Analysis of quinclorac and quinclorac methyl ester in canola from the 2015 harvest using QuEChERS with liquid chromatography polarity-switching tandem mass spectrometry
Bibliographic record
Abstract
A method using QuEChERS sample preparation with liquid chromatography polarity-switching tandem mass spectrometry was developed and validated for the analysis of quinclorac and its degradation product quinclorac methyl ester in canola seed. The method was used to analyse canola treated with quinclorac, harvest sample composites and samples of canola shipments. Quinclorac residues were present in all samples of canola treated with a quinclorac-containing herbicide that were analysed. Quinclorac was found in 93% of samples, with an average of 0.018 mg kg(-1). All samples contained quinclorac methyl ester, with an average of 0.061 mg kg(-1). The average concentration of total residues (as quinclorac equivalents) on treated canola was 0.075 mg kg(-1), with a range of 0.016-0.124 mg kg(-1). The observed residues were all at least 10 times lower than the Canadian maximum residue limit of 1.5 mg kg(-1). Quinclorac and quinclorac methyl ester were not found in any harvest and export composite samples, which represented the majority of canola grown in western Canada in 2015 and canola exported in late 2015. Even though usage of quinclorac-containing herbicide on canola can result in the presence of low concentrations of residues, the absence of quinclorac residues in harvest and shipment samples suggests that use of quinclorac-containing herbicide was not widespread, and that any residues present were diluted as canola was combined along the grain-handling chain into shipment lots, or segregated and prevented from entering shipment lots.
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) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 0.001 |
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".