4.5 Article

PESTICIDE RESIDUE EVALUATION IN MAJOR STAPLE FOOD ITEMS OF ETHIOPIA USING THE QUECHERS METHOD: A CASE STUDY FROM THE JIMMA ZONE

期刊

ENVIRONMENTAL TOXICOLOGY AND CHEMISTRY
卷 33, 期 6, 页码 1294-1302

出版社

WILEY
DOI: 10.1002/etc.2554

关键词

Pesticide residues; QuEChERS method; Staple food; Teff; Red pepper

资金

  1. Special Research Fund (BOF) at Ghent University
  2. Jimma Universities

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Samples of maize, teff, red pepper, and coffee (green bean and coffee bean with pulp) were collected from a local market in the Jimma Zone, Ethiopia. Samples were analyzed for the occurrence of cypermethrin, permethrin, deltamethrin, chlorpyrifos ethyl, DTT and its metabolites, and endosulfan (, ). In the analytical procedure, the QuEChERS (Quick, Easy, Cheap, Effective, Rugged and Safe) extraction methodology with dispersive solid phase extraction clean up (d-SPE) technique was applied. Validation of the QuEChERS method was satisfactory. Recovery percentages of most pesticides were in the range of 70% to 120%, with good repeatability (%relative standard deviation<20). The limit of detection and limit of quantification varied between 0.001 mu g/g and 0.092 mu g/g and between 0.002 mu g/g and 0.307 mu g/g, respectively. The main pesticides detected were DDT, endosulfan, cypermethrin, and permethrin. All of the pesticides analyzed were detected in red pepper and green coffee bean. Residues of DDT in coffee pulp significantly differed (p<0.01) from other food items except for red pepper. The concentration of pesticides in the food items varied from 0.011mg/kg to 1.115mg/kg. All food items contained 1 or more pesticides. Two-thirds of the samples had residues below corresponding maximum residue limits, and the remaining one-third of samples were above the maximum residue limits. These results indicate the need for a good pesticide monitoring program to evaluate consumer risk for the Ethiopian people. Environ Toxicol Chem 2014;33:1294-1302. (c) 2014 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