ArticlePolymers2025
Impact of Crosslinking Agent on Sorption Properties of Molecularly Imprinted Polymers in Relation to Silver.
Article in Polymers, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 3 papers.
What it found
Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.
The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.
The trial behind it
Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
3 citing papers in PubMed.
- Molecularly Imprinted Polymers for Biosensing: From Synthetic Recognition to Integrated Biointerfaces.Micromachines · 2026Review
- Specific Recognition of Glycoproteins: Design Strategies and Application Prospects of Molecularly Imprinted Polymers.International journal of molecular sciences · 2026Review
- Synthesis of a New Multifunctional Ionite Based on DBA-EChH-PEI and Its Efficiency in the Sorption of Copper and Silver Ions.Polymers · 2025Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
4 authors.
Funding
Abstract
Molecularly imprinted polymers (MIPs) for silver sorption were synthesized using diethylene glycol dimethacrylate (DEGDMA) and divinylbenzene (DVB) as crosslinking agents. Synthesis was carried out using a ratio template: monomer: monomer: cross-linker = 1:2:2:8. The yield of obtained imprinting structures was 63.2% and 67.8% for MIP(DEGDMA) and MIP(DVB), respectively. The MIPs were analyzed by FTIR analysis, which showed the presence of characteristic peaks indicating the presence of monomers and crosslinkers in the MIP structure. According to the results of SEM analysis, the average cavity size for MIP(DEGDMA) is 0.81 ± 0.20 μm and for MIP(DVB) is 0.68 ± 0.23 μm in diameter. MIP(DEGDMA)'s sorption degree is 66.08%, and its sorption capacity is 3.31 g/g; MIP(DVB)'s sorption degree is 78.35%, and its sorption capacity is 3.92 g/g. The desorption degree is 69.85% for MIP(DEGDMA) and 69.52% for MIP(DVB). For analysis of sorption kinetics, the Radushkevich and Elovich kinetic models were applied.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What Socratic holds
Registered trials
Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the Socratic graph.