Method validation and evaluation of household processing on reduction of pesticide residues in tomato

  • Helmy Hassan
  • Elham ElsayedEmail author
  • Abd El-Rahman Abd El-Raouf
  • Salma N. Salman
Research Article


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.


GC/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.

Ethical approval

This article does not contain any studies with human participants or animals performed by any of the authors.

Informed consent

This article does not contain any studies with human participants, so no informed consent was necessary for this study.

Supplementary material

3_2018_1197_MOESM1_ESM.pdf (120 kb)
Supplementary material 1 (PDF 119 kb)


  1. Andrade GCRM, Monteiro SHG, Francisco JA, Figueiredo LA, Rocha AL, Tornisielo V (2015) Effects of types of washing and peeling in relation to pesticide residues in tomatoes. J Braz Chem Soc 26:1994–2002. Google Scholar
  2. Bajwa U, Sandhu KS (2014) Effect of handling and processing on pesticide residues in food—a review. J. Food Sci. Technol. 51.
  3. British Crop Protection Council) 2014(. pesticide manual online. Accessed 29 October 2018
  4. Celik SS, Kunc Asan T (1995) Degradation of some pesticides in the field and effect of processing. Analyst 120:1739–1743CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. 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.
  6. Chawla S, Patel HK, Gor HN (2017) Evaluation of matrix effects in multiresidue analysis of pesticide residues in vegetables and spices by LC-MS/MS. J AOAC Int 100:616–623. CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  7. 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.
  8. Devine M, Duke SO, Fedke C (1993) Physiology of herbicide action. Prentice-Hall, Englewood CliffsGoogle Scholar
  9. Domínguez AM, Placencia F, Cereceda F (2014) Analysis of tomato matrix effect in pesticide residue quantification through QuEChERS and single quadrupole GC/MS. Chil J Agric Res 74:148–156. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. Duirk SE, Collette TW (2006) Degradation of chlorpyrifos in aqueous chlorine solutions: Pathways, kinetics, and modeling. Environ Sci Technol 40:546–551. CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  11. 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
  12. 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. Accessed 29 October 2018
  13. Ferrer C, Lozano A, Agüera A (2011) Overcoming matrix effects using the dilution approach in multiresidue methods for fruits and vegetables. J Chromatogr A 1218:7634–7639. CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  14. Hanafi A, Hemat E Elsheshetawy, Faied Safaa F (2016) Reduction of pesticides residues on okra fruits by different processing treatments. J Verbr Lebensm 11:337–343. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. Holland PT, Hamilton D, Ohlin B, Skidmore MW (1994) Effects of storage and processing on pesticide residues in plant products (Technical report). Pure Appl Chem 66(2):335–356CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. 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. Google Scholar
  17. 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. CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  18. Li Y, Dong F, Liu X, Xu J, Chen X, Han Y (2013) Enantioselective separation and transformation of metalaxyl and its major metabolite metalaxyl acid in tomato and cucumber. Food Chem 141:10–17. CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  19. 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.
  20. Pugliese P, Moltó JC, Damiani P (2004) Gas chromatographic evaluation of pesticide residue contents in nectarines after non-toxic washing treatments. J Chromatogr A 1050:185–191. PubMedGoogle Scholar
  21. Ramezani MK, Shahriari D (2015) Dissipation behaviour, processing factors and risk assessment for metalaxyl in greenhouse-grown cucumber. Pest Manag Sci 71:579–583. CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  22. Rani M, Saini S, Kumari B (2013) Persistence and effect of processing on chlorpyriphos residues in tomato (Lycopersiconesculentum Mill.). Ecotoxicol. Environ Saf 95:247–252. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. 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. CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  24. Sujkowski L, Fry B, Power R, Goodwin S, Peever T, Hamlen R, Fry W (1995) Sensitive of Mexican isolates of Phytophthora infests to chlorothalonil, cymoxanil and metalaxyl. Plant Disease 79:117–1120CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. 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.
  26. Wanwimolruk S, Duangsuwan W, Phopin K, Boonpangrak S (2017) Food safety in Thailand 5: the effect of washing pesticide residues found in cabbages and tomatoes. J Consum Prot Food Saf 12:209–221CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. Worthing CR, Hance RJ (1991) The pesticide manual, 9th edn. British Crop Protection Council, SurreyGoogle Scholar
  28. Zadra C, Marucchini C, Zazzerini A (2002) Behavior of metalaxyl and its pure R-Enantiomer in sunflower plants (Helianthus annus). J Agric Food Chem 50:5373–5377. CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  29. Zhang Y, Zhang Z, Chen F (2012) Effect of sonication on eliminating of phorate in apple juice. Ultrason Sonochem 19:43–48. CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  30. 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
  31. 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

Copyright information

© Bundesamt für Verbraucherschutz und Lebensmittelsicherheit (BVL) 2018

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.National Institute of Laser Enhanced Sciences (NILES)Cairo UniversityCairoEgypt
  2. 2.Department of Dairy Science, Faculty of AgricultureCairo UniversityGizaEgypt
  3. 3.Agricultural Engineering Research Institute, Agricultural Research CenterGizaEgypt

Personalised recommendations