Simultaneous Determination of Emamectin and Ivermectin Residues in Atlantic Salmon Muscle by Liquid Chromatography with Fluorescence Detection
Bibliographic record
Abstract
A liquid chromatographic (LC) method for determining residues of the antiparasitic drugs emamectin (EMA) and ivermectin (IVR) in fish tissues has been developed. EMA and IVR residues are extracted with acetonitrile and cleaned up on a C18 solid-phase extraction column. Extracts are derivatized with 1-methylimidazole and trifluoroacetic anhydride and the components are determined by LC on a C18 reversed-phase column with fluorescence detection (excitation: 365 nm, emission: 470 nm). The mobile phase is 94% acetonitrile-water run isocratically. Calibration curves were linear between 1 and 32 ng injected for both EMA and IVR. The limit of detection for both analytes was 0.5 ng/g, with a limit of quantitation of 1.5 ng/g. Recoveries of EMA and IVR added to salmon muscle averaged 96 +/- 9% and 86 +/- 6%, respectively, at levels between 5 and 80 ng/g. The percent relative standard deviation for the described method was less than 7% over the range of concentrations studied. The operational errors, interferences, and recoveries for fortified samples compare favorably with an established IVR method. The recommended method is simple, rapid, and specific for monitoring residues of EMA and IVR in Atlantic salmon muscle.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".