↓ Skip to main content

Electromigrative separation techniques in forensic science: combining selectivity, sensitivity, and robustness

Overview of attention for article published in Analytical & Bioanalytical Chemistry, November 2014
Altmetric Badge

Mentioned by

twitter
2 X users

Citations

dimensions_citation
13 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
33 Mendeley
Title
Electromigrative separation techniques in forensic science: combining selectivity, sensitivity, and robustness
Published in
Analytical & Bioanalytical Chemistry, November 2014
DOI 10.1007/s00216-014-8271-0
Pubmed ID
Authors

Tjorben Nils Posch, Michael Pütz, Nathalie Martin, Carolin Huhn

Abstract

In this review we introduce the advantages and limitations of electromigrative separation techniques in forensic toxicology. We thus present a summary of illustrative studies and our own experience in the field together with established methods from the German Federal Criminal Police Office rather than a complete survey. We focus on the analytical aspects of analytes' physicochemical characteristics (e.g. polarity, stereoisomers) and analytical challenges including matrix tolerance, separation from compounds present in large excess, sample volumes, and orthogonality. For these aspects we want to reveal the specific advantages over more traditional methods. Both detailed studies and profiling and screening studies are taken into account. Care was taken to nearly exclusively document well-validated methods outstanding for the analytical challenge discussed. Special attention was paid to aspects exclusive to electromigrative separation techniques, including the use of the mobility axis, the potential for on-site instrumentation, and the capillary format for immunoassays. The review concludes with an introductory guide to method development for different separation modes, presenting typical buffer systems as starting points for different analyte classes. The objective of this review is to provide an orientation for users in separation science considering using capillary electrophoresis in their laboratory in the future.

X Demographics

X Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 2 X users who shared this research output. Click here to find out more about how the information was compiled.
Mendeley readers

Mendeley readers

The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 33 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Spain 1 3%
Switzerland 1 3%
Unknown 31 94%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Professor > Associate Professor 7 21%
Student > Ph. D. Student 5 15%
Student > Master 4 12%
Researcher 3 9%
Student > Bachelor 2 6%
Other 6 18%
Unknown 6 18%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Chemistry 15 45%
Agricultural and Biological Sciences 3 9%
Economics, Econometrics and Finance 2 6%
Pharmacology, Toxicology and Pharmaceutical Science 2 6%
Engineering 2 6%
Other 4 12%
Unknown 5 15%
Attention Score in Context

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 20 November 2014.
All research outputs
#19,945,185
of 25,374,917 outputs
Outputs from Analytical & Bioanalytical Chemistry
#6,060
of 9,619 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#189,671
of 275,808 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Analytical & Bioanalytical Chemistry
#89
of 114 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 25,374,917 research outputs across all sources so far. This one is in the 18th percentile – i.e., 18% of other outputs scored the same or lower than it.
So far Altmetric has tracked 9,619 research outputs from this source. They receive a mean Attention Score of 3.1. This one is in the 31st percentile – i.e., 31% 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 275,808 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one is in the 26th percentile – i.e., 26% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.
We're also able to compare this research output to 114 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one is in the 18th percentile – i.e., 18% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.