| Title |
Dispersive liquid–liquid microextraction in food analysis. A critical review
|
|---|---|
| Published in |
Analytical & Bioanalytical Chemistry, September 2013
|
| DOI | 10.1007/s00216-013-7344-9 |
| Pubmed ID | |
| Authors |
Pilar Viñas, Natalia Campillo, Ignacio López-García, Manuel Hernández-Córdoba |
| Abstract |
An extensive critical evaluation of the application of dispersive liquid-liquid microextraction (DLLME) combined with chromatographic and atomic-spectroscopic methods for the determination of organic and inorganic compounds is presented. The review emphasizes the procedures used for the prior treatment of food samples, which are very different from the DLLME procedures generally proposed for water samples. The main contribution of this work in the field of DLLME reviews is its critical review of the abundant literature showing the increasing interest and practical advantages of using DLLME and closely related microextraction techniques for food analysis. |
X Demographics
The data shown below were collected from the profile of 1 X user who shared this research output. Click here to find out more about how the information was compiled.
Geographical breakdown
| Country | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Unknown | 1 | 100% |
Demographic breakdown
| Type | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Members of the public | 1 | 100% |
Mendeley readers
The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 200 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.
Geographical breakdown
| Country | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Spain | 2 | 1% |
| Sri Lanka | 1 | <1% |
| Brazil | 1 | <1% |
| Argentina | 1 | <1% |
| Poland | 1 | <1% |
| Unknown | 194 | 97% |
Demographic breakdown
| Readers by professional status | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Student > Master | 32 | 16% |
| Student > Ph. D. Student | 30 | 15% |
| Student > Bachelor | 20 | 10% |
| Student > Doctoral Student | 18 | 9% |
| Student > Postgraduate | 12 | 6% |
| Other | 37 | 19% |
| Unknown | 51 | 26% |
| Readers by discipline | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Chemistry | 101 | 51% |
| Agricultural and Biological Sciences | 14 | 7% |
| Pharmacology, Toxicology and Pharmaceutical Science | 4 | 2% |
| Engineering | 4 | 2% |
| Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology | 4 | 2% |
| Other | 11 | 6% |
| Unknown | 62 | 31% |
Attention Score in Context
This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 1. This is our high-level measure of the quality and quantity of online attention that it has received. This Attention Score, as well as the ranking and number of research outputs shown below, was calculated when the research output was last mentioned on 28 May 2014.
All research outputs
#20,674,485
of 25,394,764 outputs
Outputs from Analytical & Bioanalytical Chemistry
#6,612
of 9,624 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#163,523
of 216,671 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Analytical & Bioanalytical Chemistry
#47
of 73 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 25,394,764 research outputs across all sources so far. This one is in the 10th percentile – i.e., 10% of other outputs scored the same or lower than it.
So far Altmetric has tracked 9,624 research outputs from this source. They receive a mean Attention Score of 3.1. This one is in the 21st percentile – i.e., 21% of its peers scored the same or lower than it.
Older research outputs will score higher simply because they've had more time to accumulate mentions. To account for age we can compare this Altmetric Attention Score to the 216,671 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one is in the 11th percentile – i.e., 11% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.
We're also able to compare this research output to 73 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one is in the 4th percentile – i.e., 4% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.