Skip to main page content
U.S. flag

An official website of the United States government

Dot gov

The .gov means it’s official.
Federal government websites often end in .gov or .mil. Before sharing sensitive information, make sure you’re on a federal government site.

Https

The site is secure.
The https:// ensures that you are connecting to the official website and that any information you provide is encrypted and transmitted securely.

Access keys NCBI Homepage MyNCBI Homepage Main Content Main Navigation
. 2023 Jun 22;12(13):2454.
doi: 10.3390/foods12132454.

Multivariate Assessment and Risk Ranking of Pesticide Residues in Citrus Fruits

Jelena Radulović  1 , Milica Lučić  2 , Aleksandra Nešić  3 , Antonije Onjia  4
Affiliations

Multivariate Assessment and Risk Ranking of Pesticide Residues in Citrus Fruits

Jelena Radulović et al. Foods. .

Abstract

Pesticides are extensively used in the cultivation and postharvest protection of citrus fruits, therefore continuous monitoring and health risk assessments of their residues are required. This study aimed to investigate the occurrence of pesticide residues on citrus fruits and to evaluate the acute and chronic risk for adults and children. The risk ranking of twenty-three detected pesticides was carried out according to a matrix ranking scheme. Multiple residues were detected in 83% of 76 analyzed samples. In addition, 28% contained pesticides at or above maximum residue levels (MRLs). The most frequently detected pesticides were imazalil, azoxystrobin, and dimethomorph. According to the risk ranking method, imazalil was classified in the high-risk group, followed by prochloraz, chlorpyrifos, azinphos-methyl, tebufenpyrad, and fenpiroximate, which were considered to pose a medium risk. The majority of detected pesticides (74%) posed a low risk. The health risk assessment indicated that imazalil and thiabendazole contribute to acute (HQa) and chronic (HQc) dietary risk, respectively. The HQc was negligible for the general population, while the HQa of imazalil and thiabendazole exceeded the acceptable level in the worst-case scenario. Cumulative chronic/acute risk (HIc/HIa) assessment showed that chronic risk was acceptable in all samples for children and adults, while the acute risk was unacceptable in 5.3% of citrus fruits for adults and 26% of citrus fruits for children. Sensitivity analyses indicated that the ingestion rate and individual body weight were the most influential risk factors.

Keywords: GC-MS/MS; LC-MS/MS; Monte Carlo simulation; QuEChERS; health risks; sensitivity analysis.

PubMed Disclaimer

Conflict of interest statement

The authors declare no conflict of interest.

Figures

Figure 1
Figure 1
Violin plots illustrating the distribution of pesticides in citrus fruits.
Figure 2
Figure 2
Principal component analysis (PCA) analysis of imazalil (IMA), thiabendazole (TBZ), propiconazole (PRP), pyrimethanil (PYM), carbendazim (CRB), metolachlor (MTLC), hexythiazox (HXTZ), azinphos-methy (AZM), azoxystrobin (AZX), boscalid (BOS), imidacloprid (IMD), dimethomorph (DMM), prochloraz (PRO), tebufenpyrad (TEBU), pyraclostrobin (PYR), tebufenozide (TBF), acetamiprid (ACP), chlorpyrifos (CPF), etofenprox (EFP), picoxystrobin (PC), fenpyroximat (FP), spirotetramat (STM), and fluazifop (FL).
Figure 3
Figure 3
Cluster analyses of pesticide residues of citrus fruits.
Figure 4
Figure 4
Risk ranking for the 23 detected pesticides in the citrus fruit samples. (A) The low-risk group, where pesticides scored below 15. (B) The medium-risk group, where pesticides scored from 15 to 19.9. (C) The high-risk group, where pesticides score at or above 20.
Figure 5
Figure 5
Contribution (%) of pesticide residues to HI for citrus fruits: (a) acute intake risk and (b) chronic intake risk for the consumer group of adults and children.
Figure 6
Figure 6
Hazard index (HI) for adults and children consumers of citrus fruit.
Figure 7
Figure 7
Sensitivity analysis (rank correlation) for human health risk from citrus fruit.
See this image and copyright information in PMC

References

    1. Czech A., Zarycka E., Yanovych D., Zasadna Z., Grzegorczyk I., Kłys S. Mineral Content of the Pulp and Peel of Various Citrus Fruit Cultivars. Biol. Trace Elem. Res. 2020;193:555–563. doi: 10.1007/s12011-019-01727-1. - DOI - PMC - PubMed
    1. Hou J., Liang L., Su M., Yang T., Mao X., Wang Y. Variations in phenolic acids and antioxidant activity of navel orange at different growth stages. Food Chem. 2021;360:129980. doi: 10.1016/j.foodchem.2021.129980. - DOI - PubMed
    1. Saini R.K., Ranjit A., Sharma K., Prasad P., Shang X., Gowda K.G.M., Keum Y.-S. Bioactive Compounds of Citrus Fruits: A Review of Composition and Health Benefits of Carotenoids, Flavonoids, Limonoids, and Terpenes. Antioxidants. 2022;11:239. doi: 10.3390/antiox11020239. - DOI - PMC - PubMed
    1. FAOSTAT Crops and Livestock Products. [(accessed on 17 December 2022)]. Available online: https://www.fao.org/faostat/en/#home.
    1. World Citrus Organisation Citrus World Statistics. 2022. [(accessed on 30 March 2023)]. Available online: https://worldcitrusorganisation.org/activities/citrus-world-statistics/

LinkOut - more resources