ArticleAnalytical and bioanalytical chemistry2024
Suspect screening for chemical residues in aquacultured shrimp and fish using liquid chromatography-high resolution mass spectrometry: comparison of data evaluation approaches.
Article in Analytical and bioanalytical chemistry, 2024. 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.
- Multilaboratory Study of a Nontarget Data Acquisition for Target Analysis (nDATA) Workflow Using Ultrahigh-Performance Liquid Chromatography-High-Resolution Mass Spectrometry for the Screening of 1087 Pesticides in Fresh Fruits and Vegetables.Journal of agricultural and food chemistry · 2025Article
- Enhanced Surveillance of >1100 Pesticides and Natural Toxins in Food: Harnessing the Capabilities of LC-HRMS for Reliable Identification and Quantification.Foods (Basel, Switzerland) · 2024Article
- Analysis of chemical contaminants in fish using high resolution mass spectrometry - A review.Trends in environmental analytical chemistry · 2024Article
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.
Funding
Abstract
High-resolution mass spectrometry (HRMS) has become an important tool for monitoring chemical residues in food, but the time and effort required to evaluate the large amount of data generated by HRMS can be a limiting factor in the widespread application of this tool. Suspect screening, i.e., searching HRMS data against large compound databases or mass lists, represents a practical compromise between using HRMS data to only look for target compounds and performing full non-target analysis. Several different approaches for suspect screening using HRMS data were tested using data from shrimp and eel spiked with veterinary drugs and pesticides as well as from imported aquaculture samples. Most of the analytes (>70%) in the spiked samples were detected and identified by searching against compound databases. To query larger databases and on-line resources such as mzCloud, it was necessary to use software capable of differential analysis and selective filtering, such as Compound Discoverer. Using selective filtering, the number of compounds detected in fish sample extracts could be reduced from tens of thousands to a few hundred by subtracting method blanks and comparing to matrix blank extracts. This smaller list of potential compounds could be further evaluated and compared to available databases and libraries. Analysis of imported aquaculture samples resulted in detection of unexpected contaminants including the dewormer levamisole, the insecticide buprofezin, and potentially the plant alkaloid ricinine.
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.