Graphitic carbon nitride as sorbent for the emulsification-enhanced disposable pipette extraction of eight organochlorine pesticides prior to GC-MS analysis.

What it found

Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.

The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.

The trial behind it

Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.

Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.

Who cites it

4 citing papers in PubMed.

1. In silico engineering of graphitic carbon nitride nanostructures through germanium mono-doping and codoping with transition metals (Ni, Pd, Pt) as sensors for diazinon organophosphorus pesticide pollutants.BMC chemistry · 2025
   Article
2. Review of scientific literature on available methods of assessing organochlorine pesticides in the environment.Heliyon · 2023
   Review
3. Physisorption Behaviors of Organochlorine Pesticides on the InPACS omega · 2023
   Article
4. Miniaturized Salting-Out Assisted Liquid-Liquid Extraction Combined with Disposable Pipette Extraction for Fast Sample Preparation of Neonicotinoid Pesticides in Bee Pollen.Molecules (Basel, Switzerland) · 2020
   Article

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

Authors and funding

2 authors.

Funding

Abstract

Indexed as