2011
DOI: 10.1016/j.jchromb.2010.11.039
|View full text |Cite
|
Sign up to set email alerts
|

Development of a liquid chromatography-tandem mass spectrometry with pressurized liquid extraction for determination of glucocorticoid residues in edible tissues

Help me understand this report

Search citation statements

Order By: Relevance

Paper Sections

Select...
4
1

Citation Types

1
6
0

Year Published

2012
2012
2017
2017

Publication Types

Select...
6
1
1

Relationship

0
8

Authors

Journals

citations
Cited by 32 publications
(7 citation statements)
references
References 26 publications
(27 reference statements)
1
6
0
Order By: Relevance
“…To illustrate the advantages of this work as a promising extraction strategy, we compared our optimized method with other reported method [10,12,16,18,24,25,[30][31][32][33][34] . The LOD values obtained by the proposed method are in the range of 0.01-0.05 μg kg À 1 , which is obviously comparable or even better than that of other conventional methods.…”
Section: Methods Validationmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…To illustrate the advantages of this work as a promising extraction strategy, we compared our optimized method with other reported method [10,12,16,18,24,25,[30][31][32][33][34] . The LOD values obtained by the proposed method are in the range of 0.01-0.05 μg kg À 1 , which is obviously comparable or even better than that of other conventional methods.…”
Section: Methods Validationmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…It is used to suppress the immune response (Pyka, Babuska-Roczniak, & Bochenska, 2011) and promote weight gain in animals by reducing energy consumption (Quillet et al, 2014). However, its overuse causes residues to accumulate in animal products, such as milk and pork, which can endanger human health (Chen et al, 2011). Therefore, there is an urgent need to develop methods to monitor HDS residues in animal products.…”
Section: Introductionmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…Recently, various analytical methods have been developed for detecting DEX, such as high-performance liquid chromatography (Bhargava et al, 2016;Dési, Kovács, Palotai, & Kende, 2008;Lasić, Bobarević, & Nikolin, 1989;Tsuei, Ashley, Moore, & McBride, 1978), gas chromatography-mass spectrometry (Amendola, Garribba, & Botrè, 2003;Bagnati et al, 1996;Huetos Hidalgo, Jiménez López, Ajenjo Carazo, San Andrés Larrea, & Reuvers, 2003), liquid chromatography-mass spectrometry (LC-MS) (Chen et al, 2011;Creaser, Feely, Houghton, Seymour, & Teale, 1996), radioimmunoassay methods (Meikle, Lagerquist, & Tyler, 1973), and enzyme immunoassay (Hassan, Rowell, Hambleton, & Jackson, 1998;Vdovenko, Gribas, Vylegzhanina, & Sakharov, 2012;Yadav et al, 2013;Yoshino, Yoshiharu, Noriko, Kiyoshi, & Fukuko, 1992). Each method has its own strong and weak points.…”
Section: Introductionmentioning
confidence: 99%