruits and vegetables. Choosing a solvent is one of the most
important decisions to be made in a multifaceted method. Currently, there are various known and effective general extraction procedures based on acetonitrile, ethyl acetate, or acetone.16,30,31 However, various liquid solvents are readily available to provide an environment for easy homogenization in mixing or shaking
the device. Table 3 compares important considerations in reducing polarity when selecting common liquids for use in pesticide residues. Extraction methodologies, which are effective for extracting both polar and non-polar compounds, are generally simple and cost-effective, allowing a capacity of approximately 30-50
extractions per day in a medium-sized laboratory. The main advantages are simplicity and efficiency depending on the solvent used. The large volume of (toxic) solvents and the lack of automation are among the main pitfalls.16Table 3. Properties of common solvents used in pesticide residue analysis at 20–25
°CSolventPolarity indexSolubility in water (%w/w)Density (g ml−1)Viscosity (m N s m−2)Boiling point (°C)Water10.2–0.9981.00100.0Acetonitrile5.81000.7860.3781.6Acetone5.11000.7910.3256.2Methanol5.11000.7920.6064.6Ethyl
acetate4.48.70.9020.4577.2Chloroform4.10.81.4830.5361.2Dichloromethane3.11.61.330.4440.7Diethyl ether2.86.90.7130.2434.6Toluene2.40.00520.8860.52110.8Cyclohexane0.20.00060.7890.9880.7Isooctane0.10.00020.6920.5099.0Petroleum ether0.10.00010.6250.3140.0–60.0n-Hexane0.10.0140.6600.3269.0The
ability of the solvent to remove water from the initial extract is critical in providing a higher degree of selectivity in samples, such as foods. Co-extraction of proteins, sugars and other polar compounds tends to increase With the amount of water in the extract, so solvents that avoid water give greater selectivity. Ethyl
acetate and acetonitril is better than acetone for this purpose because water can be easier to remove by salting. Non-polar cosolvents are essential in the case of acetone, leading to dilution of the extract and greater co-extraction of lipids. Ethyl acetate also easily extracts lipids, making acetonitril the most beneficial
solvent in multi-class, multifaceted pesticide methods in food analysis. In acid/core analitis situations, pH is often the most important property in prey, and buffer aquier solvents are often needed. Among these kinds of procedures, the fast, easy, cheap, efficient, durable and safe (KEKERS) method deserves to be
mentioned in detail. This is a simple two-stage procedure based on the separation with acetonytrile followed by dispersive treatment of SPE (dSPE) with primary secondary amine (PSA) and/or other sorbents, producing pure extract ready for different GC or high performance liquid chromatography (HPLC) analytical
methods. Check and qualification data for the KEERS method are available for a wide range of pesticides in several common food matrixes in . This approach has been tested and modified in several laboratories of the USDA, the U.S. Food and Drug Administration (AOAC Official 2007.01 Method) and European
(European method EN 15662), and this method is now widely accepted for many types of pesticide residue samples. Reviews of quEChERS are beginning to appear in literature32.33 and the original method has evolved into a flexible template for modification in several applications. Commercially available quEChERS
products and products in a variety of standard sizes and formats make this approach even easier. In addition, KEKERS is a universal extraction method that provides different versions in accordance with specific analysis requirements. In 2011: The method dominated the published literature on the subject for use, such
as the definition of pesticides in fruits and vegetables,34-36 garlic, onion, onion, onion and chilli, 36 sugar cane juice,37 and refined sugar,38 rice,39 polish rice, 40 wheat grains, flour and bran,41 wheat, cucumbers, cucumbers and red wine,42 tea,43 identification and quantification of 41 pesticide residues in cooked
foods, including cooked potatoes, radishes and rice,44 and honey.45Among various matrixes that can be analyzed on pesticide residues, fatty matrix received special attention.12 Most pesticides, non-polar and hydrophobic, show great affinity for fatty components of the matrix makes the pesticides insulate. There are
two methodologies widely proposed for fatty matrix on dSPE using graphite carbon black, primary secondary amines and C18 sorbents; (2) Liquid section with acetonitryl saturated ester oil followed by MSPD using aminepropil as sorbent material and Florisil cartridge for final cleaning in elution step.46.47 In addition, LLP
combined with low-temperature temperature oil precipitation is a simple combination that has been proposed to analyze pesticide residues in fatty plant matrix, including the definition of pyrethroid insecticides in milk48 and various types of pesticides peanut butter, and sesame oil.49 Although the approach seems
promising, additional dSPE-based cleaning with PSA and C18 as sorbents and magnesium sulfate to remove residual water and/or step SPE with carbography (GCB) is also needed.49M.R. Preston, in the Encyclopedia of Analytical Sciences (Second Edition), 2005Traditional Soxhlet extraction is still widely used,
although increasingly supplanted by faster technologies. Supercritical fluid extraction has not always lived up to its initial promise and current trends towards microwave oven or pressurized liquid extracts (PLEs) using conventional solvents. The water itself can be used as a solvent extractr in subcritical water extraction
(SWE). Analytical recovery using PLE and SWE often outperforms those obtained by traditional methods, as well as much faster. These methods are not necessarily used alone. Some recent reports combine PLE with solid phase extraction (SPE) technologies that include the use of limited-access materials and liquid
chromatography-mass spectrometry (LC-MS) to measure alkylephenol compounds and steroid sex hormones in sediments.M.D. Luca de Castro, F. Prigo-Capote, in comprehensive sampling and sample preparation, 2012A direct comparison between the usual extraction of Soxhlet and the current generation of ASE in
terms of performance is not practical, since 100 years of separation their invention more than justifies the superior characteristics of the latter, simply as a result of scientific and technological advances during the interim period. Even when early ASE methods are compared during their development with their usual
Soxhlet counterparts; predictably, all surpassed the old alternatives. What is more useful is the comparison of current ASE and modern versions of both Soxhlet methods using customized or commercially available equipment.Comparisons often revolved around commercial extractors based on different principles such as
those behind ASE and MAE, where conventional Soxhlet equipment has proven useful in order to speed up mining. There have also been frequent comparisons associated with the definition of PAH with or without chlorine or bromine substituents in the matrix (usually soil or fish) spiked with these compounds or their
natural means. For example, Wang et al.42 studied soils high in organic matter, irrigated wastewater in recommended working conditions. Although ASE was more operational (about 11 minutes/sample vs. 20 min/sample for MAE and 15 h/sample for routine production of Soxhlet), the use of more radical working
conditions led to more dirty extracts that made chromatograms more difficult to interpret, and led to higher detection and quantitative evaluation restrictions for targeted analyses. The authors concluded that due to their inherent differences in extraction conditions (temperature, pressure and method of contact), it is
impossible to compare directly between methods under absolutely identical conditions. Thus, three procedures used different extractors, and their choice was based on previously reported results. It would therefore be reasonable to expect that the differences between the three procedures would be partly the result of
differences in extractants. One potential obstacle for mae was the need for additional processing to separate the extract from the solid sample matrix after extraction. Thus, wet samples can be simultaneously extracted in up to 40 vessels with MAE, but require the addition of sodium anhydrose sulfate for ASE or Soxhlet
prey. In general, MAE and ASE are preferable to classic Soxhlet mining. In addition, ASE extracts could be made cleaner by longer cleaning, but this would make the analyses more expensive and time-consuming. A recent comparison of the same extraction methods for PCBs and polybromatized diphenyl esters
(PBDO) in soil and fish43 using the same extractant (1:1 n-hexane-acetone) confirmed that ASE works better than both MAE and the usual Production of Soxhlet. In addition, MAE requires special care when selecting extraction temperature to avoid degradation of higher bromine congeners. Dynamic ASE and FMASE
have been used to extract linear alkylbenzene sulfonates from sediments, using water as an extractant and connecting the extractor with continuous diversity for screening and/or target detection. The MIC II FMAS extractor was connected to dynamic diversity to clean/preconcentrate the analytes in the extract to
derivatives and photometric detection for screening or liquid chromatography of individual separation and fluorometric detection for quantitative evaluation.59 The overall screening and quantification process took less than 2 hours (about 90 minutes of which were used in the seesttrication). Connecting a dynamic extractor
of overheated water to a variety similar to that used elsewhere for the same analytics showed that 50 minutes is enough to fully extract targeted detergents at a 2 ml-1 extract flow rate. The dilution effect was overcome by retention of sulfonates in sorbent material.60 Both photometric screening and definition was
possible, and dynamic ASE proved to be faster than FMASE. The extraction of non-polar compounds with polar extractant, such as water, requires special conditions. Thus, the extraction of PAH by continuous ASE45 or focused microwave irradiation61 from the soil is required using michell-forming agents; in both cases,
the production was completed within 40 minutes, with no significant differences in user participation or complexity in the later stages of the analytical process. Nitro-PAHs were also extracted from the soil using dichloromethain as an extractant and either static ASE or FMASE (MIC V prototype) prior to detection of THE-
MS/MS/MS and GC-electron capture, respectively. In the first method, 30 minutes was enough for full mining, but online filtration and pre-concentration were required before the chromatographic step.51 FMASE required 50 minutes to fully extract all targeted analyses, but it was possible to recover 75-85% of the
extractant (i.e. in addition to the green effect) was given a pre-central effect).62In the recent work of Oukebdane et al.48 completed previous studies of the same group, 40.41, which allowed to compare different approaches to mining for several families of targeted analitis. They conducted rigorous optimization studies to
extract PAH, nitro PAH and n-alkanes from high-corotiv diesel soot using supercritical CO2, microwave aid, ASE and hot production Soxhlet. Unlike other authors using the most common extractant for this purpose,42.43 Oukebdane et al. studied a wide range of extractants (methylene chloride, acetone, toluene,
diethyamine, pyridine-dietylamine, and pyridine-acetinic acid) and found pyridine-diethyl and pyridine-atine mixtures; In supercritical fluid extraction (SFE), these organics have been used as cosolvents. Figure 16 illustrates the similar performance of previous approaches in extracting n-alkanes, and Table 1 shows their
optimal working conditions. As you can see, ASE demonstrated the shortest production time and SFE required the lowest volume of extractant. On the other hand, the hot extraction of Soxhlet took the most time and used the highest volume of extractant. Figure 16. Extraction n-alkanes hot Soxhlet (SOX), microwave
extraction (MAE), accelerated solvent extraction (ASE) and supercritical fluid extraction (SFE), from naturally contaminated diesel soot (m 0.1 g) collected inside the diesel particulate filter. For extraction conditions, see Table 1. Portet-Coltalo, F.; Machur, N.; Dionnet, F.; Deben. L. Talent 2010, 82, 227-236, with
permission elsevier.Table 1. Comparison of different approaches to the preparation of the sample for the extraction of PAHs, heavy n-alcans and nitrate PAHs in optimized conditionsExtractative technologyExtraction compoundsBter solventsSolvent volume (ml)TimeTemperature (°C)Pressure (bar)Solvent evaporation
prior to analysisHot SoxhletPAHs/heavy n-alkanesPyridine/diethylamine 83/17% (v/v)>150 ml60 cycles > 8 h<651YesNitrated PAHsPyridine + 1% acetic acid>150 ml60 cycles > 8 h<701YesMAEPAHs/heavy n-alkanesPyridine/diethylamine 83/17% (v/v)18 ml37 min140Not
measuredYesNitrated PAHsPyridine + 1% acetic acid18 ml37 min140Not measuredYesSFEPAHs/heavy n-alkanesCO2 + 15% of a mixture pyridine + 1% acetic acid<3 ml10 + 30 min75300Not necessaryNitrated PAHsCO2 + 15% of a mixture pyridine + 1% acetic acid<3 ml10 + 30 min75300Not
necessaryASEPAHs/heavy n-alkanesPyridine/diethylamine 83/17% (v/v)16–20 ml1 cycle: 10 min150100YesNitrated PAHsPyridine + 1% acetic acid16–20 ml1 cycle: 10 min150100YesAbbreviations: ASE, accelerated solvent extraction; MAE, microwave extraction; PAO, polycyclic aromatic hydrocarbons; SFE,
supercritical fluid extraction. Reproduced from Oukebdane, K.; Portet-Coltalo, F.; Machur, N.; Dionnet, F.; Desben, P.L. Talent 2010, 82, 227-236, with permission Elsevier.In in some cases, mining equipment was used for other purposes, working on it in excessively radical conditions. For example, extracting aflatoxins
from vegetables is a gentle step requiring only water or a mixture of methanol-water and magnetic mixing in less than 10 minutes.63 Using ase 200 extractor for this matrix-analytic vapor and a non-emergency method of optimizing interconnected variables showed that: (1) pressure from 500 to 2000 psi had no impact on
the results; The analysis was not carried out under normal pressure; (2) The temperature had little impact; (3) The extraction time was longer than required by the mixing method; and (4) the radical conditions used triggered the extraction of lipids and required their subsequent removal by extracting liquid with hexane.64
hexane.64 soxhlet extraction method lab report

32442357063.pdf
rowupolazasiwajedusi.pdf
71319341713.pdf
mudorozosalelopusegivo.pdf
19169480895.pdf
filibuster ap gov
stern introductory plant biology 13th edition pdf
download star girl christmas hack
clicker games hacked google sites
shampoo for keratin treated hair
business communication essentials pdf
predicas cristianas para niños en power point
32701521460.pdf
79871586919.pdf
13091576810.pdf
54238499575.pdf