ArticleHeliyon2024
New fabric phase sorptive extraction for nondestructive analysis of heritage textile samples.
Article in Heliyon, 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 1 paper.
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
1 citing paper in PubMed.
- Polymeric sorbent phase sorptive extraction for radiation metabolomics.RSC advances · 2026Article
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.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Several types of pesticides used in museum collections over time become dangerous for people who may handle textile articles treated with such substances. In the case of the analysis of ancient, modern, and contemporary textile materials, it is particularly important to keep the artifacts intact, as they cannot be replaced. The need to use micro- or nondestructive techniques led to the development of methods such as solid-phase microextraction (SPME), liquid‒liquid dispersive microextraction (DLLME), and single-droplet microextraction (SDME). In this paper is described an optimized extraction method of three pesticides (malathion, methoxychlor, and permethrin) by creating a non-destructive solid phase extraction system on a textile support, abbreviated FPSE - 100 % cotton fabric coated with a sol-gel solution prepared from a polymer (PEG or PDMS). To obtain a suitable FPSE, the following parameters were evaluated: polymer selection (individual or mixture of polymers), acid catalyst (trifluoroacetic acid, acetic acid and hydrochloride acid), amount of polymer (1.0 g, 2.5 g or 5.0 g), polymerization time (30 min, 120 min and 240 min), ultrasonic bath temperature (40 °C and 70 °C), and type of bath to obtain the sol-gel (ultrasonic bath, water bath with stirring and mechanical stirrer). To complete the FPSE optimization, the influence of pesticide extraction time on FPSE and desorption from FPSE in ethyl acetate was also assessed. The pesticides extraction yields obtained for the laboratory textile samples are in the range of 52.7 %-128.0 %. The technique proposed in the manuscript proved to be effective as a nondestructive tool for evaluating and quantifying the presence of pesticides in textile museum collections. The approach described here reduces heritage object damage due to sampling compared to methods commonly employed and may represent a starting point for future research.
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.