ArticleACS omega2026
A Green Approach for Profiling Naphthenic Acids in Produced Water Using Deep Eutectic Solvents-Polypropylene-Supported Thin-Film Microextraction and LC-HRMS.
Article in ACS omega, 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
4 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Produced water (PW) is a byproduct of the oil industry that contains naphthenic acids (NAs), whose chemical complexity requires robust analytical methods to unequivocally identify the analytes and prioritize reducing environmental impacts by reducing generated waste. This study presents the development of a green method combining deep eutectic solvents (DES) with thin-film liquid-phase microextraction (TF-LPME) for the molecular profiling and quantitative determination of 16 NAs in PW samples using liquid chromatography coupled to high-resolution mass spectrometry (LC-HRMS), namely, a Fourier transform Orbitrap analyzer. Dispersive liquid-liquid microextraction (DLLME) and TF-LPME were compared, and the latter performed better, as DLLME led to the unwanted formation of stable emulsions in real samples. Main extraction conditions, such as desorption solvent, DES volume impregnated on the polypropylene (PP) support, extraction time, DES selection, desorption solvent, volume, and time, were evaluated to determine the optimal conditions for each studied variable. Validation was performed by determining the main method quality parameters. Determination coefficients were all above 0.99, linear ranges from 0.015 μg L
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.