Comparison between different detection methods of aminopyralid.
| Method | Pretreatment methods | Sample | Recovery (%) | LOD (μg kg−1) | LOQ (μg kg−1) | Analysis time | Ref. |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| LC-MS/MS | QuEChERSa | Cucumber, eggplant, tomato, apple, grape | 70.0–109.4% | 10–90 | 21–36 | 1.5 h | Tian et al., 2012 |
| GC-ECD | SPEb | Forage grass, hay, soil | 80.0–104% | 10–20 | 20–50 | 2 h | Li et al., 2018 |
| LC-MS/MS | SPEb | Barley | 76.5–88.4% | 10 | 50 | 2 h | Zhang et al., 2014 |
| LC-MS/MS | MI-MDSPEc | Milk | 83.3–90% | 0.231 | 0.77 | 1 h | This work |
a
Quick, easy, cheap, effective, rugged, and safe method.
b
Solid-phase extraction.
c
Dummy molecular imprinting-magnetic dispersive solid-phase extraction.