Student or educator? Sign up with your school email and get 6 months of Pro free.
Cited by 225

The DOI matches its Crossref record.

Comprehensive screening and quantification of veterinary drugs in milk using UPLC–ToF-MS

Open access
Stolker, A. A. M., Rutgers, P., Oosterink, E., Lasaroms, J. J. P., Peters, R. J. B., van Rhijn, J. A., Nielen, M. W. F.·2008·Analytical and Bioanalytical Chemistry

Abstract

Ultra-performance liquid chromatography combined with time-of-flight mass spectrometry (UPLC-ToF-MS) has been used for screening and quantification of more than 100 veterinary drugs in milk. The veterinary drugs represent different classes including benzimidazoles, macrolides, penicillins, quinolones, sulphonamides, pyrimidines, tetracylines, nitroimidazoles, tranquillizers, ionophores, amphenicols and non-steroidal anti-inflammatory agents (NSAIDs). After protein precipitation, centrifugation and solid-phase extraction (SPE), the extracts were analysed by UPLC-ToF-MS. From the acquired full scan data the drug-specific ions were extracted for construction of the chromatograms and evaluation of the results. The analytical method was validated according to the EU guidelines (2002/657/EC) for a quantitative screening method. At the concentration level of interest (MRL level) the results for repeatability (%RSD < 20% for 86% of the compounds), reproducibility (%RSD < 40% for 96% of the compounds) and the accuracy (80-120% for 88% of the compounds) were satisfactory. Evaluation of the CCbeta values and the linearity results demonstrates that the developed method shows adequate sensitivity and linearity to provide quantitative results. Furthermore, the method is accurate enough to differentiate between suspected and negative samples or drug concentrations below or above the MRL. A set of 100 samples of raw milk were screened for residues. No suspected (positive) results were obtained except for the included blind reference sample containing sulphamethazine (88 microg/l) that tested positive for this compound. UPLC-ToF-MS combines high resolution for both LC and MS with high mass accuracy which is very powerful for the multi-compound analysis of veterinary drugs. The technique seems to be powerful enough for the analysis of not only veterinary drugs but also organic contaminants like pesticides, mycotoxins and plant toxins in one single method.

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 · 10.1007/s00216-008-2168-8

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 225

Metadata

Authors
Stolker, A. A. M., Rutgers, P., Oosterink, E., Lasaroms, J. J. P., Peters, R. J. B., van Rhijn, J. A., & Nielen, M. W. F.
Venue
Analytical and Bioanalytical Chemistry
Published
2008-05-20
Volume
391
Issue
6
Pages
2309-2322
ISSN
  • 1618-2642 (ISSN-L)
  • 1618-2650
OpenAlex
W2136385274
Cited by
225
References
0
FWCI
37.16
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
hybrid

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: Comprehensive screening and quantification of veterinary drugs in milk using UPLC–ToF-MS. https://app.cochat.ai/papers/10.1007/s00216-008-2168-8
The paper
Stolker, A. A. M., Rutgers, P., Oosterink, E., Lasaroms, J. J. P., Peters, R. J. B., van Rhijn, J. A., & Nielen, M. W. F. (2008). Comprehensive screening and quantification of veterinary drugs in milk using UPLC–ToF-MS. Analytical and Bioanalytical Chemistry. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00216-008-2168-8

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.