Evaluation of a Commercially Available Enzyme‐Linked Immunosorbent Assay and a Liquid Chromatography–Tandem Mass Spectrometric Method for the Analysis of Glyphosate in Wheat, Oats, Barley, Malt, and Lentils
Bibliographic record
Abstract
An accurate and precise ultra‐high performance liquid chromatography with tandem mass spectrometry (UHPLC‐MS/MS) method was validated for the analysis of glyphosate and its main transformation product (aminomethylphosphonic acid) in barley, malt, wheat, oats, and lentils. The validation data demonstrated good performance of the method. This UHPLC‐MS/MS method was also used to evaluate the performance of a commercially available enzyme‐linked immunosorbent assay (ELISA) test kit. For all of the grain matrices examined, the ELISA showed poor accuracy and precision at its stated lower working limit of 0.075 mg/kg; however, performance was acceptable at 0.30 mg/kg, as well as higher concentrations relevant to established maximum residue limits. At these relevant concentrations, the ELISA also produced results higher than the UHPLC‐MS/MS method. Although results from the two methods were linearly correlated, differences in the result values from the two methods differed among the grains studied and ranged from +1% for oats to +40% for glyphosate concentrations in barley. ELISA is a useful tool that is complemented by the comprehensive and sensitive UHPLC‐MS/MS method.
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 distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.002 | 0.000 |
| 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 | 0.000 | 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 teacher head, 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".