ArticleFoods (Basel, Switzerland)2025
Green Extraction and Targeted LC-MS Analysis of Biopesticides in Honey Using Natural Deep Eutectic Solvents.
Article in Foods (Basel, Switzerland), 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 2 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
2 citing papers in PubMed.
- Quantitative Analysis and Network Pharmacology-Based Profiling of Isolated Metabolites from Swertia purpurascens (D.Don) C.B. Clarke.Journal of separation science · 2026Article
- Ultrasound-Assisted Extraction Using a 3D-Printed Device Functionalized With SPE Sorbent for UHPLC-DAD Analysis of Pesticide Residues in Honey.Journal of food science · 2026Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
6 authors.
Funding
Abstract
Natural Deep Eutectic Solvents (NADES) were synthesized from food-grade components and evaluated as green extractants for the simultaneous recovery and liquid chromatography coupled to quadrupole-Orbitrap mass spectrometry (LC-Q-Orbitrap-MS) analysis of biopesticide residues in a complex matrix like honey. Conventional solid-liquid extraction (SLE) was applied, initially using choline chloride-2,3-butanediol (1:4, molar ratio) as the NADES extractant solvent, before systematically evaluating other NADES formulations. Extraction parameters, such as time (10 min, 20 min, and 30 min), technique (rotary mixing vs. sonication), and NADES composition, namely lactic acid-glucose-water (LGH, 5:1:9, molar ratio), lactic acid-glycerol-water (LGLH, 1:1:3, molar ratio), urea-glycerol-water (UGLH, 1:1:2, molar ratio), and choline chloride-2,3-butanediol (ChClBt, 1:4, molar ratio), were systematically optimized. Rotating agitation for 10 min yielded the highest overall recoveries and was therefore selected as the optimal extraction time. Rotary shaking was chosen over sonication due to its superior performance across both simple and complex matrices. Among the NADES tested, UGLH proved to be the most effective composition for the honey matrix. The analytical method was validated for the honey matrix. Linearity showed excellent performance across the tested concentration range, with R
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.