## 4 Conclusions  
A multi-template MIP was successfully synthesized via a bulk polymerization process of ARVs and NSAIDs. The NMR and FTIR confirmed the successful cross-linking and removal of the templates, as there was not any difference in the chemical shifts and signal intensities. The TGA spectra revealed the two polymers have slight dissimilarities in their structures past 300 \({}^{\circ}\)C; however, both polymers had the backbone collapse beginning at 274 \({}^{\circ}\)C, suggesting they can withstand temperature up to that point. This was found satisfactory as the application of this material is at ambient temperatures. The SEM images revealed that the NIP has a smoother and more regular surface than the MIP; the MIP was more irregular and rougher due to the cavity removal and drying of the material. The target compound adsorption by the MIP was viable at pH 7.0. High extraction efficiencies and recoveries above 95% were observed for both the MIP and NIP in the adsorption of the target compounds. Adsorption kinetics were best fitted in the pseudo-second-order, which indicates that a chemisorption occurred. The selectively of the MIP compared to the acetaminophen competitor was found to be slightly higher than the plain NIP.  
The following supporting information can be downloaded at: [[https://www.mdpi.com/article/10.3390/app1408320/s1](https://www.mdpi.com/article/10.3390/app1408320/s1)]([https://www.mdpi.com/article/10.3390/app1408320/s1](https://www.mdpi.com/article/10.3390/app1408320/s1)), Figure S1: Mass effects of (a) MIP and (b) NIP for ARVs and NSAIDs recoveries; Figure S2: Effects of target initial concentration on the adsorption capacity with (a) MIP and (b) NIP; Figure S3: Extraction efficiency (a) MIP and (b) NIP based on template contact times.  
Conceptualization, S.S.; Methodology, S.S.; Formal analysis, S.S.; Investigation, S.S.; Writing--original draft, S.S.; Writing--review & editing, P.S.M.; Supervision, T.C.M., P.M.M., T.R.M. and T.H.M. All authors have read and agreed to the published version of the manuscript.  
This research was funded by National Research Fund and Mitacs thematic program grant, grant number 122766.  
Not applicable.  
\begin{table}
\begin{tabular}{l l l l} \hline \hline
**adsorbent** &
\begin{tabular}{l} **Adsorption Capacity** \\ **(mg/g)** \\ \end{tabular} & **Selectivity** & **Reference** \\ \hline Sol—gel & 28.38 & - & [42] \\ \hline Raw zeolite & 0.83 & - & [43] \\ \hline Activated carbon & 90.9 & - & [44] \\ \hline Biosolid biochar & 10.70 & - & [45] \\ \hline Graphene oxide nanoplatelet & 38 & - & [46] \\ \hline MIP (NSAIDs) & 1.230–1.249 & 1.12–2.4 & [30] \\ \hline MIP(ARV) & 5.98 & 4.4 & [32] \\ \hline Chitosan MIP & 79.41 & - & [47] \\ \hline Bulk polymerization (MIP) & 0.92–3.92 & 1.68–1.81 & This study \\ \hline \hline \end{tabular}
\end{table}
Table 6: Comparison of the adsorption capacity and selectivity data found in pharmaceutical pollutants with other sorbents in the literature.  
Data Availability Statement: The data presented in this study are available on request from the corresponding author.  
[PERSON] expresses gratitude to several grant sponsors and individuals who play pivotal roles in supporting and guiding research which is fundamental to the continuation of my research. She also wants to acknowledge and appreciate [PERSON] for their unwavering support, mentorship, and invaluable knowledge-sharing.  
The authors declare no conflict of interest.  
References