4.7 Article

Residue levels and risk assessment of pesticides in nuts of China

期刊

CHEMOSPHERE
卷 144, 期 -, 页码 645-651

出版社

PERGAMON-ELSEVIER SCIENCE LTD
DOI: 10.1016/j.chemosphere.2015.09.008

关键词

Nut; Pesticide; Residue; Food safety; Risk assessment

资金

  1. Special Fund for Forestry Scientific Research in the Public Interest [201304705]

向作者/读者索取更多资源

The pesticide residue levels of three nuts (chestnut, walnut, pinenut) collected from seven main producing areas of China were investigated. Twenty-nine pesticides, including organophosphates (OPs), organochlorines (0Cs), pyrethroids (PYs) and two fungicides (triadimefon and buprofezin) were analyzed by gas chromatography (GC). Four OPs (acephate, dimethoate, chlorpyrifos and parathion-methyl) were found in 11.4% samples, with the concentrations of 19.0 mu g kg(-1) to 74.0 mu g kg(-1). Six OCs (DDT, HCH, endosulfan, quintozene, aldrin and dieldrin) were found in 18.2% samples, with the concentrations of 2.0 mu g kg(-1) to 65.7 mu g kg(-1). Among OCs, p,p-DDE and ot-HCH were the dominant isomer for DDT and HCH. Five PYs (fenpropathrin, fenvalerate, cypermethrin, bifenthrin and cyhalothrin) were found in 15.9% samples, with the concentrations of 2.5 mu g kg(-1) to 433.0 mu vg kg(-1). Fenpropathrin was the most frequently detected pesticide. In addition, triadimefon and buprofezin were detected only in two samples. For the tested nuts, 25.0% samples with multiple residues (containing more than two pesticides) were noted, even up to 9.1% samples with five pesticide residues. The residue of 15.9% samples was higher than the maximum residue limits (MRLs) of China. The short-term risks for the tested nuts were below 1.2%, and the highest long-term risk was 12.58%. The cumulative risk (cHI) for the tested pesticides were 8.43% (OPs), 0.42% (OCs), 12.82% (PYs) and 0.15% (fungicides), respectively. The total cHI was 21.82%. There was no significant health risk for consumers via nuts consumption. (C) 2015 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.

作者

我是这篇论文的作者
点击您的名字以认领此论文并将其添加到您的个人资料中。

评论

主要评分

4.7
评分不足

次要评分

新颖性
-
重要性
-
科学严谨性
-
评价这篇论文

推荐

暂无数据
暂无数据