2019
DOI: 10.1016/j.microc.2018.12.044
|View full text |Cite
|
Sign up to set email alerts
|

Electrochemically decorated network-like cobalt oxide nanosheets on nickel oxide nanoworms substrate as a sorbent for the thin film microextraction of diclofenac

Help me understand this report

Search citation statements

Order By: Relevance

Paper Sections

Select...
3
1
1

Citation Types

0
5
0

Year Published

2019
2019
2024
2024

Publication Types

Select...
6
1

Relationship

0
7

Authors

Journals

citations
Cited by 16 publications
(5 citation statements)
references
References 38 publications
0
5
0
Order By: Relevance
“…Notwithstanding this fact, our method still exhibits comparable linearity and LODs to those of previous studies exploiting LPME in combination with separation methods or electrochemical sensing. , The detection time is short in almost all electrochemical studies like this work (1 min), yet LC needs longer separation times. In terms of extraction, our method is faster than previously reported microextraction techniques. ,, Since all steps are carried out in-line and automatically, the total analysis time (∼30 min) with an extraction time of 10 min is also shorter compared to many research articles in which only extraction times are at least 20 min. ,, In the LPME-ECD couplings reported so far, there has not been an in-depth evaluation of the sample cleanup before and after extraction for complex matrices and on the potentially deleterious effects of organic solvents on the ECD signals. , Previous EME papers on microfluidics lacked full automation because of manual impregnation of the membranes and manual activation of some apparatus while using lengthy protocols for retrieval of the acceptor phase for detection. , On the contrary, the SI−μ-EME–ECD method is entirely unattended and requires only a small volume of samples with comparable extraction recoveries (with a total analysis time of 30 min) to those of previous articles incorporating microextraction approaches.…”
Section: Resultsmentioning
confidence: 95%
See 2 more Smart Citations
“…Notwithstanding this fact, our method still exhibits comparable linearity and LODs to those of previous studies exploiting LPME in combination with separation methods or electrochemical sensing. , The detection time is short in almost all electrochemical studies like this work (1 min), yet LC needs longer separation times. In terms of extraction, our method is faster than previously reported microextraction techniques. ,, Since all steps are carried out in-line and automatically, the total analysis time (∼30 min) with an extraction time of 10 min is also shorter compared to many research articles in which only extraction times are at least 20 min. ,, In the LPME-ECD couplings reported so far, there has not been an in-depth evaluation of the sample cleanup before and after extraction for complex matrices and on the potentially deleterious effects of organic solvents on the ECD signals. , Previous EME papers on microfluidics lacked full automation because of manual impregnation of the membranes and manual activation of some apparatus while using lengthy protocols for retrieval of the acceptor phase for detection. , On the contrary, the SI−μ-EME–ECD method is entirely unattended and requires only a small volume of samples with comparable extraction recoveries (with a total analysis time of 30 min) to those of previous articles incorporating microextraction approaches.…”
Section: Resultsmentioning
confidence: 95%
“…In terms of extraction, our method is faster than previously reported microextraction techniques. 26 , 31 , 47 Since all steps are carried out in-line and automatically, the total analysis time (∼30 min) with an extraction time of 10 min is also shorter compared to many research articles in which only extraction times are at least 20 min. 26 , 31 , 47 In the LPME-ECD couplings reported so far, there has not been an in-depth evaluation of the sample cleanup before and after extraction for complex matrices and on the potentially deleterious effects of organic solvents on the ECD signals.…”
Section: Resultsmentioning
confidence: 99%
See 1 more Smart Citation
“…Ghani, Ghoreishi, and Azamati (2018) developed nickel oxide nanoworms which were created on the surface of a nickel film as a sorbent for TFME with HPLC-UV to study diclofenac in urine and plasma samples. The relative standard deviation for the analyte extraction at the spiked concentration of 5 μg/L was 4.7% (as intraday RSD; Ghani, Ghoreishi, Salehinia, et al, 2018). Moradi et al (2019) used acrylonitrile butadiene styrene nanofiber film as a novel and efficient nanosorbent for HS-TFME with GC-MS for the analysis of PAHs in drinking and industrial water samples and urine samples of a smoker and also a nonsmoker.…”
Section: Tfme Applicationsmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…There are various different approaches that can be employed toward the desorption of TF-SPME devices, and these techniques are chosen based on the characteristics of the compounds of interest and the composition of the TF-SPME device itself. Aside from TD, the second most common desorption method used for TF-SPME is liquid desorption (LD), commonly used in conjunction with liquid chromatography but also with various separation platforms [20][21][22][23]. LD utilizes an organic solvent (or a mixture of water and multiple organic solvents) to re-extract all compounds from the extraction phase before introduction of the now-analyte enriched liquid phase into an analytical instrument.…”
Section: Types Of Desorption Modes For Tf-spmementioning
confidence: 99%