Determination of Oxytetracycline/Oxytetracycline Hydrochloride in Animal Feed, Fish Feed, and Veterinary Medicinal Products by Liquid Chromatography with Fluorescence Detection: Collaborative Study
Bibliographic record
Abstract
A method for determining oxytetracycline (OTC) in animal feed, fish feed, and veterinary medicinal products at medicated use and contamination levels was collaboratively studied. The method is applicable to the analysis of animal feeds and mineral premixes containing levels > or =2 mg/kg, and fish feed containing levels > or =10 mg/kg. Oxytetracycline hydrochloride (OTC.HCI) is extracted from ground feed material in acid-methanol solution using mechanical agitation. After centrifugation for 5 min at 1230 x g, an aliquot of the extract is diluted with water andlor acid-methanol so that the concentration of OTC.HCI is approximately the same as that in the working standard, and the solutions contain at least 50% water. Injectable veterinary medicinal materials (also called animal remedy materials) are diluted with water andlor extractant to reach the target concentration. The extracts are filtered and analyzed by reversed-phase liquid chromatography with fluorescence detection with excitation at 390 nm and emission at 512 nm. Twenty-eight test samples of medicated feeds, supplements, and drug premixes, including 4 test samples for trace-level analysis, were sent to 17 collaborators in Canada, The Netherlands, and the United States. Results were received from 11 laboratories. The RSDr values (within-laboratory repeatability) ranged from 1.26 to 9.21%; RSDR values (among-laboratory reproducibility) ranged from 2.14 to 12.9%, and HorRat values ranged from 0.54 to 3.02. It is recommended that this method be adopted AOAC Official First Action.
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 | 0.000 | 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 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 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".