ReviewACS omega2026
Beyond Analyte Recovery: A Holistic Review of Conventional and Miniaturized Extraction Techniques for Pharmaceutical Analysis in Environmental Samples.
Review 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
5 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
The presence of pharmaceuticals in the environment has become a significant analytical and ecological concern because of their continuous release, persistence, and potential adverse effects. Their occurrence at trace levels, combined with the complexity of environmental matrixes, necessitates efficient extraction and preconcentration prior to instrumental determination. This review critically evaluates the performance of conventional extraction techniques, namely, liquid-liquid extraction (LLE) and solid-phase extraction (SPE), compared with their miniaturized versions for the extraction and preconcentration of pharmaceuticals in environmental samples. Representative peer-reviewed studies were critically evaluated, focusing on reported extraction recoveries, enrichment factors, and practical advantages and limitations. Conventional LLE and SPE have recoveries ranging from 9 to 120% and are limited by higher solvent consumption and longer processing times. Miniaturized techniques generally achieved improved enrichment (7.3-273.0-fold enrichment) and recoveries between 9.4 and 229.0% while significantly reducing solvent usage and enhancing sensitivity. Recoveries exceeding the accepted range may reflect matrix effects or analytical bias and should, therefore, be interpreted with caution. Beyond recovery and enrichment trends, this review also synthesizes and compares extraction techniques based on practical performance characteristics, including simplicity, rapidness, selectivity, versatility, greenness, and reusability to support informed method selection. While miniaturized techniques excel in rapidness, greenness, and selectivity, the conventional techniques remain the best in terms of simplicity and versatility. The review confirms that no single extraction technique can be regarded as universally superior. Therefore, method selection should balance the analytical performance with operational practicality, environmental sustainability, and cost. Continued improvement of extraction techniques is recommended to further enhance the pharmaceutical monitoring in environmental systems.
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.