Evidence map›Paper›PMID 32125845›Full record

ArticleJournal of agricultural and food chemistry2020

Evaluation of Matrix Effects and Extraction Efficiencies of LC-MS/MS Methods as the Essential Part for Proper Validation of Multiclass Contaminants in Complex Feed.

David Steiner, Rudolf Krska, Alexandra Malachová, Ines Taschl, Michael Sulyok

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Journal of agricultural and food chemistry, 2020. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 59 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
59citing papers in PubMed
–field-weighted citation impact
1 · What the graph read from it

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.

2 · The registry

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.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

59 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Review
  2. Article
  3. Article
  4. Review
  5. Review
  6. Article
  7. Anti-Inflammatory Activities of Baobab Fruit Extracts in TNF-Pharmaceuticals (Basel, Switzerland) · 2026
    Article
  8. Article
  9. Article
  10. Review
  11. Review
  12. Article
  13. Article
  14. Use ofRSC advances · 2026
    Article
  15. Article
  16. Article
  17. Article
  18. Article
  19. Article
  20. Article
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

5 authors.

David SteinerFFoQSI-Austrian Competence Centre for Feed and Food Quality, Safety & Innovation, Head Office: FFoQSI GmbH, Technopark 1C, A, 3430 Tulln, Austria.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0002-7941-2790
Rudolf KrskaInstitute of Bioanalytics and Agro-Metabolomics, Department of Agrobiotechnology IFA-Tulln, University of Natural Resources and Life Sciences, Vienna (BOKU), Konrad-Lorenz-Str. 20, 3430 Tulln, Austria.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0001-6843-9755
Alexandra MalachováFFoQSI-Austrian Competence Centre for Feed and Food Quality, Safety & Innovation, Head Office: FFoQSI GmbH, Technopark 1C, A, 3430 Tulln, Austria.
Ines TaschlBIOMIN Holding GmbH, Erber Campus 1, 3131 Getzersdorf, Austria.
Michael SulyokInstitute of Bioanalytics and Agro-Metabolomics, Department of Agrobiotechnology IFA-Tulln, University of Natural Resources and Life Sciences, Vienna (BOKU), Konrad-Lorenz-Str. 20, 3430 Tulln, Austria.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0002-3302-0732

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

This work provides a proposal for proper determination of matrix effects and extraction efficiencies as an integral part of full validation of liquid chromatography coupled to tandem mass spectrometry-based multiclass methods for complex feedstuff. Analytical performance data have been determined for 100 selected analytes in three compound feed matrices and twelve single feed ingredients using seven individual samples per matrix type. Apparent recoveries ranged from 60-140% for 52-89% of all compounds in single feed materials and 51-72% in complex compound feed. Regarding extraction efficiencies, 84-97% of all analytes ranged within 70-120% in all tested feed materials, implying that signal suppression due to matrix effects is the main source for the deviation from 100% of the expected target deriving from external calibration. However, the comparison between compound feed and single feed materials shows great variances regarding the apparent recoveries and matrix effects. Therefore, model compound feed formulas for cattle, pig, and chicken were prepared in-house in order to circumvent the issue of the lack of a true blank sample material and to simulate compositional uncertainties. The results of this work highlight that compound feed modeling enables a more realistic estimation of the method performance and therefore should be implemented in future validation guidelines.

Indexed as

Animal FeedAnimalsCattleChickensChromatography, LiquidMycotoxinsPesticidesSwineTandem Mass SpectrometryMycotoxinsPesticidescompound feedmodel matricesmycotoxinspesticidesrecoveryresiduesveterinary drugs

Identifiers

PMID32125845
PMCPMC7205385

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

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.