Microextraction procedures for preconcentration of Fe (III) in water and food samples prior to colorimetric detection: a comparative study

• Published in: Journal of the Iranian Chemical Society Vol. 20; no. 3; pp. 645 - 653
• Main Authors: Zedan, Hanan E., Mortada, Wael I., Khalifa, Magdi E.
• Format: Journal Article
• Language: English
• Published: Berlin/Heidelberg Springer Berlin Heidelberg 01.03.2023; Springer Nature B.V
• Subjects: Analytical Chemistry; Biochemistry; Cetyltrimethylammonium bromide; Chemistry; Chemistry and Materials Science; Comparative studies; Dispersion; Extraction procedures; Gallic acid; Inorganic Chemistry; Liquid-liquid extraction; Organic Chemistry; Original Paper; Physical Chemistry; Solidification; Solvents; Spectrophotometry; Standard reference materials; Tetrachloroethylene; Food analysis, spectrophotometry; Dispersive liquid-liquid microextraction; Iron (III); Solidification of floating organic drop
• ISSN: 1735-207X; 1735-2428
• DOI: 10.1007/s13738-022-02697-3

Two extraction procedures, namely dispersive liquid-liquid microextraction (DLLME) and dispersive liquid-liquid microextraction based on solidification of floating organic drop (DLLME-SFOD), have been compared for the spectrophotometric determination of Fe (III). In both procedures, Fe (III) was extracted after complexation with gallic acid in the presence of cetyltrimethylammonium bromide (CTAB). Tetrachloroethylene and 1-undecanol were used as extraction solvents in DLLME and DLLME-SFOD, respectively, while acetone was used as dispersing solvents. The effects of various experimental parameters (solution pH, the concentration of ligand and CTAB, as well as nature and amount of extraction and disperser solvents) on the extraction efficiency were investigated. Under optimum conditions, the calibration graphs were linear in the range of 50.0–650.0 and 8.0–800.0 μg L −1 and the detection limits were 15.0 and 5.0 μg L −1 for DLLME and DLLME-SFOD, respectively. The presence of NaCl, up to 1.0% (w/v) did not impact the extraction procedures. The analyte was good tolerated in the presence of most concomitant ions. The procedures were applied for the determination of Fe (III) in standard reference materials and real samples with good recoveries (95.5–99.0%) for DLLME-SFOD while poor recoveries (68.0–82.5%) were obtained when DLLME was applied. The analytical figures of the procedures were comparable with those listed in the literature and it could be concluded that DLLME-SFOD may be considered one of the best tools used for preconcentration of Fe (III), owing to its simplicity, time-saving and the possibility of using in conventional analytical laboratories. Graphical abstract