ArticleMolecules (Basel, Switzerland)2025
Discrepancies in Mineral Oil Confirmation by Two-Dimensional Gas Chromatography-Mass Spectrometry: A Call for Harmonization.
Article in Molecules (Basel, Switzerland), 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.
What it found
Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.
The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.
The trial behind it
Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
0 citing papers in PubMed.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
9 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Three different vegetable oils, namely coconut oil, palm olein and olive oil, were analyzed for mineral oil hydrocarbons (MOHs) in our laboratory and in five commercial laboratories well recognized for their expertise in this field. The analysis consisted of a preliminary quantitative estimation of MOH content by hyphenated liquid chromatography-gas chromatography with flame ionization detection (LC-GC-FID), followed by a confirmatory analysis of MOH components by two-dimensional gas chromatography with time-of-flight mass spectrometry (GCxGC-ToF). The results provided by the six laboratories were compared to check their consistency, which would have led to a hypothetical commercial agreement or dispute scenarios, for instance. The comparison was based merely on information provided by the laboratories in their analytical reports (i.e., the methodology was not challenged, and chromatograms were not reviewed). Additionally, some of the laboratories were willing to provide some more information or details of the analysis. Similar quantitative results were provided by all six laboratories, emphasizing the utility of the current available harmonized guidelines and official standards for this method. However, as regards confirmatory results, discrepancies were observed among some laboratories in terms of the detection of MOH markers at low levels and the interpretation of GCxGC-ToF information. Even taking into account the limitation of this study as regards the reduced number of laboratories included, it highlights the need for harmonizing the GCxGC-ToF confirmatory method for MOHs in order to increase the alignment of results between laboratories for this kind of analysis.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What Socratic holds
Registered trials
Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the Socratic graph.