Separation Science in Latin America.

Abstract

Journal of Separation ScienceVolume 39, Issue 2 p. 241-242 EditorialFree Access Separation Science in Latin America First published: 25 January 2016 https://doi.org/10.1002/jssc.201670024AboutSectionsPDF ToolsRequest permissionExport citationAdd to favoritesTrack citation ShareShare Give accessShare full text accessShare full-text accessPlease review our Terms and Conditions of Use and check box below to share full-text version of article.I have read and accept the Wiley Online Library Terms and Conditions of UseShareable LinkUse the link below to share a full-text version of this article with your friends and colleagues. Learn more.Copy URL Share a linkShare onFacebookTwitterLinkedInRedditWechat Scientific articles from Latin American researchers involving separation science started to appear on a regular basis over 35 years ago. According to a search with the Scopus database, the combined contributions of Brazil and Argentina to the annual output of scientific literature concerning separation science from Latin America has surpassed 60% throughout the 1980–2015 period. Together with Mexico and Chile, they are the source of 85% of all papers related to separation science originating from Latin America. The top ten Latin American countries responsible for 99% of the papers during the 1980–2015 period include Brazil, Argentina, Mexico, and Chile, followed by Cuba, Venezuela, Colombia, Uruguay, Costa Rica, and Peru. Due to various political and economic changes in the past five years, the order changed to some extent, and the top five countries, from which originated 91.5% of the 9720 chromatographic papers, were Brazil, Mexico, Argentina, Chile, Colombia, and Cuba. Improved economic conditions and political changes in many Latin American countries that occurred by the end of the 80s permitted an increase in investment in research instrumentation. The consequences of this enhanced infrastructure were seen in the dramatic increase in the number of papers that appeared during the following decade. In several countries (Brazil, Colombia, Cuba) the number of scientific articles on chromatography increased up to four times when the output in that quinquennium was compared with that of the previous one. The current annual rate of increase in publishing papers on separation science is around 20% among the top three Latin American countries (Brazil, Argentina, Mexico). Also, a broader international collaboration is noticeable in these publications. Around 15% of the articles involve collaborations with research groups from Spain, the most obvious partner due to the common language, followed by those from the United States (∼10%). Gas chromatography was the dominant technique presented in publications during the early times around the 1980s. However, research concerned with HPLC grew rapidly. The number of papers in which HPLC was reported increased progressively, and at the beginning of the new millennium their annual output was 20% higher compared to the number of papers related to GC (780 versus 637 for 1996–2000). In the current second decade of the 21st century, the number of publications describing research related to GC and LC was almost equal (close to 3000 each) indicating the renaissance of the former technique. The large majority of published articles dealt with the application of separation techniques to a variety of fields, although most of them concerned petrochemistry and research of natural products. However, method development and sample preparation improvements have also been topics frequently found in contributions published during the last decade. Biochemistry, pharmacology, and medicine represented around 45% of the research subjects of scientific publications from Latin America related to separation science, during 2011–2015. These were followed by chemistry (∼20%), and agricultural and biological sciences (∼15%). A good sample of current research concerning separation science in Latin America could be seen at the COLACRO conference, the Latin American Congress on Chromatography and Related Techniques. The 15th meeting of this forum on advances in separation techniques and sample preparation in Latin America was celebrated in the historic city of Cartagena de Indias, Colombia, from September 29 to October 3, 2014. The virtual Special Issue that we introduce here contains mostly articles emanating from presentations given at COLACRO XV meeting. Unified chromatography, the search for a single instrumental platform capable of analyzing samples of diverse physical states, was the subject of the opening lecture and is the central topic of the review article from Fernando Lanças’ group 1. The same research group also examined recent trends in the on-line analysis of contaminant residues in food matrices 2. Liquid–liquid and solvent bar microextraction using hollow fibers in the sample preparation steps for the determination of aqueous sample contaminants, were presented by Carasek et al. 3 and Rosero et al. 4, respectively. These are developments of the basic approach of sampling with simultaneous analyte concentration and reduction of solvent consumption and number of steps, embodied in the well-established technique of solid-phase microextraction (SPME). An example of the widespread use of SPME is the work presented by Gómez, Reyes, and Pawliszyn 5, who evaluated the performance of a system designed to sequentially desorb multiple SPME fibers in automatic chromatographic analyses. Ayala and coworkers 6 compared the various approaches used to estimate the uncertainty in the quantitative analysis of permanent gas mixtures. The problem of overloading in GC analysis and the approaches to control it were examined by Zenkevich and Pavlovskii 7. Matrix effects in the determination of nitrogen-containing compounds in diesel fuel by comprehensive chromatography were studied in the group led by Elina Caramao 8. Natural products, a traditional topic in Latin American separation science, were also presented at the COLACRO conference. Paula Bueno et al. 9 used chemometrics to process UHPLC data in the analysis of diterpenes and phenolic compounds in Casearia sylvestris extracts. Araújo et al. 10 compared approaches of the HPLC biomarker analysis of plant extracts to distinguish among varieties of Hippocratea excelsa. The group led by Eduardo Dellacassa used GC–MS and GC with olfactometry to differentiate plant gender based on volatile fraction analysis 11. Thirteen Latin American countries were represented at COLACRO XV, and the overall number of participants was 378. The scientific program included seven plenary talks (J. Pawliszyn, University of Waterloo, Canada; L. Mondello, University of Messina, Italy; F. Svec, Molecular Foundry of the Berkeley National Laboratory, USA; A. S. Neto, Instituto de Quimica de Sao Carlos, Brazil; J. M. F. Nogueira, University of Lisbon, Portugal; E. Stashenko, Universidad Industrial de Santander, Colombia), four technical seminars, twelve thematic symposia with talks by invited experts (F. Augusto IQ-UNICAMP, Brazil; C. Zini, Universidade Federal do Rio Grande do Sul, Brazil; A. Malik, University of South Florida, USA; A. Lebedev, Moscow State Lomonosov University, Russia; I. Zenkevich, St. Petersburg State University, Russia; A. Cifuentes, Foodomics Laboratory, Spain; J. de Zeeuw, Restek, Holland; E. Ibáñez, Food Science Research Institute, Spain), 40 keynote presentations by congress participants, and six poster sessions (around 300 posters were presented). In conclusion, the progress in separation science in Latin America is on an increasing trajectory. Recent research published by scientists from this continent, with a few examples published in this virtual special issue, demonstrate that authors from this continent tackle important topics involving modern separation science and promise a bright future in that part of the world. Elena Stashenko Industrial University Santander, Chemistry Department, Bucaramanga, Colombia References 1Silva M. R., Andrade F. N., Fumes B. H., Lanças F. M. J. Sep. Sci. 2015, 38, 3071– 3083. 2Barreiro J. C., Luiz A. L., Fernandes S. C., Soares E. V., Lanças F. M. J. Sep. Sci. 2015, 38, 1721– 1732. 3Silva V. D., Simão V., Dias A. N., Carletto J. S., Carasek E. J. Sep. Sci. 2015, 38, 1959– 1968. 4Correa L, Fiscal J. A., Ceballos S., de la Ossa A., Taborda G., Nerin C., Rosero-Morano M. J. Sep. Sci. 2015, 38, 3945– 3953. 5Gómez-Ríos G. A., Reyes-Garcés N., Pawliszyn J. J. Sep. Sci. 2015, 38, 3560– 3567. 6Aparicio A. A., Ayala E., García L. E., García C. E. J. Sep. Sci. 2015, 38, 1907– 1915. 7Zenkevich I., Pavlovskii A. J. Sep. Sci. 2015, 38, 2848– 2856. 8Maciel G. P. S., Machado M. E., da Cunha M. E., Lazzari E., da Silva J. M., Jacques R. A., Krause L. C., Barros J. A., Caramao E. B. J. Sep. Sci. 2015, 38, DOI: 10.1002/jssc.201500011. 9Bueno P. C., Pereira F. M., Torres R. B., Cavalheiro A. J. J. Sep. Sci. 2015, 38, 1649– 1656. 10Araújo J.-A., Ruiz D.-V., Coral T.-I., Cantillo Z.-O. J. Sep. Sci. 2015, 38, 3870– 3875. 11Minteguiaga M., Umpiérrez N., Fariña L., Falcão M. A., Xavier V. B., Cassel E., Dellacassa E. J. Sep. Sci. 2015, 38, 3038– 3046. Volume39, Issue2January 2016Pages 241-242 ReferencesRelatedInformation