Method validation and evaluation of household processing on reduction of pesticide residues in tomato
- 100 Downloads
Metalaxyl and chlorpyriphos are widely used pesticides around the world. The purpose of this study was to evaluate validation parameters, matrix effect (ME %), reduction behavior, processing factor (PF) and estimate the behavior of metalaxyl and chlorpyriphos in tomato fruit samples. “Quick, Easy, Cheap, Effective, Rugged, and Safe” (QuEChERS) extraction and gas chromatography coupled to mass spectrometry (GC/MS) were used for the analysis. Results showed successful trends by evaluating validation parameters [selectivity, linearity, limits of detection (LOD), limits of quantification (LOQ) and precision]. The correlation coefficients were > 0.99; the LOD for metalaxyl ranged from 0.01 to 0.003 mg/kg and the LOQ for chlorpyriphos ranged from 0.03 to 0.009 mg/kg. The matrix effect (ME %) of metalaxyl was found to exhibit a medium matrix effect while for chlorpyriphos no matrix effect was seen. Recovery (70–120%) and precision (RSD < 20%) for both pesticides metalaxyl and chlorpyriphos were within the satisfactory ranges recommended by the European Commission. The PF was generally < 1 (ranged between 0.34 and 0.98). Except when using washing solutions, metalaxyl PFs were > 1. The highest reduction rate was achieved by sonication treatments which could effectively remove chlorpyriphos residues spiked in tomato matrices rather than the metalaxyl residues. On the other hand, washing treatments were less efficient in removing metalaxyl residues from tomato samples. Overall, any one of these processes can contribute substantially to reduce consumer exposure to pesticides residues in tomatoes.
KeywordsGC/MS Matrix effect Pesticides Processing factor QuEChERS Tomato
This study is heartily dedicated to Prof. Dr. Ibrahim Abd El Salam Abd El Gawad who passed away before the completion of this work. The authors would like to acknowledge the experimental support of Food Safety and Quality Control lab. Faculty of Agriculture, Cairo University, and the effort of Dr. Opeyemi Adewumi Adediran, Senior Assistant Registrar/Secretary to the Institute, Infectious Disease Institute, College of Medicine, University of Ibadan, Ibadan, Nigeria, for English language editing.
Compliance with ethical standards
Conflict of interest
The authors declare that they have no conflict of interest.
This article does not contain any studies with human participants or animals performed by any of the authors.
This article does not contain any studies with human participants, so no informed consent was necessary for this study.
- Bajwa U, Sandhu KS (2014) Effect of handling and processing on pesticide residues in food—a review. J. Food Sci. Technol. 51. https://doi.org/10.1007/s13197-011-0499-5
- British Crop Protection Council) 2014(. pesticide manual online. https://www.bcpc.org/my-account Accessed 29 October 2018
- Cengiz MF, Başlar M, Basançelebi O, Kiliçli M (2017) Reduction of pesticide residues from tomatoes by low intensity electrical current and ultrasound applications. Food Chem. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.foodchem.2017.08.031
- De Sousa FA, Guido Costa AI, De Queiroz MELR (2012) Evaluation of matrix effect on the GC response of eleven pesticides by PCA. Food Chem. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.foodchem.2012.04.063
- Devine M, Duke SO, Fedke C (1993) Physiology of herbicide action. Prentice-Hall, Englewood CliffsGoogle Scholar
- EN 15662: (2008) Foods of plant origin. Determination of pesticide residues using GC-MS and/or LC-MS/MS following acetonitrile. Extraction/partitioning and clean-up by dispersive SPE. QuEChERS-methodGoogle Scholar
- European Commission (2017) SANTE/11813/2017: Guidance document on analytical quality control and method validation procedures for pesticide residues and analysis in food and feed. http://www.eurl-pesticides.eu/docs/public/tmplt_article.asp?CntID=727. Accessed 29 October 2018
- Jhonyson Guedes, Renata De Oliveira LCG, Milhome MAL, Ferreira Do Nascimento Ronaldo (2015) Matrix effect in guava multiresidue analysis by QuEChERS method and gas chromatography coupled to quadrupole mass spectrometry. Food Chem 199:380–386. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.foodchem.2015.12.007 Google Scholar
- Kwon H, Lehotay SJ, Geis-Asteggiante L (2012) Variability of matrix effects in liquid and gas chromatography-mass spectrometry analysis of pesticide residues after QuEChERS sample preparation of different food crops. J Chromatogr A 1270:235–245. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.chroma.2012.10.059 CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
- Lozowicka B, Jankowska M, Hrynko I, Kaczynski P (2016) Removal of 16 pesticide residues from strawberries by washing with tap and ozone water, ultrasonic cleaning and boiling. Environ Monit Assess. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10661-015-4850-6
- Reiler E, Jors E, Balum J, Huici O, Alvarez Caero MM, Cedergreen N (2015) The influence of tomato processing on residues of organochlorine and organophosphate insecticides and their associated dietary risk. Sci Total Environ 527–528:262–269. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.scitotenv.2015.04.081 CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
- Timme G, Walz-Tylla B (2004) Effects of food preparation and processing on pesticide residues in commodities of plant origin (Chap. 4). In: Hamilton D, Crossley S (eds) Pesticides residues in food and drinking water: human exposure and risks. Wiley, pp 121–148. https://doi.org/10.1002/0470091614.ch4
- Worthing CR, Hance RJ (1991) The pesticide manual, 9th edn. British Crop Protection Council, SurreyGoogle Scholar
- Zhao L (2013) Evaluating inert flow path components and entire flow path for GC/MS/MS pesticide analysis. Application note, Agilent Technologies, Inc., Publication number 5991-1860 EN.Google Scholar
- Zhao L, Mao D (2011) Analysis of pesticides in food by GC/MS/MS using the ultra inert liner with wool. Application note, Agilent Technologies, Inc., Publication number 5990-7706 EN.Google Scholar