“…These include high performance liquid chromatography (Zhou et al, 2011), liquid chromatography coupled with tandem mass spectrometry (LC–MS/MS) (Fan, Zhao, Yu, Pan, & Li, 2014; Kasiotis, Anagnostopoulos, Anastasiadou, & Machera, 2014; Tran et al, 2012), gas chromatography (GC) (Łozowicka, 2013), gas chromatography coupled to mass spectrometry in tandem (GC–MS/MS) (Hart, Coscollà, Pastor, & Yusà, 2012; Walorczyk et al, 2013); however, these instrumental methods are time‐consuming and need comprehensive clean‐up steps to ensure efficient extract purification, and the instrumental equipment mentioned above are very expensive and require trained personnel to operate. Immunoassays like ELISA (Cao, Shi, Le, Tang, & Xie, 2019; Esteve‐Turrillas, Mercader, Agulló, Abad‐Somovilla, & Abad‐Fuentes, 2015; Mercader, Esteve‐Turrillas, Agulló, Abad‐Somovilla, & Abad‐Fuentes, 2012), nanogold‐based immunochromatography test strip (Chen et al, 2019; Xie et al, 2020), and newly developed electrochemical sensors, surface enhanced Raman scattering (Mandrile, Giovannozzi, Durbiano, Martra, & Rossi, 2018) have been widely used as substitutes to traditional instrumental methods for the rapid detection of PYR, providing high sensitivity, specificity and less detection time. So far, however, no studies were reported so far concerning the quantum dots (QDs)‐based lateral flow immunochromatography strip (QDs‐LFICS).…”