174种用于环境、食品、微量元素和药物分析的CEN、ISO和药典标准方法及其子方法的绿色评价

IF 6.5 Q1 CHEMISTRY, ANALYTICAL
Juan L. Benedé , Cecilia Cagliero , Emirhan Nemutlu , Francisco Pena-Pereira , Carlo Bicchi , Enrique Javier Carrasco-Correa , Maria Celeiro , Alberto Chisvert , Alessandra Gentili , A. Ruth Godfrey , Mehmet Gumustas , Fragoulis Krokos , Paramee Kumkrong , Maria Llompart , Marcello Locatelli , Zoltan Mester , Sibel A. Ozkan , Stig Pedersen-Bjergaard , Marcela A. Segundo , Marek Tobiszewski , Elefteria Psillakis
{"title":"174种用于环境、食品、微量元素和药物分析的CEN、ISO和药典标准方法及其子方法的绿色评价","authors":"Juan L. Benedé ,&nbsp;Cecilia Cagliero ,&nbsp;Emirhan Nemutlu ,&nbsp;Francisco Pena-Pereira ,&nbsp;Carlo Bicchi ,&nbsp;Enrique Javier Carrasco-Correa ,&nbsp;Maria Celeiro ,&nbsp;Alberto Chisvert ,&nbsp;Alessandra Gentili ,&nbsp;A. Ruth Godfrey ,&nbsp;Mehmet Gumustas ,&nbsp;Fragoulis Krokos ,&nbsp;Paramee Kumkrong ,&nbsp;Maria Llompart ,&nbsp;Marcello Locatelli ,&nbsp;Zoltan Mester ,&nbsp;Sibel A. Ozkan ,&nbsp;Stig Pedersen-Bjergaard ,&nbsp;Marcela A. Segundo ,&nbsp;Marek Tobiszewski ,&nbsp;Elefteria Psillakis","doi":"10.1016/j.sampre.2025.100180","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<div><div>This work evaluates the greenness of 174 standard methods with a sample preparation step and their 332 sub-method variations from CEN, ISO, and Pharmacopoeias, used in laboratories for environmental/organic, food, trace element, or pharmaceutical analyses. The widely adopted AGREEprep metric was applied to assess the greenness of the standard methods. The discussion begins with the overall scores of each method, followed by a detailed analysis of individual criteria, that highlights the strengths and weaknesses of the evaluated sample preparation methods in terms of greenness.</div><div>The results revealed a generally poor greenness performance, as 67 % of the methods scored below 0.2 on the AGREEprep scale, where 1 represents the highest possible score. Specifically, the percentage of methods scoring below 0.2 was 86 % for methods related to the environmental analysis of organic compounds, 62 % for methods used in food analysis, 62 % for those applied to inorganic and trace metals analysis, and 45 % for methods used in pharmaceutical analysis. The findings obtained in this work reveal that many official methods still rely on resource-intensive, outdated techniques, scoring poorly on key greenness criteria. This discrepancy highlights the urgent need to update standard methods by including contemporary and mature sample preparation methods, as the traditional methodologies currently used often conflict with global sustainability efforts and increase regulatory and societal pressures. As such, this contribution serves not only as a critique of the current state of official standard methods but also as a call to action for their reform. This work was conducted within the framework of the IUPAC project \"Greenness of official standard sample preparation methods\" (2021-015-2-500).</div></div>","PeriodicalId":100052,"journal":{"name":"Advances in Sample Preparation","volume":"14 ","pages":"Article 100180"},"PeriodicalIF":6.5000,"publicationDate":"2025-04-07","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Greenness assessment of 174 CEN, ISO, and pharmacopoeia standard methods and their sub-methods used for environmental, food, trace element and pharmaceutical analyses\",\"authors\":\"Juan L. Benedé ,&nbsp;Cecilia Cagliero ,&nbsp;Emirhan Nemutlu ,&nbsp;Francisco Pena-Pereira ,&nbsp;Carlo Bicchi ,&nbsp;Enrique Javier Carrasco-Correa ,&nbsp;Maria Celeiro ,&nbsp;Alberto Chisvert ,&nbsp;Alessandra Gentili ,&nbsp;A. Ruth Godfrey ,&nbsp;Mehmet Gumustas ,&nbsp;Fragoulis Krokos ,&nbsp;Paramee Kumkrong ,&nbsp;Maria Llompart ,&nbsp;Marcello Locatelli ,&nbsp;Zoltan Mester ,&nbsp;Sibel A. Ozkan ,&nbsp;Stig Pedersen-Bjergaard ,&nbsp;Marcela A. Segundo ,&nbsp;Marek Tobiszewski ,&nbsp;Elefteria Psillakis\",\"doi\":\"10.1016/j.sampre.2025.100180\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"<div><div>This work evaluates the greenness of 174 standard methods with a sample preparation step and their 332 sub-method variations from CEN, ISO, and Pharmacopoeias, used in laboratories for environmental/organic, food, trace element, or pharmaceutical analyses. The widely adopted AGREEprep metric was applied to assess the greenness of the standard methods. The discussion begins with the overall scores of each method, followed by a detailed analysis of individual criteria, that highlights the strengths and weaknesses of the evaluated sample preparation methods in terms of greenness.</div><div>The results revealed a generally poor greenness performance, as 67 % of the methods scored below 0.2 on the AGREEprep scale, where 1 represents the highest possible score. Specifically, the percentage of methods scoring below 0.2 was 86 % for methods related to the environmental analysis of organic compounds, 62 % for methods used in food analysis, 62 % for those applied to inorganic and trace metals analysis, and 45 % for methods used in pharmaceutical analysis. The findings obtained in this work reveal that many official methods still rely on resource-intensive, outdated techniques, scoring poorly on key greenness criteria. This discrepancy highlights the urgent need to update standard methods by including contemporary and mature sample preparation methods, as the traditional methodologies currently used often conflict with global sustainability efforts and increase regulatory and societal pressures. As such, this contribution serves not only as a critique of the current state of official standard methods but also as a call to action for their reform. This work was conducted within the framework of the IUPAC project \\\"Greenness of official standard sample preparation methods\\\" (2021-015-2-500).</div></div>\",\"PeriodicalId\":100052,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Advances in Sample Preparation\",\"volume\":\"14 \",\"pages\":\"Article 100180\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":6.5000,\"publicationDate\":\"2025-04-07\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"\",\"citationCount\":\"0\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Advances in Sample Preparation\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"1085\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S2772582025000336\",\"RegionNum\":0,\"RegionCategory\":null,\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"Q1\",\"JCRName\":\"CHEMISTRY, ANALYTICAL\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Advances in Sample Preparation","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S2772582025000336","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q1","JCRName":"CHEMISTRY, ANALYTICAL","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

摘要

本工作评估了174种标准方法的绿色度,包括样品制备步骤及其332个子方法的变化,这些方法来自CEN、ISO和药典,用于实验室环境/有机、食品、微量元素或药物分析。广泛采用的AGREEprep度量标准被用于评估标准方法的绿色度。讨论从每种方法的总体得分开始,然后是对个别标准的详细分析,突出了评估样品制备方法在绿色方面的优点和缺点。结果显示,绿化性能普遍较差,因为67%的方法在AGREEprep量表上得分低于0.2,其中1代表最高可能得分。具体来说,得分低于0.2的方法中,与有机化合物的环境分析相关的方法占86%,用于食品分析的方法占62%,用于无机和微量金属分析的方法占62%,用于药物分析的方法占45%。在这项工作中获得的发现表明,许多官方方法仍然依赖于资源密集型、过时的技术,在关键的绿色标准上得分很低。由于目前使用的传统方法经常与全球可持续性努力相冲突,并增加了监管和社会压力,因此这种差异突出了通过包括现代和成熟的样品制备方法来更新标准方法的迫切需要。因此,这篇文章不仅批评了官方标准方法的现状,而且呼吁采取行动进行改革。本工作在IUPAC项目“官方标准样品制备方法的绿色度”(20121-015-2-500)框架内进行。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。

Greenness assessment of 174 CEN, ISO, and pharmacopoeia standard methods and their sub-methods used for environmental, food, trace element and pharmaceutical analyses

Greenness assessment of 174 CEN, ISO, and pharmacopoeia standard methods and their sub-methods used for environmental, food, trace element and pharmaceutical analyses
This work evaluates the greenness of 174 standard methods with a sample preparation step and their 332 sub-method variations from CEN, ISO, and Pharmacopoeias, used in laboratories for environmental/organic, food, trace element, or pharmaceutical analyses. The widely adopted AGREEprep metric was applied to assess the greenness of the standard methods. The discussion begins with the overall scores of each method, followed by a detailed analysis of individual criteria, that highlights the strengths and weaknesses of the evaluated sample preparation methods in terms of greenness.
The results revealed a generally poor greenness performance, as 67 % of the methods scored below 0.2 on the AGREEprep scale, where 1 represents the highest possible score. Specifically, the percentage of methods scoring below 0.2 was 86 % for methods related to the environmental analysis of organic compounds, 62 % for methods used in food analysis, 62 % for those applied to inorganic and trace metals analysis, and 45 % for methods used in pharmaceutical analysis. The findings obtained in this work reveal that many official methods still rely on resource-intensive, outdated techniques, scoring poorly on key greenness criteria. This discrepancy highlights the urgent need to update standard methods by including contemporary and mature sample preparation methods, as the traditional methodologies currently used often conflict with global sustainability efforts and increase regulatory and societal pressures. As such, this contribution serves not only as a critique of the current state of official standard methods but also as a call to action for their reform. This work was conducted within the framework of the IUPAC project "Greenness of official standard sample preparation methods" (2021-015-2-500).
求助全文
通过发布文献求助,成功后即可免费获取论文全文。 去求助
来源期刊
CiteScore
3.50
自引率
0.00%
发文量
0
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
确定
请完成安全验证×
copy
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
右上角分享
点击右上角分享
0
联系我们:info@booksci.cn Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。 Copyright © 2023 布克学术 All rights reserved.
京ICP备2023020795号-1
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:604180095
Book学术官方微信