ArticleFood science & nutrition2019
Comparison of three different lipid removal cleanup techniques prior to the analysis of sulfonamide drug residues in porcine tissues.
Article in Food science & nutrition, 2019. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 4 papers.
What it found
Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.
The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.
The trial behind it
Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
4 citing papers in PubMed.
- Multiresidues Multiclass Analytical Methods for Determination of Antibiotics in Animal Origin Food: A Critical Analysis.Antibiotics (Basel, Switzerland) · 2023Review
- Development of an amplified luminescent proximity homogeneous assay for the detection of sulfonamides in animal-derived products.Food science & nutrition · 2021Article
- Assessment of various veterinary drug residues in animal originated food products.Veterinary world · 2021Review
- Comparison of three different lipid removal cleanup techniques prior to the analysis of sulfonamide drug residues in porcine tissues.Food science & nutrition · 2019Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
7 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
A number of 17 sulfonamides (SNs) determination in porcine tissues using two new materials including Enhanced Matrix Removal for Lipid (EMR-L) and Oasis PRiME hydrophilic-lipophilic balance (HLB), and the conventional liquid-liquid extraction with n-hexane (LLE) sample preparation methods were evaluated and compared. Samples were extracted uniformly with acidified acetonitrile and cleaned up by the three sample preparation methods, and then, analytes were further separated by ultrahigh-performance liquid chromatography (UHPLC) and detected by a triple quadrupole mass spectrometry (MS/MS) or a quadrupole-time-of-flight tandem mass spectrometry (Q-TOF/MS). The results showed that the matrix effects from the EMR-L and HLB were significantly lower than that from LLE, suggesting that these two new materials are superior to n-hexane in the precipitation of proteins and the adsorption of lipids. Moreover, the recoveries of 17 SNs were quantified by the matrix-matched calibration curve at spiked level of 5, 10, and 20 μg/kg, and 97.0% of the results satisfied method validation requirements. The samples cleaned up by EMR-L and HLB achieved the highest average recovery in liver and kidney with high moisture content, and muscle which is high in fat, respectively. In addition, Q-TOF/MS could play a good role in aided verification based on the result of repeated validation test. In summary, either combination of approaches could be used to achieve monitoring purposes; it is still worthwhile to adopt a specific sample preparation method and MS detector for the quantification in a specific matrix.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.