4.7 Review

Disposable pipette extraction: A critical review of concepts, applications, and directions

期刊

ANALYTICA CHIMICA ACTA
卷 1192, 期 -, 页码 -

出版社

ELSEVIER
DOI: 10.1016/j.aca.2021.339383

关键词

Disposable pipette extraction (DPX); Microextraction; Dispersive pipette tip solid phase extraction; Environmental analysis; Bioanalyses

资金

  1. Brazilian Government Agency Conselho Nacional de Desenvolvimento Cientifico e Tecnologico (CNPq)
  2. Coordenacao de Aperfeicoamento de Pessoal de Nivel Superior - Brasil (CAPES) [001]

向作者/读者索取更多资源

The translation introduces a new sample preparation method – Disposable Pipette Extraction (DPX), which achieves rapid and effective extraction of analytes through dynamic mixing and contributes to reducing waste generation and improving laboratory worker safety by using natural materials to replace commercial ones.
Analytical chemistry has always been evolving towards techniques that are increasingly simple and effective and that conform to green principles. Disposable pipette extraction (DPX, also known as dispersive pipette tip solid phase extraction) is a recent technique that has become an interesting tool in sample preparation methodologies. The principle is based on a dynamic mixture between the matrix and the sorbent which allows rapid and effective extraction of analytes and provides vigorous clean-up of the samples. In the context of fitting in with green chemistry, DPX has contributed to replacing commercially available materials with natural alternative materials. The production of these materials is also simple, reduces sample/solvent volumes, consequently generates less waste and is less laborious and safer for the laboratory worker. This review is a source of information about the DPX technique, dealing with its basic concepts, procedure, optimizations, materials for the main applications published so far, which are in the food, environmental and biological (forensic) sciences. (c) 2021 Elsevier B.V. All rights reserved.

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

4.7
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