ArticleAnalytical and bioanalytical chemistry2025
Assessment of current use pesticides in flowers, pollen provision, and wild bees: HPLC-ESI-MS/MS method development and field implementation.
Article in Analytical and bioanalytical chemistry, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.
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
0 citing papers in PubMed.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
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
Synthetic pesticide use is a major driver of pollinator declines in agricultural landscapes. To understand the impact of pesticides, it is essential to quantify residues in food resources and in insects themselves. We developed simple, fast, and cost-effective multiresidue methods for the simultaneous quantification of up to 83 current use pesticides (CUPs) in flowers (0.5 g sample weight) and 71 CUPs in pollen provision (0.1 g sample weight) via liquid chromatography-tandem mass spectrometry. Additionally, methods were developed for individual wild bees (Osmia bicornis), enabling the analysis of 65 CUPs in 0.02 g samples (females) and 45 CUPs in 0.01 g samples (males). The extractions used acidified acetonitrile (2.5% formic acid), with phase separation assisted by ammonium formate and clean-up via freeze-out. The validation showed limits of quantification between 0.00025 mg/kg and 0.05 mg/kg for flowers, 0.0002 mg/kg to 0.052 mg/kg for pollen provision, 0.0002 mg/kg to 0.08 mg/kg for female bees, and 0.00008 mg/kg to 0.1 mg/kg for male bees. The methods were applied to flowers, pollen provision, and post-pupal bees from agricultural sites. In total, 47 CUPs were detected in flowers, 35 in pollen provision, and 4 in post-pupal bees, with herbicides being most prevalent. This study highlights the exposure of pollinators to CUP mixtures, including emerging bees that have not yet been active in the environment. Our methods provide practical tools for monitoring CUP residues in small environmental samples, supporting the assessment of exposure in plant-insect 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.