Student or educator? Sign up with your school email and get 6 months of Pro free.
Cited by 662

The DOI matches its Crossref record.

Validation of a Fast and Easy Method for the Determination of Residues from 229 Pesticides in Fruits and Vegetables Using Gas and Liquid Chromatography and Mass Spectrometric Detection

Lehotay, Steven J, Kok, André de, Hiemstra, Maurice, Bodegraven, Peter van·2005·Journal of AOAC INTERNATIONAL

Abstract

Validation experiments were conducted of a simple, fast, and inexpensive method for the determination of 229 pesticides fortified at 10–100 ng/g in lettuce and orange matrixes. The method is known as the quick, easy, cheap, effective, rugged, and safe (QuEChERS) method for pesticide residues in foods. The procedure involved the extraction of a 15 g sample with 15 mL acetonitrile, followed by a liquid–liquid partitioning step performed by adding 6 g anhydrous MgSO4 plus 1.5 g NaCl. After centrifugation, the extract was decanted into a tube containing 300 mg primary secondary amine (PSA) sorbent plus 1.8 g anhydrous MgSO4, which constituted a cleanup procedure called dispersive solid-phase extraction (dispersive SPE). After a second shaking and centrifugation step, the acetonitrile extract was transferred to autosampler vials for concurrent analysis by gas chromatography/mass spectrometry with an ion trap instrument and liquid chromatography/tandem mass spectrometry with a triple quadrupole instrument using electrospray ionization. Each analytical method was designed to analyze 144 pesticides, with 59 targeted by both instruments. Recoveries for all but 11 of the analytes in at least one of the matrixes were between 70–120% (90–110% for 206 pesticides), and repeatabilities typically <10% were achieved for a wide range of fortified pesticides, including methamidophos, spinosad, imidacloprid, and imazalil. Dispersive SPE with PSA retained carboxylic acids (e.g., daminozide), and <50% recoveries were obtained for asulam, pyridate, dicofol, thiram, and chlorothalonil. Many actual samples and proficiency test samples were analyzed by the method, and the results compared favorably with those from traditional methods.

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 · 10.1093/jaoac/88.2.595

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 662

Metadata

Authors
Lehotay, S. J., Kok, A. D., Hiemstra, M., & Bodegraven, P. V.
Venue
Journal of AOAC INTERNATIONAL
Published
2005-03-01
Volume
88
Issue
2
Pages
595-614
ISSN
  • 1060-3271 (ISSN-L)
  • 1944-7922
OpenAlex
W2222515760
Cited by
662
References
0
FWCI
40.70
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: Validation of a Fast and Easy Method for the Determination of Residues from 229 Pesticides in Fruits and Vegetables Using Gas and Liquid Chromatography and Mass Spectrometric Detection. https://app.cochat.ai/papers/10.1093/jaoac/88.2.595
The paper
Lehotay, S. J., Kok, A. D., Hiemstra, M., & Bodegraven, P. V. (2005). Validation of a Fast and Easy Method for the Determination of Residues from 229 Pesticides in Fruits and Vegetables Using Gas and Liquid Chromatography and Mass Spectrometric Detection. Journal of AOAC INTERNATIONAL. https://doi.org/10.1093/jaoac/88.2.595

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.