GEN-MKT-18-7897-A
Jun 20, 2016 | Blogs, Environmental / Industrial, Food / Beverage | 0 comments
No other pesticide has courted more media attention and controversy in recent months than glyphosate, with governments and national agencies debating its use and health effects. The following links just show some of the media attention this organophosphorus compound has received:
Download Presentation >
However irrespective of whether it poses a risk or not the analysis of glyphosate and other polar compounds in food and beverage products has been a challenge. Attaining the required sensitivity, dealing with complex matrices and sample prep can put a serious strain and demand on your laboratory. A common practice for the analysis of glyphosate and the other associated polar compounds such as AMPA, Glufosinate, and MMPA is to derivatize the samples during the preparation.
The derivatization method may be effective however there is a serious efficiency problem associated with it, the time it takes the analysts to prep and extract the sample. Derivatization can be a time-consuming procedure and can, therefore, affect a lab’s productivity, turnaround, and margins.
In a recent presentation, on the QTRAP® 6500+ System, we conducted an in-depth evaluation into the Quantitation of Underivatized Glyphosate and Other Polar Pesticides. This comprehensive study details the various techniques and LC conditions that we tested on a variety of matrices. In this study, we show how the SelexION® reduces interferences and can meet your required levels of sensitivity.
Ultra‑low reporting limits, expanding target lists, and the constant risk of background contamination mean that even small missteps before injection can compromise data integrity. PFAS can be introduced at nearly every stage of prep, from sampling containers and PPE to SPE cartridges, filters, solvents, and lab consumables, making contamination control as critical as analyte recovery.
In monoclonal antibody (mAb) development, assessment of purity and integrity of the protein in question is critical. CE‑SDS is the gold standard assay and is routinely run from analytical development through QC and lot release. It’s trusted because it consistently delivers quantitative, size‑based insight into purity and fragmentation, and it fits naturally into regulated environments.
In drug discovery and development, Metabolite Identification (Met ID) plays a critical role in understanding biotransformation pathways, ensuring safety, and meeting regulatory requirements. Advanced mass spectrometry techniques have revolutionized this process, particularly through electron-based fragmentation methods such as Electron Activated Dissociation (EAD) and Electron Transfer Dissociation (ETD). While both techniques leverage electron interactions to generate informative fragment ions, they differ significantly in mechanism, performance, and suitability for Met ID workflows.
Posted by
You must be logged in to post a comment.
Share this post with your network