Comparative evaluation of liquid-liquid extraction, solid-phase extraction and solid-phase microextraction for the gas chromatography-mass spectrometry determination of multiclass priority organic contaminants in wastewater

The European Water Framework Directive (WFD) 2000/60/EC establishes guidelines to control the pollution of surface water by sorting out a list of priority substances that involves a significant risk to or via the aquatic systems. In this article, the analytical performance of three different sample preparation methodologies for the GC-MS/MS determination of multiclass organic contaminants-including priority comprounds from the WFD-in wastewater samples using gas chromatography-mass spectrometry was evaluated. The methodologies tested were: (a) liquid-liquid extraction (LLE) with n-hexane; (b) solid-phase extraction (SPE) with C18 cartridges and elution with ethyl acetate:dichloromethane (1:1 (v/v)), and (c) headspace solid-phase microextraction (HS-SPME) using two different fibers: polyacrylate and polydimethylsiloxane/carboxen/divinilbenzene. Identification and confirmation of the selected 57 compounds included in the study (comprising polycyclic aromatic hydrocarbons (PAHs), pesticides and other contaminants) were accomplished using gas chromatography tandem mass spectrometry (GC-MS/MS) with a triple quadrupole instrument operated in the multiple reaction monitoring (MRM) mode. Three MS/MS transitions were selected for unambiguous confirmation of the target chemicals. The different advantages and pitfalls of each method were discussed. In the case of both LLE and SPE procedures, the method was validated at two different concentration levels (15 and 150 ng L−1) obtaining recovery rates in the range 70-120% for most of the target compounds. In terms of analyte coverage, results with HS-SPME were not satisfactory, since 14 of the compounds tested were not properly recovered and the overall performance was worse than the other two methods tested. LLE, SPE and HS-SPME (using polyacrylate fiber) procedures also showed good linearity and precision. Using any of the three methodologies tested, limits of quantitation obtained for most of the detected compounds were in the low nanogram per liter range.