4.7 Article

Analysis of exposure to pesticide residues from Traditional Chinese Medicine

Journal

JOURNAL OF HAZARDOUS MATERIALS
Volume 365, Issue -, Pages 857-867

Publisher

ELSEVIER SCIENCE BV
DOI: 10.1016/j.jhazmat.2018.11.075

Keywords

Traditional Chinese Medicine; Pesticide residues; Risk assessment; Hazard index

Funding

  1. National Natural Science Foundation of China [31772201]
  2. Natural Science Key Research Project of Colleges and Universities in Anhui Province, China [KJ2016A835]
  3. Research Innovation Foundation of Anhui Agricultural University [2018yjs-3]

Ask authors/readers for more resources

The safety of Traditional Chinese Medicine (TCM) is of concern worldwide. Herein, Paeoniae Radix Alba, Chaenomelis Fructus and Mouton Cortex, representing three medicinal components, were subjected to toxicological analysis to investigate possible pesticide contamination. Exposure using a point estimate model identified 47 residues that were simultaneously validated by the QuEChERS-UPLC-MS/MS method, which is sufficiently reliable for measuring residue concentrations. Of the 313 samples tested, 94.57% contained pesticide residues, with concentrations ranging from 0.10 to 1199.84 mu g kg(-1), of which > 83.17% contained 4-15 different residues. Carbendazim was the most frequently detected pesticide ( > 85%), and procymidone, pendimethalin and phoxim were also abundant (median concentration = 15.33-623.12 mu g kg(-1)). Risk assessment based on the hazard quotient/hazard index (HQ/HI) approach revealed that exposure to pesticide residues in all three TCMs (95th percentile) were far below levels that might pose a health risk. However, insecticides contributed to cumulative exposure, especially phoxim, and worryingly, several banned pesticides were detected. The results are of theoretical and practical value for evaluating the safety TCMs, and could improve their quality and safety.

Authors

I am an author on this paper
Click your name to claim this paper and add it to your profile.

Reviews

Primary Rating

4.7
Not enough ratings

Secondary Ratings

Novelty
-
Significance
-
Scientific rigor
-
Rate this paper

Recommended

No Data Available
No Data Available