Solid Phase Microextraction: Theory and Optimization of Conditions

Importance of the Topic

Solid phase microextraction (SPME) is a solvent-free, rapid, and sensitive technique for concentrating volatile and semivolatile compounds from liquid samples or headspace. By combining sampling, extraction, and injection into a single step, SPME reduces analysis time, labor, and background contamination compared to traditional methods such as liquid–liquid extraction or purge-and-trap.

Objectives and Overview

This summary reviews the theory and optimization of SPME conditions presented in Supelco Bulletin 923. It covers the fundamental mechanism, factors affecting extraction performance, comparison with conventional techniques, and guidelines for achieving reproducible, quantitative results across a broad range of analyte concentrations.

Methodology

In SPME, a 1 cm polymer-coated fused-silica fiber is housed in a syringe-like plunger and needle assembly. The fiber is exposed to the sample or headspace to adsorb analytes until equilibrium or a set extraction time is reached. The fiber is then retracted into the needle and transferred to a GC inlet or an SPME/HPLC interface for thermal or solvent desorption.

Instrumentation Used

• SPME Fiber Assemblies: Coatings include PDMS, PDMS/DVB, Carboxen, CW/DVB, polyacrylate, and templated resins, with thicknesses from 7 µm to 100 µm selected based on analyte polarity and volatility.
• Fiber Holders: Manual and automated/HPLC holders ensure precise fiber depth control and protection.
• GC Inlet Liners and Pre-Drilled Septa: Narrow bore liners (0.75 mm ID) sharpen peaks; low-bleed septa facilitate repeated sampling.
• SPME/HPLC Interface: A six-port valve and desorption chamber enable dynamic or static desorption into HPLC mobile phase.
• Sampling Accessories: Heat/stir plates, magnetic stir bars, sampling stands, vials, and closures maintain consistent conditions.

Key Results and Discussion

• Quantitative Performance: Linear calibration for chlorinated pesticides at low ppt levels, with RSDs below 20% over ten sequential extractions.
• Comparison with Other Techniques: Detection limits in the ppt range achieved in minutes, with minimal solvent use and handling.
• Equilibrium Theory: Mass of analyte on the fiber follows n = (Kfs·Vf·C0·Vs)/(Kfs·Vf + Vs), yielding linear response at constant sample volume.
• Fiber Coating Effects: Thicker coatings enhance retention of volatiles; thinner coatings favor rapid desorption of semivolatiles.
• Sampling Mode: Immersion sampling excels for liquid-borne analytes; headspace sampling reduces matrix interference and prolongs fiber life.
• Matrix Modification: Addition of 25–30% NaCl and pH adjustment markedly improve extraction efficiency for polar compounds.

Benefits and Practical Applications

• Eliminates organic solvents and reduces background interferences.
• Minimizes sample handling—typical extraction time ≤15 min with ~3 min handling.
• Compatible with GC, GC-MS, and HPLC for environmental pollutants, flavors, fragrances, pharmaceuticals, and surfactants.
• Portable sampling options enable field analysis and sample preservation.

Future Trends and Applications

Advances in specialized fiber coatings, integration with automated samplers, and development of miniaturized interfaces will expand SPME’s reach. Emerging applications include in vivo sampling, trace-level profiling with high-resolution mass spectrometry, and real-time monitoring of organic contaminants.

Conclusion

SPME is a versatile, robust, and eco-friendly sample preparation technique. Optimization of fiber type, sampling mode, and matrix conditions allows analysts to obtain reproducible, quantitative data for a wide range of compounds, streamlining workflows in both laboratory and field environments.

References

1. Arthur, C.L. et al., Environ. Sci. Technol. 26:979-983 (1992)
2. Arthur, C.L. et al., J. High Res. Chromatogr. 15:741-744 (1992)
3. Zhang, Z. & J. Pawliszyn, Anal. Chem. 65:1843-1852 (1993)
4. Zhang, Z., M.J. Yang & J. Pawliszyn, Anal. Chem. 66:844A-853A (1994)
5. Yang, X. & T. Peppard, J. Agric. Food Chem. 42:1925-1930 (1994)
6. Harmon, A., in Techniques for Analyzing Food Aroma, Dekker (1997)
7. Arthur, C.L. & J. Pawliszyn, LC·GC 10:656-661 (1992)
8. Arthur, C.L. et al., Environmental Lab. Dec./Jan. (1993)