| Title |
Matrix Effect Evaluation and Method Validation of Azoxystrobin and Difenoconazole Residues in Red Flesh Dragon Fruit (Hylocereus polyrhizus) Matrices Using QuEChERS Sample Preparation Methods Followed by LC–MS/MS Determination
|
|---|---|
| Published in |
Bulletin of Environmental Contamination and Toxicology, March 2018
|
| DOI | 10.1007/s00128-018-2317-5 |
| Pubmed ID | |
| Authors |
Sri Noegrohati, Elan Hernadi, Syanti Asviastuti |
| Abstract |
Production of red flesh dragon fruit (Hylocereus polyrhizus) was hampered by Colletotrichum sp. Pre-harvest application of azoxystrobin and difenoconazole mixture is recommended, therefore, a selective and sensitive multi residues analytical method is required in monitoring and evaluating the commodity's safety. LC-MS/MS is a well-established analytical technique for qualitative and quantitative determination in complex matrices. However, this method is hurdled by co-eluted coextractives interferences. This work evaluated the pH effect of acetate buffered and citrate buffered QuEChERS sample preparation in their effectiveness of matrix effect reduction. Citrate buffered QuEChERS proved to produce clean final extract with relative matrix effect 0.4%-0.7%. Method validation of the selected sample preparation followed by LC-MS/MS for whole dragon fruit, flesh and peel matrices fortified at 0.005, 0.01, 0.1 and 1 g/g showed recoveries 75%-119%, intermediate repeatability 2%-14%. The expanded uncertainties were 7%-48%. Based on the international acceptance criteria, this method is valid. |
X Demographics
The data shown below were collected from the profile of 1 X user who shared this research output. Click here to find out more about how the information was compiled.
Geographical breakdown
| Country | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Unknown | 1 | 100% |
Demographic breakdown
| Type | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Members of the public | 1 | 100% |
Mendeley readers
The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 20 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.
Geographical breakdown
| Country | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Unknown | 20 | 100% |
Demographic breakdown
| Readers by professional status | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Student > Doctoral Student | 3 | 15% |
| Student > Bachelor | 3 | 15% |
| Other | 1 | 5% |
| Lecturer | 1 | 5% |
| Student > Ph. D. Student | 1 | 5% |
| Other | 2 | 10% |
| Unknown | 9 | 45% |
| Readers by discipline | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Agricultural and Biological Sciences | 3 | 15% |
| Pharmacology, Toxicology and Pharmaceutical Science | 2 | 10% |
| Nursing and Health Professions | 2 | 10% |
| Veterinary Science and Veterinary Medicine | 1 | 5% |
| Chemistry | 1 | 5% |
| Other | 1 | 5% |
| Unknown | 10 | 50% |
Attention Score in Context
This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 1. This is our high-level measure of the quality and quantity of online attention that it has received. This Attention Score, as well as the ranking and number of research outputs shown below, was calculated when the research output was last mentioned on 28 May 2018.
All research outputs
#21,608,038
of 24,119,703 outputs
Outputs from Bulletin of Environmental Contamination and Toxicology
#3,090
of 4,112 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#294,333
of 333,181 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Bulletin of Environmental Contamination and Toxicology
#36
of 63 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 24,119,703 research outputs across all sources so far. This one is in the 1st percentile – i.e., 1% of other outputs scored the same or lower than it.
So far Altmetric has tracked 4,112 research outputs from this source. They receive a mean Attention Score of 3.0. This one is in the 1st percentile – i.e., 1% of its peers scored the same or lower than it.
Older research outputs will score higher simply because they've had more time to accumulate mentions. To account for age we can compare this Altmetric Attention Score to the 333,181 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one is in the 1st percentile – i.e., 1% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.
We're also able to compare this research output to 63 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one is in the 1st percentile – i.e., 1% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.