4.6 Review

Recent Application of Deep Eutectic Solvents as Green Solvent in Dispersive Liquid-Liquid Microextraction of Trace Level Chemical Contaminants in Food and Water

期刊

CRITICAL REVIEWS IN ANALYTICAL CHEMISTRY
卷 52, 期 3, 页码 504-518

出版社

TAYLOR & FRANCIS INC
DOI: 10.1080/10408347.2020.1808947

关键词

Analysis; chemical contaminants; deep eutectic solvents; DLLME; food

资金

  1. Guangdong Natural Science Funding Council, China [2020A1515010404]
  2. China Scholarship Council [201708440546]

向作者/读者索取更多资源

This review summarizes the latest research progress on using DES as solvents for preconcentration of trace level chemical contaminants in DLLME. The major impact factors affecting the preconcentration efficiency and process mechanisms are analyzed and discussed. Furthermore, the prospects and challenges of using DES as solvents for enriching trace level chemical contaminants in DLLME are extensively elucidated and critically reviewed.
As growing concerns on green, cost-effective, and time-saving chemistry analysis methods, deep eutectic solvents (DESs) are considered to be promising green alternatives to conventional solvents in dispersive liquid-liquid microextraction (DLLME) of trace level chemical contaminants in food and water, due to their biodegradability, low cost, and simple preparation. In the past few years, numerous innovative researches have focused on preconcentration of trace level chemical contaminants using DESs as extractant. In this context, this review aims to summarize the updated state-of-the-art effort dedicated to preconcentration of trace level chemical contaminants in food and water sample using DESs as extractants in DLLME. Furthermore, the major impact factors affecting the preconcentration efficiency and process mechanisms are thoroughly analyzed and discussed. Finally, prospects and challenges in application of DESs as solvents in DLLME to enrich trace level chemical contaminants are extensively elucidated and critically reviewed.

作者

我是这篇论文的作者
点击您的名字以认领此论文并将其添加到您的个人资料中。

评论

主要评分

4.6
评分不足

次要评分

新颖性
-
重要性
-
科学严谨性
-
评价这篇论文

推荐

暂无数据
暂无数据