4.5 Article

Analysis of imidacloprid residues in fruits, vegetables, cereals, fruit juices, and baby foods, and daily intake estimation in and around Lucknow, India

期刊

ENVIRONMENTAL TOXICOLOGY AND CHEMISTRY
卷 32, 期 3, 页码 723-727

出版社

WILEY-BLACKWELL
DOI: 10.1002/etc.2104

关键词

Imidacloprid; QuEChERS method; Maximum residue limit; Estimated daily intake; Hazard index

资金

  1. Indian Council of Medical Research, New Delhi

向作者/读者索取更多资源

A total of 250 samplesincluding fruits, fruit juices, and baby foods (50 samples each), vegetables (70 samples), and cereals (30 samples)were collected from Lucknow, India, and analyzed for the presence of imidacloprid residues. The QuEChERS (quick, easy, cheap, effective, rugged, and safe) method of extraction coupled with high-performance liquid chromatographic analysis were carried out, and imidacloprid residues were qualitatively confirmed by liquid chromatographymass spectrometry. Imidacloprid was not detected in samples of fruit juices and baby foods. It was, however, detected in 38 samples of fruits, vegetables, and cereals, which is about 15.20% of the total samples. Of samples of fruits, 22% showed the presence of imidacloprid, and 2% of samples showed residues above the maximal residue limit. Although imidacloprid was detected in 24% of vegetable samples, only 5.71% showed the presence of imidacloprid above the maximal residue limit. However, 33% of cereal samples showed the presence of imidacloprid, and about 3% of samples were above the maximal residue limit. The calculated estimated daily intake ranged between 0.004 and 0.131 mu g/kg body weight, and the hazard indices ranged from 0.007 to 0.218 for these food commodities. It is therefore indicated that lifetime consumption of vegetables, fruits, fruit juices, baby foods, wheat, rice, and pulses may not pose a health hazard for the population of Lucknow because the hazard indices for imidacloprid residues were below one. Environ. Toxicol. Chem. 2013;32:723727. (c) 2012 SETAC

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

4.5
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