| Literature DB >> 25608031 |
Zhiyong Zhang1, Wayne W Jiang2, Qiu Jian3, Wencheng Song3, Zuntao Zheng3, Donglan Wang1, Xianjin Liu1.
Abstract
The objectives of this study were to determine the effects of food processing on field incurred residues levels of chlorpyrifos and its metabolite 3,5,6-Trichloro-2-pyridinol (TCP) in rice. The chlorpyrifos and TCP were found to be 1.27 and 0.093 mg kg-1 in straw and 0.41 and 0.073 mg kg-1 in grain, respectively. It is observed that the sunlight for 2 hours does not decrease the chlorpyrifos and TCP residues in grain significantly. Their residues in rice were reduced by up to 50% by hulling. The cooking reduced the chlorpyrifos and TCP in rice to undetectable level (below 0.01 mg kg-1). Processing factors (PFs) of chlorpyrifos and TCP residues in rice during food processing were similar. Various factors have impacts on the fates of chlorpyrifos and TCP residues and the important steps to reduce their residues in rice were hulling and cooking. The results can contribute to assure the consumer of a safe wholesome food supply.Entities:
Mesh:
Substances:
Year: 2015 PMID: 25608031 PMCID: PMC4301646 DOI: 10.1371/journal.pone.0116467
Source DB: PubMed Journal: PLoS One ISSN: 1932-6203 Impact factor: 3.240
Figure 1Scheme of processing rice from-harvest-to-dining-table.
Retention time, monitoring ions and collision energy of chlorpyrifos and TCP in the multiple reaction monitoring mode.
| Compound | Electrospray ionization | Retention Time (min) | Precursor ion ( | Product ion ( | Collision energy (V) |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Chlorpyrifos | positive | 3.9 | 350.1 | 97, 198 | 30, 20 |
| TCP | negative | 3.0 | 195 | 35, 37 | 15, 15 |
1 Quantitative ion.
Chlorpyrifos and TCP residues in rice during food processing.
| Processing Step | Sample | Detection Number | Chlorpyrifos (mg/kg) | TCP (mg/kg) |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Harvest | Straw (initial) | 1 | 1.27 ± 0.13 | 0.093 ± 0.12 |
| Grain (initial) | 2 | 0.41 ± 0.08 | 0.073 ± 0.012 | |
| Drying | Dried grain | 3 | 0.38 ± 0.03 | 0.071 ± 0.011 |
| Hulling | Hull | 4 | 1.18 ± 0.05 | 0.26 ± 0.11 |
| Brown rice | 5 | 0.19 ± 0.04 | 0.035 ± 0.013 | |
| Polishing | Bran | 6 | 1.11 ± 0.12 | 0.70 ± 0.08 |
| Polished rice | 7 | 0.11 ± 0.04 | 0.018 ± 0.004 | |
| Washing | Washed rice | 8 | 0.05 ± 0.02 | 0.01 ± 0.002 |
| Cooking | Cooked rice | 9 | ND (0.007) | ND (0.002) |
1 Detection number corresponding to the Detection number shown in Fig. 1
2 Standard deviation (±SD) calculated from three replicates of samples (n = 3)
3 ND: non-detectable (i.e., < 0.01 mg/kg); The values in brackets estimated to be approximately 0.007 and 0.002 mg/kg for chlorpyrifos and TCP, respectively, based on peak areas obtained.
Maximum residue limits (MRLs) for chlorpyrifos in rice (mg/kg).
| Pesticide | Nation, Region or Organization | |||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| China[ | Europe | CAC | Australia | Korea | Japan | |
| Chlorpyrifos | 0.5 | 0.05 | 0.5 | 0.1 | 0.1 | 0.1(brown rice) |
1 GB 2763–2012. China’s National Food Safety Standard-Maximum Residue Limits for Pesticides in Food.
2 European pesticide residues and maximum residue levels database, Regulation (EC) No 396/2005.
3 Codex pesticide residues limits in food and feed database.
4Australian agricultural and veterinary chemicals code instrument No. 4 (MRL Standard).
5 Korea MRLs for pesticide.
6The Japanese positive list system for agricultural chemical residues in foods.
Processing factors (PF s) for individuals and cumulative (PF cum).
| Processing Step | Sample matrix | Chlorpyrifos | TCP | ||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
|
|
|
|
| ||
| Harvest | Grain (initial) | - | - | - | - |
| Drying | Dried grain | 0.93±0.11 a | 0.93±0.07 a | 0.97±0.08 a | 0.97±0.11 a |
| Hulling | Brown rice | 0.50±0.01 b | 0.46±0.04 b | 0.49±0.01 b | 0.48±0.03 b |
| Polishing | Polished rice | 0.58±0.03 b | 0.27±0.03 c | 0.51±0.02 b | 0.25±0.06 c |
| Washing | Washed rice | 0.45±0.03 b | 0.12±0.01 d | 0.56±0.04 b | 0.14±0.08 d |
| Cooking | Cooked rice | 0.11 | 0.01 | 0.22 | 0.002 |
1 The letters (a, b, c, d, and e), which are followed by the PF and PF cum values, are significantly (p < 0.05) different (Duncan’s multiple range test);
2 PF and PF cum are the individual and cumulative processing factors, respectively.
3 At the cooking step, the residues < 0.01 mg/kg (but appeared to be approximately 0.007 and 0.002 mg/kg, based upon the peak areas) and thus, FPs and PF cum estimated in the same manner of other processing steps.
Figure 2Declines of chlorpyrifos and its toxic metabolite TCP residues in rice during food processing.