## 4 Conclusions  
A rapid and selective MAE-LC-MS/MS methodology was developed for the simultaneous determination of pesticides and mycotoxins in apples. The MAE extraction protocol  
Figure 7: Recoveries (%) extracted by QueChERS and MAE methods at 0.1 \(\upmu\)g/g concentration level for the analytes: (**a**) abametcin (B1a), acetaminophen, actermathrin, boscalid, bupirimate, carbendazim, chlorpyrifos, clofentezine, clothianidin, cyprocanzole, cyprochini, deltamethrin, difenoconazole, etofenprox, fenbuconazole, fenpyroximate, flonicamid, fluidoxonil, fluopyram, fluquinconazole, flutriafol, hexythiazox, imazalli; (**b**) kresoxym-methyl, lambda-cylaholthrin, methoxyfenzoide, mycobutanil, penconazole, primicarb, pyracolostrobin, pyrimethanil, pyriproxyfen, spinosyn A, spinosyn D, spirodiclofen, tau-fluvalinate, tebuconazole, tebufenzoide, tebufenpyrad, thiabendazole, thiacoloprid, thiamethoxam, trifikovstrobin, alternarol (AOH), alternarol monomethyl ether (AME). The values for each analyte followed by the same letter show that the two methodologies do not differ significantly statistically (\(p<0.05\)).  
was optimized, and the optimum parameters involved the use of ACN as extraction solvent in acidified environment and heating at 60 \({}^{\circ}\)C for 5 min. The method was validated and demonstrated good linearity with R\({}^{2}\)\(\geq\) 0.99; acceptable accuracy in the range 70-116%; acceptable precision with RSD9\(\%\)\(\leq\) 20; and low LODs and LOQs in the ranges 0.005-0.015 \(\mu\)g/g and 0.01-0.03 \(\mu\)g/g, respectively, and it can be applied in the simultaneous determination of 43 pesticides and mycotoxins. The proposed methodology was compared to QuEChERS, and no statistically significant differences were observed in the effectiveness of the two methodologies for 32 analytes. The results of this research support that the proposed MAE protocol could be used as a green and rapid alternative to QuEChERS methodology for the simultaneous effective extraction and determination of pesticides residue and mycotoxins.  
The following are available online at [[https://www.mdpi.com/article/10.3390/app112210931/s1](https://www.mdpi.com/article/10.3390/app112210931/s1)]([https://www.mdpi.com/article/10.3390/app112210931/s1](https://www.mdpi.com/article/10.3390/app112210931/s1)). Table S1: LC-MS/MS parameters; Table S2: Recoveries (%) obtained using acetonitrile, ethyl acetate, methanol, and water as extraction solvents; Table S3: Recoveries (%) obtained using acetonitrile as extraction solvent at different temperatures (60 \({}^{\circ}\)C, 80 \({}^{\circ}\)C, 100 \({}^{\circ}\)C); Table S4: Recoveries (%) obtained using ethyl acetate as extraction solvent at different temperatures (60 \({}^{\circ}\)C, 80 \({}^{\circ}\)C, 100 \({}^{\circ}\)C); Table S5: Recoveries (%) obtained in the absence of acids, and after the addition of 1% CH\({}_{3}\)COOH, 5% CH\({}_{3}\)COOH, and 1% HCOOH; Table S6: Regression equation and correlation coefficients of pure standards and spiked extracts; Table S7: Matrix effect results; Figure S1: Total Ion Current and selected SRM chromatograms from a 0.01 \(\mu\)g/g level fortified apple sample.  
Conceptualization, U.M.-S. and E.-N.P.; methodology, M.G.M. and E.-N.P.; software, M.G.M.; validation, E.-N.P. and M.G.M.; formal analysis, M.G.M. and E.-N.P.; investigation, M.G.M. and E.-N.P.; resources, U.M.-S.; data curation, E.-N.P. and N.P.K.; writing--original draft preparation, N.P.K. and E.-N.P.; writing--review and editing, N.P.K., E.-N.P., U.M.-S. and V.F.S.; visualization, M.G.M., E.-N.P. and N.P.K.; supervision, U.M.-S. and E.-N.P.; project administration, U.M.-S.; funding acquisition, U.M.-S. and G.S.K. All authors have read and agreed to the published version of the manuscript.  
This research received no external funding.  
Not applicable.  
The authors declare no conflict of interest.