Evidence map›Paper›PMID 32202410›Full record

ArticleAnalytical chemistry2020

Electromembrane Extraction Using Sacrificial Electrodes.

Frederik A Hansen, Henrik Jensen, Stig Pedersen-Bjergaard

Abstract read
In one paragraph

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 4 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
4citing papers in PubMed
–field-weighted citation impact
1 · What the graph read from it

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.

2 · The registry

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.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

4 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Article
  2. Article
  3. Article
  4. Article
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

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

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

3 authors.

Frederik A HansenDepartment of Pharmacy, University of Oslo, P.O. Box 1068 Blindern, 0316 Oslo, Norway.ORCID 0000-0002-1666-0447
Henrik JensenDepartment of Pharmacy, Faculty of Health and Medical Sciences, University of Copenhagen, Universitetsparken 2, 2100 Copenhagen, Denmark.ORCID 0000-0001-6750-2716
Stig Pedersen-BjergaardDepartment of Pharmacy, University of Oslo, P.O. Box 1068 Blindern, 0316 Oslo, Norway.ORCID 0000-0002-1666-8043

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

In this paper, we report the first example of employing a sacrificial electrode in the acceptor solution during electromembrane extraction (EME). The electrode was based on a silver wire with a layer of silver chloride electroplated onto the surface. During EME, the electrode effectively inhibited electrolysis of water in the acceptor compartment, by accepting the charge transfer across the SLM, which enabled the application of 500 μA current without suffering gas formation or pH changes from electrolysis of water. The electroplating strategy was optimized with a design-of-experiments (DOE) methodology that provided optimal conditions of electroplating. With an optimized electrode, 1 cm of the electrode in contact with the acceptor solution inhibited electrolysis of water for approximately 30 min at 500 μA current (redox capacity). Further, the redox capacity of the electrode was found to increase through multiple uses. The advantage of the electrode was demonstrated by extracting polar analytes at high-current conditions in a standard EME system comprising 2-nitrophenyl octyl ether (NPOE) as SLM and 10 mM HCl as sample/acceptor solutions. Application of high current enabled significantly higher recoveries than could otherwise be obtained at 100 μA. Sacrificial electrodes were also tested in μ-EME and were found beneficial by eliminating detrimental bubble formation. Thus, the sacrificial electrodes improved the stability of μ-EME systems. The findings of this paper are important for development of stable and robust systems for EME operated at high voltage/current and for EME performed in narrow channels/tubing where bubble formation is critical.

Identifiers

PMID32202410
PMCPMC7310954

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

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.