4.7 Article

Occurrence and dietary risk assessment of 37 pesticides in wheat fields in the suburbs of Beijing, China

期刊

FOOD CHEMISTRY
卷 350, 期 -, 页码 -

出版社

ELSEVIER SCI LTD
DOI: 10.1016/j.foodchem.2021.129245

关键词

Wheat; Pesticide; Risk assessment; Residue; Distribution; Soil

资金

  1. National Key Research and Development Program of China [2016YFD0200208]
  2. China Postdoctoral Science Foundation [2019M660543]
  3. Beijing Academy of Agricultural and Forestry Science platform project [KJCX20200302]

向作者/读者索取更多资源

From 2018 to 2020, 206 pairs of wheat and soil samples were collected from wheat fields in Beijing, China, showing various pesticide residues, with carbendazim and tebuconazole being highly detected in wheat samples. Soil samples frequently contained carbendazim, triazoles, and neonicotinoids, and pesticides exceeding maximum residue limits do not pose non-carcinogenic risks to human health, except for one.
The co-occurrence of multiple pesticides in wheat fields adversely affects human health and the environment. Herein, 206 pairs of wheat and soil samples were collected from wheat fields in Beijing, China from 2018 to 2020. One or multiple pesticide residues were detected, and carbendazim (maximum: 38511.5 ?g/kg) and tebuconazole (maximum: 45.4 ?g/kg) had heavy occurrence in the wheat samples. Carbendazim, triazoles, and neonicotinoids were frequently detected in the soil samples. HCHs and DDTs were detected, with p,p?-DDE in 100.0% of the soil samples at a maximum concentration of 546.0 ?g/kg in 2020. Concentrations of carbendazim, tebuconazole, hexaconazole, and cyhalothrin in the paired soil and wheat samples exhibited significant positive correlations. Pesticides that exceeded the maximum residue limits do not pose non-carcinogenic risks, with one exception. The results provide important references towards risk monitoring and control in wheat fields, as well as facilitating the scientific and reasonable use of these pesticides.

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