4.7 Review

Ionic liquids in extraction techniques: Determination of pesticides in food and environmental samples

期刊

TRAC-TRENDS IN ANALYTICAL CHEMISTRY
卷 143, 期 -, 页码 -

出版社

ELSEVIER SCI LTD
DOI: 10.1016/j.trac.2021.116396

关键词

Sample preparation; SPME; DLLME; SPE; ILs; Extraction techniques; Green analytical chemistry; Pesticides

资金

  1. National Science Centre, Poland [2019/35/N/ST4/01859]

向作者/读者索取更多资源

The intensive use of pesticides in agriculture has led to environmental and public health issues, requiring the development of greener methods for determining pesticide residues in food and environmental samples. The introduction of ionic liquids offers chemists a more environmentally friendly, rapid, precise, and cost-effective approach to pesticide residue determination.
The intensive use of pesticides in agricultural practices has promoted the appearance of environmental and public health problems. Due to that, scientists face challenges with developing simple, fast, sensitive, selective, and low-cost methods dedicated to determining pesticide residues in food and environmental samples. Following the fifth principle of Green Analytical Chemistry, chemists are searching for greener alternatives for toxic organic solvents, thus, implementing the ionic liquids (ILs) to extraction techniques. ILs also contribute to improving the analytical methodologies, e.g., sensitivity, selectivity, and accuracy. A deeper understanding of the nature of newly developed IL-s based extraction solutions and the impact of their investigation on analytical parameters towards the determination of pesticides is crucial for ensuring their successful use as potential sorption media for specific purposes. This review presents a thorough discussion of currently popular ILs-based extraction techniques dedicated to determining pesticide residues in food and environmental samples, and highlights the current applications in microextraction technique. (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