<p><strong>This study presents an analytical strategy combining QuEChERS extraction with low-temperature partitioning (LTP) for the determination of multiclass pesticide residues in cocoa beans by GC–MS. Extraction conditions were optimized using a fractional factorial design, resulting in a simple and efficient workflow suitable for complex cocoa matrices.</strong></p><p>The validated method showed satisfactory limits of detection and quantification, recoveries within 70–120%, and good overall performance. Application to cocoa samples from Brazil detected permethrin in several samples, demonstrating that the QuEChERS–LTP approach is an effective and reliable cleanup strategy for routine pesticide residue analysis in cocoa.</p><blockquote><h4><strong>The original article</strong></h4><h4><a target="_blank" rel="noopener noreferrer" href="https://pubs.acs.org/doi/10.1021/acsomega.5c10360"><strong>QuEChERS Combined with Low-Temperature Partitioning and GC–MS as an Analytical Strategy for the Determination of Multiclass Pesticide Residues in Cocoa Beans</strong></a></h4><p>Priscilla M. de Freitas Machado, Madson M. Nascimento, Paulo R. R. Mesquita, Manuela B. Nascimento, Lilian Lefol N. Guarieiro, Gisele O. da Rocha, Jailson B. de Andrade, Raildo M. de Jesus*</p><p>ACS Omega 2025, 10, 51, 63464–63473</p><p><a target="_blank" rel="noopener noreferrer" href="https://doi.org/10.1021/acsomega.5c10360">https://doi.org/10.1021/acsomega.5c10360</a></p><h6>licensed under <a target="_blank" rel="noopener noreferrer" href="https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/"><strong>CC-BY 4.0</strong></a></h6></blockquote><p><strong>Selected sections from the article follow. Formats and hyperlinks were adapted from the original.</strong></p><p>Cocoa is best known as the primary raw material for chocolate but is also processed into products such as cocoa butter, biscuits, cocoa honey, and cocoa powder. Cocoa powder is derived from roasted, pressed, and milled nibs, containing on average 20% (w/w) lipids on a dry basis and less than 9% moisture. <a href="javascript:void(0);">(3,4)</a></p><p>According to the Brazilian Health Regulatory Agency (ANVISA), pesticides such as atrazine, bifenthrin, cyproconazole, metalaxyl, tebuconazole, trifloxystrobin, and permethrin are approved for use in Brazil. <a href="javascript:void(0);">(13)</a> However, among these, only metalaxyl, trifloxystrobin, and tebuconazole are authorized by the European Union. <a href="javascript:void(0);">(14)</a> Thus, investigating these contaminants in cocoa samples is of utmost importance, as Brazil is one of the largest cocoa exporters, supplying cocoa commodities to South America, the United States, and the European Union. <a href="javascript:void(0);">(2)</a> Furthermore, Organochlorine pesticides, in particular, belong to the class of persistent organic pollutants (POPs). Although banned in many countries, they continue to be used in some developing nations because of their chemical stability, resistance to degradation, volatility, and high lipophilicity, which promote bioaccumulation and neurotoxicity. <a href="javascript:void(0);">(15)</a> Epidemiological evidence also associates their exposure with Parkinson’s disease, certain cancers, diabetes, and endometriosis. <a href="javascript:void(0);">(16)</a></p><p>Residues of pesticides in cocoa have been reported in various studies. <a href="javascript:void(0);">(17)</a> Analyzing pesticide residues in cocoa presents analytical challenges due to the matrix’s complexity, comprising high lipid content, fatty acids and esters, sugars, polyphenols, and caffeine. These components can interfere with extraction efficiency and contaminate analytical instrumentation. <a href="javascript:void(0);">(18)</a> Therefore, efficient sample preparation methods incorporating effective cleanup steps are essential for accurate residue determination.</p><p>Several techniques have been employed for multiresidue pesticide analysis in cocoa. For instance, Idowu et al. <a href="javascript:void(0);">(19)</a> quantified 14 organochlorines using Soxhlet extraction and silica/Na<sub>2</sub>SO<sub>4</sub> cleanup, with GC ECD detection. Okoffo et al. <a href="javascript:void(0);">(20)</a> determined 13 organophosphates and 9 pyrethroids employing SPE cartridges (Envi-carb/LC-NH<sub>2</sub> and Bond Elute C18), acetonitrile extraction, and GC PFPD or GC ECD quantification. Yusiasih et al. <a href="javascript:void(0);">(21)</a> applied dispersive SPE with PSA, Florisil, and MgSO<sub>4</sub> for pyrethroids, followed by GC ECD and GC–MS.</p><p>Therefore, this study aimed to evaluate the effectiveness of a QuEChERS–LTP analytical procedure for the determination of multiclass pesticide residues in cocoa beans. The factors that affect the QuEChERS–LTP procedure efficiency were optimized. After validation, the procedure was employed to investigate the occurrence of 15 multiclass pesticides in cocoa samples.</p><h4><strong>Experimental Section</strong></h4><h5><strong>Instrumental Apparatus</strong></h5><p>Pesticide separation and identification were performed on a Shimadzu <a target="_blank" rel="noopener noreferrer" href="https://gcms.labrulez.com/library?mainauthorItems=1&amp;search=GC-MS-QP2010SE"><strong>GC-MS-QP2010SE</strong></a> system (Kyoto, Japan) equipped with an <a target="_blank" rel="noopener noreferrer" href="https://gcms.labrulez.com/library?mainauthorItems=1&amp;search=AOC-20i"><strong>AOC-20i autosampler</strong></a>. Separation was achieved using an <a target="_blank" rel="noopener noreferrer" href="https://gcms.labrulez.com/library?mainauthorItems=10&amp;search=DB-5MS"><strong>Agilent DB-5MS capillary column</strong></a> (30 m × 0.25 mm × 0.25 μm) with a stationary phase of 5% phenyl/95% dimethylpolysiloxane. The instrumental conditions were based on Nascimento et al. <a href="javascript:void(0);">(49)</a> and they are summarized in <a target="_blank" rel="noopener noreferrer" href="https://pubs.acs.org/doi/10.1021/acsomega.5c10360#tbl4">Table 4</a>.</p><p>For quantification, the base peak was used, while two additional ions were monitored for confirmation (<a target="_blank" rel="noopener noreferrer" href="https://pubs.acs.org/doi/suppl/10.1021/acsomega.5c10360/suppl_file/ao5c10360_si_001.pdf">Table S2</a>) in accordance with SANTE guidelines. <a href="javascript:void(0);">(50)</a> A GC–MS/SIM chromatogram illustrating the separation of all target pesticides is presented in <a target="_blank" rel="noopener noreferrer" href="https://pubs.acs.org/doi/10.1021/acsomega.5c10360#fig5">Figure 5</a>.</p><p><img src="https://storage.googleapis.com/labrulez-bucket-strapi-h3hsga3/ACS_Omega_2025_10_51_63464_63473_Figure_5_Extracted_ion_chromatogram_EIC_in_SIM_mode_of_the_target_pesticides_f2461c14f4.jpg" alt="ACS Omega 2025, 10, 51, 63464–63473: Figure 5. Extracted ion chromatogram (EIC) in SIM mode of the target pesticides obtained from the injection of a mixed standard solution at 100 μg L–1. Analytes are listed in order of elution: [1] Molinate (6.18 min); [2] α-HCH (8.15 min); [3] atrazine-d5 (8.69 min); [4] atrazine (8.75 min); [5] diazinon (9.31 min); [6] disulfoton (9.67 min); [7] dimethachlor (10.60 min); [8] metalaxyl (11.25 min); [9] p,p′-DDE (15.82 min); [10] cyproconazole I (16.50 min); [11] cyproconazole II (16.56 min); [12] p,p′-DDD (17.29 min); [13] ethion (17.34 min); [14] trifloxystrobin (18.43 min); [15] tebuconazole (19.13 min); [16] bifenthrin (20.47 min); [17] permethrin I (23.92 min); [18] permethrin II (24.18 min)." srcset="https://storage.googleapis.com/labrulez-bucket-strapi-h3hsga3/thumbnail_ACS_Omega_2025_10_51_63464_63473_Figure_5_Extracted_ion_chromatogram_EIC_in_SIM_mode_of_the_target_pesticides_f2461c14f4.jpg 245w," sizes="100vw" width="2080" height="835"></p><h5><strong>Application of the Proposed Procedure to Real Samples</strong></h5><p>In a 50 mL Falcon tube, 2.0 g of sample was weighed using an analytical balance (AUX320, Shimadzu, Kyoto, Japan). A total of 2.0 g of salt (NaCl and Na<sub>2</sub>SO<sub>4</sub> in a 1:1 w/w ratio) was added, followed by an aliquot of the atrazine-<i>d</i><sub>5</sub> solution (surrogate standard) to yield a final concentration of 250 μg kg<sup>–1</sup>. A mixture of acetonitrile (8.0 mL) and ultrapure water (2.0 mL) was then added. The system was vortexed (K40-10208, Kasvi, São Paulo, Brazil) for 3.0 min at 2500 rpm and centrifuged (MPW-351R, MPW Med. Instruments, Warsaw, Poland) for 10.0 min at 15 °C and 10,000 rpm. After phase separation, approximately 6.0 mL of the supernatant was transferred to a Falcon tube containing 150.0 mg of PSA sorbent. The mixture was vortexed again for 3.0 min at 2500 rpm and centrifuged for an additional 10.0 min under the same conditions. The tubes were then placed in the freezer for 24 h. Once the aqueous phase had frozen, the organic extract containing the analytes was collected, filtered through a Cytiva Whatman MiniUniprep G2 vial with a 0.20 μm membrane filter (Marlborough, Massachusetts, USA), and injected into the GC–MS system (<a target="_blank" rel="noopener noreferrer" href="https://pubs.acs.org/doi/10.1021/acsomega.5c10360#fig6">Figure 6</a>).</p><p><img src="https://storage.googleapis.com/labrulez-bucket-strapi-h3hsga3/ACS_Omega_2025_10_51_63464_63473_Figure_6_Schematic_representation_of_the_extraction_procedure_using_the_Qu_E_Ch_ERS_LTP_procedure_for_pesticide_extraction_in_cocoa_powder_samples_ed58549bcf.jpg" alt="ACS Omega 2025, 10, 51, 63464–63473: Figure 6. Schematic representation of the extraction procedure using the QuEChERS–LTP procedure for pesticide extraction in cocoa powder samples." srcset="https://storage.googleapis.com/labrulez-bucket-strapi-h3hsga3/thumbnail_ACS_Omega_2025_10_51_63464_63473_Figure_6_Schematic_representation_of_the_extraction_procedure_using_the_Qu_E_Ch_ERS_LTP_procedure_for_pesticide_extraction_in_cocoa_powder_samples_ed58549bcf.jpg 223w," sizes="100vw" width="1458" height="1022"></p><h4><strong>Results and Discussion</strong></h4><h5><strong>Evaluation of the Effect of Low and Ultralow Temperatures on the Analytical Response</strong></h5><p>Studies reporting the use of LTP generally employ a conventional freezer, which typically reaches −18 ± 2 °C as the minimum temperature. In this equipment, effective phase separation can require 8 to 24 h. <a href="javascript:void(0);">(35−37)</a> In contrast, ultralow temperature freezers (ultrafreezers) can reach −80 °C, leading to a substantial reduction in partitioning time. In this study, tests performed with the conventional freezer achieved satisfactory partitioning after 24 h, whereas in the ultrafreezer, complete partitioning was observed in only 20 min.</p><p>Considering the analytical response in terms of peak area (<a target="_blank" rel="noopener noreferrer" href="https://pubs.acs.org/doi/10.1021/acsomega.5c10360#fig3">Figure 3</a>), higher signals were obtained when LTP was performed in a conventional freezer rather than an ultrafreezer. This behavior can be attributed to the partitioning mechanism. <a href="javascript:void(0);">(32)</a> Partitioning depends on cooling and the subsequent freezing of the aqueous phase. In the conventional freezer, the slower freezing rate provides sufficient time for the system to approach thermodynamic equilibrium, favoring analyte diffusion between phases. Under these conditions, analyte molecules have more time to migrate and distribute optimally before complete solidification. In contrast, the rapid freezing in the ultrafreezer may trap analytes in a nonideal distribution, reducing the efficiency of the partitioning process <a href="javascript:void(0);">(32)</a> (<a target="_blank" rel="noopener noreferrer" href="https://pubs.acs.org/doi/10.1021/acsomega.5c10360#fig3">Figure 3</a>). According to these observations, the conventional freezer was selected for subsequent experiments.</p><p><img src="https://storage.googleapis.com/labrulez-bucket-strapi-h3hsga3/ACS_Omega_2025_10_51_63464_63473_Figure_3_Comparison_of_chromatographic_peak_areas_of_pesticides_after_partitioning_in_the_conventional_freezer_versus_the_ultrafreezer_9598bcfec3.jpg" alt="ACS Omega 2025, 10, 51, 63464–63473: Figure 3. Comparison of chromatographic peak areas of pesticides after partitioning in the conventional freezer versus the ultrafreezer." srcset="https://storage.googleapis.com/labrulez-bucket-strapi-h3hsga3/thumbnail_ACS_Omega_2025_10_51_63464_63473_Figure_3_Comparison_of_chromatographic_peak_areas_of_pesticides_after_partitioning_in_the_conventional_freezer_versus_the_ultrafreezer_9598bcfec3.jpg 175w," sizes="100vw" width="996" height="891"></p><h5><strong>Application to Real Samples</strong></h5><p>Fifteen samples were analyzed in triplicate, comprising two from the State of Pará and 12 from the State of Bahia, located in the North and Northeast regions of Brazil, respectively. Among the 15 pesticides investigated, only permethrin isomers were quantified in four samples (<a target="_blank" rel="noopener noreferrer" href="https://pubs.acs.org/doi/10.1021/acsomega.5c10360#tbl3">Table 3</a>). The herbicide molinate was also detected in three samples; however, its concentration was below LOQ. Permethrin isomers concentrations ranged from 17.1 ± 0.3 to 49.6 ± 1.8 μg kg<sup>–1</sup>. These values are below the MRL established by European Union regulation, which is 100 μg kg<sup>–1</sup>. <a href="javascript:void(0);">(42)</a> Although permethrin is not permitted in the European Union, <a href="javascript:void(0);">(42)</a> it remains authorized for use as insecticide in Brazil, particularly in crops such as cotton, rice, coffee, citrus, cabbage, beans, tobacco, maize, soybean, tomato, wheat, and grape. <a href="javascript:void(0);">(13)</a> However, no MRL values have been established for cocoa beans under Brazilian legislation. <a href="javascript:void(0);">(13)</a> <a target="_blank" rel="noopener noreferrer" href="https://pubs.acs.org/doi/10.1021/acsomega.5c10360#tbl3">Table 3</a> shows the concentration of detected compounds in the cocoa samples.</p><p><img src="https://storage.googleapis.com/labrulez-bucket-strapi-h3hsga3/ACS_Omega_2025_10_51_63464_63473_Table_3_Mean_Concentrations_mg_kg_1_Standard_Deviation_of_Target_Pesticides_Detected_in_This_Study_2427955699.jpg" alt="ACS Omega 2025, 10, 51, 63464–63473: Table 3. Mean Concentrations (μg kg–1 ± Standard Deviation) of Target Pesticides Detected in This Study" srcset="https://storage.googleapis.com/labrulez-bucket-strapi-h3hsga3/thumbnail_ACS_Omega_2025_10_51_63464_63473_Table_3_Mean_Concentrations_mg_kg_1_Standard_Deviation_of_Target_Pesticides_Detected_in_This_Study_2427955699.jpg 196w," sizes="100vw" width="1070" height="851"></p><p>To assess method performance for pesticides not detected in the cocoa samples, one of the analyzed samples was fortified with a mixed standard solution at concentrations of 50, 250, and 500 μg kg<sup>–1</sup>. The fortified analytes were subsequently detected in the chromatograms presented in <a target="_blank" rel="noopener noreferrer" href="https://pubs.acs.org/doi/suppl/10.1021/acsomega.5c10360/suppl_file/ao5c10360_si_001.pdf">Figures S2–S4</a>, indicating good response of the proposed method.</p><h4><strong>Conclusions</strong></h4><p>The QuEChERS–LTP procedure was successfully developed for the determination of 16 multiclass pesticide residues in cocoa beans. For the first time, ultralow temperature (−80 °C) was applied to accelerate the low-temperature partitioning process during pesticide extraction from cocoa beans. Nevertheless, conventional freezing at −12 °C proved to be more effective for the extraction of the target analytes.</p><p>Evaluation of the matrix effect demonstrated that matrix-matched analytical curves, constructed in an analyte-free cocoa bean extract, were more effective in compensating for matrix interferences than the use of analyte protectants.</p><p>The pyrethroid permethrin was quantified in four cocoa samples. However, the concentrations did not exceed the MRL established by European Union legislation.</p><p>Overall, the QuEChERS–LTP procedure proved to be a promising approach for pesticide residue determination, as it requires smaller volumes of solvents and reagents, involves fewer cleanup and extraction steps, and shows strong potential for application to other complex matrices.</p>

QuEChERS Combined with Low-Temperature Partitioning and GC–MS as an Analytical Strategy for the Determination of Multiclass Pesticide Residues in Cocoa Beans

<h3><a target="_blank" rel="noopener noreferrer" href="https://www.isc2026.org/"><strong>ISC 2026</strong></a></h3><p>The <a target="_blank" rel="noopener noreferrer" href="https://lcms.labrulez.com/companies/314"><strong>International Symposium on Chromatography (ISC)</strong></a> represents the oldest conference series on separation science. ISC symposia have been organised since 1956 in each even year. ISC is one of the premier meetings series for discussion of all modes of chromatography and separation science with a broad coverage of techniques and applications.</p><p>The major focus of the symposium will be on the impact of chromatography and separation science to meet the needs of the pharmaceutical, environmental, food and health industry, as well as science and medicine. The symposium programme will reflect these themes and highlight new challenges and emerging opportunities for the science and marketing of separation and detection systems and methods.</p><p>As an integral part of the scientific programme of lectures and poster sessions, an international exhibition and vendor seminars on instrumentation and services for chromatography, separation science and mass spectrometry will be organised. ISC 2026 will provide the perfect forum for attendees from academia, industry and government research institutions for scientific exchange and networking.</p><h3><strong>ISC 2026 SYMPOSIUM KEY DATES</strong></h3><h4><strong>6-10 SEPTEMBER 2026</strong></h4><ul><li><strong>15 January 2026:</strong> Opening of Early-bird Registration &amp; Abstract submission</li><li><strong>11 March 2026: </strong>Deadline for abstract submission (orals)</li><li><strong>21 April 2026: </strong>Sending acceptance letters (orals)</li><li><strong>15 May 2026: </strong>Deadline of early-bird registration and payment &amp; Author registration deadline (orals)</li><li><strong>1 June 2026: </strong>Preliminary detailed program on web</li><li><strong>1 June 2026: </strong>Deadline for abstract submission (posters)</li><li><strong>16 June 2026: </strong>Sending acceptance letters (posters)<ul><li>Authors who submit their abstracts with a poster preference by 5 May 2026 will be notified of the outcome by 12 May 2026 and will have the opportunity to register at the early-bird rate until 15 May 2026.</li></ul></li><li><strong>30 June 2026:</strong> Author registration deadline (posters)</li><li><strong>30 July 2026:</strong> Deadline for abstract submission (late-breaking posters)<ul><li>without the possibility of competing for the Best Poster Award</li></ul></li><li><strong>11 August 2026: </strong>Sending acceptance letters (late-breaking posters)</li><li><strong>18 August 2026:</strong> Author registration deadline (late-breaking posters)</li><li><strong>25 August 2026: </strong>Deadline for late registration &amp; payment&nbsp;</li><li><strong>6-10 September 2026: </strong>Symposium</li></ul><h3><strong>REGISTRATION</strong></h3><blockquote><p><strong>👉</strong><a target="_blank" rel="noopener noreferrer" href="https://www.czech-in.org/cmPortalV15/Account/Login?ReturnUrl=%2FcmPortalV15%2FPortal%2FISC26%2Fnormal"><strong>Register HERE for the ISC 2026</strong></a></p></blockquote><h3><strong>ABSTRACT SUBMISSION</strong></h3><blockquote><p><strong>👉</strong><a target="_blank" rel="noopener noreferrer" href="https://www.czech-in.org/cmPortalV15/Account/Login?ReturnUrl=%2FcmPortalV15%2FPortal%2FISC26%2Fnormal"><strong>Submit your Abstract HERE</strong></a></p></blockquote><h3><strong>SCIENTIFIC PROGRAM</strong></h3><h4><strong>SHORT COURSES</strong></h4><h5><strong>SC 3 Interpretation of Mass Spectra: Basic Introduction for Chromatographers</strong></h5><p><strong>🗓️ SUNDAY, 6 SEPTEMBER 2026</strong></p><p><strong>🕗 8:30 – 11:45</strong></p><p>Mass spectrometry has become an essential tool in modern liquid chromatography, yet many chromatographers receive limited formal training in mass-spectral interpretation. This introductory short course provides a practical guide to understanding and interpreting mass spectra generated by the atmospheric-pressure ionization techniques coupled with LC: electrospray ionization (ESI), atmospheric-pressure chemical ionization (APCI), and atmospheric-pressure photoionization (APPI). The course begins by outlining the information that mass spectrometry adds beyond a chromatogram and clarifying which analytical questions mass spectrometry can – and cannot – answer. Participants receive a concise refresher on mass-spectrometric fundamentals, along with an introduction to key terminology. The principles and practical consequences of ionization methods are then discussed, with emphasis on how ionization physics, LC conditions, and mobile-phase additives shape spectral appearance. Building on this foundation, the course develops practical skills for interpreting LC-ESI spectra: locating the molecular ion, determining charge state, recognizing common adducts, distinguishing in-source artefacts, and using isotope patterns to support elemental-composition hypotheses. Participants then explore how MS/MS fragmentation provides structural clues, with straightforward rules of thumb for neutral losses and class-specific fragmentation behaviors. The course concludes with an integrative exercise that synthesizes chromatographic, full-scan, and MS/MS information to support spectral interpretation. By the end, participants will be equipped with the essential skills needed to interpret LC-MS spectra effectively and to apply mass-spectrometric reasoning in routine chromatographic analysis.&nbsp;</p><h4><strong>Lecturers</strong></h4><h5><strong>Josef Cvačka</strong></h5><ul><li>Josef Cvačka is head of the Mass Spectrometry Group at the Institute of <a target="_blank" rel="noopener noreferrer" href="https://lcms.labrulez.com/companies/62"><strong>Organic Chemistry and Biochemistry of the Czech Academy of Sciences</strong></a> and an associate professor at the Faculty of Science, Charles University in Prague. His research focuses on the structural analysis of bioactive organic compounds using advanced mass-spectrometric techniques. He develops methods for pinpointing double-bond and methyl-branching positions in lipids and aims to discover new lipid classes in biological samples. His laboratory also designs new ion sources for MS and HPLC/MS. He teaches and supervises students at Charles University and founded the <a target="_blank" rel="noopener noreferrer" href="https://lcms.labrulez.com/articles?search=Czech+Museum+of+Mass+Spectrometry"><strong>Czech Museum of Mass Spectrometry</strong></a>.</li></ul><p><img src="https://storage.googleapis.com/labrulez-bucket-strapi-h3hsga3/Josef_Cvacka_5cc8a0d1d4.jpg" alt="ISC 2026: Josef Cvačka" srcset="https://storage.googleapis.com/labrulez-bucket-strapi-h3hsga3/thumbnail_Josef_Cvacka_5cc8a0d1d4.jpg 156w," sizes="100vw" width="510" height="510"></p>

ISC 2026 Short Course 3 - Interpretation of Mass Spectra: Basic Introduction for Chromatographers

<p><strong>Eurachem and CITAC welcome analysts interested in the evaluation of chemical analysis uncertainty and in how to use this information in results interpretation. The Eurachem Week 2026 will begin with a training course on “Evaluation of the measurement uncertainty from in-house precision and recovery data” scheduled for Sunday, 10 May 2026. A two-days workshop on “Quality in Analytical Measurements: Uncertainty Evaluation and Results Interpretation” open to all interested participants will take place from 11 to 12 May 2026. On 13 May 2026, the Eurachem Working Groups will convene, followed by the Eurachem General Assembly, which will bring together the Executive and national delegates on 14 and 15 May. Both Working Group Meetings and the General Assembly are restricted to their members.</strong></p><p>The results of qualitative and quantitative chemical analyses should have an acceptable uncertainty, which should ideally be reported and considered in results interpretation.</p><p>For many analytical applications, simplified uncertainty evaluations can determine uncertainty values that meet the defined requirements for this parameter. The workshop will focus on the key technical challenges involved in practical evaluations of measurement uncertainty based on precision and recovery data gathered during in-house method validation and quality control. There will be a discussion of how to model the variation of the measurement uncertainty within the analytical range and how to handle divergent recovery values from the analysis of various reference materials. A session on the use of measurement uncertainty in conformity assessment will explore how the risk of false conformity decisions can be managed.</p><blockquote><h5><strong>New Eurachem guidance on using in-house precision and recovery data will be discussed at the workshop.</strong></h5></blockquote><p>Topics will also include the validation and uncertainty evaluation for qualitative analyses with particular attention to current accreditation requirements for these types of analysis. The last session of the workshop will be dedicated to the evaluation of measurement uncertainty arising from sampling and using it to judge the fitness for purpose, and hence validation, of measurement procedures that include sampling. Four sessions of the workshop will include engaging breakout sessions where participants will have the chance to share their views about challenging aspects of the analytical work. Participants are invited to propose posters and oral communications on session topics or any other relevant topic for analytical chemists or stakeholders of the analytical work.</p><h3><strong>Registration</strong></h3><blockquote><p class="cke-user_style-important"><strong>👉</strong><a target="_blank" rel="noopener noreferrer" href="https://conferences.chemistry.pt/register/eurachem2026"><strong>Register here for the workshop</strong></a></p></blockquote><h4><strong>Registration Fees</strong></h4><h5><strong>Early bird (EUR) - Until April 15th</strong></h5><ul><li><strong>Workshop: Regular participant (11 &amp; 12 May 2026): </strong>400 EUR</li><li><strong>Workshop: Student (11 &amp; 12 May 2026): </strong>250 EUR</li><li><strong>Eurachem Working Group<sup>1</sup> (13 May 2026):</strong> 75</li><li><strong>General Assembly<sup>2</sup> (14 &amp; 15 May 2026): </strong>250</li><li><strong>Training On Uncertainty Evaluation<sup>3</sup> (10 May 2026):</strong> 150</li></ul><h5><strong>After April 15th</strong></h5><ul><li><strong>Workshop: Regular participant (11 &amp; 12 May 2026): </strong>450 EUR</li><li><strong>Workshop: Student (11 &amp; 12 May 2026):</strong> 300 EUR</li><li><strong>Eurachem Working Group<sup>1</sup> (13 May 2026): </strong>100</li><li><strong>General Assembly<sup>2</sup> (14 &amp; 15 May 2026):</strong> 300</li><li><strong>Training On Uncertainty Evaluation<sup>3</sup> (10 May 2026): </strong>200</li></ul><blockquote><p>§ - <strong>50 EUR reduction for members of Eurachem</strong>, CITAC, SPQ, RELACRE, ForMEQ and SPMet at the workshop.</p><p>10% reduction for organisations that registered more than one participant.</p><p><sup>1 </sup>- Working group members</p><p><sup>2</sup> - Eurachem members</p><p><sup>3</sup> - 50% reduction for workshop participants</p></blockquote><h3><strong>Workshop</strong></h3><h4><strong>Eurachem/CITAC Workshop on Quality in Analytical Measurements:</strong></h4><h5><strong>Uncertainty Evaluation and Results Interpretation</strong></h5><p>The results of qualitative and quantitative chemical analyses should have an acceptable uncertainty, which should ideally be reported and considered in results interpretation. For many analytical applications, simplified uncertainty evaluations can determine uncertainty values meeting defined requirements for this parameter. The workshop will focus on the key technical challenges involved in practical evaluations of measurement uncertainty based on precision and recovery data gathered during in-house method validation. It will be discussed how to model the variation of the measurement uncertainty within the analytical range and how to handle divergent recovery values from the analysis of various reference materials. A session on the use of measurement uncertainty in conformity assessment will explore how the risk of false conformity decisions can be managed.</p><p>Topics will also include the validation and uncertainty evaluation of qualitative analyses with particular attention to current accreditation requirements for these types of analysis. The last session of the workshop will be dedicated to the evaluation of measurement uncertainty arising from sampling and using it to judge the fitness for purpose, and hence validation, of measurement procedures that include sampling.</p><p>Four sessions of the workshop will include engaging breakout sessions where participants will have the chance to share their views about challenging aspects of the analytical work. Participants are invited to propose posters and oral communications on session topics or any other relevant topic for analytical chemists or stakeholders of the analytical work.</p><h3><strong>Training Course</strong></h3><h4><strong>Evaluation of the measurement uncertainty from in-house precision and recovery data</strong></h4><ul><li>10 May 2026</li></ul><p>A course on the fundamentals of the evaluation of the measurement uncertainty from in-house precision and recovery data will be held on Sunday, 10 May 2026. This training is targeted for analysts with a basic understanding of the measurement uncertainty concept, how uncertainty components propagate, and how the combined uncertainty is expanded. Following the morning presentation of the theory of uncertainty evaluation, the afternoon will be dedicated to applying the theory to real-world cases. Trainees should have basic skills in using Microsoft Excel spreadsheets and bring a laptop with Microsoft Excel to complete the exercises. The interaction between trainers and trainees will be promoted to guarantee learning efficiency.</p><h5><strong>Trainers:</strong></h5><ul><li>Ricardo Bettencourt da Silva, Faculdade de Ciências da Universidade de Lisboa, Portugal (rjsilva@ciencias.ulisboa.pt)</li><li>Stephen L. R. Ellison - UK National Measurement Laboratory (NML) hosted at LGC, United Kingdom</li><li>Vicki Barwick - UK National Measurement Laboratory (NML) hosted at LGC, United Kingdom</li></ul><h4><strong>Agenda</strong></h4><h5><strong>8:00 Registration</strong></h5><h5><strong>9:00 Opening</strong></h5><h5><strong>9:05 Identifying, combining, and expanding uncertainty components: Theory and examples</strong></h5><h5><strong>9:45 Precision uncertainty: Theory and examples</strong></h5><h5><strong>10:30 </strong>Coffee break</h5><h5><strong>10:50 Trueness-related uncertainty: Theory and examples</strong></h5><h5><strong>12:00 Additional questions and discussion</strong></h5><h5><strong>12:30 </strong>Lunch</h5><h5><strong>13:30 Application example 1</strong></h5><h5><strong>15:30 </strong>Coffee break</h5><h5><strong>15:50 Application example 2</strong></h5><h5><strong>17:00 Additional questions and discussion</strong></h5><h5><strong>17:30 Closing</strong></h5><h3><strong>Venue</strong></h3><p>The series of Eurachem events will be held in:</p><ul><li>Meliã Lisboa Aeroporto ****</li><li>Rua C,2 1749-125 Lisboa, Portugal&nbsp;</li></ul>

Eurachem/CITAC Workshop on Quality in Analytical Measurements 2026

Article

Events

Food

Scientific article

Science and research

Eurachem is a European network promoting international traceability of chemical measurements and good analytical practice. It provides expert guidance, supports method validation, uncertainty evaluation, proficiency testing, and facilitates discussion on technical and policy issues in analytical quality.

Eurachem

Everything from the world of analytical chemistry in one place. We connect people in solving their problems. At Labrulez you will find all the necessary information easily, quickly and clearly. Stop searching and start finding.

LabRulez

The International Symposium on Chromatography (ISC) represents the oldest conference series focussing on separation science. ISC symposia have been organised since 1956 in each even year. ISC is internationally recognised as one of the premier meeting series for discussion of all modes of chromatography and separation science with a broad coverage of techniques and applications.

International Symposium on Chromatography - (ISC)

Agilent J&W HP-5ms Ultra Inert GC Column, 15 m, 0.25 mm, 0.25 µm, 7 inch cage (Tested)

Agilent HP-5ms Ultra Inert GC column, 15 m × 0.25 mm × 0.25 µm, is ideal for trace analysis of active compounds with low bleed and excellent inertness for GC/MS

Agilent J&W HP-5 GC Column, 30 m × 0.32 mm × 0.25 µm, with Smart Key (Tested)

HP-5 GC column (30 m × 0.32 mm × 0.25 µm) with Smart Key for Agilent 8890. Offers low bleed, wide analyte range, and automatic column recognition for easy GC setup.

Agilent J&W DB-1 GC Column, 50 m × 0.32 mm × 5.00 µm, 7-inch cage (Tested)

Agilent J&W DB-1 GC Column (50 m × 0.32 mm × 5.00 µm) offers excellent inertness and high thermal stability for non-polar compound analysis, in a 7-inch cage for Agilent GC systems.

Agilent J&W DB-5ms GC Column, 30 m, 0.25 mm, 0.25 µm, DuraGuard, 10 m, 122-5532G (Tested)

Agilent J&W DB-5ms GC Column, 30 m × 0.25 mm × 0.25 µm with 10 m DuraGuard, offers ultra-low bleed, high inertness, and long life for sensitive GC/MS applications.

Bazaar products from category Non-polar GC columns focused on GC columns - page 2

Related content

ISC 2026 Short Course 3 - Interpretation of Mass Spectra: Basic Introduction for Chromatographers

Eurachem/CITAC Workshop on Quality in Analytical Measurements 2026

QuEChERS Combined with Low-Temperature Partitioning and GC–MS as an Analytical Strategy for the Determination of Multiclass Pesticide Residues in Cocoa Beans