ArticleAnalytical chemistry2020
High-Throughput Liquid-Liquid Extractions with Nanoliter Volumes.
Article in Analytical chemistry, 2020. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 7 papers.
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
7 citing papers in PubMed, 31 citations in OpenAlex.
- Article
- High-Throughput Purification in Drug Discovery: Scaling New Heights of Productivity.ACS medicinal chemistry letters · 2023Review
- High-throughput platforms for microextraction techniques.Analytical and bioanalytical chemistry · 2023Article
- Continuous and automated slug flow nanoextraction for rapid partition coefficient measurement.The Analyst · 2021Article
- Heteropore covalent organic framework-based composite membrane prepared by in situ growth on non-woven fabric for sample pretreatment of food non-targeted analysis.Mikrochimica acta · 2021Article
- Recent advances in analytical techniques for high throughput experimentation.Analytical science advances · 2021Review
- High-throughput screening by droplet microfluidics: perspective into key challenges and future prospects.Lab on a chip · 2020Article
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 at 1 institution in 1 country.
Funding
Abstract
Current methods for liquid-liquid extractions generally require microliter to milliliter volumes of solvents and sample, long equilibration times, and manual procedures. Extraction methods for samples in microfluidic systems have been limited as this tool is difficult to implement on the nanoliter or smaller scale. We have developed slug-flow nanoextraction (SFNE), a method based on droplet microfluidics that allows multiple liquid-liquid extractions to be performed simultaneously in a capillary tube, using only 5 nL of sample and extraction solvent per extraction. Each two-phase slug is segmented from the others by immiscible carrier fluid. We found rapid extractions (<5 s), partition coefficients matching those achieved at larger scale extractions, and potential to preconcentrate samples through volume manipulation. This method was used to accurately and rapidly determine octanol-water partition coefficients (
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.