| Literature DB >> 34855881 |
Anjana Srivastava1, Gajan Pal Singh1, Prakash Chandra Srivastava2.
Abstract
In this paper we optimized QuEChERS method for extraction of nine pesticides viz. acephate, acetamiprid, chlorpyrifos, cypermethrin, imidacloprid, thiamethoxam, profenofos (insecticides), carbendazim and tebuconazole (fungicides) and performed their quantitative estimation in okra crop by HPLC-UV and GC-ECD. Decontamination treatments namely washing with running tap water, soaking in lukewarm water (50-60°C), soaking in solutions of 1% NaCl, 5% NaHCO3, 2% CH3COOH, 0.01% KMnO4 and three commercial formulations were also done for ten minutes every time, to calculate the extent of pesticide removal from okra. Results revealed that the proposed extraction method was efficient, inexpensive, accurate, rapid and precise and can suitably be used for the simultaneous quantitative determination of the above pesticides. The standard curve was linear over the concentration range of 0.05-5μg g-1 with R2 close to one (0.999). Soaking of okra in 2% acetic acid and then washing proved as the best decontamination treatments for all the pesticides. It showed the highest relative decontaminating capacity in comparison to the other solutions tested. Since the pesticide residues are usually present in higher amount in vegetables being consumed, it is of utmost importance to keep an eye over the use of pesticides to protect the crops.Entities:
Mesh:
Substances:
Year: 2021 PMID: 34855881 PMCID: PMC8638875 DOI: 10.1371/journal.pone.0260851
Source DB: PubMed Journal: PLoS One ISSN: 1932-6203 Impact factor: 3.240
Pesticide formulations and applied doses in okra crop.
| Pesticide | Formulation | Dose applied (g a.i./ha) |
|---|---|---|
| Acephate | Acemain 75%SC | 1500g a.i/ha |
| Acetamiprid | Ennova 20%SP | 100g a.i/ha |
| Carbendazim | Zen 50%WP | 250g a.i/ha |
| Chlorpyrifos | Tricel 20%EC | 400g a.i/ha |
| Cypermethrin | Cyperguard 10%EC | 100g a.i/ha |
| Imidacloprid | Imidaveer 17.8%SL | 50g a.i/ha |
| Profenofos | Celcron 50%EC | 50g a.i/ha |
| Tebuconazole | Folicur 25.9%EC | 300g a.i/ha |
| Thiamethoxam | Ultra 25%WG | 100g a.i/ha |
Optimised conditions for pesticides analysed by HPLC–UV.
| Pesticide | Mobile phase (v/v) | Wavelength (nm) | Flow rate ml min-1 | Retention time (tr) in min. |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Acephate and it’s metabolite methamidophos | Acetonitrile/water (90:10) | 195 | 1.0 | 2.5 |
| Imidacloprid | Methanol/water (45:55) | 254 | 0.5 | 12.3 |
| Acetamiprid | 15.8 | |||
| Thiamethoxam | Acetonitrile/water (45:55) | 254 | 0.5 | 7.0 |
| Carbendazim | 8.0 | |||
| Tebuconazole | Acetonitrile/water (0.1% formic acid) (70:30) | 240 | 1.0 | 5.0 |
Method validation data and MRLs of pesticides in okra.
| Pesticides | Linearity (R2) | LOD (μg g-1) | LOQ (μg g-1) | Recovery (%) with ± RSD (μg g-1) | MRL (EU) (μg g-1) | ||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 0.05 | 0.1 | 1.0 | |||||
|
| 0.999 | 0.01 | 0.05 | 82.0 ±4.0 | 82.7±3.1 | 85.1 ±1.5 | |
|
| 0.999 | 0.01 | 0.05 | 86.0 ±3.5 | 86.0±3.6 | 91.8 ±3.7 | 0.5 |
|
| 0.999 | 0.01 | 0.05 | 86.0± 4.0 | 86.3±1.5 | 88.6±3.0 | 0.5 |
|
| 0.999 | 0.01 | 0.05 | 86.7±2.3 | 87.3±1.1 | 89.7±2.6 | 0.3 |
|
| 0.998 | 0.01 | 0.05 | 82.0±3.5 | 86.3±2.1 | 87.6±1.2 | 0.1 |
|
| 0.989 | 0.01 | 0.05 | 85.9±4.9 | 87.1±2.2 | 92.0±2.2 | 0.02 |
|
| 0.999 | 0.005 | 0.015 | 80.0±2.0 | 87.7±1.5 | 91.5±4.8 | 0.3 |
|
| 0.995 | 0.005 | 0.015 | 86.7±2.3 | 87.3±2.1 | 90.8±1.0 | 0.01 |
|
| 0.989 | 0.005 | 0.015 | 88.7±3.1 | 89.3±2.5 | 90.1±1.7 | 0.05 |
Residues of pesticides in okra after different decontamination treatments.
| Decontamination Treatments | Residues (mg/kg) | ||||||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Acephate and it’s metabolite methamidophos | Cypermethrin | Acetamiprid | Imidacloprid | Profenofos | Chlorpyrifos | Thiamethoxam | Tebuconazole | Carbendazim | |
|
| 4.298 | 0.101 | 0.151 | 0.186 | 0.382 | 0.040 | 0.277 | 9.541 | 1.807 |
|
| 3.324 | 0.084 | 0.119 | 0.121 | 0.324 | 0.036 | 0.246 | 6.877 | 1.381 |
|
| 2.278 | 0.043 | 0.084 | 0.103 | 0.253 | 0.023 | 0.137 | 5.760 | 0.965 |
|
| 1.989 | 0.031 | 0.044 | 0.074 | 0.285 | 0.022 | 0.098 | 3.620 | 0.759 |
|
| 2.818 | 0.038 | 0.062 | 0.106 | 0.267 | 0.015 | 0.126 | 5.402 | 0.878 |
|
| 1.353 | 0.022 | 0.045 | 0.070 | 0.096 | 0.009 | 0.052 | 2.951 | 0.345 |
|
| 1.651 | 0.035 | 0.078 | 0.116 | 0.281 | 0.024 | 0.187 | 4.472 | 0.998 |
|
| 2.195 | 0.031 | 0.058 | 0.115 | 0.230 | 0.024 | 0.076 | 4.005 | 0.519 |
|
| 2.005 | 0.027 | 0.063 | 0.071 | 0.129 | 0.010 | 0.134 | 4.598 | 0.376 |
|
| 2.089 | 0.030 | 0.078 | 0.113 | 0.227 | 0.018 | 0.257 | 5.027 | 0.842 |
|
| 0.077 | 0.003 | 0.002 | 0.007 | 0.005 | 0.001 | 0.006 | 0.099 | 0.030 |
|
| 0.229 | 0.001 | 0.007 | 0.022 | 0.015 | 0.004 | 0.019 | 0.293 | 0.090 |
Fig 1Effect of different decontamination treatments on % removal of pesticides analyzed by HPLC-UV on okra.
The vertical bars indicate critical difference at P ≤ 0. The numerical values against histograms indicate percent (%) decontamination of pesticide residues.
Fig 2Effect of different decontamination treatments on % removal of pesticides analyzed by GC-ECD on okra.
The vertical bars indicate critical difference at P ≤ 0.05. The numerical values against histograms indicate percent (%) decontamination of pesticide residues.