You are seeing a free-to-access but limited selection of the activity Altmetric has collected about this research output.
Click here to find out more.
X Demographics
Mendeley readers
Attention Score in Context
| Title |
Assessing sample extraction efficiencies for the analysis of complex unresolved mixtures of organic pollutants: A comprehensive non-target approach
|
|---|---|
| Published in |
Analytica Chimica Acta, April 2018
|
| DOI | 10.1016/j.aca.2018.04.020 |
| Pubmed ID | |
| Authors |
Saer Samanipour, Jose A. Baz-Lomba, Malcolm J. Reid, Elena Ciceri, Steven Rowland, Per Nilsson, Kevin V. Thomas |
| Abstract |
The comprehensive extraction recovery assessment of organic analytes from complex samples such as oil field produced water (PW) is a challenging task. A targeted approach is usually used for recovery and determination of compounds in these types of analysis. Here we suggest a more comprehensive and less biased approach for the extraction recovery assessment of complex samples. This method combines conventional targeted analysis with a non-targeted approach to evaluate the extraction recovery of complex mixtures. Three generic extraction methods: liquid-liquid extraction (Lq), and solid phase extraction using HLB cartridges (HLB), and the combination of ENV+ and C8 (ENV) cartridges, were selected for evaluation. PW was divided into three parts: non-spiked, spiked level 1, and spiked level 2 for analysis. The spiked samples were used for targeted evaluation of extraction recoveries of 65 added target analytes comprising alkanes, phenols, and polycyclic aromatic hydrocarbons, producing absolute recoveries. The non-spiked samples were used for the non-targeted approach, which used a combination of the F-ratio method and apex detection algorithm. Targeted analysis showed that the use of ENV cartridges and the Lq method performed better than use of HLB cartridges, producing absolute recoveries of 53.1 ± 15.2 for ENV and 46.8 ± 13.2 for Lq versus 19.7 ± 6.7 for HLB. These two methods appeared to produce statistically similar results for recoveries of analytes, whereas they were both different from the produced recoveries via the HLB method. The non-targeted approach captured unique features that were specific to each extraction method. This approach generated 26 unique features (mass spectral ions), which were significantly different between samples and were relevant in differentiating each extract from each method. Using a combination of these targeted and non-targeted methods we evaluated the extraction recoveries of the three extraction methods for analysis of PW. |
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 % |
|---|---|---|
| Science communicators (journalists, bloggers, editors) | 1 | 100% |
Mendeley readers
The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 64 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.
Geographical breakdown
| Country | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Unknown | 64 | 100% |
Demographic breakdown
| Readers by professional status | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Student > Master | 10 | 16% |
| Researcher | 9 | 14% |
| Student > Ph. D. Student | 9 | 14% |
| Student > Bachelor | 7 | 11% |
| Student > Doctoral Student | 3 | 5% |
| Other | 9 | 14% |
| Unknown | 17 | 27% |
| Readers by discipline | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Chemistry | 12 | 19% |
| Environmental Science | 9 | 14% |
| Agricultural and Biological Sciences | 6 | 9% |
| Chemical Engineering | 3 | 5% |
| Engineering | 2 | 3% |
| Other | 10 | 16% |
| Unknown | 22 | 34% |
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 25 April 2018.
All research outputs
#22,778,604
of 25,394,764 outputs
Outputs from Analytica Chimica Acta
#6,717
of 7,530 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#299,783
of 340,016 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Analytica Chimica Acta
#103
of 123 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 25,394,764 research outputs across all sources so far. This one is in the 1st percentile – i.e., 1% of other outputs scored the same or lower than it.
So far Altmetric has tracked 7,530 research outputs from this source. They receive a mean Attention Score of 3.3. This one is in the 1st percentile – i.e., 1% 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 340,016 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one is in the 1st percentile – i.e., 1% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.
We're also able to compare this research output to 123 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one is in the 1st percentile – i.e., 1% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.