Evaluation of pesticide residues in fruit from Poland and health risk assessment

  • Łozowicka B
  • Kaczyński P
  • Rutkowska E
  • et al.
N/ACitations
Citations of this article
47Readers
Mendeley users who have this article in their library.

Abstract

In the present study an effort has been made to evaluate the residues of insecticides, fungicides and herbicides in fruit from Poland and their health risks assessed. Accredited multiresidue methods based on gas and liquid chromatog-raphy, and spectroscopic technique were used to determine the concentrations above 160 pes-ticides. A total of 392 samples of 15 different fruit were collected during the May 2010 to Oc-tober 2012. In 48.2% of samples no residues were found, 45.9% of samples contained pesti-cide residues at or below the EU MRL, and 5.9% of samples contained pesticide residues above MRL. Sour cherries (66%) and apples (63%) were the commodities in which pesticide residues the most frequently occurred. Thirty one different pesticides were detected in total. Dithiocar-bamate, captan, cyprodinil and boscalid were the pesticide most frequently found. Multiple pesticides (> 1 pesticide) were detected in about 30.1% samples. The dietary intake of residues of some pesticides can pose acute hazards. Data obtained were used for estimating the potential health risks associated with the exposures to these pesticides. The highest estimated daily intakes (EDIs) for children were: 22% for di-methoate and 112% for diazinone of the ADI. The most critical commodity was apple, contributing 1.30 to the acute Hazard Index for flusilazole. The results show that despite a high occurrence of pesticide residues in fruit it could not be considered a serious public health problem. Nevertheless, an investigation into continuous monitoring of pesticide residues in fruit is rec-ommended.

Cite

CITATION STYLE

APA

Łozowicka, B., Kaczyński, P., Rutkowska, E., Jankowska, M., & Hrynko, I. (2013). Evaluation of pesticide residues in fruit from Poland and health risk assessment. Agricultural Sciences, 04(05), 106–111. https://doi.org/10.4236/as.2013.45b020

Register to see more suggestions

Mendeley helps you to discover research relevant for your work.

Already have an account?

Save time finding and organizing research with Mendeley

Sign up for free