4.7 Review

Glyphosate detection: methods, needs and challenges

期刊

ENVIRONMENTAL CHEMISTRY LETTERS
卷 17, 期 1, 页码 291-317

出版社

SPRINGER HEIDELBERG
DOI: 10.1007/s10311-018-0789-5

关键词

Glyphosate; Detection; Methods; Environment and health

资金

  1. Fundacao de Amparo a Pesquisa do Estado de Minas Gerais [FAPEMIG-Process: 01/17 CEX APQ 02633/17]
  2. Conselho Nacional de Desenvolvimento Cientifico e Tecnologico (CNPq)
  3. Coordenacao de Aperfeicoamento de Pessoal de Nivel Superior (CAPES)

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Glyphosate is considered toxicologically harmful and presents potential association with human carcinogenesis and other chronic diseases, including mental and reproductive behaviors. The challenges to analyse and demonstrate its toxicity are likely due to its metal-chelating properties, the interference of organic compounds in the environment, and similarity with its by-products. Whereas there is a link with serious health and environmental problems, there is an absence of public health policies, which is probably due to the difficulties in detecting glyphosate in the environment, further complicated by the undetectable hazard in occupational safety and health. Thehistorical lenient use of glyphosatein transgenic-resistant crops, corroborated by the fact that it is not easily detected, creates the Glyphosate paradox, bywhichit is the most widely used herbicide and one of the most hardly determined. In this review, we revisited all available technologies for detection and quantification of glyphosate, including their drawbacks and advantages, and we further discuss the needs and challenges. Briefly, most of the technologies require high-end equipments and resources in low throughput, and none of them are adequate for real-time field tests, which may explain the lack of studies on occupational health associated with the chemical hazard. The real-time detection is an urgent and highly demanded need to improve public policies. [GRAPHICS] .

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