ArticleAnalytical and bioanalytical chemistry2024
Evaluation of deep eutectic solvents in the synthesis of molecularly imprinted fibers for the solid-phase microextraction of triazines in soil samples.
Article in Analytical and bioanalytical chemistry, 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 5 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
5 citing papers in PubMed, 17 citations in OpenAlex.
- Molecularly Imprinted Polymers for Biosensing: From Synthetic Recognition to Integrated Biointerfaces.Micromachines · 2026Review
- [Applications of molecularly imprinted solid-phase microextraction coupled with chromatography/mass spectrometry for determination of drug residues].Se pu = Chinese journal of chromatography · 2026Review
- Piperine: From Green Extraction to Clinical Translation-A Review.Drug design, development and therapy · 2026Review
- Application of Molecularly Imprinted Polymers as Separation Tools for Determination of Aflatoxins in Food.Journal of food science · 2025Review
- Porogenic Solvents in Molecularly Imprinted Polymer Synthesis: A Comprehensive Review of Current Practices and Emerging Trends.Polymers · 2025Review
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
4 authors at 1 institution in 1 country.
Funding
Abstract
Nowadays, molecularly imprinted polymers (MIPs) are well established and are considered excellent materials for performing selective extractions. However, with the progressive implementation of the principles of green chemistry, it is necessary to find greener alternatives for both the synthesis and further use of MIPs in sample preparation. Accordingly, in the present work, different deep eutectic solvents (DES, both hydrophilic and hydrophobic), as an alternative to conventional organic solvents (i.e., toluene), were evaluated as porogens for the synthesis of imprinted fibers (monoliths), using fused silica capillaries as molds, for solid-phase microextraction (SPME). From this study, the polymer prepared with propazine (dummy template), methacrylic acid (monomer), ethylene glycol dimethacrylate (cross-linker), and a formic acid:L-menthol (1:1) DES (porogen) showed the best performance for selective rebinding of triazines. After optimization of the different variables involved in SPME, the new imprinted fibers were successfully applied to the extraction of target analytes (desisopropylatrazine, desethylatrazine, simazine, and atrazine) from soil sample extracts, providing relative recoveries ranging from 75.7 to 120.1%, reaching limits of detection within the range of 6.2-15.7 ng g
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.