4.7 Article

Dissipation of six fungicides in greenhouse-grown tomatoes with processing and health risk

期刊

ENVIRONMENTAL SCIENCE AND POLLUTION RESEARCH
卷 23, 期 12, 页码 11885-11900

出版社

SPRINGER HEIDELBERG
DOI: 10.1007/s11356-016-6260-x

关键词

Pesticides in tomatoes; Processed tomato pesticides; Fungicides in tomatoes; Dissipation of fungicides; Fungicide dissipation in tomatoes

资金

  1. National Science Centre in Poland (PRELUDIUM, The risk assessment of consumers' exposure to pesticide residues in food after processing treatments) [DEC-2012/07/N/NZ9/00043]

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Greenhouse studies were conducted to evaluate the dissipation rate kinetics and estimate the behavior of selected pesticides after washing, peeling, simmering, and canning of tomato expressed as processing factor (PF). Two varieties (Marissa and Harzfeuer) were treated by six fungicides: azoxystrobin, boscalid, chlorothalonil, cyprodinil, fludioxonil, and pyraclostrobin at single and double dose and risk assessment defined as hazard quotient was performed. The QuEChERS method was used for sample preparation followed by liquid chromatography coupled with tandem mass spectrometry (LC-MS/MS). The dissipation of fungicides approximately fitted to a first-order kinetic model, with half-life values ranging from 2.49 and 2.67 days (cyprodinil) to 5.00 and 5.32 days (chlorothalonil) for Marissa and Harzfeuer variety, respectively. Results from processing studies showed that treatments have significant effects on the removal of the studied fungicides for both varieties. The PFs were generally less than 1 (between 0.01 and 0.90) and did not depend on variety. The dietary exposure assessed based on initial deposits of application at single and double dose on tomatoes and concentration after each process with PF correction showed no concern to consumer health. Our results would be a useful tool for monitoring of fungicides in tomatoes and provide more understanding of residue behavior and risk posed by these fungicides.

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