↓ Skip to main content

Carbon nanotube-modified monolithic polymethacrylate pipette tips for (micro)solid-phase extraction of antidepressants from urine samples

Overview of attention for article published in Microchimica Acta, January 2018
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

  • In the top 25% of all research outputs scored by Altmetric
  • One of the highest-scoring outputs from this source (#1 of 653)
  • High Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age (89th percentile)
  • High Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source (97th percentile)

Mentioned by

news
3 news outlets

Citations

dimensions_citation
11 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
23 Mendeley
Title
Carbon nanotube-modified monolithic polymethacrylate pipette tips for (micro)solid-phase extraction of antidepressants from urine samples
Published in
Microchimica Acta, January 2018
DOI 10.1007/s00604-017-2659-4
Pubmed ID
Authors

Beatriz Fresco-Cala, Óscar Mompó-Roselló, Ernesto F. Simó-Alfonso, Soledad Cárdenas, José Manuel Herrero-Martínez

Abstract

This work evaluates the potential of methacrylate monoliths with multi-walled carbon nanotubes incorporated into the polymeric network for the extraction of antidepressants from human urine. The method is based on a micropipette solid-phase extraction tip containing a hybrid monolithic material covalently attached to the polypropylene housing. A polymer layer made from poly(ethylene dimethacrylate) was bound to the inner surface of a polypropylene tip via UV grafting. The preparation of the monolith and the microextraction steps were optimized in terms of adsorption capacity. Limits of detection ranged from 9 to 15 μg·L-1. The average precision of the method varied between 3 and 5% (intra-tips), and from 4 to 14% (inter-tips). The accuracy of the method was evaluated through a recovery study by using spiked samples. Graphical abstract Hybrid polymer monoliths containing multi-walled carbon nanotubes (MWCNTs) were prepared in pipette tips by photo-polymerization approach. The extraction devices were used for the extraction of antidepressants in urine samples.

Mendeley readers

The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 23 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Unknown 23 100%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Unspecified 4 17%
Professor > Associate Professor 4 17%
Student > Ph. D. Student 3 13%
Researcher 3 13%
Student > Master 3 13%
Other 6 26%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Chemistry 11 48%
Unspecified 9 39%
Environmental Science 1 4%
Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology 1 4%
Pharmacology, Toxicology and Pharmaceutical Science 1 4%
Other 0 0%

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 21. 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 April 2018.
All research outputs
#677,883
of 12,793,889 outputs
Outputs from Microchimica Acta
#1
of 653 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#28,461
of 274,088 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Microchimica Acta
#1
of 38 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 12,793,889 research outputs across all sources so far. Compared to these this one has done particularly well and is in the 94th percentile: it's in the top 10% of all research outputs ever tracked by Altmetric.
So far Altmetric has tracked 653 research outputs from this source. They receive a mean Attention Score of 1.9. This one has done particularly well, scoring higher than 99% 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 274,088 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one has done well, scoring higher than 89% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 38 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one has done particularly well, scoring higher than 97% of its contemporaries.