ArticleChemistryOpen2024
Enhanced HPLC Method for Boar Taint Quantification.
Article in ChemistryOpen, 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 1 paper.
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
1 citing paper in PubMed.
- Enhanced HPLC Method for Boar Taint Quantification.ChemistryOpen · 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
5 authors.
Funding
Abstract
Boar taint is an unpleasant odour found in the carcasses of entire male pigs, resulting from androstenone and skatole accumulation during pubertal development, and impacting pork quality. This study proposes the validation of an adapted chromatographic method for quantifying skatole and androstenone in the pigs' liquid fat using fluorescence detection. A good chromatographic separation was achieved, with skatole (SKA) and androstenone (AND) elution at 4.4 and 9.9 min., respectively. An external calibration method was applied, with calibration curves correlation coefficient of 0.9999 for both analytes. Detection limit values were 1.53 and 16.02 ng/g for SKA and AND, respectively. SKA recovery was 99.72±2.34 % (2.34 % RSD) and 102.84±1.62 % (1.57 % RSD) for AND. Results showed good precision values (repeatability <2.46 % RSD for SKA, <6.85 % RSD for AND; intermediate precision <2.87 % RSD for SKA, <6.98 % RSD for AND). The method's robustness was tested and the values were within the reference ranges. The validation results proved that the adaptation of an existing method resulted in good assessments of robustness, reliability and accuracy.
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.