4.3 Article

Dissipation profile of sulfoxaflor on squash under Egyptian field conditions: a prelude to risk assessment

Journal

Publisher

TAYLOR & FRANCIS LTD
DOI: 10.1080/03067319.2021.1915297

Keywords

Sulfoxaflor; dissipation kinetics; matrix effect; terminal residues; squash; LC-MS/MS

Ask authors/readers for more resources

This study assessed the safety and residue behavior of sulfoxaflor, a widely used neonicotinoid insecticide, in squash in Egypt. The results showed that sulfoxaflor residues in squash decrease via a first-order decay process, with significant degradation after 14 days. Consumer risk assessment indicated that there were no significant health risks associated with consumption of squash treated with sulfoxaflor.
The neonicotinoid insecticide sulfoxaflor is widely used in Egypt. This work assessed the safety of using sulfoxaflor in squash to consumers, along with the residue behaviour. Supervised field trials were conducted to investigate the dynamics and terminal residues of sulfoxaflor in squash under Egyptian field conditions for several agricultural practices, including worst-case scenarios. A QuEChERS-based protocol coupled with LC-MS/MS was employed to measure residues in squash fruits; the limit of quantitation was successfully validated at 0.01 mg/kg. Sulfoxaflor residues reduce in squash fruits via a first-order decay process, with a calculated half-life (t(1/2)) of 6.13 days and significant degradation (88.5%) after 14 days. During harvest, the terminal residues of sulfoxaflor were ranged from 0.365 to 1.611 mg/kg and from 0.576 to 1.865 mg/kg on sampling days of 3, 7 and 14 days when applied 2-3 times at single or double recommended dose, respectively. A consumer risk assessment was performed employing the FAO/WHO approach; the risk quotients (RQs) were <= 0.0102, and hence; no significant health risks associated with consumption of squash treated with sulfoxaflor were identified.

Authors

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

Reviews

Primary Rating

4.3
Not enough ratings

Secondary Ratings

Novelty
-
Significance
-
Scientific rigor
-
Rate this paper

Recommended

No Data Available
No Data Available