| Title |
Extraction and stirring integrated techniques: examples and recent advances
|
|---|---|
| Published in |
Analytical & Bioanalytical Chemistry, February 2012
|
| DOI | 10.1007/s00216-012-5826-9 |
| Pubmed ID | |
| Authors |
Rafael Lucena |
| Abstract |
Extraction techniques, which focus on selectivity and sensitivity enhancement by isolation and preconcentration of target analytes, are essential in many analytical methods. Because many extraction techniques occur under diffusion-controlled conditions, stirring of the sample solution is required to accelerate the extraction by favoring diffusion of the analytes from the bulk solution to the extractant phase. This stirring may be performed by use of an external device or by integrating extraction and stirring in the same device. This review focuses on the latter techniques, which are promising methods for sample treatment. First, stir-bar-sorptive extraction, the most widely used method, is considered, paying special attention to the development of new coatings. Finally, a general overview of novel integrated techniques in both solid-phase and liquid-phase microextraction is presented; their main characteristics and marked trends are reported. |
X Demographics
The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 5 X users who shared this research output. Click here to find out more about how the information was compiled.
Geographical breakdown
| Country | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Spain | 2 | 40% |
| Turkey | 1 | 20% |
| Unknown | 2 | 40% |
Demographic breakdown
| Type | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Members of the public | 3 | 60% |
| Scientists | 2 | 40% |
Mendeley readers
The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 69 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.
Geographical breakdown
| Country | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Unknown | 69 | 100% |
Demographic breakdown
| Readers by professional status | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Student > Ph. D. Student | 11 | 16% |
| Researcher | 10 | 14% |
| Student > Master | 8 | 12% |
| Student > Bachelor | 7 | 10% |
| Professor | 5 | 7% |
| Other | 15 | 22% |
| Unknown | 13 | 19% |
| Readers by discipline | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Chemistry | 35 | 51% |
| Environmental Science | 4 | 6% |
| Pharmacology, Toxicology and Pharmaceutical Science | 2 | 3% |
| Business, Management and Accounting | 1 | 1% |
| Agricultural and Biological Sciences | 1 | 1% |
| Other | 6 | 9% |
| Unknown | 20 | 29% |
Attention Score in Context
This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 4. 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 11 June 2012.
All research outputs
#8,346,354
of 25,774,185 outputs
Outputs from Analytical & Bioanalytical Chemistry
#1,999
of 9,739 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#54,967
of 169,917 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Analytical & Bioanalytical Chemistry
#30
of 98 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 25,774,185 research outputs across all sources so far. This one has received more attention than most of these and is in the 67th percentile.
So far Altmetric has tracked 9,739 research outputs from this source. They receive a mean Attention Score of 3.1. This one has done well, scoring higher than 79% of its peers.
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 169,917 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one has gotten more attention than average, scoring higher than 67% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 98 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one has gotten more attention than average, scoring higher than 69% of its contemporaries.