Student or educator? Sign up with your school email and get 6 months of Pro free.
Cited by 681

The DOI matches its Crossref record.

Development and validation of a liquid chromatography/tandem mass spectrometric method for the determination of 39 mycotoxins in wheat and maize

Sulyok, Michael, Berthiller, Franz, Krska, Rudolf, Schuhmacher, Rainer·2006·Rapid Communications in Mass Spectrometry

Abstract

This paper describes the first validated method for the determination of 39 mycotoxins in wheat and maize using a single extraction step followed by liquid chromatography with electrospray ionization triple quadrupole mass spectrometry (LC/ESI‐MS/MS) without the need for any clean‐up. The 39 analytes included A‐ and B‐trichothecenes (including deoxynivalenol‐3‐glucoside), zearalenone and related derivatives, fumonisins, enniatins, ergot alkaloids, ochratoxins, aflatoxins and moniliformin. The large number and the chemical diversity of the analytes required the application of the positive as well as the negative ion ESI mode in two consecutive chromatographic runs of 21 min each. The solvent mixture acetonitrile/water/acetic acid 79 + 20 + 1 (v/v/v) has been determined as the best compromise for the extraction of the analytes from wheat and maize. Raw extracts were diluted 1 + 1 and were injected without any clean‐up. Ion‐suppression effects due to co‐eluting matrix components were negligible in the case of wheat, whereas significant signal suppression for 12 analytes was observed in maize, causing purely proportional systematic errors. Method performance characteristics were determined after spiking blank samples on multiple levels in triplicate. Coefficients of variation of the overall process of <5.1% and <3.0% were obtained for wheat and maize, respectively, from linear calibration data. Limits of detection ranged from 0.03 to 220 µg/kg. Apparent recoveries (including both the recoveries of the extraction step and matrix effects) were within the range of 100 ± 10% for approximately half of the analytes. In extreme cases the apparent recoveries dropped to about 20%, but this could be compensated for to a large extent by the application of matrix‐matched standards to correct for matrix‐induced signal suppression, as only a few analytes such as nivalenol and the fumonisins exhibited incomplete extraction. For deoxynivalenol and zearalenone, the trueness of the method was confirmed through the analysis of certified reference materials. Copyright © 2006 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.

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/rcm.2640

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 681

Metadata

Authors
Sulyok, M., Berthiller, F., Krska, R., & Schuhmacher, R.
Venue
Rapid Communications in Mass Spectrometry
Publisher
Wiley
Published
2006-08-16
Volume
20
Issue
18
Pages
2649-2659
ISSN
  • 0951-4198 (ISSN-L)
  • 1097-0231
OpenAlex
W2168898908
Cited by
681
References
0
FWCI
32.53
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
closed

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: Development and validation of a liquid chromatography/tandem mass spectrometric method for the determination of 39 mycotoxins in wheat and maize. https://app.cochat.ai/papers/10.1002/rcm.2640
The paper
Sulyok, M., Berthiller, F., Krska, R., & Schuhmacher, R. (2006). Development and validation of a liquid chromatography/tandem mass spectrometric method for the determination of 39 mycotoxins in wheat and maize. Rapid Communications in Mass Spectrometry. https://doi.org/10.1002/rcm.2640

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.