Hown in Table three. When the concentration of an analyte exceeded the linear range of the sample, the sample was diluted so that the concentration with the analyte was inside this range, and theFoods 2021, 10,11 ofobtained concentration was multiplied by the dilution factor to receive the concentration with the original sample.Table three. The linear regression equation, determination coefficient and linearity array of LMS, MBZ, HMBZ and AMBZ in poultry muscle. Matrix Analyte LMS MBZ HMBZ AMBZ LMS MBZ HMBZ AMBZ LMS MBZ HMBZ AMBZ Regression Equation y = 891,231x – 13,830 y = 298,982x 168,358 y = 89,829x – 4855 y = 31,616x – 4274 y = 496,991x 336,140 y = 207,883x 79,368 y = 37,850x 4580 y = 22,019x 1032 y = 858,472x 38,029 y = 313,426x 148,749 y = 83,271x – 12,277 y = 30,999x – 1204 Determination Coefficient (R2) 0.9995 0.9996 0.9995 0.9996 0.9995 0.9994 0.9994 0.9995 0.9998 0.9997 0.9995 0.9997 Linearity Brequinar Formula Variety ( /kg) 0.225 0.1550 0.6050 0.8050 0.205 0.1250 0.5050 0.6250 0.165 0.1650 0.5550 0.70Elesclomol Protocol Chicken muscleDuck muscleGoose muscle3.three.three. Matrix Impact The MEs were calculated in line with the following equation: ME = [(Slope matrix-matched calibration curve /Slope solvent common curve) – 1] one hundred An ME worth amongst -20 and 20 is regarded to reflect an acceptable weak ME; an ME value of -50 to -20 or 20 to 50 is medium, and an ME beneath -50 or above 50 is regarded as to be sturdy. The signal is enhanced when the value is constructive and suppressed when the worth is negative [31]. As shown in Table four, slight ion enhancement or ion attenuation with the target compound occurred in all 3 poultry matrices, but all matrix effects had been within the acceptable range (-13.6 to 17.3). The results showed that the ME was correctly compensated in this study by utilizing a matrix-matched calibration curve and solvent standard curve, and related benefits had been obtained by Yoshikawa et al. [32] within a study of a chicken matrix.Table four. MEs of LMS, MBZ, HMBZ and AMBZ in poultry muscle. Analyte LMS MBZ HMBZ AMBZ Chicken Muscle Duck Muscle Goose Muscle-7.2 4.9 3.6 7.-5.2 12.9 -8.eight 13.-13.six 9.two -10.6 17.3.3.four. LODs and LOQs Generally, relatively low LODs and LOQs indicate the high sensitivity of the detection technique. Within this study, HPLC S/MS was applied, as well as the MRM mode was adopted to detect the four target analytes in poultry muscle and improve the sensitivity of the detection method. As shown in Table 5, the LODs of LMS, MBZ, HMBZ, and AMBZ in poultry muscle have been 0.05.07, 0.04.06, 0.15.18, and 0.23.30 /kg, along with the LOQs have been 0.16.22, 0.12.16, and 0.50.80 /kg, respectively, below the situations of this study. Compared with other HPLC-MS/MS [32] and UPLC-MS/MS approaches [22], the detection process obtained herein showed lower limits and better sensitivity than other folks reported within the literature.Foods 2021, ten,12 ofTable five. LOD, LOQ, CC and CC of LMS, MBZ, HMBZ and AMBZ in poultry muscle.Matrix Chicken muscle Analyte LMS MBZ HMBZ AMBZ LMS MBZ HMBZ AMBZ LMS MBZ HMBZ AMBZ LOD ( /kg) 0.07 0.06 0.16 0.25 0.06 0.04 0.15 0.30 0.05 0.05 0.18 0.23 LOQ ( /kg) 0.22 0.15 0.60 0.80 0.20 0.12 0.50 0.62 0.16 0.16 0.55 0.70 CC ( /kg) 14.58 63.33 63.46 63.80 13.25 63.69 63.15 63.41 16.45 64.30 56.18 67.35 CC ( /kg) 19.15 66.66 66.92 63.60 16.49 67.38 66.30 66.82 22.90 68.60 70.36 74.Duck muscleGoose muscle3.3.5. CC and CC CC and CC have been calculated by analyzing a regular solution of 60 blank muscle matrixes (20 for every single chicken, duck and goose) at the degree of MRL (LMS: 10 /kg; MBZ, HMBZ, AMBZ: 60 /kg.