![Institutional Repository [SANDBOX]](images/dias.logo.png "Institutional Repository [SANDBOX]"){kind=logo}
Institutional Repository [SANDBOX]
Technical University of Crete
Technical University of Crete
EN
|
EL
| URI: | http://purl.tuc.gr/dl/dias/C229C66D-28F9-4833-9C0B-6110F4A36E7E | ||
| Year | 2022 | ||
| Type of Item | Erratum | ||
| License |
|
||
| Bibliographic Citation | F. Pena-Pereira, M. Tobiszewski, W. Wojnowski, and E. Psillakis, “Corrigendum to: A tutorial on AGREEprep an analytical greenness metric for sample preparation,” Adv. Sample Prep., vol. 4, Oct. 2022, doi: 10.1016/j.sampre.2022.100045. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.sampre.2022.100045 | ||
| Appears in Collections |
The authors have noticed that the parameter assigned in Criterion 3 (Target sustainable, reusable, and renewable materials) during the evaluation of the second method involving SPME was not correct. As a result, the assessment results appearing in Fig. 3 were also not correct. The parameter assigned for this Criterion should have been “Only sustainable and renewable materials are used several times” with a score=1.0, rather than “< 25% of reagents and materials are sustainable or renewable and can only be used once” with a score=0.0. The latter parameter was not correct nor in accordance with a past report published by the same authors (https://doi.org/10.1016/j.trac.2022.116553).The correct versions of Fig. 3 and Fig. S3A, Fig. S3B, Fig. S3C are given below and the discussion concerning Scenario 2 in the second evaluated method involving SPME should be as follows:........“On the other hand, the final score of Scenario 2 (promoting safe chemicals/materials) was superior to the one obtained when applying the default weights, mainly due to the absence of non-sustainable materials and the green and “safe” features inherent to the SPME technology.”The authors apologize for any inconvenience caused.
Copyright © DIAS 2013
