Comparative electrochemical study of veterinary drug danofloxacin at glassy carbon electrode and electrified liquid-liquid interface.

Konrad Rudnicki, Sylwia Budzyńska, Sławomira Skrzypek, Lukasz Poltorak

Abstract readComparative Study

In one paragraph

Article in Scientific reports, 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.

0numbers the graph read from it

0cells of the map it votes in

0citing papers in PubMed

–field-weighted citation impact

1 · What the graph read from it

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.

2 · The registry

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.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

0 citing papers in PubMed.

No citing paper in PubMed yet.

4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

4 authors.

Konrad RudnickiDepartment of Inorganic and Analytical Chemistry, Electrochemistry@Soft Interface Team, Faculty of Chemistry, University of Lodz, Tamka 12, 91-403, Łódź, Poland. konrad.rudnicki@chemia.uni.lodz.pl.

Sylwia BudzyńskaDepartment of Chemistry, Faculty of Forestry and Wood Technology, Poznań University of Life Sciences, Wojska Polskiego 75, 60-625, Poznań, Poland.

Sławomira SkrzypekDepartment of Inorganic and Analytical Chemistry, Electrochemistry@Soft Interface Team, Faculty of Chemistry, University of Lodz, Tamka 12, 91-403, Łódź, Poland.

Lukasz PoltorakDepartment of Inorganic and Analytical Chemistry, Electrochemistry@Soft Interface Team, Faculty of Chemistry, University of Lodz, Tamka 12, 91-403, Łódź, Poland. lukasz.poltorak@chemia.uni.lodz.pl.

Funding

National Science Center (NCN) in Cracow, Poland UMO- 2022/45/B/ST4/02188

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

This work compares the electroanalytical performance of two electroanalytical systems based on (1) the glassy carbon electrode (GCE), and (2) the electrified liquid-liquid interface (eLLI), for the detection of fluoroquinolone antibiotic-danofloxacin (DANO). Our aim was to define the optimal conditions to detect the chosen analyte with two employed systems, extract a number of electroanalytical parameters, study the mechanism of the charge transfer reactions (oxidation at GCE and ion transfer across the eLLI), and to provide physicochemical constants for DANO. Detection of the chosen analyte was also performed in the spiked milk samples. To the best of our knowledge, this is the first work that directly compares the electroanalytical parameters obtained with solid electrode (in this case GCE) and eLLI. We have found that for DANO the latter provides better electroanalytical parameters (lower LOD and LOQ) as well as good selectivity when the milk was analyzed.

Indexed as

CarbonElectrochemical TechniquesElectrodesFluoroquinolonesMilkVeterinary DrugsAnimalsAnti-Bacterial AgentsAnti-Bacterial AgentsCarbondanofloxacinFluoroquinolonesVeterinary DrugsDanofloxacinFluoroquinolone antibioticGlassy carbon electrodeLiquid–liquid interfaceMilk sample

Identifiers

PMID38914687

DOI10.1016/j.foodchem.2011.10.103

PMCPMC11196252

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata

LicenceCC BY

Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

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.