Comparative efficacy of mitigation techniques for the detoxification of Prunus persica (L.) from selected pesticide resi
- PDF / 521,532 Bytes
- 9 Pages / 595.276 x 790.866 pts Page_size
- 62 Downloads / 195 Views
ENVIRONMENTAL TOXICOLOGY AND RISKS ASSOCIATED WITH HUMAN HEALTH
Comparative efficacy of mitigation techniques for the detoxification of Prunus persica (L.) from selected pesticide residues Neelab 1 & Muhammad Rafique Asi 2 & Sundas Kali 1 & Muhammad Asam Riaz 3,4 & Amir Waseem 5 & Muhammad Mazhar Iqbal 6,7 & Nauman Ahmad 8 & Mazhar Iqbal 1 & Noshin Masood 1,9 & Mazhar Iqbal Zafar 1 Received: 18 October 2019 / Accepted: 1 April 2020 # Springer-Verlag GmbH Germany, part of Springer Nature 2020
Abstract Fruits are the valuable and important components of human diet. Among them, Prunus persica is a rich source of different minerals and dietary fibers. In Pakistan, the total annual production of P. persica is approximately 837,000 tons. In order to enhance agricultural yield and quality, the plant protection agents are employed during fruit production. Ultimately, this in turn leads to the incorporation of pesticide residues in fruits. In present study, an effort has been made for the determination of three selected pesticide residues, i.e., chlorpyrifos (CPF), difenoconazole (DFN), and carbendazim (CRB) in samples of P. persica collected from Swat territory. Samples were analyzed through high performance liquid chromatography (HPLC). Results revealed the occurrence of all three pesticides in studied samples; however, levels of CPF and DFN were found to be higher than MRLs. Moreover, the effects of different mitigation techniques revealed that highest reduction of CPF, DFN, and CRB (86%, 97%, 89%) residues was obtained by treatment with 10% CH3COOH followed by 10% NaCl (74%, 78%, 84%). The lowest reduction was obtained by treatment with 10% solution of NaOH (52%, 55%, 63%). Keywords Prunus persica . Chlorpyrifos . Difenoconazole . Carbendazim . Acetic acid . HPLC
Responsible Editor: Philippe Garrigues * Mazhar Iqbal Zafar [email protected]
1
Department of Environmental Sciences, Faculty of Biological Sciences, Quaid-i-Azam University, Islamabad 45320, Pakistan
Neelab [email protected]
2
Nuclear Institute for Agriculture and Biology (NIAB), Faisalabad 38000, Pakistan
Muhammad Rafique Asi [email protected]
3
Department of Entomology, University of Georgia, Athens, GA 30602-2603, USA
Sundas Kali [email protected]
4
Department of Entomology, College of Agriculture, University of Sargodha, Sargodha, Pakistan
Muhammad Asam Riaz [email protected]
5
Department of Chemistry, Quaid-i-Azam University, Islamabad 45320, Pakistan
Amir Waseem [email protected]
6
Laboratory of Analytical Chemistry and Applied Eco-chemistry, Department of Applied Analytical and Physical Chemistry, Ghent University, Ghent, Belgium
7
Soil and Water Testing Laboratory, Department of Agriculture, Chiniot, Government of Punjab, Pakistan
8
Department of Econometrics and Statistics, Pakistan Institute of Development Economics, Islamabad, Pakistan
9
Environment and Sustainability School of Mines, University of Exeter Penryn, Penryn TR10 9DF, UK
Muhammad Mazhar Iqbal [email protected] Nauman Ahmad naumanahmad_14@pid
Data Loading...
