Comparison of the results with other methods for PHT, PHB, and LTG based on MIPs or membrane extraction^a.

Extraction method	Analyte	Matrix	Extraction recovery	Analytical method	Ref.
MIPs extraction	PHT	Plasma	89.2–94.3%	HPLC-UV	28
MIPs extraction	PHT	Wastewater, plasma, and urine	77.0%, 42.0%, and 43.0%	HPLC-UV	47
MIPs extraction	PHT	Plasma	58.0–78.0%	HPLC-UV	48
MIPs fiber extraction	PHB	Urine	94.3–98.5%	HPLC-UV	29
MIPs extraction	PHB	Urine	81.0–86.0%	HPLC-UV	49
MIPs extraction	PHB	Plasma	75.0%	HPLC-UV	50
MMIPs extraction	LTG	Serum	76.6–79.0%	HPLC-UV	30
MMIPs extraction	LTG	Urine	97.1–98.0%	HPLC-UV	31
		Plasma	96.6%-97.0
MIPs extraction	LTG	Serum	80.8–83.8%	HPLC-UV	32
MIPs extraction	LTG	Serum	84.0–89.0%	HPLC-UV	51
Electromembrane extraction	PHT	Plasma and urine	88.0–92.0%	HPLC-UV	33
Electromembrane extraction	PHT	Water solution	42.2%	HPLC-UV	52
	PHB		33.0%
Electromembrane extraction	PHT	Plasma, saliva, and urine	20.6%	HPLC-UV	53
	PHB		11.7%
MIPMs extraction	PHT	Methanol	85.5–87.3%	HPLC-UV	This work
		NS	84.1–85.9%
		PBS	95.9–96.0%
		Plasma	87.4–90.6%
	PHB	Methanol	83.6–86.5%
		NS	82.4–82.7%
		PBS	90.6–92.8%
		Plasma	82.7–84.3%
	LTG	Methanol	80.2–84.1%
		NS	80.3–81.8%
		PBS	84.0–84.9%
		Plasma	65.4–69.3%

^aMIPs: molecularly imprinted polymers; MMIPs: magnetic molecularly imprinted polymers; MIPMs: molecularly imprinted polymer membranes.