ReviewACS omega2022
A Critical Review on the Development of Optical Sensors for the Determination of Heavy Metals in Water Samples. The Case of Mercury(II) Ion.
Review in ACS omega, 2022. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 8 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
8 citing papers in PubMed, 45 citations in OpenAlex.
- Surface-engineered silica core-shell enables an ideal ratiometric fluorescent probe for highly selective HgScientific reports · 2026Article
- Electrochemical Detection of Multiple Heavy Metal Ions Using a Hybrid Nanocomposite of a Metal-Organic Framework and Cellulose Nanocrystal-PEDOT:PSS.Langmuir : the ACS journal of surfaces and colloids · 2025Article
- Imino and Benzimidazolinyl Functionalized pyrano[2,3-b] Quinoline as a Dual-Responsive Probe for Detection of Mercury ion and Phosgene.Journal of fluorescence · 2025Article
- A Novel Rhodamine Functionalized Schiff Base Type Ratiometric Fluorescent Chemosensor for the Sensing of HgJournal of fluorescence · 2025Article
- Article
- Porphyrin-Grafted Poly(ethylene terephthalate) as a Reusable and Highly Selective Colorimetric Probe for Mercuric Ion Contaminants in Aqueous Samples.ACS applied materials & interfaces · 2024Article
- Quantum Dot-Based Fluorometric Sensor for Hg(II) in Water Customizable for Onsite Visual Detection.ACS omega · 2023Article
- Naphthalimide-Piperazine Derivatives as Multifunctional "On" and "Off" Fluorescent Switches for pH, HgMolecules (Basel, Switzerland) · 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
2 authors at 1 institution in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Recent publications are reviewed concerning the development of sensors for the determination of mercury in drinking water, based on spectroscopic methodologies. A critical analysis is made of the specific details and figures of merit of the developed protocols. Special emphasis is directed to the validation and applicability to real samples in the usual concentration range of mercury, considering the maximum allowed limits in drinking water established by international regulations. It was found that while most publications describe in detail the synthesis, structure, and physicochemical properties of the sensing phases, they do not follow the state of the art in the analytical developments. Recommendations are provided regarding the proper method development and validation, including the setting of the calibration concentration range, the correct estimation of the limits of detection and quantitation, the concentration levels to be set for producing spiked water samples, the number of real samples for adequate validation, the comparison of the developed method with a reference technique, and other analytical features which should be followed.
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.