Student or educator? Sign up with your school email and get 6 months of Pro free.
Cited by 431

The DOI matches its Crossref record.

Toward a Generic Extraction Method for Simultaneous Determination of Pesticides, Mycotoxins, Plant Toxins, and Veterinary Drugs in Feed and Food Matrixes

Open access
Mol, Hans G. J., Plaza-Bolaños, Patricia, Zomer, Paul, de Rijk, Theo C., Stolker, Alida A. M., Mulder, Patrick P. J.·2008·Analytical Chemistry

Abstract

A fast and straightforward generic procedure for the simultaneous extraction of various classes of pesticides, mycotoxins, plant toxins, and veterinary drugs in various matrixes has been developed, for subsequent analysis by liquid chromatography with mass spectrometric detection. As a first step, four existing multianalyte procedures and three newly proposed methods were compared for a test set of 172 pesticides, mycotoxins, and plant toxins spiked to a feed matrix. The new procedures, which basically involved extraction/dilution of the sample with water and an acidified organic solvent (methanol, acetonitrile, or acetone), were most promising. The three new generic extraction methods were further tested for applicability to other matrixes (maize, honey, milk, egg, meat). Overall, the best recoveries were obtained for acetone, followed by acetonitrile. With respect to matrix effects, acetonitrile was the most favorable solvent and methanol was the worst. The occurrence of matrix effects decreased for the matrixes in the order of feed > maize > meat > milk > egg > honey. The extraction method selected as the default procedure (water/acetonitrile/1% formic acid) was also evaluated for applicability to multiple classes of veterinary drugs in all six matrixes, with satisfactory results. Finally, the generic extraction procedure was validated for 136 pesticides, 36 natural toxins, and 86 veterinary drugs in compound feed and honey at three levels (0.01, 0.02, and 0.05 mg/kg) using ultraperformance liquid chromatography tandem mass spectrometry (UPLC-MS/MS) for analysis of the extracts. For over 80% of the analytes, recoveries were between 70 and 120% and precision (expressed as relative standard deviation) was mostly in the range of 5-10% (except for feed at 0.01 mg/kg; adequate recoveries for 62% of the analytes). The limits of detection were from <0.01 to 0.05 mg/kg for most analytes, which is usually sufficient to verify compliance of products with legal tolerances. The results clearly demonstrate the feasibility of the generic approach proposed. Application of the method in routine monitoring programs would imply a drastic reduction of both effort and time.

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 · 10.1021/ac801557f

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 431

Metadata

Authors
Mol, H. G. J., Plaza-Bolaños, P., Zomer, P., de Rijk, T. C., Stolker, A. A. M., & Mulder, P. P. J.
Venue
Analytical Chemistry
Published
2008-11-18
Volume
80
Issue
24
Pages
9450-9459
ISSN
  • 0003-2700 (ISSN-L)
  • 1520-6882
OpenAlex
W2128473659
Cited by
431
References
0
FWCI
36.65
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
green

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: Toward a Generic Extraction Method for Simultaneous Determination of Pesticides, Mycotoxins, Plant Toxins, and Veterinary Drugs in Feed and Food Matrixes. https://app.cochat.ai/papers/10.1021/ac801557f
The paper
Mol, H. G. J., Plaza-Bolaños, P., Zomer, P., de Rijk, T. C., Stolker, A. A. M., & Mulder, P. P. J. (2008). Toward a Generic Extraction Method for Simultaneous Determination of Pesticides, Mycotoxins, Plant Toxins, and Veterinary Drugs in Feed and Food Matrixes. Analytical Chemistry. https://doi.org/10.1021/ac801557f

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.