Trends Trends in Analytical Chemistry, Vol.

43, 2013

Ultrasound-assisted extraction for

food and environmental samples
Yolanda Picó

In recent years, ultrasound-assisted extraction (UAE) has attracted growing interest, as it is an effective method for the rapid
extraction of a number of compounds from food and environmental samples, with extraction efficiency comparable to that of
classical techniques. In particular, recently, numerous analytical applications of this technique dealt with the extraction of
natural compounds and pollutants from food and environmental samples.
This review gives a brief presentation of the theory of UAE, discusses recent advances that influence its efficiency, and
summarizes the main results in selected applications published in the period 2010–12. There is discussion of the advantages and
the disadvantages of UAE and the possibility of coupling UAE with other analytical techniques.
ª 2012 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.

Keywords: Analytical application; Contaminant; Environmental matrix; Environmental sample; Extraction; Food sample; Natural compound;
Pollutant; Ultrasound-assisted extraction (UAE); Ultrasound-assisted emulsification microextraction (UAEME)

1. Introduction in extractive processes – disruption of

Yolanda Picó*
Food and Environmental Safety
Research Group,
Department of Medicine
Preventive,
Facultat de Farmàcia,
Universitat de València,
Av. Vicent Andrés Estellés s/n,
46100 Burjassot,
València, Spain
*
Tel.: +34 96 3543092;
Fax: +34 96 3544954;
E-mail: Yolanda.Pico@uv.es
For many years, the use of ultrasound
energy in liquid and solid media has been
extensive in food-processing applications
and has created growing interest in sam-
ple treatment [1]. This technique is an
efficient tool for large-scale commercial
applications (e.g., emulsification, homog-
enization, extraction, crystallization,
dewatering, low-temperature pasteuriza-
tion, degassing, defoaming, activation and
inactivation of enzymes, particle-size
reduction and changing viscosity) [2,3].
Much attention has been given to the
application of ultrasound for the extrac-
tion of natural products that typically
needed hours or days to reach completion
with conventional methods [3–7].
The classical techniques used in food
industry for solvent extraction of bioactive
compounds are based upon the correct
choice of solvent coupled with the use of
heat and/or agitation. Solvent extraction
of organic compounds contained within
the bodies of plants and seeds is signifi-
cantly improved by using the power of
ultrasound. The mechanical effects of
ultrasound provide a greater solvent pen-
etration into cellular materials and im-
prove mass transfer due to the effects of
micro-streaming. This is combined with
an additional benefit of using ultrasound
biological cell walls to release the cell
contents [8].
Overall, ultrasound-assisted extraction
(UAE) is recognized as an efficient extrac-
tion technique that dramatically reduces
working times, increasing yields and often
the quality of the extract [8]. Several
studies have reviewed different industrial
applications of ultrasound in the intensi-
fication of extraction of bioactive materials
from herbs, oils from seeds and proteins
from soy [9–11]. Thus, in the past few
years, numerous compounds have been
extracted by UAE from several matrices,
with special emphasis on the commercial
production of bioactive compounds in the
food industry.
UAE is also gradually becoming a mat-
ter of routine practice in analytical
chemistry, which uses this energy for a
variety of purposes in relation to sample
preparation, mostly sample extraction.
Currently, any critical review of recent
advances in sample preparation includes a
section dedicated to UAE [12–17]. Over
80% of analysis time is still spent on the
sample and sample preparation, and UAE
can speed up many procedures that are
appropriate in other respects [12,15,17].
There were recently some review
articles about UAE [4] and its applications
to microwave [18], lesser known

84 0165-9936/$ - see front matter ª 2012 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved. doi:http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.trac.2012.12.005
Trends in Analytical Chemistry, Vol. 43, 2013
heterogeneous sample-preparation procedures [19] and
green chemistry [20], and the determination of heavy
metals [21] and organic food contaminants [22].
But, to the best of our knowledge, there is no single
review that addresses the UAE applications to extract
any type of compound in food and environmental
matrices. Consequently, this article reviews the applica-
tion of ultrasound energy to the extraction of organic,
organometallic and inorganic compounds from envi-
ronmental and food matrices (soils, sediments, vegeta-
bles, animal tissues, and water) for their analytical
determination. The principle of the technique is first
presented, together with the commercially available
systems. Then, the main parameters and operations are
discussed, before the presentation of the experimental
conditions that allow the extraction of numerous com-
pounds. The aim of this review is to describe different
aspects of recent interesting applications of UAE pub-
lished since 2010. Finally, the performance of the tech-
nique is compared to that of other techniques, either
classical or recent.
2. Principles of ultrasound extraction
Ultrasound comprises mechanical waves that need an
elastic medium to spread. The difference between sound
and ultrasound is the frequency of the wave; sound
waves are at human hearing frequencies (16 Hz to 16–
20 kHz) while ultrasound has frequencies above human
hearing but below microwave frequencies (from 20 kHz
to 10 MHz). For the classification of ultrasound appli-
cations, the amount of energy generated, characterized
by sound power (W), sound intensity (W/m2) or sound
energy density (W/m3), is the key criterion. The uses of
ultrasound are broadly distinguished into two groups:
high intensity and low intensity [11,23,24].
Low-intensity ultrasound – high frequency (100 kHz–
1 MHz) low power (typically <1 W/cm2) – is involved in
non-destructive analysis, particularly for quality assess-
ment. This technique is most commonly applied as an
analytical technique to provide information on the
physicochemical properties of food (e.g., firmness, ripe-
ness, sugar content, and acidity). Nevertheless, high-
intensity ultrasound – low frequency (16–100 kHz) high
power (typically 10–1000 W/cm2) – can alter food
properties physically or chemically [8,9,23]. High-
intensity ultrasound is used, among other applications,
to speed up and to improve the efficiency of sample
preparation.
2.1. Effects of ultrasound
During the sonication process, longitudinal waves are
created when a sonic wave meets a liquid medium,
thereby creating regions of alternating compression and
rarefaction waves induced on the molecules of the
Trends
medium (Fig. 1) [11]. In these regions of changing
pressure, cavitation occurs and gas bubbles are formed.
These bubbles have a larger surface area during the
rarefaction (expansion) cycle, which increases the dif-
fusion of gas, causing the bubble to expand. A critical
point is reached during the compression cycle in which
the ultrasonic energy provided is not sufficient to retain
the vapor phase in the bubble. As a consequence, rapid
condensation occurs and large amounts of energy are
released [11,23,24]. The condensed molecules collide
violently, creating shock waves. These shock waves
create regions of very high temperature and pressure,
reaching up to 5500C and 50 MPa [11,24]. Cavitation
can result in micro-streaming, which can enhance heat
and mass transfer. This creates hotspots that can dra-
matically accelerate the chemical reactivity in the med-
ium. When these bubbles collapse onto the surface of a
solid material, the high pressure and temperature re-
leased generate microjets directed towards the solid
surface. These microjets are responsible for the degre-
asing effect of ultrasound on metallic surfaces, which is
widely used for cleaning materials [8,9].
Another application of microjets in food industry is the
extraction of vegetal compounds, because this allows
improved solvent penetration into the plant body and
can also break down cell walls [11]. As shown in Fig. 2,
a cavitation bubble can be generated close to the plant
material surface (a), then, during a compression cycle,
this bubble collapses (b) and a microjet directed toward
the plant matrix is created (b and c). The high pressure
and temperature involved in this process destroy the cell
walls of the plant matrix, and its content can be released
into the medium (d). This is a very interesting tool for
extraction of ingredients from natural products [24]. As
a consequence, employing UAE has benefits in increased
mass transfer, better solvent penetration, less depen-
dence on solvent use, extraction at lower temperatures,
faster extraction rates and greater yields of product
[11,23,24].
The ability of ultrasound to cause cavitation depends
on the characteristics of ultrasound (e.g., frequency and
intensity), product properties (e.g., viscosity and surface
tension) and ambient conditions (e.g., temperature and
pressure). This technique requires a liquid medium, an
energy generator and a transducer, which transforms
the electric, magnetic or kinetic energy into acoustic
energy [23].
2.2. Commercial devices
Ultrasonication can be applied in analytical chemistry in
two ways: directly to the sample, or indirectly through
the walls of the sample container using a water bath,
which is the most available and cheapest source of
ultrasound irradiation. However, there are other more
efficient designs [e.g., horns (indirect or direct) or ultra-
sonic probes (direct to the sample)] able to develop
http://www.elsevier.com/locate/trac 85
Trends Trends in Analytical Chemistry, Vol. 43, 2013

Figure 1. Ultrasonic cavitation (reproduced with permission from [11]).

higher ultrasound power. Fig. 3 shows several of these
commercially available devices.
The ultrasonic bath that transmits high-energy and
high-frequency sound waves into a fluid-filled container
(commonly water), which is found in the chemical lab-
oratories, is not a powerful tool. The irradiation power
given by a common ultrasonic bath is 1–5 W/cm2 [25].
The classic bath works with only one frequency, gener-
ally 40 kHz, and can be supplied with temperature
control [26–29]. Currently, there are different types of
bath provided with multi-frequency units, which operate
simultaneously ultrasonic transducers with different

86 http://www.elsevier.com/locate/trac
Trends in Analytical Chemistry, Vol. 43, 2013 Trends

Figure 2. Cavitation-bubble collapsing and releasing plant material: example of extraction of essential oil from basil (reproduced with permission
from [24]).

Figure 3. Advances on ultrasonic probe technology: (a) silica-glass probe; (b) spiral probe; (c) dual probe; (d) multi-probe; (e) cup horns; (f)
sonoreactor; (g) microplate horns. {(a–d) are reproduced with permission of Bandelin Co [Berlin, Germany]; (e) and (g) are reproduced with per-
mission of Misonix Co. [Farmingdale, NY, USA]; (e) is reproduced with permission of Dr. Hielscher Co. [Teltow, Germany]} (Reproduced with
permission from [25]).

http://www.elsevier.com/locate/trac 87
Trends
frequencies. Constant power and automatic frequency
control ensure optimal distribution of ultrasonic energy
[26,27].
The ultrasonic probe (Fig. 3a–d) is immersed directly
into the solution and provides an ultrasonic power that
is at least up to 100 times greater than that supplied by
the bath, with sonication time usually 5 min or less. The
probe is a powerful system for solid-liquid extraction
(SLE) of analytes that can be extracted but can also be
degraded. It should be stressed that the amplitude con-
trol of the probes allows the ultrasonic vibrations at the
probe tip to be set to any desired level. However, to
achieve cavitation, normally it is not necessary to use
high amplitudes; otherwise, the probe will deteriorate
rapidly. Temperature is another factor that must be
controlled. As the ultrasound is delivered into the solu-
tion, a slow but constant increase in the bulk tempera-
ture is achieved, and, at some point, the physical
characteristics of the liquid media change so that the
probe can decouple and no more cavitation is achieved
[30]. Ultrasonic probes have been used to extract trace
and major inorganic acids from dust [31] and biological
matrices [32], to perform sugar profiling in oil [33], to
extract biomarkers for fish identification [34] and to
obtain peptide mapping of soybeans [35].
Indirect sonication means that the ultrasonic waves
need to cross the wall of the sample container. This does
not occur with the ultrasonic probe, which is directly
immersed in the sample, giving direct in-sample soni-
cation. Cup horns and sonoreactors can be compared to
high-intensity ultrasonic water baths. As an example,
the sonoreactor is 50 times more intense than an
ultrasonic bath. Samples can be processed in sealed tubes
or vials, eliminating aerosols and cross-contamination.
The ultrasonic horn has been successfully used for the
extraction of metals from biological tissues [32] and gold
and silver from sediments [36].
The choice of approach also depends on the
requirements of the particular analysis. If the aim is total
SLE, the use of a powerful probe could be better, because
less time is necessary for extraction. However, when a
great number of samples needs to be analyzed, the bath
is the better option, because it allows simultaneous
extraction of a number of samples, whereas the other
devices can only process one sample at a time. For
example, the ability of a classic sonication bath and a
horn inserted directly into the sample (thorn) to destroy
cell walls and liberate isoflavones were compared [37].
The intensity of sonication was given by parameters of
the sonic bath and could not be changed. Pretreatment
was carried out for 30 min. The horn – a tapering metal
bar commonly used to augment the oscillation
displacement amplitude provided by an ultrasonic
transducer – could adjust the intensity of sonication. The
required process of matrix cell-wall destruction occurred
(with measurable implications) at 60% of the
88 http://www.elsevier.com/locate/trac
Trends in Analytical Chemistry, Vol. 43, 2013
instrument maximum performance. The original aim of
using this device was to shorten the pretreatment time –
more efficient sonication should do the job more quickly.
However, the erosion of plant cell walls is a slow process
in both modes. Sonication for 15 min was not enough,
and at 30 min the results were comparable with treat-
ment in a sonication bath. The interesting result was the
further increase in isoflavone recovery with longer pre-
treatment time, which was not observed with the soni-
cation bath. Thus, although the thorn device was more
labor-intensive, there was a risk of the loss of analytes in
the open system and only one sample could be processed
simultaneously, the recoveries obtained this way were
even better at the cost of even longer time of pretreat-
ment.
With respect to different devices, two ultrasound-based
procedures (i.e., UAE with a cup-horn sonoreactor and
ultrasonic-probe slurry sampling) were recently com-
pared as sample pretreatments for the determination of
P, K, Ca, Cr, Mn, Fe, Ni, Cu, Zn, As, Se and Sr in different
biological tissues (certified reference materials and real
samples) [32]. The cup-horn sonoreactor provided the
better results and obtained quantitative extraction
recoveries for almost all elements. Consequently, it was
efficient for metal extraction in conjunction with several
extractant media. The versatility in the use of any acid
and oxidant along with short sonication times and the
ability to carry out simultaneous extractions from sev-
eral samples made the cup-horn sonoreactor more
advantageous than probe and bath sonication systems.
3. Main applications
UAE of pollutants from environmental matrices has at-
tracted considerable interest in the past few years. Ta-
ble 1 shows applications of these techniques for the
determination of natural products, food additives and
contaminants in food samples. Table 2 shows the re-
ported applications of UAE to contaminant extraction
from environmental matrices.
Sonication is used in sample preparation to assist the
treatment of solid samples, in the extraction, digestion
and slurry formation, and in liquid sample preparation
to assist liquid–liquid extraction (LLE), homogenization
or emulsification. Ultrasound extraction can be subdi-
vided into UAE and ultrasound-assisted emulsification
microextraction (UAEME).
3.1. Ultrasound-assisted extraction (UAE)
After interaction with subjected biological or non-bio-
logical material, ultrasound waves alter their physical
and chemical properties and their cavitational effect
facilitates the release of extractable compounds and
enhances the mass transport by disrupting membranes,
plant cells walls and other structures. The most
 Trends in Analytical Chemistry, Vol. 43, 2013
Table 1. Recent applications of ultrasound-assisted extraction (UAE) in food analysis

Matrix Analytes Remarks on the extraction Recovery EF Determination LODs, ng/g Ref
Inorganic elements
Seafood Hg speciation UAE (0.2 g) with 10 mL of a mixture of 90–94 – LC-ICP-MS Hg, 0.25 [38]
mercaptoethanol, l-cysteine and HCl for 15 min HgCH2H3,.20
in an ultrasonic bath HgCH3,0.1
Fish Hg speciation UAE (100 mg) with 4 mL of 5 M HCl for 15 min in – – GC-ICP-MS – [39]
an ultrasonic bath
Wheat grain Se UAEE (0.1 g) with a-amylase + 2 mL H2O for 60 s 70 90 – LC-ICP-MS – [30]
at 30 W and with protease for 60 s at 30 W by an
ultrasonic probe
Cereals Se, Te UAE with H2SO4 and EDTA-Na2 for 10 min in an >90 – HG AFS 0.1–0.5 [40]
ultrasonic bath

Additives and contaminants

Cake, soy sauce, vinegar, jam, Preservatives (11 UAEME (0.5 g + 25 mL water) fi 1 mL adjusted to 90.5–104.6 88–141 GC-MS 0.025–1.53 [41]
ham, beverage, pickle and bean compounds) pH 3 + NaCl with 100 lL dichloromethane and
paste ethyl acetate (9:1) for 3 min in an ultrasonic bath
Sausage Sudan dyes MISPE-UAEME. (1 g) MISPE elution with 4 mL 86.3–107.5 50 LC-UV 0.001– [42]
acetone–acetic acid (95:5, v/v), concentrated to 0.005 mg/g
1 mL. Then, UAEME is performed using 100 lL of
tetrachloroethylene + 5 mL H2O for 2 min in an
ultrasonic bath
Spices Fat-soluble dyes UAE (1 g) with 10 mL acetone-acetonitrile(50/50) 92–109 – LC-UV 0.5–1 lg/g [43]
for 15 min in an ultrasonic bath
Wine 2,4,6-Trichloroanisole UAEME (5 mL) with 25 lL of trichloroethene for >80 400 GC-MS/MS 0.6-0.7 ng/L [44]
5 min at 20 C in an ultrasonic bath
Beverages Bisphenol A UAEME-ISD with ammonia buffer + acetic P 82 3 GC-MS 38 ng/L [45]
anhydride + chlorofom for 10 min at 50  C in a
40 kHz and 600 W ultrasonic bath with
temperature control
Muscle and liver of swine and Nitrovin and sodium UAE (5 g) with 10 mL of acetonitrile in an 71–110 10 LC-MS/MS 0.09–0.26 lg/kg [27]
chicken and in muscle of fish nifurstyrenate ultrasonic bath (power: 100 W, frequency:
40 kHz). Then, clean-up by SPE with Oasis HLB
and elution with 1% DMF–methanol. Comparison
with shaken extraction
http://www.elsevier.com/locate/trac

Fish and mussels samples
Infant formula milk powder
Antibacterials UAEE (1 g) with 5 mL of water and Proteinase-K 53–83 2 LC-DAD and 0.11–0.45 lg/g [46]
Sonicated for 5 min at 50% of the maximum LC-FLD
power of the ultrasounds probe (2200 W). Then,
liquid-liquid extraction with dichloromethane.
Sulfonamides UA-IL/IL-DLLME 4 mL of a mixture powder milk- 90.4–114.8 5 LC-DAD 2.64–6.66 ng/g [47]
water (1:8) using 70 lL of[C6MIM] [PF6] as
extraction solvent + 100 lL of [C4MIM][BF4] as
disperser solvent. Then, 80 mg of NH4PF6 were
used as ion-pairing agent for the sedimentation of
IL cations. The mixture was extracted for 5 min at

Trends
35 C in an ultrasonic bath.
(continued on next page)
89
90

Trends
Table 1 (continued)
Matrix Analytes Remarks on the extraction Recovery EF Determination LODs, ng/g Ref
http://www.elsevier.com/locate/trac

Fruit and juice sample Strobilurin and oxazole LDS-UAEME (1 g + 0.4 g (10% m/v) sodium 80–119 140–1140 GC-MS (SIM) 0.006–0.075 [48]
fungicides chloride, 1 mL of 0.1 M phosphate buffer(pH 5) ng/mL
and water up to 4 mL) with 20 lL of undecanone
for 4 min at 25 C in an ultrasonic bath(50 Hz and
110 W) Comparison with SDME
Cereal-based baby food Organophosphorus UAE (1.5 g) with20 mL 1 % formic acid in 64–105 – GC-NPD 0.31–5.50 ng/g [49]
pesticides and some acetonitrile for 5 min in an ultrasonic bath(50/
metabolites 60 Hz and 100 W). Then, followed by dSPE with
MWCNTs.
Tomato Organophosphorus UAE (1.0 g) with 5.0 mL of acetone for 35 min in – 150 GC-FPD 0.1-0.5 lg/kg [50]
pesticides an ultrasonic bath. Followed by DLLME clean-up.
Palm oil Pesticides LLE and followed by low temperature oil frozen. 73–91 10 LC-TOF-MS 1.5–5 lg/kg [51]
Then, UAE-MSPD with PSA as dispersing agent
and GBC as clean-up sorbent extracted with
15 mL of acetonitrile for 15 min at room
temperature in an ultrasonic bath
Honey Pyrethroid pesticides UA-IL-DLLME (10 g + 100 mL H2O) fi 10 mL of 101–103 506–515 LC-DAD UV 0.2–0.4 lg/L [52]
homogeneous sample solution plus 60 lL
C8MIM][PF6] dissolved in 200 lL methanol for
2 min in an ultrasonic bath
Comparison with conventional IL-DLLME and TC-
DLLME

Natural products
Bud of Citrus aurantium L. var. Essential oils UAE with ethyl acetate (solid/liquid [/v] = 1:8) for GC-MS – [53]
amara Engl. 20 min at 25 C in an ultrasonic bath (100 W)
Comparison with SDS and RE
Seed oil of Microulasikkimensis Saturated and UAE (5 g) with 25 mL of chloroform for 60 min in 91–105 7.35 LC-FLD after pre- 3.2–37 fmol [54]
Hemsl. unsaturated fatty acids an ultrasonic bath followed by saponification of column

Trends in Analytical Chemistry, Vol. 43, 2013

the oil. derivatization with
Comparison with SFE, MWRE and RE TSPP
Olea europaea Sugar profiling UAE(100 mg) with 6.5 mL of a mixture of – – Silylation GC-MS/ 0.02–2 lg/mL [33]
methanol-dichloromethane for a 10 min in an MS
ultrasonic probe (duty cycle = 0.5 s, output
amplitude = 60% of the converter, applied
power = 450 W with the probe placed 1 cm from
the bottom of the container)
Sea and freshwater algae and Isoflavones US-pretreatment (0.1 g) with 300 lL of SFE 94–103 – ULC-MS/MS 0.06–2 lg/L [37]
cyanobacteria modifier mixture (methanol:H2O 1:9, v/v)for
30 min in ultrasonic bath or by the means of the
thorn sonication device followed by SFE.
Two different approaches of sonication
pretreatment were tested: sonication bath and the
horn instrument
 Trends in Analytical Chemistry, Vol. 43, 2013
Legumes Isoflavones UAE (10 g) with 10 mL of methanol for 2 h at – – LC-MS/MS – [26]
room temperature in an ultrasonic bath (40 kHz,
135 W)
Nightshades vegetal and Nicotine UA-HF-LPME was performed using 5 lL of 94–99 19 GC-MS 0.2–0.5 ng/g [55]
commercial food products toluene as an extracting solvent in 1.0 cm of
hollow fiber for 10 min in an ultrasonic bath
Comparison with DDSME
Fructus Corni Identification of UAME (0.5 g) with concentration of ethanol 70%, 97–103 – LC-DAD UV 0.02-0.24 lg/mL [56]
substances solvent-to-material ratio 24 ml/g; temperature,
61C and irradiation time 6.5 min. Simultaneous
ultrasound and microwave power

Peptides/Biomarkers
Fish authentication
Soybean
Peptide biomarker After protein extraction with a Tris buffer, HIFU of – – LC-MS/MS – [34]
the PRVBs, considered as the best protein
biomarker for the authentication of Merluciidae
species, with trypsin. A high-intensity ultrasonic
probe with a 1 mm probe tip was set to 50%
amplitude and was used to perform the ultrafast
digestion for 1 min.
Peptide mapping UAE (600 mg of powdered soybean) with 10 mL – – 2D cLC-DAD – [35]
of 50 mM Tris–HCl (pH 8.0) and 8 M urea. The
extraction was carried out for 3 min in an
ultrasonic bath. UAEE with trypsin in 1 min using
the ultrasonic probe at 20% amplitude and
without pulses.

2D cLC-DAD, Two dimensional capillary liquid chromatography-diode array; GC-FPD, Gas chromatography-flame photometric detector; GC-MS/MS, Gas chromatography tandem mass
spectrometry; GC-NPD, Gas chromatography-nitrogen phosphorus detector; HG-AFS, hydride generation atomic fluorescence spectrometry; HIFU, High-intensity focused ultrasounds; LC-
DAD-UV, Liquid chromatography-diode array ultraviolet spectroscopy; LC-ICP-MS, Liquid chromatography-inductively coupled plasma-mass spectrometry; LC-UV, Liquid-chromatography-
ultraviolet detection; IL-DLLME, Ionic liquid dispersive liquid-liquid microextraction; LC-FLD, Liquid-chromatography-fluorescence detection; LC-MS/MS, Liquid chromatography tandem mass
spectrometry; LC-TOF-MS, Liquid chromatography time-of-flight mass spectrometry; MISPE-UAEME, Molecularly-imprinted solid-phase extraction-ultrasound-assisted microextraction; TSPP, 1-
[2-(p-toluenesulfonate)ethyl]-2-phenylimidazole[4,5-f]9,10-phenanthrene; UA-IL-DLLME, Ultrasound-assisted ionic liquid dispersive liquid-liquid microextraction; UHPLC-MS/MS, Ultra-high-
performance liquid chromatography-tandem mass spectrometry; UMAE, Ultrasound-microwave-assisted extraction; US, Ultrasound; UAE-MSPD, Ultrasound assisted extraction-matrix solid-
phase dispersion.
http://www.elsevier.com/locate/trac

Trends
91
92

Trends
Table 2. Some representative examples of the use of ultrasound-assisted extraction (UAE) in the analysis of environmental matrices.

Matrix Analytes Remarks on the extraction Recovery EF Determination LODs Ref

http://www.elsevier.com/locate/trac

Inorganic elements
Street dust samples Trace and major UAE (15 mg) with 1 mL concentrated HNO3-HCl (1:3, 85–125 – ICP-MS 0.01–0.09 mg/kg [31]
elements v/v) for 3 min by a 1 mm diameter titanium ultrasonic
probe (200 W, 24 kHz at 80% amplitude).
Water Lead UAEME with 45 lL CCl4 and dithizone as complexing – 70 GFAAS 20 pg/mL [28]
agent for 8 min in an ultrasonic bath (40 kHz, 100 W)
Water Copper IUSA-DLLME and UAEME with 282 lL CCl4 and – 220 UV-Vis spectrometry 0.05 ng/mL [57]
diethyl-dithiocarbamate for 45 s in an ultrasonic bath
Comparison with LLE and injection-assisted DLLME
Soil and water Te (IV) UAE-SFODME (14.0 mL)into the fine droplets of 97–106 342 GFAAS 3 ng/L [58]
40.0 lL 1-undecanol after chelate formation
ammonium pyrrolidine dithiocarbamate for 4 min in
an ultrasonic bath
Soil, sediment, fly ash Silver and gold UAE (3–30 mg) 81–107 (Ag) – Electrothermal AAS 0.012 lg/g (Ag) [36]
and industrial sludge Two different systems 91–105 (Au) 0.050 lg/g (Au)
(i) 1 mL of acid mixtures (HCl, HF, HNO3)
(ii) 1 mL if thiourea in diluted H2SO4
Using a cup-horn sonoreactor (amplitude of 60%)
Biological tissues P, K, Ca, Cr, Mn, Fe, Ni, UAE (10 mg) with 1 mL of 0.01% w/v Triton X- 72–110 – Total reflection X- 0.9–187 lg/g [32]
Cu, Zn, As, Se and Sr 100 + 3% v/v HNO3 using an ultrasonic-probe (30 s at ray fluorescence
an amplitude of 30%) or a cup-horn sonoreactor. spectrometry
Comparison of ultrasonic-probe and cup-horn
sonoreactor with magnetic agitation

Organic contaminants
Indoor dust Brominate and UAE (75 mg) with 2 mL hexane–Acetone (3:1, v/v) for 80–110 – GC-MS 0.04–17 ng/g [59]
organophosphate flame 5 min in an ultrasonic bath. Clean-up by fractionation
retardants in Florisil.
Indoor air Fragrance allergens Retention of the target compounds on Florisil and UAE >80 – GC-MS 60.6 lg/m3 [60]

Trends in Analytical Chemistry, Vol. 43, 2013

(25 mg) with ethyl acetate for 5 min using an
ultrasound bath at 40 kHz of ultrasound frequency and
200 W power
House dust PBDE UAE (3 g) with 100 mL toluene for 2 h (eight 15-min 50–105 – GC-MS – [61]
cycles) with an ultrasonic bath GC-ECD
Comparison with PLE and Soxhlet
Groundwater samples Quinolones IL-UAEME (10 mL + 1.0% aqueous ammonia to pH 9) 85–107 122–205 LC-FLD 0.8- 13 ng/L [62]
with 0.4 mL of methanol (disperser solvent) containing
65 mg of [C8MIM] [PF6] (extraction solvent) for 5 min
in an ultrasonic bath
Water Chlorinated UAEME (15 mL) with 240 lL of dichloromethane for 95–113 22–83 LC-DAD 0.67-1.50 ng/mL [63]
phenoxyacetic 5 min in an ultrasonic bath
Water Organochlorine UAEME (10 mL + 0.2 g NaCl) with 10 lL of 1-decanol 70–107 1202–4587 GC-ECD 0.6 to 2.9 ng/L [64]
pesticides for 4 min in an ultrasonic bath
 Trends in Analytical Chemistry, Vol. 43, 2013
Water BTEXs UAEME (10 mL) with 15 lL of nitrobenzene for 1 min 94–99 653–835 GC-FID 0.4–2 lg/L [65]
at 25 ± 0.5C in an ultrasonic bath (28 kHz, 100 W)
Water Organochlorine LDS-UAEME (6 mL) with 30 lL of isooctane into an 8- 78–120 128–328 GC-MS 0.8-10 ng/L [66]
pesticides mL plastic Pasteur pipette for 30 s at 25 ± 2C in an
ultrasonic water bath (35 kHz 0.32 kW).
Environmental water Carbamate Pesticide LDS-UAEME (4 mL) with 50 lL of toluene in an 88–107 80 On-column 0.01-0.1 lg/L [67]
samples ultrasonic bath. Comparison with UAEME and LDS- derivatization
DLLME GC-MS
Water 48 Pesticides UAE (10 mL) with 10 mL of acetonitrile by sonication 75–111 10 LC-MS/MS 0.05-5 ng/mL [68]
(15 min at 0.5 cycles and 60% amplitude) with an
ultrasonic probe
Sewage sludge Bisphenol A and its UAE (1 g into an stainless steel capsule) with 10 mL of 98–103 2 LC–MS/MS 9 ng/g [69]
chlorinated derivatives ethyl acetate for 20 min at 70% amplitude in an
ultrasonic bath.
Comparison with MAE and PLE
Sewage sludge Dibutylin and tributylin UAE (0.2 g in a closed tube) with 4 mL of acetic acid – – Derivatization – [70]
for 30 min in an ultrasonic bath GC-MS
Comparison with MAE and mechanical stirring. GC-FPD
GC-ICP-MS
Soil Chlorophenols EME–LDS-UAEME (100 mL) EME under 50 V for 78–105 2198 Derivatization GC- < 0.005 lg/L [71]
10 min, pH of 1; 1-octanol as SLM; 30 lL toluene as MS
LDS-UAEME extraction solvent for 2 min in an
ultrasonic bath
Soil Chlorobenzenes UAE (1 g) with 10 mL of ultrapure water for 30 min at 93–105 250 GC-IT-MS 0.7-27.3 ng/g [29]
30 C in an ultrasonic bath (100 W). SBME with
hollow fiber membrane that contains about 4 lL of 1-
octanol. Comparison with Soxhlet extraction
Soil Phenylurea herbicides UAE (10 g) with 20 mL of acetonitrile-water (1:1) by 76–108 10 LC-MS/MS 0.1- 9.0 ng/g [72]
sonication (15 min at 0.5 cycles and 60% amplitude)
with an ultrasonic probe
Biological samples PBDEs UAE (1 g) with 8 mL of n-hexane-dichloromethane 75–114 2 GC-MS/MS 9–44 pg/g [73]
(8:2) followed bydSPEC18-silica as sorbent material
Silk worm larvae Sterols UAE (250 mg) using 150 mM NaCl, 50 mM Tris (pH 91–107 – LC-MS/MS 0.5-10 ng/mL [74]
7.5), 2 mM EDTA for 10 min at 4C in an ultrasonic
bath. Then, the Bligh and Dyer method was used.

AAS, Atomic absorption spectrometry; GC-ECD, Gas chromatography-electron-capture detector; GC-FID, Gas chromatography-flame-ionization detector; GFAAS, Graphite furnace atomic
http://www.elsevier.com/locate/trac

absorption spectrometry; ICP-MS, Inductively coupled plasma-mass spectrometry; PBDE, Polybrominated diphenyl ether.

Trends
93
Trends
established application is to accelerate conventional
extraction methods. UAE, also reported as ultrasound-
assisted leaching (USAL), has been widely used to release
inorganic compounds using acidic and basic solutions
[28,30,36,38–40,57]. These procedures do not involve
total destruction of the sample matrix but the breakdown
of the chemical bonds between the trace elements and
the constituents of the sample matrix.
As far as SLE is concerned, the enzymatic hydrolysis of
biological samples accelerated by ultrasound (known as
ultrasound-assisted enzymatic extraction, UAEE) is cur-
rently the most powerful tool used to extract the total
content of inorganic elements whilst maintaining species
integrity. It can be used for total elemental determina-
tion, elemental speciation and protein characterization
[34,35,41]. It is fast (<2 min per extraction), easy to
operate and inexpensive.
UAEE has an important application in the fast moni-
toring of peptide/protein biomarkers. In this field, UAE is
also named high-intensity focused ultrasound (HIFU)
because only the probe and the cup-horn sonoreactors
can speed the digestion process [34,35]. The ultrasonic
bath is inefficient for this purpose. Overall, the ultrasonic
approach can be applied to in-gel separated proteins (1D
or 2D) or proteins dissolved in liquids (including, in this
case, whole proteomes). It can be used to speed the steps
of denaturation, reduction, alkylation and digestion. A
general scheme of this method is shown in Fig. 4. The
application of only 1–2 min of HIFU to in-solution tryptic
digestions has been reported to achieve efficiency and
reproducibility similar to those obtained by traditional
overnight protocols [75].
Ultrasound-assisted solvent extraction is also consid-
ered a good option for organic-compound extraction
from different matrices, as it provides more efficient
contact between solid and solvent due to an increase of
pressure (which favors penetration and transport) and
temperature (which improves solubility and diffusivity).
Figure 4. Sonoreactor approach to enhance in-gel or in-solution protein-identification workflows. The sonoreactor can also be used to accelerate
denaturation, reduction, alkylation and cleaning steps. A volume as low as 5 lL can be handled in as little as 1 min. 50% sonication amplitude is
usually enough to guarantee successful treatment. Temperature generally reached is 50C, but water can be recirculated or substituted. The
sonication power of sonoreactors or ultrasonic probes is enough to guarantee acceleration of protein digestion. Ultrasonic baths cannot boost
enzymatic digestions (reproduced with permission from [75]).
94 http://www.elsevier.com/locate/trac
Trends in Analytical Chemistry, Vol. 43, 2013
Several extractions can be performed simultaneously,
and, as no specialized laboratory equipment is required,
the technique is relatively inexpensive compared to most
modern extraction methods. Several classes of food
components (e.g., aroma, pigments, antioxidants and
other organic and mineral compounds), additives and
environmental contaminants have been extracted and
analyzed efficiently from a variety of matrices (mainly
animal tissues, food, plant materials, water, soil and
sediment) [27,33,53,54]. A wide range of solvents or
solutions can be used and the solvents can be collected
easily. However, the extraction is still time-consuming
and a large volume of organic solvents is required.
Due to its characteristics, UAE can be used as pre-
treatment prior to more sophisticated extraction. For
example, a UAE/solid-phase extraction (SPE)/supercriti-
cal fluid extraction (SFE) method was developed for trace
concentrations of isoflavones in algae and cyanobacteria
[37]. During the sonication pretreatment, certain parts
of the matrix (e.g., walls of the cells or organelles in plant
material) are damaged, and the SFE mass transfer takes
place much more easily.
UAE is just a way to assist and to accelerate extrac-
tions by coupling with other extraction methods
{microwave-assisted extraction (MAE) [56], matrix so-
lid-phase dispersion (MSPD) [51] and hollow-fiber liquid-
phase microextraction (HF-LPME) [55]}. As an example,
Fig. 5 shows the performance of ultrasound HF-LPME
(UA-HF-LPME) [55], which improves the separation and
the preconcentration of nicotine from nightshade vegetal
and commercial food products.
3.2. Ultrasound-assisted emulsification microextraction
(UAEME)
More recently, a novel microextraction technique, named
UAEME, or ultrasound-assisted dispersive liquid–liquid
microextraction (DLLME), was reported by Regueiro et al.
[76]. This approach is based on emulsification of a mic-
Trends in Analytical Chemistry, Vol. 43, 2013
Figure 5. Operation of ultrasound-assisted hollow-fiber liquid-phase microextraction (UA-HF-LPME) (reproduced with permission from [55]).
rovolume of water-immiscible extraction solvent in the
aqueous sample solution by ultrasound radiation, which
can increase the contact surface between the two
immiscible phases, favoring the mass transfer of analytes
into the organic phase and improving the extraction
efficiency. More importantly, UAEME does not need the
disperser solvent used in conventional DLLME, which
avoids losses of the target analytes. The main effects of
ultrasound are the fragmentation of one of the phases to
form an emulsion of sub-micron droplet size that extends
the contact surface between both liquids.
Combining the benefit of microextraction and ultra-
sound radiation has made it possible to establish an
efficient preconcentration technique for determining
analytes at trace-concentration levels. In this way,
UAEME has been reported for the extraction of food
preservatives, strobilurin and oxazole fungicides, Sudan
dyes, polybrominated diphenyl ethers, trichloroanisole,
pesticides, and other analytes in liquid samples prior to
their determination by several detection techniques
[41,42,44,45,47,48]. The technique is very versatile
and, when necessary, UAEME with in situ derivatization
(UAEME-ISD) can be performed for simultaneous one-
step derivatization, extraction, and preconcentration, as
proposed for the determination of bisphenol A in bever-
ages using acetic anhydride as the derivatizing agent
[45]. There are already many variants reported in the
operation modes of this technique [e.g., injection-ultra-
sound-assisted dispersive liquid-liquid microextraction
(IUSA-DLLME)]. Here, a small amount (mL) of the
extraction solvent is rapidly injected into a large volume
of aqueous sample to form a cloudy solution by a syringe
with a home-made porous plastic tip, and then the
cloudy solution is immersed immediately into an ultra-
sonic water bath for a short time. The performance of
IUSA-DLLME was illustrated by the determination of
Trends
copper at the 0.5 ng/mL concentration level in real
water samples by using UV-visible spectrophotometry
with diethyl dithiocarbamate as complexing agent [57].
In the above applications, extraction solvents with
densities higher than water have been most widely used
because they can be sedimented by centrifugation and
conveniently collected after extraction, although some
efforts have been made to apply low-density organic
solvents [66,67]. The simplest reported procedure is to
use a plastic Pasteur pipette filled with the sample and
the organic solvent for low-density, solvent-based
UAEME (LDS-UAEME) [66,67]. Fig. 6 shows the proce-
dure. Once the pipette had been centrifuged, its bulb was
squeezed slightly, and the upper layer comprising the
organic extract moved into the narrower stem of the
pipette. This permitted convenient retrieval of the extract
using a several lL GC microsyringes.
As a more complex example, electro membrane
extraction combined with LDS-UAEME (EME–LDS-
UAEME) was developed for the determination of chlor-
ophenols in water. The method possesses the advantages
of EME and UAEME. Since the membrane in EME pro-
tects the acceptor solution from interfering materials, no
additional clean-up was required. Moreover, EME, being
driven by electrical potential, is much faster than most
conventional microextraction procedures. The analytes
were further preconcentrated by LDS-UAEME. High
extraction efficiency was obtained, due to the combina-
tion of the two techniques [71].
Ionic liquid-based UAEME (IL-UAEME) or ultrasound-
assisted ionic liquid/ionic liquid dispersive liquid-liquid
microextraction (UA-IL/IL-DLLME) is based on the
emulsification of hydrophobic IL in an aqueous sample by
ultrasound radiation and further separation of both li-
quid phases by centrifugation. In IL-UAEME, ultrasound
and dispersive solvents are utilized to increase the
http://www.elsevier.com/locate/trac 95
Trends
Figure 6. Polyethylene Pasteur pipette-based Ultrasound-assisted emulsification microextraction (UAEME) with a low-density organic solvent:
(a) introduction of aqueous sample and extraction solvent; (b) ultrasonication for 30 s; (c) phase separation after centrifugation; (d) squeezing
the pipette bulb; and, (e) collection of the extract (reproduced with permission from [66]).
extraction ability of ILs. The IL-UAEME method has been
successfully applied to the pre-concentration of insecti-
cides and antibiotics [47,52].
USAEME has also been successfully combined with
solidification of floating organic drop microextraction
(SFODME); which uses a water-immiscible solvent hav-
ing a melting point in the range 10–30C [58]. The or-
ganic phase with the analytes is easily separated by
solidification. The application of a miniaturized UAE-
SFODME approach to determine tellurium using a micro
volume of undecanol provides the advantages of both
techniques.
4. Comparison with other techniques
Several studies reported the comparison of UAE (mainly
in terms of recoveries and duration) with other extrac-
tion techniques, either classical or recent.
4.1. Classical techniques
As the majority of UAE applications deal with solid
matrices, the classical techniques are commonly man-
ual shaking, Soxhlet extraction, steam distillation or
reflux. Most often, UAE affords several advantages over
classical techniques (e.g., lower solvent consumption,
speed, and the potential to recover tightly bound resi-
dues not easily released by conventional techniques). In
addition, UAE is well suited to routine analysis, and
solvents already used for classical methods may be
readily adaptable to UAE.
Shaking and UAE were compared for the extraction of
sodium nifurstyrenate and nitrovin residues from liver
using acetonitrile [27]. The recoveries of both analytes
obtained by ultrasonic extraction were better than those
of than shaking [i.e., 90% and 88% versus 76% and
79%, respectively]. Furthermore, ultrasound is easy to
96 http://www.elsevier.com/locate/trac
Trends in Analytical Chemistry, Vol. 43, 2013
handle and saves time. Several studies reported similar
results for UAE or Soxhlet extraction in applications
{e.g., PBDEs from dust samples [61] or chlorobenzenes
from soil [29]}.
A comparative study of steam-distillation extraction
(SDE), reflux extraction (RE), and UAE was conducted
for the extraction of essential oils from the bud of
Citrus aurantium L. var. amara Engl. Each method was
evaluated in terms of qualitative and quantitative
composition of the isolated essential oil by gas chro-
matography/mass spectrometry (GC-MS). The extract
yields of essential oil were 0.2%, 2.2% and 2.3%,
respectively; 82 compounds were identified by GC-MS.
The main components obtained by SDE were terpinen-
4-ol (21.0%), dipentene (11.7%), terpinene (9.2%),
those by RE were palmitic acid (20.6%), 2-chloroethyl
linoleate (14.5%), tetracosane (12.3%), and a-linolenic
acid (11.2%), and those by USE were tetracosane
(11.3%), heneicosane (11.1%), and palmitic acid
(8.8%). Comparative analysis indicated that SDE was
favored for extraction of monoterpene hydrocarbons,
sesquiterpene hydrocarbons, alcohols, and carbonyl
compounds, and RE and USE had certain advantages
in extraction of aliphatic saturated hydrocarbons, or-
ganic acids, and esters. It was concluded that different
extraction methods may lead to different yields of
essential oils; the choice of appropriate method is very
important to obtain more desired components with
higher physiological activities [53].
4.2. Microwave-assisted extraction (MAE), pressurized-
liquid extraction (PLE) and supercritical-fluid
extraction (SFE)
Among the more recently developed solvent extraction
techniques, MAE and pressurized liquid extraction (PLE)
showed the highest extraction yields in food processing,
with short extraction times and easy operation, due to
Trends in Analytical Chemistry, Vol. 43, 2013
the high degree of automation [1,3]. In comparison, UAE
offered a simpler extraction procedure, requiring
amounts of solvent similar to MAE and PLE, but longer
analysis times [1,3].
Despite the differences in the extraction procedures,
the three methods exhibited similar analytical parame-
ters in relation to sensitivity, selectivity, accuracy and
precision. The three techniques were compared in order
to evaluate their efficiency in the extraction of bisphenol
A and its chlorinated derivatives with ethyl acetate from
sewage-sludge samples. The results showed no statisti-
cally significant differences between the three extraction
techniques for the determination of BPA. Selection of a
technique is determined by price-related rather than
analytical factors. One of the most important contribu-
tions of this work is the demonstration that the three
evaluated extraction techniques are all useful, offering
accurate and precise determination of compounds [69].
PBDEs were extracted from dust samples, applying three
different extraction techniques (i.e. Soxhlet extraction, PLE
and UAE) and different organic solvents [61]. Good results
for all studied congeners were observed for PLE, applying
both n-hexane and dichloromethane-n-hexane (1:1) as
extraction solvents. High recoveries were also reported for
Soxhlet extraction (dichloromethane, dichloromethane-
hexane (1:1)) and UAE (toluene). Finally, while UAE gives
extraction efficiencies comparable to MAE and PLE, with
similar extraction times, MAE and PLE require greater
investment (for more expensive equipment).
Among different extraction procedures (including
UAE), SFE showed the highest extraction yields for 39
fatty extracted from pulverized Microulasikkimensis seed
[54]. The entire extraction process was almost completed
within 90 min and the extraction yield of SFE could at-
tain 34.0%. The three other extraction methods tested
[microwave-assisted reflux extraction (MWRE), USE and
RE] were carried out with dichloromethane and the
extraction yields for them were: MWRE, 13%; USE, 7%;
and, RE, 12%. Furthermore, SFE is more efficient and
compatible for extraction of chemicals from natural
medicines or foods than MWRE, UAE and RE because it
uses no organic solvents [54].
4.3. Liquid-liquid microextraction (LLME)
The performance of UAE have also been compared to
recent liquid-liquid microextraction (LLME) techniques
dedicated to the treatment of solid and liquid samples:
drop-to-drop solvent microextraction (DDSME), single-
drop microextraction (SDME), ionic liquid-homogeneous
liquid-liquid microextraction (IL-H-LLME) and ionic li-
quid-temperature-controlled-dispersive liquid-liquid
microextraction (IL-TC-DLLME). Although these tech-
niques are relatively new, there are already a number of
studies that compare their performances to UAE.
The potential of UA-HF-LPME was compared with that
of DDSME by calculating the enrichment factors (EF) and
Trends
limits of detection (LODs) at the optimized conditions for
spiked tomatoes. The EFs obtained for UA-HF-LPME and
DDSME were 19 and 5, respectively. A four-fold
improvement in the EF and LODs also showed that UA-
HF-LPME was better for separation and preconcentration
of nicotine from nightshade vegetal samples [55].
As an illustration of the efficiency of UAEME, the
recoveries of several strobilurin and oxazole fungicides
were compared with those obtained by SDME [48]. The
use of low-density organic solvents appeared appropriate
for both miniaturized procedures. Comparison of the
equilibrium time and extraction temperature indicated
that UAEME is advantageous for extraction of fungicides,
as equilibrium was reached in a few seconds at room
temperature, meaning it is a more precise, robust
method. EFs were 140–1140 for the target fungicides
using UAEME and 80–1600 using SDME. The extraction
recoveries were similar for both methods (80–119%).
LODs were 6–75 ng/L and 100–310 ng/L for UAEME
and SDME, respectively.
The performances of UA-IL/IL-DLLME, IL-H-LLME, IL-
UAEME and IL-TC-DLLME were compared for the deter-
mination of sulfonamides in infant formula milk powder.
Slightly higher recoveries (90–115) were observed with
UA-IL/IL-DLLME, especially for sulfamethoxazole. Also,
both UAE methods performed better than traditional
LLME [47].
The extraction efficiencies of Cu(II) by (1) LLE, (2)
injection-assisted DLLME, (3) ultrasound-assisted DLLME
and (4) IUSA-DLLME were compared by measuring the
absorbance at the maximum absorption wavelength
(435 nm) of the Cu–diethyl-dithiocarbamate complex
[57]. In comparison with LLE, the three DLLME proce-
dures gave improved absorbance; IUSA-DLLME gave the
highest absorbance (i.e. about twice the absorbance of
LLE). Ultrasound-assisted DLLME gave lower absorbance
than IUSA-DLLME for concentrations above 12.5 ng/mL
of copper, because, in a given time, the speed and the
degree of dispersion of ultrasound-assisted DLLME are
lower than those of IUSA-DLLME. It was observed that,
at the start of the dispersion process of ultrasound-as-
sisted DLLM, only part of the organic solvent dispersed
into the aqueous phase, the other part remaining as a
separate phase at the bottom of the tube, with the
‘‘cloud’’ developing gradually from the bottom to the
upper part of the tube.
LDS-UAEME, conventional UAEME and low-density
solvent-based DLLME (LDS-DLLME) were also compared
for the extraction of carbamate pesticides from environ-
mental water samples [67]. LDS-UAEME had some
advantages. Most importantly, no dispersive solvent is
needed in LDS-UAEME. In DLLME, this usually amounts to
hundreds of lL. This is the most prominent advantage of
UAEME over DLLME. Furthermore, the toluene employed
in LDS-UAEME in the present work was much less toxic
than chlorinated solvents widely used in conventional
http://www.elsevier.com/locate/trac 97
Trends
UAEME. The proposed method offers a simple, practical
approach to extend the range of suitable solvents for
UAEME use, overcoming the limitation of high-density
chlorinated extraction solvents necessary for conven-
tional DLLME with centrifugation in order to collect the
final extract at the bottom of the extraction vessel.
5. Final remarks
Even though the use of ultrasound energy to enhance
the extraction of organic compounds is rather recent,
numerous applications have extracted compounds in
food and environmental matrices. Several classes of
compounds (e.g., PAHs, pesticides, inorganic com-
pounds, antibacterials, preservatives, dyes, trichloroani-
soles, essential oils, fatty acids, isoflavones and peptides)
have been extracted efficiently from a variety of matrices
(mainly soils, sediments, animal tissues, and vegetables),
either spiked or containing incurred compounds. All the
reported applications show that UAE is a viable alter-
native to conventional techniques for such matrices.
Comparable efficiencies have been reported along with
acceptable reproducibilities. In addition, UAE offers a
great reduction in time and solvent consumption, as well
as the opportunity to perform multiple extractions. Evi-
dence has also been presented that UAE may compete
favorably with recent techniques (e.g., MAE, PLE and
LLME). In particular, optimization of UAE conditions is
rather easy, due to the small number of parameters (i.e.
matrix moisture, nature of solvent, and time) compared
to the other techniques.
Finally, it appears that use of UAE in analytical labo-
ratories should increase in the next few years, especially
due to the reasonable cost of the equipment.
Acknowledgments
This work has been supported by the Spanish Ministry of
Economy and Competitiveness through the project
‘‘Assessing and predicting effects on water quantity and
quality in Iberian rivers caused by global change’’
(SCARCE) Consolider-Ingenio 2010 (CSD2009-00065)
and ‘‘Evaluation of Emerging Contaminants in the Turia
River Basin: from basic research to environmental
forensics applications’’ (CGL2011-29703-C02-02).
References
[1] J. Chandrapala, C. Oliver, S. Kentish, M. Ashokkumar, Ultrason.
Sonochem. 19 (2012) 975.
[2] A. Patist, D. Bates, Innov. Food Sci. Emerg. Technol. 9 (2008)
147.
[3] J. Chandrapala, C.M. Oliver, S. Kentish, M. Ashokkumar, Food
Rev. Int. 29 (2013) 67.
[4] S. Seidi, Y. Yamini, Cent. Eur. J. Chem. 10 (2012) 938.
98 http://www.elsevier.com/locate/trac
Trends in Analytical Chemistry, Vol. 43, 2013
[5] F. Chemat, M.A. Vian, G. Cravotto, Int. J. Mol. Sci. 13 (2012)
8615.
[6] S.R. Shirsath, S.H. Sonawane, P.R. Gogate, Chem. Eng. Process.
53 (2012) 10.
[7] G. Cravotto, A. Binello, L. Orio, Agro Food Ind. Hi-Tech 22 (2011)
57.
[8] T.S. Awad, H.A. Moharram, O.E. Shaltout, D. Asker, M.M.
Youssef, Food Res. Int. 48 (2012) 410.
[9] T.J. Mason, L. Paniwnyk, J.P. Lorimer, Ultrason. Sonochem. 3
(1996) S253–S260.
[10] K. Vilkhu, R. Mawson, L. Simons, D. Bates, Innov. Food Sci.
Emerg. Technol. 9 (2008) 161.
[11] A.C. Soria, M. Villamiel, Trends Food Sci. Technol. 21 (2010)
323.
[12] L.J. Zhang, S.W. Liu, X.Y. Cui, C.P. Pan, A.L. Zhang, F. Chen,
Cent. Eur. J. Chem. 10 (2012) 900.
[13] M.A. Rostagno, M. DÕArrigo, J.A. Martinez, Trends Anal. Chem.
29 (2010) 553.
[14] J. Tadeo, C. Sanchez-Brunete, B. Albero, A. Garcia-Valcarcel, R.A.
Perez, Cent. Eur. J. Chem. 10 (2012) 480.
[15] M.A. Rostagno, A. Villares, E. Guillamon, A. Garcia-Lafuente, J.A.
Martinez, J. Chromatogr., A 1216 (2009) 2.
[16] M.D.A. Korn, E.S.D. Morte, D.C.M.B. dos Santos, J.T. Castro, J.T.P.
Barbosa, A.P. Teixeira, A.P. Fernandes, B. Welz, W.P.C. dos
Santos, E.B.G.N. dos Santos, M. Korn, Appl. Spectrosc. Rev. 43
(2008) 67.
[17] Y. Santaladchaiyakit, S. Srijaranai, R. Burakham, J. Sep. Sci. 35
(2012) 2373.
[18] S. Chemat, A. Lagha, H.A. Amar, F. Chemat, Ultrason. Sonochem.
11 (2004) 5.
[19] M.D. Luque de Castro, F. Priego-Capote, Trends Anal. Chem. 26
(2007) 154.
[20] C. Bendicho, I. De La Calle, F. Pena, M. Costas, N. Cabaleiro, I.
Lavilla, Trends Anal. Chem. 31 (2012) 50.
[21] K. Ashley, Trends Anal. Chem. 17 (1998) 366.
[22] J.L. Tadeo, C. Sanchez-Brunete, B. Albero, A.I. Garcia-Valcarcel, J.
Chromatogr., A 1217 (2010) 2415.
[23] Y. Pico, in: Y. Pico (Editor), Chemical Analysis of Food:
Techniques and Applications, Elsevier, Oxford, UK, 2012, p. 117.
[24] F. Chemat, Zill-e-Huma, M.K. Khan, Ultrason. Sonochem. 18
(2011) 813.
[25] H.M. Santos, J.L. Capelo, Talanta 73 (2007) 795.
[26] N. Konar, E.S. Poyrazoglu, K. Demir, N. Artik, J. Food Compos,
Anal. 25 (2012) 173.
[27] Y.F. Tao, H.A. Yu, D.M. Chen, Z.Y. Liu, D. Yang, Y.H. Pan, Y.L.
Wang, L.L. Huang, Z.H. Yuan, J. Chromatogr., B 878 (2010)
3415.
[28] H.M. Jiang, Y. Zhang, B.C. Qiu, W.H. Li, Clean Soil Air Water 40
(2012) 438.
[29] L. Wang, L. Wang, J. Chen, W. Du, G. Fan, X. Lu, J. Chromatogr.,
A 1256 (2012) 9.
[30] F. Cubadda, F. Aureli, S. Ciardullo, M. DÕAmato, A. Raggi, R.
Acharya, R.A.V. Reddy, N.T. Prakash, J. Agric. Food Chem. 58
(2010) 2295.
[31] M.R. Palomo Marin, E. Pinilla Gil, L. Calvo Blazquez, J.L. Capelo-
Martı́nez, Talanta 84 (2011) 840.
[32] I.D. La Calle, M. Costas, N. Cabaleiro, I. Lavilla, C. Bendicho,
Spectrochim, Acta, Part B 67 (2012) 43.
[33] S. Gomez-Gonzalez, J. Ruiz-Jimenez, F. Priego-Capote, M.D. Luque
de Castro, J. Agric. Food Chem. 58 (2010) 12292.
[34] M. Carrera, B. Cañas, D. Lopez-Ferrer, C. Piñeiro, J. Vazquez, M.
Gallardo, Anal. Chem. 83 (2011) 5688.
[35] E. Dominguez-Vega, M.C. Garcia, A.L. Crego, M.L. Marina, J.
Chromatogr., A 1217 (2010) 6443.
[36] I. De La Calle, N. Cabaleiro, M. Costas, F. Pena, S. Gil, I. Lavilla, C.
Bendicho, Microchem. J. 97 (2011) 93.
Trends in Analytical Chemistry, Vol. 43, 2013
[37] B. Klejdus, L. Lojkova, M. Plaza, M. Snoblova, D. Sterbova, J.
Chromatogr., A 1217 (2010) 7956.
[38] B.L. Batista, J.L. Rodrigues, S.S. de Souza, V.C.O. Souza, F.
Barbosa, Food Chem. 126 (2011) 2000.
[39] D. Esteban-Fernandez, M. Mirat, I. Martin de la Hinojosa, I.
Garcia-Alonso, J. Agric. Food Chem. 60 (2012) 8333.
[40] M.N.M. Reyes, M.L. Cervera, M. de la Guardia, J. Braz. Chem. Soc.
22 (2011) 197.
[41] J.L. Yang, D. Li, C.J. Sun, Anal. Methods 4 (2012) 3436.
[42] H.Y. Yan, J.D. Qiao, H. Wang, G.L. Yang, K.H. Row, Analyst
(Cambridge, UK) 136 (2011) 2629.
[43] C.K. Zacharis, F.S. Kika, P.D. Tzanavaras, P. Rigas, E.R. Kyranas,
Talanta 84 (2011) 480.
[44] A.R. Fontana, S.A. Patil, K. Banerjee, J.C. Altamirano, J. Agric.
Food Chem. 58 (2010) 4576.
[45] A.R. Fontana, M.M. de Toro, J.C. Altamirano, J. Agric. Food Chem.
59 (2011) 3559.
[46] R. Fernandez-Torres, M.A.B. Lopez, M.O. Consentino, M.C.
Mochon, J.L. Perez-Bernal, Anal. Chim. Acta 675 (2010)
156.
[47] S. Gao, X. Yang, W. Yu, Z. Liu, H. Zhang, Talanta 99 (2012)
875.
[48] P. Vinas, N. Martinez-Castillo, N. Campillo, M. Hernandez-
Cordoba, J. Chromatogr., A 1217 (2010) 6569.
[49] M.A. Gonzalez-Curbelo, M. Asensio-Ramos, A.V. Herrera-Herrera,
J. Hernandez-Borges, Anal. Bioanal. Chem. 404 (2012) 183.
[50] A. Bidari, M.R. Ganjali, P. Norouzi, M.R.M. Hosseini, Y. Assadi,
Food Chem. 126 (2011) 1840.
[51] E. Sobhanzadeh, N.K.A. Bakar, M.R.B. Abas, K. Nemati, J. Hazard.
Mater. 186 (2011) 1308.
[52] J. Zhang, H. Gao, B. Peng, S. Li, Z. Zhou, J. Chromatogr., A 1218
(2011) 6621.
[53] M.H. Jiang, L. Yang, L. Zhu, J.H. Piao, J.G. Jiang, J. Food Sci. 76
(2011) C1219.
[54] Y. Cao, Y.R. Suo, J. Food Compos, Anal. 23 (2010) 100.
[55] K. Shrivas, D.K. Patel, Food Chem. 122 (2010) 314.
[56] Z. Liu, Z. Zhu, H. Zhang, G. Tan, X. Chen, Y. Chai, J. Pharm.
Biomed. Anal. 55 (2011) 557.
Trends
[57] X.X. Liao, B. Liang, Z.Z. Li, Y.F. Li, Analyst (Cambridge, UK) 136
(2011) 4580.
[58] F. Fathirad, D. Afzali, A. Mostafavi, M. Ghanbarian, Talanta 88
(2012) 759.
[59] N. Van den Eede, A.C. Dirtu, N. Ali, H. Neels, A. Covaci, Talanta
89 (2012) 292.
[60] J.P. Lamas, L. Sanchez-Prado, C. Garcia-Jares, M. Llompart, J,
Chromatogr. A 1217 (2010) (1882).
[61] S. Krol, B. Zabiegala, J. Namiesnik, J. Chromatogr. A 1249 (2012)
201.
[62] M.M.P. Vazquez, P. Parrilla Vazquez, M. Martinez Galera, M.D.G.
Garcia, Anal. Chim. Acta 748 (2012) 20.
[63] S.L. Lin, M.R. Fuh, J. Chromatogr., A 1217 (2010) 3467.
[64] S.Y. Wei, M.I. Leong, Y. Li, S.D. Huang, J. Chromatogr., A 1218
(2011) 9142.
[65] M. Hashemi, N. Jahanshahi, A. Habibi, Desalination 288 (2012)
93.
[66] Y. Zhang, H.K. Lee, J. Chromatogr., A 1252 (2012) 67.
[67] L. Guo, H.K. Lee, J. Chromatogr., A 1235 (2012) 1.
[68] J. Fenoll, P. Hellin, C.M. Martinez, P. Flores, S. Navarro, Talanta
85 (2011) 975.
[69] N. Dorival-Garcia, A. Zafra-Gomez, A. Navalon, J.L. Vilchez, J.
Chromatogr., A 1253 (2012) 1.
[70] T. Zuliani, R. Milacic, J. Scancar, Anal. Bioanal. Chem. 403
(2012) 857.
[71] L. Guo, H.K. Lee, J. Chromatogr., A 1243 (2012) 14.
[72] J. Fenoll, P. Hellin, C.M. Martinez, P. Flores, S. Navarro, J.
Chromatogr., A 1257 (2012) 81.
[73] A.R. Fontana, A. Camargo, L.D. Martinez, J.C. Altamirano, J.
Chromatogr., A 1218 (2011) 2490.
[74] F. Igarashi, J. Hikiba, M.H. Ogihara, T. Nakaoka, M. Suzuki, H.
Kataoka, Anal. Biochem. 419 (2011) 123.
[75] J.L. Capelo, R. Carreira, M. Diniz, L. Fernandes, M. Galesio, C.
Lodeiro, H.M. Santos, G. Vale, Anal. Chim. Acta 650 (2009) 151.
[76] J. Regueiro, M. Llompart, E. Psillakis, J.C. Garcia-Monteagudo, C.
Garcia-Jares, Talanta 79 (2009) 1387.
http://www.elsevier.com/locate/trac 99