Concentrations of organophosphorus pesticides in fresh vegetables and related human health risk assessment in Changchun, Northeast China

Yu, Rui; Liu, Qiang; Liu, Jingshuang; Wang, Qicun; Wang, Yan

doi:10.1016/j.foodcont.2015.08.013

Cited by 142 publications

(70 citation statements)

References 39 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Unclassified

Order By: Relevance

“…On the contrary, if it exceeds one, there is a possibility of suffering adverse effects, (Evans et al, 2015;Yu et al, 2016).…”

Section: Evaluation Of Hazard Index (Hi)mentioning

confidence: 99%

“…Few studies have been reported about the HI values for pesticides in other types of food. Among them, the study carried out by Yu et al in 2016 should be highlighted. These authors conclude that the HI for adults for fresh vegetables (n= 214) due to 11 pesticides in Changchun (China) was 0.44.…”

Section: Risk Assessmentmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…This is mainly due to the large quantitative difference in the consumption of both types of food. Therefore citizens are not exposed to a toxic level of pesticides via honey in sufficiently large quantities to cause possible health consequences (Evans et al, 2015;Yu et al, 2016).…”

Section: Risk Assessmentmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…For instance, some organophosphorus (OPs), carbamate (CBs), and pyrethrin and pyrethroid (PPs) pesticides, causing a common neurotoxic effect, have been identified by United States Environmental Protection Agency (USEPA) as members of the same cumulative assessment group (USEPA, 2006;USEPA, 2007a;USEPA, 2011). Therefore, to address the risk of exposure to different compounds, the individual approach may not be sufficiently protective (Boobis et al, 2008;Kortenkamp, et al, 2009) In this context, different works have been reported recently about the implementation of this metric for heavy metals in industrial areas (Zheng et al, 2007) and in pesticides in fresh vegetables and fruit (Boobis, et al, 2008;Evans et al, 2015and Yu et al, 2016, Quijano et al, 2016. However, this is the first attempt to apply this approach to retail honey.…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

See 3 more Smart Citations

Mixture-risk-assessment of pesticide residues in retail polyfloral honey

2016

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

The presence of even tiny quantities of pesticide residues in honey, a traditional healthy product, is a matter of concern for producers, packers and consumers. This paper aims to quantify pesticides in retail brands of polyfloral honey, and to calculate the mixture risk assessment of honey for consumers according to the results obtained from the analyzed samples. A LC-MS/MS multi-residue method was developed and validated for 13 compounds: 11 pesticides (chlorfenvinphos, coumaphos, tau-fluvalinate, amitraz, which are very common in veterinary treatments, and imidacloprid, acetamiprid, simazine, cyproconazole, tebuconazole, chlorpiryphos-methyl, chlorpiryphos, widely used in agricultural practices), and 2 metabolites of amitraz (2,. Results showed that the samples contained pesticide residues at different concentrations; however, the MRL in honey for each of the 11 pesticides was never exceeded. The most common were amitraz (from 1 to 50 µg/kg) present in 100% of the samples, and coumaphos (up to 14 µg/kg) in 63%. The hazard index (HI) for adults was less than 0.002 in all cases, a long way from 1, the value established as the limit of acceptability.Therefore, commercial honey does not represent any significant risk to health. However, considering that residue levels should be present "as low as reasonably achievable" it is deemed necessary to make an effort to reduce their presence by appropriate agricultural and, above all, beekeeping practices due to acaridae treatments.Keywords: Honey; pesticides; Mixture-risk-assessment; MRL; hazard index 2 IntroductionHoney is a highly valued natural product due to its nutritional properties and appreciated therapeutic applications. However, recently, food alerts caused by the detection of antibiotics, pesticides or heavy metals in honey have jeopardized its healthy image (JuanBorrás et al., 2015). Pesticide residues in honey come from environmental pollution and veterinary practices (Totti et al., 2006;Calatayud-Vernich et al., 2016 , 2016). However, this is the first attempt to apply this approach to retail honey.Therefore, the objective of this paper was to quantify the presence of different pesticides (usually found in the routine control analyses of honey samples) in polyfloral labeled brands, and to estimate the mixture risk assessment of the honey for consumers (due to exposure to pesticides) based on the results obtained from the analyzed samples. As a first step, the analytical procedure was validated in order to guarantee the quality of the results obtained. Material and Methods Honey samplesThis study was carried out with supermarket own-brands and well-known brand honey, which represent almost all of the retail sales in the Spanish market. A total of 22 honey samples, labelled as polyfloral were purchased across Spain from different retail outlets.Samples were purchased with as recent a packing date as possible, based on the label information, and were kept frozen until analysis to minimize losses of target compounds.A mixture of 5 polyfloral honeys w...

show abstract

“…On the contrary, if it exceeds one, there is a possibility of suffering adverse effects, (Evans et al, 2015;Yu et al, 2016).…”

Section: Evaluation Of Hazard Index (Hi)mentioning

confidence: 99%

Section: Risk Assessmentmentioning

confidence: 99%

Section: Risk Assessmentmentioning

confidence: 99%

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

See 2 more Smart Citations

Mixture-risk-assessment of pesticide residues in retail polyfloral honey

2016

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…Data from the USDA Pesticide Data Program (PDP) have revealed that pesticide residues were common for a variety of fruits and vegetables (USDA, 2015a). In Europe and China, pesticide residues have also been identified in multiple fruits and vegetables, and the residues of certain pesticides were found to be more than maximum residue level values recommended by European Union, World Health Organization and Food and Agricultural Organization (Bakırcı et al, 2014; Yu et al, 2016). The concerns regarding the impacts of food-borne pesticides on human health have led advocacy organizations to develop an index to rank food items in terms of pesticide residue levels based on the PDP data (EWG, 2014).…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Overall and class-specific scores of pesticide residues from fruits and vegetables as a tool to rank intake of pesticide residues in United States: A validation study

Chiu

Hauser

et al. 2016

Environment International

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Pesticide residues in fruits and vegetables are among the primary sources of pesticide exposure through diet, but the lack of adequate measurements hinder the research on health effects of pesticide residues. Pesticide Residue Burden Score (PRBS) for estimating overall dietary pesticide intake, organochlorine pesticide score (OC-PRBS) and organophosphate pesticide score (OP-PRBS) for estimating organochlorine and organophosphate pesticides-specific intake, respectively, were derived using U.S. Department of Agriculture Pesticide Data Program data and National Health and Nutrition Examination Survey (NHANES) food frequency questionnaire data. We evaluated the performance of these scores by validating the scores against pesticide metabolites measured in urine or serum among 3,679 participants in NHANES using generalized linear regression. The PRBS was positively associated with a score summarizing the ranks of all pesticide metabolites in a linear fashion (p for linear trend <0.001). Furthermore, individuals in the top quintile of this score had urinary pesticide metabolite levels 13.0% (95% CI 8.3%-17.7%) higher than individuals in the lowest quintile. Similarly, we observed significant associations of the OC-PRBS and OP-PRBS with the levels of lipid-adjusted total serum organochlorine pesticides and urinary creatinine-adjusted organophosphate pesticides, respectively. The relative difference (RD) in average pesticide metabolite rank between extreme quintiles was 17.8% (95% CI: 11.1%-24.4%, p for trend <0.001) for the OP-PRBS, whereas the RD was marginally significant at 7.0% (95% CI: -0.5%-14.4%, p for trend 0.07) for the OC-PRBS. The PRBS and OP-PRBS had similar performance when they were derived from fruits and vegetables with high vs. low pesticide residues, respectively (p for trend <0.001 for all associations). The OP-PRBS was associated with all measured organophosphate pesticides, whereas the positive association between OC-PRBS and averaged measured organochlorine pesticide residue rank was primarily driven by hexachlorobenzene. OC-PRBS had better performance when derived from more contaminated fruits and vegetables (p for trend 0.07) than from less contaminated Fruits and vegetables (p for trend 0.63), although neither of the associations achieved statistical significance. The PRBS and the class-specific scores for two major types of pesticides were significantly associated with pesticide biomarkers. These scores can reasonably rank study participants by their pesticide residue exposures from fruits and vegetables in large-scale environmental epidemiological studies.

show abstract