MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4415260890 · doi:10.1080/19393210.2025.2565203

Occurrence and trends of fluorinated pesticides in food commodities marketed in Luxembourg (2011–2024)

2025· article· en· W4415260890 on OpenAlexaff
Luc Schuler, Danny Zust, Laure Joly, Fabienne Clabots

Bibliographic record

VenueFood Additives and Contaminants Part B · 2025
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldAgricultural and Biological Sciences
TopicPharmacological Effects and Assays
Canadian institutionsAgriculture Food and Rural Development
Fundersnot available
KeywordsPesticide residuePesticideContaminationResidue (chemistry)European unionTrifluoroacetic acidFood contaminant

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

This study investigated fluorinated pesticide residues in food commodities marketed in Luxembourg, focusing on substances listed in the European Chemicals Agency's Annex XV Restriction Report Proposal as potential precursors of trifluoroacetic acid (TFA), a persistent degradation product of concern. From 6,034 samples collected between 2011 and 2024, 48.1% contained quantifiable residues, with fluorinated compounds detected in 12.3% of the samples. Tea (65.3%) and dried fruits (45.6%) showed the highest contamination rates. Detection rates of fluorinated pesticide residues rose from 9.6% of the samples in 2011 to 26.8% in 2024. In 18 cases (1.8%) EU maximum residue limits (MRLs) were exceeded. Thirty-one distinct fluorinated pesticides were identified, with six compounds, fluopyram, lambda-cyhalothrin, trifloxystrobin, bifenthrin, fluopicolide, and flonicamid accounting for nearly 80% of the detections, all being considered potential precursors of TFA. These findings underline the need for continued monitoring and regulatory attention to limit environmental and health risks from TFA formation.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.023
Threshold uncertainty score0.046

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0020.002
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0010.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0020.000

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.

Opus teacher head0.018
GPT teacher head0.249
Teacher spread0.231 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designObservational
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

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".

Quick stats

Citations1
Published2025
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueFood Additives and Contaminants Part BSame topicPharmacological Effects and AssaysFrench-language works237,207