Journal of Environmental Chemistry and Ecotoxicology Vol. 4(2), pp.

19-28, 22 January, 2012

Available online at http://www.academicjournals.org/JECE
DOI: 10.5897/JECE11.072
ISSN-2141-226X ©2012 Academic Journals

Full Length Research Paper

Pesticide residue analysis of fruits and vegetables

Rohan Dasika, Siddharth Tangirala and Padmaja Naishadham*
Department of Chemistry, Osmania University, Hyderabad, India.
Accepted 9 December, 2011

This project describes an efficient and effective analytical method to screen pesticides in fruits and
vegetable samples using liquid chromatography tandem mass spectrometry (LC-MS/MS). A quick, easy,
cheap, effective, rugged, and safe (QuEChERS) method with acetate buffering (AOAC Official Method
2007.01) was used for sample preparation, which has been previously shown to yield high-quality
results for hundreds of pesticide residues in foods.

Key words: Liquid chromatography/mass spectrometry (LC/MS), pesticide residues, pesticides, fruits,
vegetables.

INTRODUCTION

Plant protection products (more commonly known as
pesticides) are widely used in agriculture to increase the
yield, improve the quality, and extend the storage life of
food crops (Fern ndez-Alba and Garc a-Reyes 2008).
Pesticide residues are the deposits of pesticide active
ingredient, its metabolites or breakdown products present
in some component of the environment after its applica-
tion, spillage or dumping. Residue analysis provides a
measure of the nature and level of any chemical
contamination within the environment and of its
persistence. The pesticides must undergo extensive
efficacy, environmental, and toxicological testing to be
registered by governments for legal use in specified
applications. The applied chemicals and/or their degrada-
tion products may remain as residues in the agricultural
products, which becomes a concern for human exposure.
Selected sampling programmes can be used to
investigate residual levels of pesticide in the environment,
their movement and their relative rates of degradation.
The maximum residue levels (MRLs) (or „tolerances‟ in
the United States) limit the types and amounts of
residues that can be legally present on foods are set by
regulatory bodies worldwide. Pesticide residue analysis is
tremendously an important process in determining the
safety of using certain pesticides. Pesticides polluting the
*Corresponding author. E-mail: tapadmaja@gmail.com. Tel:
9348405065.
earth and causing problems in human beings and wildlife,
the quantity of pesticide being consumed becomes a
necessary knowledge. Analytical quality requirements like
trueness, precision, sensitivity and selectivity have been
met to suit the need for any particular analysis.
Unfortunately, not all farmers follow legal practices and
due to the tremendous number of pesticides and crops in
production, a number of analytical methods designed to
determine multiple pesticide residues (Food and Drug
Administration, 1999; Luke et al., 1975; Specht and
Tilkes, 1980; Lee et al., 1991; Andersson and Pålsheden,
1991; Cook et al., 1999; General Inspectorate for Health
Protection, 1996; Fillion et al., 2000; Sheridan and Meola,
1999; Lehotay, 2000). In 2003, the QuEChERS method
for pesticide residue analysis was introduced
Anastassiades et al. (2003), which provides high quality
results in a fast, easy, an inexpensive approach. Follow-
up studies have further validated the method for greater
than 200 pesticides (Lehotay et al., 2007).
Technical developments always follow the way from the
primitive via the complicated to the simple. The most
common techniques in modern multi-residue target
pesticide analysis are gas chromatography, liquid
chromatography coupled to mass spectrometry (GC-MS,
LC-MS) and/or tandem mass spectrometry (GC-MS/MS,
LC-MS/MS) with triple quadrupole mass analysers. The
numerous methods available for pesticide analysis show
the importance of this application and rapid pace of
developments in analytical chemistry. For example, Agu¨
era et al. (2000) described a method (Splitless large-
20 J. Environ. Chem. Ecotoxicol.
volume GC-MS injection for the analysis of organo-
phosphorus and organochlorine pesticides in vegetables
using a miniaturised ethyl acetate extraction) for the
measurement of only ten organophosphorus and
organochlorine pesticides by GC-MS, but over the past
decade, the number of pesticides typically included in
methods has increased dramatically. The sample
preparation techniques have also advanced to
complement the analytical techniques depending on the
types of analytes and matrices monitored.
Anastassiades et al. (2003) described the „quick, easy,
cheap, effective, rugged, low solvent consumption, wide
pesticide range (Polar, pH – dependent compounds) and
safe‟ (QuEChERS) method for pesticide residues in food
as an example of a method that takes advantage of the
powerful features of nearly universal selectivity and high
sensitivity of modern GC- and LC-MS(/MS) instruments.
The QuEChERS approach has been extensively
validated for hundreds of pesticide residues in many
types of foods, and has become Association of Analytical
Communities (AOAC) Official Method 2007.01 (Lehotay
et al., 2007) and CEN (2008). The QuEChERS method
has several advantages over most traditional methods of
analysis. High recoveries (greater than 85%) are
achieved for a wide polarity and volatility range of
pesticides, including notoriously difficult analytes. Very
rugged because extract clean up is done to remove
organic acids.
The most common approach is to use matrix-matched
calibration standards. However, it can be difficult to find a
blank matrix from which to prepare the calibration
standards and compensation from one sample to another
(even for the same matrix) may not be the same. A
method of standard additions in the sample extract may
be an alternative approach.
MATERIALS AND METHODS
Sampling
For the present project random sampling was done from the various
markets in the twin cities of Hyderabad, Secunderabad and R. R.
District local fields and markets. Depending upon the nature of the
vegetation (size, shape, etc.), samples were enclosed in a clean
blotting paper and wrapped inside a clean, paper envelope. The
addition of a small sachet of silica gel to the envelope helps to
reduce the moisture content of the system. However, samples were
provided to the analytical laboratory to check for possible co-
extractives, which could interfere with the analysis.
Reagents and materials
High-performance liquid chromatography (HPLC)- grade
acetonitrile; deionized water was obtained from a Milli-Q reagent
water system; dimethyl formamide; anhydrous magnesium sulfate
obtained from Merck and primary secondary amine (PSA)-bonded
silica was obtained from Supelco, Sigma Aldrich. Each sample was
filtered through a 0.45 mm polyvinylidene difluoride (PVDF) filter
before injection. Acetic acid and sodium acetate from Merck were
used for the sample preparation procedure. Analytical-grade
pesticide standards were ordered from Sigma- Aldrich.
Individual standard stock solutions were prepared by dissolving
the crystalline standards in acetonitrile (or dimethyl formamide for
those insoluble in acetonitrile) to reach the final concentration of
1000 to 4000 mg/ml. For method optimization, individual standard
solutions were used, which were prepared by diluting the stock
solution to a concentration of 1 to 4 mg/ml. A standard mix solution
in acetonitrile for preparation of calibration standards was prepared
from the individual stock solutions to yield 10 mg/ml.
Sample preparation
The acetate-buffered QuEChERS sample preparation method for
pesticides (AOAC Official Method 2007.01) was applied to all the
samples. After homogenization with a house-hold mill (equipped
with stainless steel knives), a 15 g portion of the homogenized
sample was weighed into a 50 ml polytetra fluoro ethylene (PTFE)
tube and 100 ml of 50 mg/ml triphenyl phosphate (TPP) surrogate
standard solution in acetonitrile was added followed by 15 ml of
acetonitrile containing 1% acetic acid (v/v not accounting for purity).
Then, 6 g MgSO4 and 2.5 g sodium acetate trihydrate (equivalent
to 1.5 g of anhydrous form) were added, and the sample was
shaken forcefully for 4 min. The sample was then centrifuged at
4000 rpm for 5 min and 5 ml of the supernatant were transferred to
a 15 ml PTFE tube to which 750 mg MgSO4 and 250 mg PSA were
added. The extract was shaken using a vortex mixer for 20 s and
centrifuged at 4000 rpm again for 5 min. Approximately 3ml of the
supernatant were filtered through a 0.45 mm PTFE filter (13 mm
diameter), and 800 ml portions were transferred to autosampler
vials. The extracts were evaporated to dryness under a stream of
argon and reconstituted in 800 ml acetonitrile/water (20/80, v/v) for
the LC-MS/MS analysis.
For the matrix-matched and standard addition calibrations, 4 to
80 ml of reconstituted samples were transferred into autosampler
glass inserts and 20 ml portions of 0, 250, 500 and 1250 ng/ml
standard mix solutions containing pesticides in 25/75 acetonitrile/
water (v/v) were added to reach the final additional concentrations
of 0, 50, 100 and 250 ng/ g equivalents, respectively.
LC-MS analysis
For LC analysis, an Agilent 1100 HPLC system was used. It
contained a binary pump, a degasser, column thermostat and an
autosampler. A reverse-phase C8 analytical column of 150mm x
4.6mm internal diameter (i.d.) and 5 µm particle size and a guard
column of 125 x 4.6 and 5 mm particle size were coupled to the LC
system. Deionized water containing 0.1% formic acid (mobile phase
component A) and acetonitrile (component B) were employed for
the gradient programme, which started with 20% B for 3 min and
was linearly increased to 100% B in 27 min (held for 3 min). The
column was then re-equilibrated forr 12 min back to 20% B.
Thus, the total run time took 45 min. The flow rate was constant
at 0.6 ml/min, and injection volume was 10 µl. For the MS/MS
analysis, an Applied Biosystems 3200 QTRAP system was used.
Applied Biosystems Analyst 1.4.2 software was used for instrument
control and data processing. For the determination of pesticides,
the commercial method of Applied Biosystems (2005) and its library
was used.
Statistical analysis
1. An Analysis Of Variance (ANOVA) test and a t-Test were
conducted between the 'no wash' and 'salted lukewarm water wash'

results to check their statistical significance. The data is given in
Table 7.
2. The null hypothesis - there is “no correlation” between the
pesticide‟s „no wash‟ residue values and 'salted lukewarm water
wash' residue values. It means the difference between the mean
values of „no wash‟ residual values and „salted lukewarm water
wash values‟ is insignificant”.
3. The alternative hypothesis (the opposite of the null hypothesis) -
there “is a correlation” between the two values.
4. The α-value – Probability that the null hypothesis is valid. This is
assumed as 0.05. This means that 95% of the times the data was
not a result of chance (means good data).
5. The 'p-value' is the α-value resulting at the end if statistical test.
Should be much lower than 0.05. There is sufficient evidence to
conclude that the mean of no wash values is significantly greater
than the mean of salted water wash values. The Null hypothesis
was hence rejected. The t-Tests showed 'p-value' well under 0.05
for almost all results, thus, indicating that the data is statistically
significant.
RESULTS AND DISCUSSION
This study describes the combination of two parallel
methods in the qualitative and quantitative screening of
pesticide residues: (1) qualitative screening for target
pesticides by LC-MS/MS using MRM data and (2)
confirmation, quantitative determination of the frequently
used /or previously detected pesticides using the MRM
method. Compared with other available methods, the
QuEchERS method is believe to give the best result. This
concept was believed to give the widest scope with the
least effort and still give excellent qualitative and
quantitative results, particularly when using QuEChERS
for sample preparation.
FRUITS
Apples
Residual levels for 15 different pesticides have been
tested on apples. Fungicide Pyraclostrobin, Dodine etc,
insecticides Pirimicarb, Thiacloprid and Acetamip etc,
noted negative presence in comparison to the MRL even
before any wash. The data is given in Table 1 and shown
in Figure 1.
1. No wash: Pesticides Diphenylamine, Chlorpyrifos,
Thiabendazole and Malathion were found to be extremely
persistent when tested with “no wash”.
a. Chlorpyrifos was lower than MRL on Pink Lady Apples,
but was heavily persistent on Granny Smith and Gold Del
Yellow apples.
2. Lukewarm water wash: Diphenylamine was low or
nearly absent on Pink Lady apple, while others were still
present. On Granny Smith and Gold Del apples,
Diphenylamine was between 50 to 90% above MRL.
3. Salted Lukewarm water wash: Thiabendazole and
Malathion were still persistent on all the 3 varieties.
Average percentage deviation from the MRL was 165
Dasika et al. 21
and 45% respectively.
a. Chlorpyrifos was still shown high on Granny Smith and
Gold Del apples.
Grapes
No Wash: The fungicides Imazalil and Thiabendazole
remained approximately 70 and over 100% above the
MRL respectively. Insecticide Phosmet, on an average
was found to be 50% above MRL. The data is given in
Table 2 and shown in Figures 2 and 3.
1. Black grapes had higher initial residual values than
green grapes for all pesticides.
2. Lukewarm Water Wash: Phosmet was found to go
below MRL, but others were still present, but showed
decrease of about 20 to 25% in residual levels.
3. Salted Lukewarm water wash: Green grapes showed
Imazalil closer to MRL, but Thiabendazole was still about
50% more than MRL. Black grapes showed much higher
residual values of these 2 pesticides.
Pears
All the seven tested pesticides on the green pear were
initially present in relatively low quantities compared to
the residue levels on the apples. The only chemical
where the residue after cleaning with salted water,
greater than the MRL was Thiabendazole. After
lukewarm water wash, the residue level of Thiabendazole
was 78% above the MRL; after a salted lukewarm water
wash, it was 43% above. The data is given in Table 3.
Guava
All the pesticide residues on the guava were well under
the prescribed level before any wash, excepting
Thiabendazole. After the wash with lukewarm water,
Thiabendazole residue was still above, while after salted
lukewarm water wash, the Thiabendazole residue went
down to Non Detectable (ND) in comparison to MRL. The
data is given in Table 4.
Vegetables
Egg plant or Brinjal
No Wash: Eggplants showed the most pesticides that
have residue levels over the MRL. They ranged from 100
to 500% above MRL.
Lukewarm Water Wash: The overall residue levels of all
pesticides tested showed significant improvement with
values going down anywhere from 50 to 80% when
compared against no wash readings. However, at this
22 J. Environ. Chem. Ecotoxicol.

Table 1. Pesticide residues in Apple.

Granny Smith Green Apple

Maximum residue limit
S/N Pesticide No wash Lukewarm water wash Salted lukewarm water wash
(mg/kg)
1 Pyraclostrobin 0.3 0.05 ND ND
2 Dithiocarbamates 3 2.2 1.9 1.7
3 Dodine 5 3.4 2.5 2.2
4 Acetamiprid 0.1 0.07 ND ND
5 Diphenylamine 5 7.8 3.4 2.8
6 Dithiocarbamates 3 2.2 1.3 1.2
7 Imazalil 5 3.8 2.7 2.4
8 Phosmet 10 9.2 7.5 6.4
9 Pirimicarb 1 0.06 ND ND
10 Chlorpyrifos 0.5 2.8 1.7 1.1
11 Captan 3 2.2 1.8 1.7
12 Dithiocarbamates 3 2.6 2.3 2.1
13 Malathion 0.5 1.2 1 0.8
14 Thiacloprid 0.3 0.2 0.18 0.18
15 Thiabendazole 10 43.2 37.4 31

Pink Lady Apple

S/N Pesticide Maximum residue limit No Wash Lukewarm water wash Salted lukewarm water wash
1 Diphenylamine 5 6 3.5 2
2 Phosmet 10 8 5 4
3 Chlorpyrifos 0.5 0.14 0.1 0.08
4 Malathion 0.5 0.9 0.7 0.6
5 Thiabendazole 10 36.8 29 27.3

Gold Del Michigan Yellow Apple

S/N Pesticide Maximum residue limit No Wash Lukewarm water wash Salted lukewarm water wash
1 Diphenylamine 5 9.6 5.4 4.2
2 Phosmet 10 12 9.5 8.6
3 Chlorpyrifos 0.5 3.4 1.9 0.8
4 Malathion 0.5 1.8 0.9 0.8
5 Thiabendazole 10 46.8 37.7 32.6

Figure 1. Average pesticide residues (Pink Lady, Granny Smith, Gold Del Apples).
 Dasika et al. 23

Table 2. Pesticide residues in grapes.

Green grapes
S/N Pesticide Max residue limit (mg/kg) No wash Lukewarm water wash Salted lukewarm water wash
1 Imazalil 5 8.6 6.9 5.4
2 Thiabendazole 10 21.4 17 14.7
3 Phosmet 10 11.8 8.9 7.6
4 Decamethrin 0.05 0.03 ND ND

Black grapes
S/N Pesticide Max residue limit (mg/kg) No wash Lukewarm water wash Salted lukewarm water wash
1 Imazalil 5 9.3 8.2 6.6
2 Thiabendazole 10 32 27.4 21
3 Phosmet 10 16.7 11.3 8.9
4 Decamethrin 0.05 0.05 0.04 0.02

Figure 2. Pesticide residues in green grapes.

Figure 3. Pesticide residues on black grapes.

stage more washing will be required to bring the residue significantly reduced, but still 22% above MRL.
levels closer to MRL. Chlorpyrifos, Thiabendazole, Acephate residues were
Salted Lukewarm water wash: Chlorothalonil residues also very high suggesting another round of wash, which
showed 300% above MRL. Diphenylamine residues was out of scope for the project. The data is given in
24 J. Environ. Chem. Ecotoxicol.

Table 3. Pesticide residues in pear.

Pear
Max residue Deviation from MRL Deviation from Salted lukewarm Deviation
S/N Pesticide No wash Lukewarm water wash
limit (mg/kg) (%) MRL (%) Water Wash from MRL (%)
1 Diphenylamine 5 6.1 22 4.3 -14 3.4 -32
2 Imazalil 5 3 -40 2.1 -58 1.8 -64
3 Phosmet 10 11 10 8.9 -11 8.8 -12
4 Pirimicarb 1 1.8 80 1.2 20 0.6 -40
5 Chlorpyrifos 0.5 0.6 20 0.3 -40 0.2 -60
6 Captan 3 0.06 -98 ND ND ND ND
7 Thiabendazole 10 26.4 164 17.8 78 14.3 43

Table 4. Pesticide residues in guava.

Guava
Name of the pesticide Max residue limit (mg/kg) No Wash Lukewarm water wash Salted lukewarm water wash
Diphenylamine 5 4.8 2.2 1.2
Imazalil 5 4.2 3.6 3.4
Phosmet 10 9.3 7.9 7.2
Chlorpyrifos 0.5 0.43 0.28 0.18
Thiabendazole 10 0.02 ND ND

Table 5 and shown in Figure 4. level on Red pepper. Conclusions

Bell Peppers
1. No Wash: Bell Peppers, both green and red
had Chlorpyrifos, and Diphenylamine residues
present from 75 to 100% above MRL.
Thiabendazole was found but in comparison to
other vegetables, this was relatively in smaller
levels.
2. Lukewarm water wash: Chlorpyrifos and
Diphenylamine persist and are about 40 to 60%
above MRL. Thiabendazole was 23% above MRL
on green one, while it was just about the MRL
3. Salted Lukewarm water wash: Diphenylamine
is still persistent 25 to 44% above MRL, while
others have shown great reduction. The data is
given in Table 6 and shown in Figures 5 and 6.
All fruits and vegetables had great disparity
between the maximum Thiabendazole levels
instituted by the EPA and the levels found on the
produce. This was especially evident on apples
and Indian eggplants. Even after washing the fruit
or vegetable, the Thiabendazole residue still
remained higher than the tolerable levels. The
only exceptions to this pattern are Red bell
peppers and guavas.
The developed combination of the two methods
described above permitted the fast and easy
qualitative screening of target pesticides in a 45
min LCMS/ MS run.
Although the manual evaluation of the given
chromatograms increased the analysis time by an
additional 15 min per sample, very little time, cost
and labour was spent on sample preparation. In
the case of dirty samples, some false indications
were observed, but these were caught by the use
of the MRM confirmatory and quantitative method
for the more common pesticides. The construction
 Dasika et al. 25

Table 5. Pesticide residues in eggplants or brinjal.

Indian Egg Plant

S/N Pesticide Maximum residue limit (mg/kg) No Wash Lukewarm water wash Salted lukewarm water wash
1 Diphenylamine 5 9.8 5.3 4.4
2 Imazalil 5 4.2 2.5 1.8
3 Phosmet 10 9 8.4 6.8
4 Chlorpyrifos 0.5 1.4 1 0.8
5 Thiabendazole 10 44.1 29.3 14.3
6 Chlorothalonil 0.1 0.5 0.3 0.19
7 Endosulfan 2 2.2 1.9 1.5
8 Acephate 2 5.2 4.2 3.6
Chinese Egg Plant
S/N Pesticide Maximum residue limit (mg/kg) No Wash Lukewarm water wash Salted lukewarm water wash
1 Diphenylamine 5 9.8 7.3 6.1
2 Imazalil 5 3.8 2.9 2.4
3 Phosmet 10 9.3 6.9 6.4
5 Chlorpyrifos 0.5 2.1 1.7 1.3
6 Thiabendazole 10 33.2 24.1 21
7 Chlorothalonil 0.1 0.6 0.45 0.38
8 Endosulfan 2 2.8 2.3 1.8
9 Acephate 2 7.8 5.7 4.7

Figure 4. Average pesticide residues (Indian and Chinese eggplants).

of standard addition calibration was carried out with the
same extract that was previously injected for screening
the compounds. A large calibration database in different
matrices was collected to show the consistency of the
average calibration slope, which helped us check the
accuracy of the calculated results from the method of
standard additions.
Apples
Test revealed increased residue levels of Chlorpyrifos,
Thiabendazole, Malathion and Diphenylamine. Most
fungicides, insecticides and pesticides have been
washed away with the lukewarm water wash.
Pink Lady Apples showed no residue of Chlorpyrifos
and showed only Malathion and Thiabendazole before
wash and have greatly reduced after lukewarm water wash.
However, Granny Smith Apples and Gold Del Apples
showed higher residue of Chlorpyrifos after the lukewarm
water wash.
Grapes
Imazalil is among the persistent pesticides on grapes with
26 J. Environ. Chem. Ecotoxicol.

Table 6. Pesticide residues in bell peppers.

Red Bell pepper

Max residue limit No Deviation from Lukewarm water Deviation from Salted lukewarm Deviation from
S/N Pesticide
(mg/kg) Wash MRL (%) wash MRL (%) water wash MRL (%)
1 Chloropyrifos 2 3.5 75 2.7 35 2.2 10
2 Imazilil 5 4.8 -4 3.7 -26 3.3 -34
3 Thiabendazole 10 11.4 14 10 0 9.7 -3
4 Diphenylamine 5 8.7 74 6.9 38 6.3 26

Green Bell pepper

Max residue limit No Deviation from Lukewarm water Deviation from Salted lukewarm Deviation from
S/N Pesticide
(mg/kg) Wash MRL (%) wash MRL (%) water wash MRL (%)
1 Chloropyrifos 2 4.1 105 2.9 45 2.3 15
2 Imazilil 5 3.5 -30 2.4 -52 1.8 -64
3 Thiabendazole 10 14.6 46 12.3 23 11.5 15
4 Diphenylamine 5 9.8 96 7.9 58 7.2 44

Figure 5. Pesticide residue analysis on red bell pepper.

 Dasika et al. 27

Figure 6. Average pesticide residue analysis (green and red bell peppers).

Table 7. Statistical analysis.

Statistical Tests
Standard deviation for salted
Pesticide tested α-value Degrees of freedom t-value Look-up t-value p-value Statistically significant?
lukewarm water wash
Diphenylamine 0.05 15.86 4.05 1.753 0.00097 2.04 yes
Chlorpyrifos 0.05 12.56 1.88 1.782 0.085 0.83 yes
Imazalil 0.05 18.74 2.13 1.74 0.046 1.64 yes
Thiabendazole 0.05 17.4 2.31 1.74 0.033 8.5 yes
Phosmet 0.05 12.96 3.45 1.771 0.0043 1.55 yes

allowed MRL of 5mg/kg. When consumed over present above MRL values before wash, but go under MRL even before any wash, except slightly
longer periods, i.e. 2 to 5 times (50 mg/kg/day) down after lukewarm water wash. Their residual higher Thiabendazole, which is non-toxic. After
more than MRL showed some mortality issues values drop further after salted lukewarm water salted lukewarm water wash, all the pesticides
and significant brain enzyme depression. wash. were well under MRL, even Thiabendazole.

Green pears Guava Green and red bell peppers

Chlorpyrifos, Phosmet, and Diphenylamine are The residue levels of most toxic pesticides were Chlorpyrifos and Diphenylamine are significantly
28 J. Environ. Chem. Ecotoxicol.
present even after salted lukewarm water wash.
Eggplants
There are significant levels of Chlorpyrifos and
Diphenylamine without any wash. After salted lukewarm
water wash, Diphenylamine was under the MRL, but
Chlorpyrifos remained higher. Although the difference
might not be much, Chlorpyrifos is very toxic even in low
doses.
Farmer’s survey report conclusion
In summary, the survey reflected that, no produce can be
consumed right after it is purchased from the market. It
may be safe to pick produce and consume right away on
smaller farms. The survey reports from the farmers
indicated the following:
1. Farmers use IPM (Integrated Pest Management)
2. Pest management which relies on common sense and
information about pests and pesticides in farm.
3. Used to lessen the pest damage with least harm to
humans, plants, and their environment.
4. Big farmers use pesticides heavily, but with a gap of 10
to 14 days before each application.
5. Small farmers do not have the space or need to use
heavy pesticides. Most produce can be eaten right after
picking without washing.
6. However, large farmers, because of the size rely more
heavily on pesticides.
7. Large farmers employ sophisticated cleaning
mechanisms before the product is sold.
REFERENCE
Agu¨ era A, Piedra L, Hernando MD, Ferna´ ndez-Alba AR,Contreras M
(2000). Splitless large-volume GC-MS injection for the analysis of
organophosphorus and organochlorine pesticides in vegetables using
a miniaturised ethyl acetate extraction. Analyst., 125:1397–1402.
Anastassiades M, Lehotay SJ, Štajnbaher D, Schenck FJ (2003). Fast
and easy multiresidue method employing acetonitrile
extraction/partitioning and “dispersive solidphase extraction” for the
determination of pesticide residues in produce. J. AOAC. Int., 86:
412-431.
Andersson A, Pålsheden H (1991). Comparison of the efficiency of
different GLC multi-residue methods on crops containing pesticide
residues. Fresenius J. Anal. Chem., 339: 365-367.
Applied Biosystems (2005). Application Note 114AP38-02.Available
from: http://www.absciex.com/LITERATURE/ cms_041987.pdf/
Banerjee K, Oulkar DP, Dasgupta S, Patil SB, Patil SH, Savant R,
Adsule PG.2007.
Cook J, Beckett MP, Reliford B, Hammock W, Engel M (1999).
Mutiresidue analysis of pesticides in fresh fruits and vegetables using
procedures developed by the Florida Department of Agriculture and
Consumer Services. J. AOAC Int., 82: 1419-1435.
Fern ndez-Alba AR, Garc a-Reyes JF (2008). Large-scale multi-
residue methods for pesticides and their degradation products in food
by advanced LC-MS. Trac-Trend. Anal. Chem., 27 (11): 973-990.
Fillion J, Sauvé F, Selwyn J (2000). Multiresidue method for the
determination of residues of 251 pesticides in fruits and vegetables
by gas chromatography/mass spectrometry and liquid
chromatography with fluorescence detection. J. AOAC Int., 83: 698-
713.
Food and Drug Administration (1999). Pesticide Analytical Manual
Volume I: Multiresidue Methods, 3rd Edition, U.S. Department of
Health and Human Services, Washington, DC.
General Inspectorate for Health Protection (1996). Analytical Methods
for Pesticide Residues in Foodstuffs, 6th edition, Ministry of Health
Welfare and Sport, The Netherlands.
http://www.cfsan.fda.gov/~frf/pami3.html
Lee SM, Papathakis ML, Hsiao-Ming CF, Carr JE (1991). Multipesticide
residue method for fruits and vegetables: California Department of
Food and Agriculture. Fresenius J. Anal. Chem., 339, 376-383.
Lehotay SJ (2000). Determination of pesticide residues in nonfatty
foods by supercritical fluid extraction and gas chromatography/mass
spectrometry: collaborative study. J. AOAC Int., 83, 680-697.
Lehotay SJ, Hiemstra M, van Bodegraven P, de Kok A (2007).
Validation of a fast and easy method for the determination of more
than 200 pesticide residues in fruits and vegetables using gas and
liquid chromatography and mass spectrometric detection. J. AOAC
Int., 88 (2005) 595.
Luke MA, Froberg JE, Masumoto HT (1975). Extraction and cleanup of
organochlorine, organophosphate, organonitrogen, and hydrocarbon
pesticides in produce for determination by gas-liquid
chromatography. J. Assoc. Off. Anal. Chem., 58, 1020-1026.
Sheridan RS, Meola JR (1999) Analysis of pesticide residues in fruits,
vegetables, and milk by gas chromatography/tandem mass
spectrometry. J. AOAC Int., 82, 982-990.
Specht W, Tilkes M (1980). Gaschromatographische bestimmung von
rückständen an pflanzenbehandlungsmitteln nach clean-up über gel-
chromatographie und mini-kieselgelsäulen- chromatographie.
Fresenius J. Anal. Chem., 301, 300-307.