ArticleMikrochimica acta2026
Sulfonated polystyrene nanospheres from waste sources for the extraction of sulfonamide antibiotics from complex matrices.
Article in Mikrochimica acta, 2026. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.
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
0 citing papers in PubMed.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
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
A next-generation sorbent phase is introduced based on recycled polystyrene microspheres sulfonated with sulfuric acid and its application to the extraction of four representative sulfonamides (i.e., sulfanilamide, sulfaguanidine, sulfadiazine, and sulfamerazine) from biological matrices. The variables related to the sulfonation process and those affecting the extraction process have been evaluated. The in-syringe miniaturized dispersive solid-phase extraction method coupled to liquid chromatography-tandem mass spectrometry provided limits of detection of 0.8 µg L− 1 for sulfaguanidine in urine to 32 µg L− 1 for sulfanilamide in saliva. The precision, expressed as relative standard deviation has been evaluated at four concentration levels both intra-day and inter-day, being lower than 18.3 and 14.3% at the lower limit of detection, respectively. The accuracy, calculated with spiked urine and saliva samples and expressed as relative recovery, ranged from 86.4 to 108.5%. This strategy integrates sustainable waste recovery with the development of a high-performance, low-impact adsorbent, employing recycled materials (such as syringes and frits) to create a nearly zero-waste extraction system. This combination of recycling, analytical performance, and sustainability supports the evolution of environmental analysis toward a “white circular” model, seamlessly merging Green Science with robust analytical standards.
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.