Evidence map›Paper›PMID 40685427›Full record

ArticleAnalytical and bioanalytical chemistry2025

Analysis of several anionic polar pesticides in food of plant and animal origin using QuPPe extraction and CE-MS/MS determination.

Ann-Kathrin Schäfer, Walter Vetter, Michelangelo Anastassiades

Abstract read
In one paragraph

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. Cited by 1 paper.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
1citing papers in PubMed
–field-weighted citation impact
1 · What the graph read from it

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.

2 · The registry

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.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

1 citing paper in PubMed.

  1. Article
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

3 authors.

Ann-Kathrin SchäferSection for Residues and Contaminants, Chemisches Und Veterinäruntersuchungsamt Stuttgart, 70736, Fellbach, Germany. Ann-Kathrin.Schaefer@cvuas.bwl.de.
Walter VetterInstitute of Food Chemistry (170b), University of Hohenheim, 70599, Stuttgart, Germany.
Michelangelo AnastassiadesSection for Residues and Contaminants, Chemisches Und Veterinäruntersuchungsamt Stuttgart, 70736, Fellbach, Germany.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Although highly polar pesticides such as glyphosate (Gly) are widely used and highly relevant for pesticide residue analysis, their analytical determination is still problematic. Methods involving liquid chromatography in combination with tandem mass spectrometry (LC-MS/MS) often lack sensitivity due to insufficient separation from matrix co-extractives causing severe ion suppression effects on Gly and other anionic pesticides. In this study, capillary electrophoresis (CE) was used for an improved separation of analytes from matrix components, thus increasing sensitivity and robustness of analysis. Gly and 13 other anionic pesticides and selected metabolites (including glufosinate, ethephon, fosetyl, phosphonic acid and chlorate) were studied after extraction with the quick polar pesticides (QuPPe) method. Different tests resulted in an improved separation and sensitivity using a background electrolyte (BGE) containing 15% acetic acid and 20% methanol (MeOH) in water. The study also included the investigation of injection conditions and a thorough study of the matrix effects. Finally, results of method validation in several (strawberry, soybean, milk, liver, lemon) matrices of plant and animal origin are presented.

Indexed as

Food AnalysisFood ContaminationPesticide ResiduesPesticidesTandem Mass SpectrometryAnimalsAnionsElectrophoresis, CapillaryGlycineGlyphosateLimit of DetectionMilkAnionsGlycineGlyphosatePesticide ResiduesPesticidesAnionic polar pesticideCapillary electrophoresisCE-MS/MSGlyphosateMass spectrometryQuPPe

Identifiers

PMID40685427
PMCPMC12367890

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

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.