Front. Nutr.Frontiers in NutritionFront. Nutr.2296-861XFrontiers Media S.A.10.3389/fnut.2024.1469028NutritionCorrectionCorrigendum: Reduction in residual cyantraniliprole levels in spinach after various washing and blanching methodsParkMinsooKimHyeonjunKimMyungheonImMoo-hyeog*Department of Food Engineering, Daegu University, Gyenogsan, South Korea
Edited and reviewed by: R. Pandiselvam, Central Plantation Crops Research Institute (ICAR), India
This is an open-access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution License (CC BY). The use, distribution or reproduction in other forums is permitted, provided the original author(s) and the copyright owner(s) are credited and that the original publication in this journal is cited, in accordance with accepted academic practice. No use, distribution or reproduction is permitted which does not comply with these terms.
A corrigendum on Reduction in residual cyantraniliprole levels in spinach after various washing and blanching methods by Park, M., Kim, H., Kim, M., and Im, M.-h. (2022). Front. Nutr. 9:948671. doi: 10.3389/fnut.2022.948671cyantraniliprolewashingblanchingpesticide residuespinachsection-at-acceptanceFood Chemistry
In the published article, there was an error in “Table 1. Recovery of cyantraniliprole in spinach” as published. The figure listed in the column LOQ read as 0.030. The corrected figure should read as 0.003. The corrected Table and its caption appear below.
Recovery of cyantraniliprole in spinach.
Compound
Fortification
Recovery
CVb
LOQc
(mg/kg)
±SDa(%)
(%)
(mg/kg)
Cyantraniliprole
0.003
97.61 ± 4.51
4.62
0.003
0.03
96.76 ± 1.17
1.21
0.15
109.37 ± 1.83
1.67
aStandard deviation.
bCoefficient of variation.
cLimit of quantitation.
In the published article, there was an error in Materials and methods, “UHPLC-MS/MS analysis.” The incorrect text reads as “MRM transitions were used as follows. The precursor ion m/z 473 and product ion m/z 284 were used for quantitative analysis, and the precursor ion m/z 442 and product ion m/z 177 m/z were used for qualitative analysis.” This should be written as “MRM transitions were used as follows. The precursor ion was 473 m/z. Three product ions with good sensitivity were selected as qualitative and quantitative ions. Product ion 284 m/z was used for quantitative analysis, and the product ion m/z 442 and 177 m/z were used for qualitative analysis.”
The authors apologize for this error and state that this does not change the scientific conclusions of the article in any way. The original article has been updated.
Publisher's note
All claims expressed in this article are solely those of the authors and do not necessarily represent those of their affiliated organizations, or those of the publisher, the editors and the reviewers. Any product that may be evaluated in this article, or claim that may be made by its manufacturer, is not guaranteed or endorsed by the publisher.