CoChat
Sign Up
Cited by 48Pesticide Residue Analysis and SafetyAnalytical chemistry methods developmentAgricultural safety and regulations

The DOI matches its Crossref record.

Modified QuEChERS method for 24 plant growth regulators in grapes using LC-MS/MS

Open access
Pu, Chieh-Han, Lin, Shao-Kai, Chuang, Wei-Chen, Shyu, Tsyr-Horng·2018·Journal of Food and Drug Analysis
DOI 10.1016/j.jfda.2017.08.001PMC PMC9322231
Open this paper in CoChat — free accountOpen PDF

Abstract

A multiresidue analytical method was developed for grapes for the following 24 plant growth regulators: 1-naphthylacetamide, 2,3,5-triiodobenzoic acid, 2,4,5-T, 2-naphthoxyacetic acid, 3-indolylacetic acid, 4-(3-indolyl)-butyric acid, 4-chlorophenoxyacetic acid, 4-nitrophenol, 6-benzylaminopurine, N6-isopentenyladenine, butralin, chlormequat chloride, chlorphonim-Cl, cloprop, forchlorfenuron, gibberellic acid 3, gibberellic acid 4, gibberellic acid 7, inabenfide, mepiquat chloride, paclobutrazol, prohydrojasmon, thidiazuron and uniconizole-P. The compounds were extracted from grape samples using an extraction method modified from the Quick, Easy, Cheap, Effective, Rugged and Safe (QuEChERS) method. Liquid chromatography – tandem mass spectrometry was used for the detection and quantification of the compounds. Validation of the method was performed by using recovery studies at both intra-day and inter-day intervals, as well as by evaluation of the matrix effect, limit of quantification, trueness and precision. We used matrix-matched calibrations for the quantification of the compounds, which all resulted in determination coefficients (r2) higher than 0.995. The limit of quantification ranged from 0.1 to 5 ng/mL. Recovery studies using three spiking concentrations at varying levels showed recoveries of 70.2–112.6% and 67.5–101.8% at intra-day and inter-day intervals, respectively. Relative standard deviations were below 20% for the recovery studies. The extraction method were further validated by performing recovery study and matrix effect test in six different grape varieties from Taiwan and the United States and all resulted in comparable results. Application of the established method to 50 grape samples, resulted in the detection of chlormequat chloride and forchlorfenuron residues in the tested grapes. The results of the method validation and real sample analysis shows the extraction method is therefore suitable for routine monitoring of residue in grapes.

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 · 10.1016/j.jfda.2017.08.001

Cites

Statistics

Figures

Fig. 1 Schematic structure of the 24 PGRs. Original chemical structures were obtained from the PubChem Database [42].
Fig. 1 Schematic structure of the 24 PGRs. Original chemical structures were obtained from the PubChem Database [42].CC BY-NC-ND · PubMed Central
Fig. 2 PGRs recoveries in the grape matrix obtained using different extraction buffers.
Fig. 2 PGRs recoveries in the grape matrix obtained using different extraction buffers.CC BY-NC-ND · PubMed Central
Fig. 3 MRM chromatogram of the grape matrix that has been spiked with the 24 PGRs. Standards of 1-NAD, 2iP, chlorphonium-Cl, CPPU, PBZ and uniconizole-P were spiked at 5 ng/mL, while other standards were spiked at concentrations of 50 ng/mL. The chemical compound names, retention times and peak areas are shown beside each chromatogram peak (from top to bottom).
Fig. 3 MRM chromatogram of the grape matrix that has been spiked with the 24 PGRs. Standards of 1-NAD, 2iP, chlorphonium-Cl, CPPU, PBZ and uniconizole-P were spiked at 5 ng/mL, while other standards were spiked at concentrations of 50 ng/mL. The chemical compound names, retention times and peak areas are shown beside each chromatogram peak (from top to bottom).CC BY-NC-ND · PubMed Central

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

Cites

No references could be resolved yet.

Research works printed but not linked: 29

  1. Dokoozlian, 2000, Plant growth regulator use for table grape production in California, Proc 4th Int Symp Table Grape, 122
  2. Lin, 1988, The application of plant growth regulators on cultivation of grape, Appl Plant Growth Regul Hortic Crops, 12, 203
  3. Rademacher, 2000, Growth retardants: effects on gibberellin biosynthesis and other metabolic pathways, Annu Rev Plant Biol, 51, 501, 10.1146/annurev.arplant.51.1.501 · DOI
  4. Galston, 1947, The effect of 2,3,5-Triiodobenzoic acid on the growth and flowering of soybeans, Am J Bot, 34, 356, 10.1002/j.1537-2197.1947.tb13001.x · DOI
  5. Krause, 1968, Effects of 2,3,5-Triiodobenzoic acid on the structure of soybean leaves, Am J Bot, 55, 1074, 10.1002/j.1537-2197.1968.tb07472.x · DOI
  6. Suttle, 1988, Disruption of the polar auxin transport system in cotton seedlings following treatment with the defoliant thidiazuron, Plant Physiol, 86, 241, 10.1104/pp.86.1.241 · DOI
  7. Sørensen, 2006, Effects of the plant growth regulator, chlormequat, on mammalian fertility, Int J Androl, 29, 129, 10.1111/j.1365-2605.2005.00629.x · DOI
  8. Erin, 2008, Gibberellic acid, a plant growth regulator, increases mast cell recruitment and alters substance P levels, Toxicology, 254, 75, 10.1016/j.tox.2008.09.020 · DOI
  9. EFSA, 2008, Conclusion regarding the peer review of the pesticide risk assessment of the active substances sodium 5-nitroguaiacolate, sodium o-nitrophenolate and sodium p-nitrophenolate, EFSA Sci Rep, 191, 130
  10. Hill, 1995, Pesticide residues in urine of adults living in the United States: Reference range concentrations, Environ Res, 71, 99, 10.1006/enrs.1995.1071 · DOI
  11. Anastassiades, 2003, Fast and easy multiresidue method employing acetonitrile extraction/partitioning and “dispersive solid-phase extraction” for the determination of pesticide residues in produce, J AOAC Int, 86, 412, 10.1093/jaoac/86.2.412 · DOI · Paper page
  12. Choi, 2011, An analytical method for prohexadione in Chinese cabbage and apple, Biomed Chrom, 25, 493, 10.1002/bmc.1472 · DOI
  13. Lee, 2013, Detection of 6-benzylaminopurine plant growth regulator in bean sprouts using OFRR biosensor and QuEChERS method, Anal Meth, 5, 961, 10.1039/C2AY26136G · DOI
  14. Ma, 2013, Simultaneous determination of 15 plant growth regulators in bean sprout and tomato with liquid chromatography-triple quadrupole tandem mass spectrometry, Food Anal Meth, 6, 941, 10.1007/s12161-012-9505-4 · DOI
  15. Liu, 2013, Simultaneous determination of 24 or more acidic and alkaline phytohormones in femtomole quantities of plant tissues by high-performance liquid chromatography-electrospray ionization-ion trap mass spectrometry, Anal Bioanal Chem, 405, 1257, 10.1007/s00216-012-6509-2 · DOI
  16. Fan, 2011, Simultaneous determination of 13 phytohormones in oilseed rape tissues by liquid chromatography-electrospray tandem mass spectrometry and the evaluation of the matrix effect, J Sep Sci, 34, 640, 10.1002/jssc.201000541 · DOI
  17. Shi, 2011, Simultaneous determination of five plant growth regulators in fruits by modified quick, easy, cheap, effective, rugged, and safe (QuEChERS) extraction and liquid chromatography–tandem mass spectrometry, J Agric Food Chem, 60, 60, 10.1021/jf204183d · DOI
  18. Oulkar, 2011, Multiresidue analysis of plant growth regulators in grapes by triple quadrupole and quadrupole-time of flight-based liquid chromatography/mass spectrometry, J AOAC Int, 94, 1715, 10.5740/jaoacint.SGEOulkar · DOI
  19. Yang, 2014, Analysis of 118 pesticides in tobacco after extraction with the modified QuEChRS Method by LC–MS-MS, J Chromatogr Sci, 52, 788, 10.1093/chromsci/bmt112 · DOI
  20. Esparza, 2013, Determination of naphthalene-derived compounds in apples by ultra-high performance liquid chromatography-tandem mass spectrometry, Anal Chim Acta, 782, 28, 10.1016/j.aca.2013.03.067 · DOI
  21. Flores, 2011, QuEChERS-based extraction procedure for multifamily analysis of phytohormones in vegetables by UHPLC-MS/MS, J Sep Sci, 34, 1517, 10.1002/jssc.201100093 · DOI
  22. EFSA, 2011, Conclusion on the peer review of the pesticide risk assessment of the active substance 2-(1-naphthyl)acetamide (notified as 1-naphthylacetamide), EFSA J, 9, 58
  23. Lehotay, 2007, Determination of pesticide residues in foods by acetonitrile extraction and partitioning with magnesium sulfate: collaborative study, J AOAC Int, 90, 485, 10.1093/jaoac/90.2.485 · DOI
  24. Taylor, 2005, Matrix effects: the Achilles heel of quantitative high-performance liquid chromatography–electrospray–tandem mass spectrometry, Clin Biochem, 38, 328, 10.1016/j.clinbiochem.2004.11.007 · DOI
  25. Ross, 2001, New interactions between classical plant hormones, Trends Plant Sci, 6, 2, 10.1016/S1360-1385(00)01795-7 · DOI
  26. Coenen, 1997, Auxin—cytokinin interactions in higher plants: old problems and new tools, Trends Plant Sci, 2, 351, 10.1016/S1360-1385(97)84623-7 · DOI
  27. Sheldrake, 1973, The production of hormones in higher plants, Biol Rev Camb Philos Soc, 48, 509, 10.1111/j.1469-185X.1973.tb01568.x · DOI
  28. EFSA, 2014, Reasoned opinion on the review of the existing maximum residue levels (MRLs) for indolylacetic acid according to Article 12 of Regulation (EC) No 396/2005, EFSA Journal, 12, 8
  29. Bolton, 2008, Chapter 12 PubChem: integrated platform of small molecules and biological activities, vol. 4, 217

Cited by

Sorted by citations

See all 48

Metadata

Authors
Pu, C.-H., Lin, S.-K., Chuang, W.-C., & Shyu, T.-H.
Affiliations
Taiwan Agricultural Chemicals and Toxic Substances Research Institute (TW)
Corresponding author
Shyu, Tsyr-Horng
ORCID
Chuang, Wei-Chen
Venue
Journal of Food and Drug Analysis
Publisher
The Journal of Food and Drug Analysis (JFDA), Food and Drug Administration, Taiwan (TFDA)
Published
2018-04
Volume
26
Issue
2
Pages
637-648
ISSN
1021-9498 (ISSN-L)
DOI
10.1016/j.jfda.2017.08.001
PMC
PMC9322231
OpenAlex
W2759786679
Cited by
48
References
0
Citations by year
2026: 6 · 2025: 5 · 2024: 7 · 2023: 6 · 2022: 9 · 2021: 8 · 2020: 5 · 2019: 2
FWCI
2.04
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
Licence
Locations
  • Journal of Food and Drug Analysis (publishedVersion, cc-by-nc-nd)
  • PubMed Central (publishedVersion, cc-by-nc-nd)
  • PubMed (publishedVersion)
  • DOAJ (DOAJ: Directory of Open Access Journals) (submittedVersion, cc-by-sa)
Topics
  • Life Sciences › Agricultural and Biological Sciences › Food Science › Pesticide Residue Analysis and Safety
  • Physical Sciences › Chemistry › Analytical Chemistry › Analytical chemistry methods development
  • Life Sciences › Agricultural and Biological Sciences › Food Science › Agricultural safety and regulations
Keywords
plant growth regulators, grape residues, QuEChERS, multiresidue analysis, chlormequat chloride, CPPU, gibberellic acid, benzyladenine, pesticide residues, residue monitoring, LC-MS/MS
MeSH terms
Chromatography, High Pressure Liquid, Food Contamination, Fruit, Plant Growth Regulators, Taiwan, Vitis, Solid Phase Extraction, Tandem Mass Spectrometry, Limit of Detection

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: Modified QuEChERS method for 24 plant growth regulators in grapes using LC-MS/MS. https://app.cochat.ai/papers/10.1016/j.jfda.2017.08.001
The paper
Pu, C.-H., Lin, S.-K., Chuang, W.-C., & Shyu, T.-H. (2018). Modified QuEChERS method for 24 plant growth regulators in grapes using LC-MS/MS. Journal of Food and Drug Analysis. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jfda.2017.08.001