Evidence map›Paper›PMID 42535491›Full record

ReviewJournal of separation science2026

Are Microextraction Techniques Truly Green? A Critical Assessment of Green Sample Preparation Practices.

Rafael O Martins, Maria F A Magalhães, Fernando M Lanças

Abstract readReview
In one paragraph

Review in Journal of separation science, 2026. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 1 paper.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
1citing 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

1 citing paper in PubMed.

  1. Review
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

3 authors.

Rafael O MartinsInstituto de Química de São Carlos, Universidade de São Paulo, São Carlos, São Paulo, Brazil.
Maria F A MagalhãesInstituto de Química de São Carlos, Universidade de São Paulo, São Carlos, São Paulo, Brazil.
Fernando M LançasInstituto de Química de São Carlos, Universidade de São Paulo, São Carlos, São Paulo, Brazil.

Funding

Fundação Coordenação de Aperfeiçoamento de Pessoal de Nível Superior, CAPES 88887.005608/2024-00INCT-ALIM 406760/2022-5The Fundação de Amparo à Pesquisa do Estado de São Paulo, FAPESP 2017/02147-0The Fundação de Amparo à Pesquisa do Estado de São Paulo, FAPESP 2017/21984-0-EMUThe Fundação de Amparo à Pesquisa do Estado de São Paulo, FAPESP 2017/21985-6-EMUThe Fundação de Amparo à Pesquisa do Estado de São Paulo, FAPESP 2023/07159-7The Fundação de Amparo à Pesquisa do Estado de São Paulo, FAPESP 2023/15675-5the National Council for Scientific and Technological Development, CNPq 308538/2025-0
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

The development of sample preparation methods has led to smaller versions of traditional solid- and liquid-based techniques. This trend aims to align these methods with green analytical chemistry principles by reducing sample and solvent use and enabling more flexible designs, including online and automated systems. However, although miniaturization is often linked to environmental benefits, it also presents significant issues that are sometimes overlooked. These include the continued use of toxic solvents, labor-intensive procedures, and potential health and environmental risks that may be underestimated in the pursuit of "green" solutions. Therefore, this review offers a comprehensive and current overview of both solid- and liquid-based miniaturized techniques, emphasizing their environmental challenges. It focuses on balancing analytical performance with core green chemistry principles. Selected examples from recent literature highlight current applications and trends. Additionally, we discuss emerging directions and ongoing challenges that must be addressed to truly achieve sustainable, green implementation of these methods. We hope this review encourages a more critical perspective among readers and promotes the development of genuinely greener sample preparation strategies across different analytical applications.

Indexed as

green analytical chemistrygreen sample preparationminiaturized sample preparationsample preparation

Identifiers

PMID42535491
PMCPMC13425698

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
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.