ArticleJournal of the science of food and agriculture2022
Characterization of the composition of plant protection products in different formulation types employing suspect screening and unknown approaches.
Article in Journal of the science of food and agriculture, 2022. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 3 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
3 citing papers in PubMed.
- Unveiling Coformulants in Plant Protection Products by LC-HRMS Using a Polyhydroxy Methacrylate Stationary Phase.Journal of agricultural and food chemistry · 2023Article
- Metabolomics and molecular networking approach for exploring the anti-diabetic activity of medicinal plants.RSC advances · 2023Article
- Monitoring of Volatile Additives from Plant Protection Products in Tomatoes Using HS-SPME-GC-HRMS: Targeted and Suspect Approaches.Journal of agricultural and food chemistry · 2023Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
4 authors.
Funding
Abstract
backgroundPlant protection products (PPPs) are used extensively in agriculture to control crops. These PPPs, which may be found in different types of formulations, are composed of a designated pesticide (active principle) and other inactive ingredients as co-formulants. They perform specific functions in the formulation, as solvents, preservatives or antifreeze agents, among others.
resultsA research technique based on ultra-high-performance liquid chromatography (UHPLC) coupled to a Quadrupole-Orbitrap mass analyzer was successfully applied to characterize the composition of six different PPPs in terms of the presence of co-formulants and types of formulations: emulsifiable concentrate (EC), emulsion in water (EW), suspension concentrate and water-dispersible granule. These PPPs (FLINT MAX, MASSOCUR 12.5 EC, IMPACT EVO, TOPAS, LATINO and IMPALA STAR) had antifungal activity, containing one triazole compound as active principle (tebuconazole, penconazole, myclobutanil, flutriafol or fenbuconazole, respectively). Non-targeted approaches, applying suspect and unknown analysis, were carried out and ten compounds were identified as potential co-formulants. Six (glyceryl monostearate, 1-monopalmitin, dimethyl sulfoxide, N,N-dimethyldecanamide, hexaethylene glycol and 1,2-benzisothiazol-3(2H)-one) were confirmed by injecting analytical standards. Finally, these compounds were quantified in the PPPs.
conclusionThe current study allowed for detecting co-formulants in a wide range of concentrations, between 0.04 (dimethyl sulfoxide) and 19.00 g L
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.