Student or educator? Sign up with your school email and get 6 months of Pro free.
Cited by 623

The DOI matches its Crossref record.

Residue analysis of 500 high priority pesticides: Better by GC–MS or LC–MS/MS?

Open access
Alder, Lutz, Greulich, Kerstin, Kempe, Günther, Vieth, Bärbel·2006·Mass Spectrometry Reviews

Abstract

This overview evaluates the capabilities of mass spectrometry (MS) in combination with gas chromatography (GC) and liquid chromatography (LC) for the determination of a multitude of pesticides. The selection of pesticides for this assessment is based on the status of production, the existence of regulations on maximum residue levels in food, and the frequency of residue detection. GC–MS with electron impact (EI) ionization and the combination of LC with tandem mass spectrometers (LC–MS/MS) using electrospray ionization (ESI) are identified as techniques most often applied in multi‐residue methods for pesticides at present. Therefore, applicability and sensitivity obtained with GC–EI–MS and LC–ESI–MS/MS is individually compared for each of the selected pesticides. Only for one substance class only, the organochlorine pesticides, GC‐MS achieves better performance. For all other classes of pesticides, the assessment shows a wider scope and better sensitivity if detection is based on LC–MS. © 2006 Wiley Periodicals, Inc.

Overview

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1002/mas.20091

Cites

Statistics

Verification

Claims the paper makes

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Self-check

Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.

The self-check needs the paper’s full text.

Citations

Cited by

See all 623

Metadata

Authors
Alder, L., Greulich, K., Kempe, G., & Vieth, B.
Venue
Mass Spectrometry Reviews
Publisher
Wiley
Published
2006-06-05
Volume
25
Issue
6
Pages
838-865
ISSN
  • 0277-7037 (ISSN-L)
  • 1098-2787
OpenAlex
W2008914876
Cited by
623
References
0
FWCI
45.82
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
bronze

About these checks

Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.

Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.

Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.

What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›

Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review

How to cite

Cite CoChat for the checks on this page, and the paper for its own findings.

This page
CoChat. (2026). Citation check: Residue analysis of 500 high priority pesticides: Better by GC–MS or LC–MS/MS? https://app.cochat.ai/papers/10.1002/mas.20091
The paper
Alder, L., Greulich, K., Kempe, G., & Vieth, B. (2006). Residue analysis of 500 high priority pesticides: Better by GC–MS or LC–MS/MS? Mass Spectrometry Reviews. https://doi.org/10.1002/mas.20091

Data sources

Bibliographic data: Semantic Scholar, OpenAlex, Crossref.

Contains information from the Semantic Scholar Academic Graph Datasets, made available under the ODC Attribution License (ODC-BY 1.0).

Semantic Scholar’s data is described in: Kinney, R., et al. (2023). The Semantic Scholar Open Data Platform. arXiv:2301.10140.