MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2137375162 · doi:10.1093/chromsci/44.6.291

Analytical Microextraction: Current Status and Future Trends

2006· review· en· W2137375162 on OpenAlexaff
Janusz Pawliszyn, Stig Pedersen‐Bjergaard

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of Chromatographic Science · 2006
Typereview
Languageen
FieldChemistry
TopicAnalytical chemistry methods development
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Waterloo
Fundersnot available
KeywordsSolid-phase microextractionChromatographySample preparationChemistryAnalyteVolume (thermodynamics)Robustness (evolution)Extraction (chemistry)Liquid phaseSolid phase extractionProcess engineeringAnalytical Chemistry (journal)Gas chromatography–mass spectrometryMass spectrometryEngineering

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Analytical microextractions, defined as nonexhaustive sample preparation with a very small volume of extracting phase (microliter range or smaller) relative to the sample volume, represent an important development in the field of analytical chemistry. Analytes are extracted by a small volume of a solid or semi-solid polymeric material, as in solid-phase microextraction (SPME), or alternatively by a small volume of a liquid, as in liquid-phase microextraction (LPME). This paper gives an overview of the SPME and LPME techniques and discusses future trends. This includes a discussion of the different extraction formats available, commercial equipment, method transfer from traditional sample preparation methods to microextraction, and performance as well as robustness for the latter type of systems. In addition, the paper contains a unified approach to the understanding of extraction thermodynamics and kinetics applicable to both SPME and LPME.

Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.

How this classification was reachedexpand

Full frame machine prediction

Teacher imitation

Not calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.002
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.001
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Not applicable · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Review · Consensus signal: Review
Teacher disagreement score0.007
Threshold uncertainty score0.023

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0020.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0020.001
Bibliometrics0.0020.002
Science and technology studies0.0000.001
Scholarly communication0.0020.004
Open science0.0020.001
Research integrity0.0020.002
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0070.006

Machine scores (provisional)

The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.

Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.

Opus teacher head0.044
GPT teacher head0.382
Teacher spread0.338 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designNot applicable
Domainnot available
GenreReview

How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".

Quick stats

Citations120
Published2006
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueJournal of Chromatographic ScienceSame topicAnalytical chemistry methods developmentFrench-language works237,207