Record-level evidence map of pesticide-residue method performance in Chinese medicinal materials

Published: 26 May 2026| Version 1 | DOI: 10.17632/nb3zgj2rnv.1
Contributors:
Bin Shan, Yaling Duan, Shimiao Chen,
, Qiuyang Zhao, Xiaoguang Ouyang, Yongqiao Huang, Hailan Zhou, Xiaojie Luo

Description

This dataset supports the manuscript entitled “Matrix-resolved analytical strategies for pesticide residues in Chinese medicinal materials: a harmonized evidence map of method performance and validation maturity”. The dataset contains a curated record-level evidence map of pesticide-residue analytical methods in Chinese medicinal materials. It includes 2,027 pesticide–matrix method-performance records extracted from source publications and supporting materials. Each record represents a pesticide–matrix combination evaluated under source-specific reporting conditions rather than a unique active ingredient. The dataset includes matrix classification, analytical platform information, method-performance fields, caveat/failure flags, source-documentation fields, and validation-maturity annotations. The files are intended to support transparency, reproducibility, and reuse of the evidence-mapping framework described in the associated manuscript.

Files

Steps to reproduce

The dataset can be reproduced by following the evidence-mapping workflow described in the associated manuscript and Supplementary Information. 1. Search and identify source studies on pesticide-residue analytical methods in Chinese medicinal materials and related herbal or medicinal plant matrices. 2. Include only sources with extractable pesticide–matrix method-performance information, such as matrix-specific recovery, precision, calibration, LOD/LOQ, matrix-effect information, or source-table validation data. 3. Extract each pesticide–matrix combination as one record. Each record should remain traceable to the source study, source table, pesticide label, matrix label, analytical platform, extraction/clean-up workflow, and available validation fields. 4. Harmonize matrix labels by medicinal part and dominant co-extractive class while retaining the original source matrix names. 5. Do not impute missing values. Blank fields indicate that the corresponding value was not reported, not extractable, or not applicable in the source table. 6. Retain partial or non-comparable records with caveat/failure flags rather than deleting them. The caveat flags are warning indicators for incomplete or non-comparable reporting, not study-level failure rates. 7. Use the Records worksheet as the main record-level evidence table. Use the field definitions, caveat legend, source-summary information, and source-documentation rules to interpret the dataset. 8. Recalculate the descriptive summaries in the manuscript from the Records worksheet, including the total number of records, source-study count, platform categories, harmonized matrix labels, flagged records, and grouped matrix-class counts.

Institutions

Categories

Agricultural Science, Analytical Chemistry, Food Safety, Pharmaceutical Science

Funders

  • Guangxi Major Science and Technology Program
    Grant ID: Guike AA24263045
  • Guangxi Key Research and Development Program
    Grant ID: Guike FN2600640431
  • Research and Application Demonstration of Efficient, Eco-friendly, and Standardized Cultivation Techniques for Spring Honey Oranges
    Grant ID: MJYH2023-0907

Licence