The DOI matches its Crossref record.
Evaluation of Two Fast and Easy Methods for Pesticide Residue Analysis in Fatty Food Matrixes
Abstract
Two rapid methods of sample preparation and analysis of fatty foods (e.g., milk, eggs, and avocado) were evaluated and compared for 32 pesticide residues representing a wide range of physicochemical properties. One method, dubbed the quick, easy, cheap, effective, rugged, and safe (QuEChERS) method for pesticide residue analysis, entailed extraction of 15 g sample with 15 mL acetonitrile (MeCN) containing 1% acetic acid followed by addition of 6 g anhydrous magnesium sulfate and 1.5 g sodium acetate. After centrifugation, 1 mL of the buffered MeCN extract underwent a cleanup step (in a technique known as dispersive solid-phase extraction) using 50 mg each of C18 and primary secondary amine sorbents plus 150 mg MgSO4. The second method incorporated a form of matrix solid-phase dispersion (MSPD), in which 0.5 g sample plus 2 g C18 and 2 g anhydrous sodium sulfate was mixed in a mortar and pestle and added above a 2 g Florisil column on a vacuum manifold. Then, 5 × 2 mL MeCN was used to elute the pesticide analytes from the sample into a collection tube, and the extract was concentrated to 0.5 mL by evaporation. Extracts in both methods were analyzed concurrently by gas chromatography/mass spectrometry and liquid chromatography/tandem mass spectrometry. The recoveries of semi-polar and polar pesticides were typically 100% in both methods (except that basic pesticides, such as thiabendazole and imazalil, were not recovered in the MSPD method), but recovery of nonpolar pesticides decreased as fat content of the sample increased. This trend was more pronounced in the QuEChERS method, in which case the most lipophilic analyte tested, hexachlorobenzene, gave 27 ± 1% recovery (n = 6) in avocado (15% fat) with a <10 ng/g limit of quantitation.
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.
Integrity signals
Registry
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.
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
Determination of pesticide residues in food matrices using the QuEChERS methodology
Wilkowska, A., & Biziuk, M. (2011) · Food Chemistry · doi:10.1016/j.foodchem.2010.09.094 · Cited by 627
Bruzzoniti, M. C., Checchini, L., De Carlo, R. M., Orlandini, S., Rivoira, L., & Del Bubba, M. (2014) · Analytical and Bioanalytical Chemistry · doi:10.1007/s00216-014-7798-4 · Cited by 301
Leandro, C. C., Hancock, P., Fussell, R. J., & Keely, B. J. (2006) · Journal of Chromatography A · doi:10.1016/j.chroma.2005.10.077 · Cited by 254
Ferreira, J. A., Ferreira, J. M. S., Talamini, V., Facco, J. D. F., Rizzetti, T. M., Prestes, O. D., Adaime, M. B., Zanella, R., & Bottoli, C. B. G. (2016) · Food Chemistry · doi:10.1016/j.foodchem.2016.06.114 · Cited by 100
Melo, A., Cunha, S. C., Mansilha, C., Aguiar, A., Pinho, O., & Ferreira, I. M. P. L. V. O. (2012) · Food Chemistry · doi:10.1016/j.foodchem.2012.05.112 · Cited by 90
Metadata
- Authors
- Lehotay, S. J., Maštovská, K., & Yun, S. J.
- Venue
- Journal of AOAC INTERNATIONAL
- Publisher
- Oxford University Press (OUP)
- Published
- 2005-03-01
- Volume
- 88
- Issue
- 2
- Pages
- 630-638
- ISSN
- 1060-3271 (ISSN-L)
- 1944-7922
- OpenAlex
- W1512476261
- Cited by
- 460
- References
- 0
- FWCI
- 23.03
- 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: Evaluation of Two Fast and Easy Methods for Pesticide Residue Analysis in Fatty Food Matrixes. https://app.cochat.ai/papers/10.1093/jaoac/88.2.630
- The paper
- Lehotay, S. J., Maštovská, K., & Yun, S. J. (2005). Evaluation of Two Fast and Easy Methods for Pesticide Residue Analysis in Fatty Food Matrixes. Journal of AOAC INTERNATIONAL. https://doi.org/10.1093/jaoac/88.2.630
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.