ArticleToxics2022
Screening of a Novel Solvent for Optimum Extraction of Anionic Surfactants in Water.
Article in Toxics, 2022. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 2 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
2 citing papers in PubMed, 5 citations in OpenAlex.
- Article
- 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
5 authors at 3 institutions in 2 countries.
Funding
Abstract
Anionic surfactants (AS) are detrimental aquatic pollutants due to their well-characterized toxicity to aquatic organisms. The concentration of AS in aquatic environments is increasing because of their extensive use in many industries and households. The standard reference method for AS analysis is to determine a methylene blue active substance (MBAS) complex formed between AS and the methylene blue (MB) cation by using chloroform. However, chloroform has a low AS extraction efficiency and other limiting properties, such as a high density and volatility, which make the conventional AS analytical method time-consuming and labor-intensive. In an effort to replace the use of chloroform, this study was carried out to screen novel solvents for their ability to extract AS in water samples. Criteria were based on AS extraction efficiency, physicochemical properties, and the stability of the solvent under different environmental conditions. Organic solvents, such as methyl isobutyl ketone (MIBK), 1,2-dichloroethane (DCE), dichloromethane, benzene, and n-hexane, were assessed. In extraction of the anionic surfactant sodium dodecyl sulfate (SDS), the mixture of MIBK-DCE (3:1) proved to be an optimum solvent as an alternative to chloroform. It not only enhanced SDS extractability but also improved properties, such as having a lower volatility, a lower density than water, and a quicker phase separation. Among solvents screened, no one single solvent in SDS extraction could meet such criteria. The performance of the MIBK-DCE (3:1) mixture in SDS extraction was stable, irrespective of pH and ionic strength of the SDS solution, washing process, and presence of cations. Anionic interference from halogen and polyatomic and organic anions in SDS extraction by MIBK-DCE (3:1) existed only at an elevated concentration, which is not occurring in the natural aquatic environment. Results demonstrated that a MIBK-DCE (3:1) mixture solvent could be used in AS analysis for a wide range of aquatic samples and it could be the basis for the development of a new analytical method to replace conventional chloroform.
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.