ArticleMolecules (Basel, Switzerland)2022
Comparison of Vibrational Spectroscopic Techniques for Quantification of Water in Natural Deep Eutectic Solvents.
Article in Molecules (Basel, Switzerland), 2022. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 3 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
3 citing papers in PubMed, 6 citations in OpenAlex.
- Article
- The Role of Natural Deep Eutectic Solvents in a Hydrogel Formulation Containing Lidocaine.Pharmaceutics · 2025Article
- Label-Free Quantification of Nanoencapsulated Piperonyl Esters in Cosmetic Hydrogels Using Raman Spectroscopy.Pharmaceutics · 2023Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
10 authors at 4 institutions in 5 countries.
Funding
Abstract
Vibrational spectroscopic techniques, i.e., attenuated total reflectance infrared (ATR-IR), near infrared spectroscopy (NIRS) and Raman spectroscopy (RS), coupled with Partial Least Squares Regression (PLSR), were evaluated as cost-effective label-free and reagent-free tools to monitor water content in Levulinic Acid/L-Proline (LALP) (2:1, mol/mol) Natural Deep Eutectic Solvent (NADES). ATR-IR delivered the best outcome of Root Mean Squared Error (RMSE) of Cross-Validation (CV) = 0.27% added water concentration, RMSE of Prediction (P) = 0.27% added water concentration and mean % relative error = 2.59%. Two NIRS instruments (benchtop and handheld) were also compared during the study, respectively yielding RMSECV = 0.35% added water concentration, RMSEP = 0.56% added water concentration and mean % relative error = 5.13% added water concentration, and RMECV = 0.36% added water concentration, RMSEP = 0.68% added water concentration and mean % relative error = 6.23%. RS analysis performed in quartz cuvettes enabled accurate water quantification with RMECV = 0.43% added water concentration, RMSEP = 0.67% added water concentration and mean % relative error = 6.75%. While the vibrational spectroscopic techniques studied have shown high performance in relation to reliable determination of water concentration, their accuracy is most likely related to their sensitivity to detect the LALP compounds in the NADES. For instance, whereas ATR-IR spectra display strong features from water, Levulinic Acid and L-Proline that contribute to the PLSR predictive models constructed, NIRS and RS spectra are respectively dominated by either water or LALP compounds, representing partial molecular information and moderate accuracy compared to ATR-IR. However, while ATR-IR instruments are common in chemistry and physics laboratories, making the technique readily transferable to water quantification in NADES, Raman spectroscopy offers promising potential for future development for in situ, sample withdrawal-free analysis for high throughput and online monitoring.
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.