Student or educator? Sign up with your school email and get 6 months of Pro free.
Cited by 629

The DOI matches its Crossref record.

Use of Buffering and Other Means to Improve Results of Problematic Pesticides in a Fast and Easy Method for Residue Analysis of Fruits and Vegetables

Lehotay, Steven J, Maštovská, Kateřina, Lightfield, Alan R·2005·Journal of AOAC INTERNATIONAL

Abstract

A modification that entails the use of buffering during extraction was made to further improve results for certain problematic pesticides (e.g., folpet, dichlofluanid, chlorothalonil, and pymetrozine) in a simple, fast, and inexpensive method for the determination of pesticides in produce. The method, known as the quick, easy, cheap, effective, rugged, and safe (QuEChERS) method for pesticide residues in foods, now involves the extraction of the sample with acetonitrile (MeCN) containing 1% acetic acid (HAc) and simultaneous liquid–liquid partitioning formed by adding anhydrous MgSO4 plus sodium acetate (NaAc). The extraction method is carried out by shaking a centrifuge tube which contains 1 mL of 1% HAc in MeCN plus 0.4 g anhydrous MgSO4 and 0.1 g anhydrous NaAc per g sample. The tube is then centrifuged, and a portion of the extract is transferred to a tube containing 50 mg primary secondary amine sorbent plus 150 mg anhydrous MgSO4/mL of extract. After a mixing and centrifugation step, the extract is transferred to autosampler vials for concurrent analysis by gas chromatography/mass spectrometry (GC/MS) and liquid chromatography/tandem mass spectrometry. Independent of the original sample pH, the use of buffering during the extraction yields pH <4 in the MeCN extract and >5 in the water phase, which increases recoveries of both acid- and base-sensitive pesticides. The method was evaluated for 32 diverse pesticides in different matrixes, and typical percent recoveries were 95 ± 10, even for some problematic pesticides. Optional solvent exchange to toluene prior to GC/MS analysis was also evaluated, showing equally good results with the benefit of lower detection limits, but at the cost of more time, material, labor, and expense.

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/88.2.615

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 629

Metadata

Authors
Lehotay, S. J., Maštovská, K., & Lightfield, A. R.
Venue
Journal of AOAC INTERNATIONAL
Published
2005-03-01
Volume
88
Issue
2
Pages
615-629
ISSN
  • 1060-3271 (ISSN-L)
  • 1944-7922
OpenAlex
W1485511267
Cited by
629
References
0
FWCI
28.92
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: Use of Buffering and Other Means to Improve Results of Problematic Pesticides in a Fast and Easy Method for Residue Analysis of Fruits and Vegetables. https://app.cochat.ai/papers/10.1093/jaoac/88.2.615
The paper
Lehotay, S. J., Maštovská, K., & Lightfield, A. R. (2005). Use of Buffering and Other Means to Improve Results of Problematic Pesticides in a Fast and Easy Method for Residue Analysis of Fruits and Vegetables. Journal of AOAC INTERNATIONAL. https://doi.org/10.1093/jaoac/88.2.615

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.