Extraction of Contaminants, Pollutants, and Poisons from Animal Tissue Using Accelerated Solvent Extraction (ASE)

Importance of the Topic

Monitoring organic contaminants in animal tissue is essential for environmental safety, food quality control and public health assessment. Accelerated Solvent Extraction (ASE) addresses the need for rapid, efficient and reproducible sample preparation compared to traditional methods.

Objectives and Overview of the Study

This application note evaluates ASE for extracting dioxins/furans, PBDEs, PCBs, pesticides, PAHs and organotin compounds from various animal tissues. Comparative experiments against Soxhlet and other conventional techniques demonstrate time savings, solvent reduction and analytical performance.

Instrumentation Used

• Dionex ASE 200 Accelerated Solvent Extractor with ASE Solvent Controller
• Stainless steel extraction cells (11, 22, 33 mL) and cellulose filters
• Sample collection vials (40 and 60 mL)
• Dionex SE 500 Solvent Evaporation System
• Analytical balance (0.0001 g precision)
• Tissue homogenizer, freeze dryer, centrifuge and mechanical shaker

Methodology

Tissue samples are homogenized, spiked with isotopic standards or analyte surrogates and mixed with a dispersant (ASE Prep DE or sand). After loading into extraction cells, ASE employs elevated temperature (40–175 °C) and pressure (735–2000 psi) with appropriate solvents (toluene, DCM, acetone, ethanol–water mixtures) to extract analytes within minutes. Static cycles, flush and purge steps are optimized per analyte class. Post-extraction cleanup is conducted either in-cell (Florisil) or offline (GPC, sulfuric acid alumina, solid-phase extraction).

Key Results and Discussion

Dioxins/Furans: ASE achieved identical recovery to Soxhlet in 30 min versus 36 h, using ~50 mL vs 300 mL toluene.
PBDEs: Mussel, oyster and clam samples yielded 9–106 ppb dry weight with RSD <20 %.
PCBs: Spoonbill eggs showed average recoveries of 100 % for key congeners in 25 min versus 13 h and 40 mL vs 150 mL solvent.
Pesticides: Atrazine in beef kidney produced recoveries of 90–127 % with RSD below 19 %.
PAHs: Extraction from mussel tissue matched methanol solvent extraction results with >24× faster throughput and 12-fold lower solvent usage.
Organotins: Sum of tributyl and dibutyltin matched certified values (≈96 %), indicating efficient extraction of targeted compounds.

Benefits and Practical Applications

• Significant reduction in extraction time (minutes vs hours or days)
• Up to 12-fold solvent savings and reduced laboratory waste
• Enhanced reproducibility with automated parameters
• Flexibility to tailor conditions for diverse analyte classes
• Compatibility with downstream cleanup and analytical workflows (GC-HRMS, GC-ECD, HPLC, SPME)

Future Trends and Potential Applications

Integration of in-cell cleanup materials to eliminate offline steps, coupling ASE directly to analytical instruments, expansion to novel matrices such as plant, food and clinical samples, and combination with automated microextraction techniques promise further gains in throughput and sustainability.

Conclusion

This study demonstrates ASE as a powerful alternative to traditional extraction methods for a wide range of contaminants in animal tissue, offering comparable recoveries with dramatic time and solvent savings, and supporting high-throughput environmental and food safety laboratories.

Reference

1. Dionex Technical Note 208. Methods Optimization in Accelerated Solvent Extraction. 2004.
2. Oros D., Hoover D., Rodigari F., Crane D., Sericano J. Env. Sci. Technol. 2005, 39, 33–41.
3. Gomez-Ariza J.L. et al. J. Chromatogr. A 2002, 946, 209–219.
4. Curren M., King J. J. Agric. Food Chem. 2001, 49, 2175–2180.
5. Yusa V. et al. Food Addit. Contam. 2005, 22(5), 482–489.
6. Wasik A., Ciesielski T. Anal. Biochem. 2004, 378, 1357–1363.