ArticleFoods (Basel, Switzerland)2026
Fitness-for-Purpose Assessment of Methods for Glyphosate Determination in Food: Trade-Off Between Analytical Performance and Environmental Impact.
Article in Foods (Basel, Switzerland), 2026. 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
6 authors.
Funding
Abstract
Selecting analytical methods for pesticide residues in food increasingly requires balancing regulatory compliance, analytical performance, and environmental sustainability. This study presents a decision-support tool that evaluates the fitness-for-purpose of pesticide analytical methods by integrating SANTE/11312/2021 v2 validation criteria with Analytical GREEnness (AGREE)-based environmental metrics. Implemented in Excel with VBA macros, the tool guides users through the input of method parameters for both quantitative and screening approaches, scoring each against acceptance criteria. Based on the results, methods are classified as suitable for risk assessment, official control, or self-monitoring. The tool also calculates greenness scores to assess environmental impact. Glyphosate analysis in cereals was selected as a case study, and three approaches were compared: liquid chromatography coupled to tandem mass spectrometry (LC-MS/MS), flow-injection coupled to MS/MS (FI-MS/MS), and lateral flow assay (LFA). LC-MS/MS was identified as the only method suitable for official control, while FI-MS/MS and LFA met requirements for self-monitoring. The greenness assessment highlighted substantial differences, with LFA showing the lowest environmental footprint (AGREE scores of 0.63 and 0.68 for manual and automated LFAs). Overall, the tool provides a practical, user-friendly framework for selecting analytical methods that optimize both analytical performance and environmental sustainability, supporting informed decision-making in food testing.
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.