ArticleAnalytical and bioanalytical chemistry2021
Comparison of four different multiclass, multiresidue sample preparation methods in the analysis of veterinary drugs in fish and other food matrices.
Article in Analytical and bioanalytical chemistry, 2021. 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, 16 citations in OpenAlex.
- Electrochemical (Bio)Sensors for Antibiotic Residue Detection in Aquatic Animal Products: A Review.Biosensors · 2026Review
- Analysis of chemical contaminants in fish using high resolution mass spectrometry - A review.Trends in environmental analytical chemistry · 2024Article
- Production and certification of BOTS-1: bovine muscle-certified reference material for incurred veterinary drug residues.Analytical and bioanalytical chemistry · 2024Article
- Simultaneous determination of pharmaceuticals and metabolites in fish tissue by QuEChERS extraction and UHPLC Q/Orbitrap MS analysis.Analytical and bioanalytical chemistry · 2021Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
2 authors at 1 institution in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
In 2018, AOAC International issued Standard Method Performance Requirements (SPMR) 2018.010 - Screening and Identification Method for Regulated Veterinary Drug Residues in Food. In response, we compared 4 different multiresidue methods of sample preparation using the same analytical method entailing ultrahigh-performance liquid chromatography-tandem mass spectrometry (UHPLC-MS/MS). Tilapia was chosen for testing, and the analytes and monitoring levels were from SPMR 2018.010. The methods consist of efficient procedures with published validation results from the US Department of Agriculture (USDA), Food and Drug Administration (FDA), and Canadian Food Inspection Agency (CFIA), and an enhanced-matrix removal (EMR)-Lipid protocol from China. Each method was used to prepare 102 final extracts of tilapia spiked or not at different levels with the 78 targeted analytes plus metabolites. The same FDA/USDA rules of mass spectral identification were employed in all analyses to assess rates of false positives and negatives. Quantitative accuracy of the methods was also compared in terms of recoveries and reproducibility of spiked tilapia, incurred catfish, and spiked and certified reference material of bovine muscle. Each method yielded generally acceptable results for the targeted veterinary drugs, but the USDA "extract & inject" method was the fastest, simplest, and cheapest to achieve equally or more acceptable results for the widest scope of analytes for the tested food matrices.
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.