Abstract
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.
Sign-in/Register to access full text options 
Talk to us
Join us for a 30 min session where you can share your feedback and ask us any queries you have
Schedule a callDisclaimer: All third-party content on this website/platform is and will remain the property of their respective owners and is provided on "as is" basis without any warranties, express or implied. Use of third-party content does not indicate any affiliation, sponsorship with or endorsement by them. Any references to third-party content is to identify the corresponding services and shall be considered fair use under The CopyrightLaw.
