## 3 Results and Discussion  
### Greenness, Blueness, and Whiteness Evaluation  
The paper presents an assessment of the environmental impact and analytical suitability of ten methods of preparing water samples for the determination of UV filters described in the literature. One of the methods, solid phase extraction (SPE), is a classic extraction method, while the other nine are commonly used microextraction techniques. Table 2 presents assessed analytical methods and their literature sources. A brief description of the assessed sample preparation methods for analysis is presented in Supporting Information (Table S1).  
\begin{table}
\begin{tabular}{c c c c} \hline \hline
**Method** & **AGREprep** & **WAC [\%] * & **BAGI** \\ \hline SPE—solid phase extraction [22] & & & R & 91.3 \\ \hline  & & & G & 75.0 \\  & & & B & 66.3 \\  & & & W & 77.5 \\ \hline  & & & R & 83.8 \\  & & & G & 81.7 \\  & & & B & 51.5 \\  & & & W & 72.3 \\ \hline  & & & R & 92.5 \\  & & & G & 86.7 \\  & & & B & 92.9 \\  & & & W & 90.7 \\ \hline  & & & & \\ \end{tabular}
\end{table}
Table 2: Results from the evaluation of methods for preparing water samples for the analysis of UV filters obtained using the AGREprep, BAGI, and WAC metrics.  
\begin{table}
\begin{tabular}{c c c c} \hline \hline
**Method** & **AGREEprep** & **WAC [\%] * & **BAGI** \\ \hline DLLME—dispersive liquid-liquid microextraction [25] & & & 90.0 \\ DLLME—dispersive liquid-liquid microextraction [25] & & & 90.8 \\ \hline W & 93.8 \\ \hline SPME (derivatization)—solid-phase microextraction (with derivatization) [26] & & & 95.0 \\ \hline W & 86.1 \\ \hline MEPS (automated)—microextraction by packed sorbent [27] & & & 87.5 \\ \hline MEPS—microextraction by packed sorbent [28] & & & 89.6 \\ \hline W & 88.3 \\ \hline MEPS—microextraction by packed sorbent [28] & & & 87.9 \\ \hline MEPS—microextraction by packed sorbent [28] & & & 89.3 \\ \hline MEPS—microextraction by packed sorbent [28] & & & 89.6 \\ \hline W & 95.7 \\ \hline DmSPE—dispersive micro solid-phase extraction [29] & & & 80.2 \\ \hline DmSPE—dispersive micro solid-phase extraction [29] & & & 89.5 \\ \hline DmSPE—dispersive micro solid-phase extraction [29] & & & 101.3 \\ \hline W & 100.0 \\ \hline SDME—single-drop microextraction (named by authors of article liquid-phase microextraction [30]) & & & \\ \hline SPME—solid-phase microextraction [31] & & & 93.8 \\ \hline W & 90.8 \\ \hline \hline \end{tabular}  
* R—red principles (analytical performance); G—green principles (green chemistry); B—blue principles (practical side); W—whieness.  
\end{table}
Table 2: _Cont._All selected sample preparation procedures use gas chromatography and mass detection (GC-MS) for analysis. This made it possible to evaluate only the sample preparation step without taking into account the time, costs, and energy needed to perform the chromatographic analysis. In the case of methods using thermal desorption of analytes from the sorbent in the chromatograph dispenser, i.e., SBSE and SPME, the desorption step was included in the total assessment (time and energy consumption). It was also assumed that one sample was analyzed, and the time and costs incurred for its optimization were not taken into account when assessing the method. Using the example of determining UV filters in water samples, the environmental friendliness and functionality of commonly used microextraction methods were assessed using three tools, i.e., AGREEprep, BAGI, and RGB 12. AGREEp responses in detail the environmental impact of the use of a given analytical procedure, BAGI assesses its usefulness, while RGB 12 covers its comprehensive assessment ecological performance, analytical performance, and its economic and practical aspects.