Food provides essential supplies of life sustaining nutrients, vitamins, and minerals but it may also contain a variety of naturally-occurring toxins in varying quantities. Some toxins present a health risk to consumers but this usually occurs only when certain food items have not been properly prepared. Research has identified a beneficial role of some of these naturally occurring substances, such as preventing illnesses. However, there is a more important risk of contamination by synthetic compounds such as pesticides. Public policy should be directed toward reducing any unnecessary overburden of pesticide residue in the human diet (
1). Cereal production, among other food types, has a historical association to human development. Cultivation of cereal crops has played a very important role in the so-called ‘‘Neolithic revolution’’, in which humans first achieved full control over their food supply. This is accepted as the point that human development shifted to formation of agricultural societies and, with that a new concept of civilization was borne that has partly survived until today (
2). Cereals constitute one of the most intensely produced and consumed food products in the world. They are an important global product and an important part of the human diet, as a source of energy and high contents of essential fatty acids, nutritious proteins, and dietary fiber; cereals also supply important minerals, vitamins, and other micronutrients that are essential for the maintenance of optimal health. In particular, cereal grains are the basis of bread, which is one mankind’s earliest food products and that currently constitutes a major food technology. There is currently huge demand for cereals, and cereal derivatives to feed the ever-growing global population and significant effort is needed to improve production yields. Pest control makes an important contribution to maximizing yields. There are more than 1100 pesticides currently registered on the status list of all active pesticide substances in the European Union (EU) market (
3). However there is a negative effect from application of pesticides in agricultural practice, many pesticides are harmful to the environment and are known as or suspected to be toxic to humans. There is increasing public concern about the possible health risks of pesticide residue in the diet that has deeply modified strategies for crop protection, with the main emphasis on food quality and safety. Widespread health concerns have led to strict regulation of maximum residue limits (MRLs) of pesticide residue in food products. To date, more than 17,000 European Community MRLs have been set for various commodities for 133 active pesticide substances (
4). Pesticides have been used for many years. In earlier times they were used to protect against fungi and insect pests and/or to provide quality preservation (
5). This great increase in the use of pesticides has occurred with the development of new organic chemicals following the two major world wars; WWI and WW2. In addition to the chemicals used to control fungi and insects, new developments have been introduced such as; nematocides, herbicides, rodenticides, avicides, defoliants, and wood preservatives (
6). Discussions on risks associated with human exposure to pesticides pay particular attention to direct poisoning and fatality, potential induction of cancer, and effects on reproduction and immune and nervous systems, diabetes, neurodegenerative disorders such as Parkinson’s disease, chronic diseases, and genetic damage, epigenetic modifications, endocrine disruption, mitochondrial dysfunction, oxidative stress, endoplasmic reticulum stress, and diminished intelligence (
1,
5,
7,
8). In agriculture for wheat production, pesticides such pirimicarb, chlorpyrifos, carbaryl, malathion, propiconazole, tebuconazole and triadimenol are used to prevent infestations of insects, fungi, and weeds. The European Union (EU) has set maximum residue limits (MRLs) for the above-mentioned pesticides in wheat crops at 0.5, 0.05, 0.5, 8, 0.05, 0.2, and 0.2 mg/kg respectively (
9).
Today, the most frequently employed analytical approach to determine levels of pesticide in foods is based on mass spectrometry, such as Gas chromatography–mass spectrometry (GC–MS). In the case of Green aspects and environmental risks, Anastassiades
et al. suggested a simple, safe, cheap, high sample throughput method namely QuEChERS in pesticides residue analysis (
10). This study was performed according to the safe QUECHERS method.Over the past decades, approaches to trace level determination of pesticides have moved away from the use of GC with selective detectors including electron capture detection (ECD) (
11,
12) and nitrogen phosphorus detection (NPD) (
13). To mass spectrometer (MS). detectors which are more sensitive and selective (
14). The use of mass spectrometry, with its information-rich content and explicit confirmation, is recommended for monitoring pesticide residues in the entire world (
15-
17).
This is the first attempt in Iran using GC-MS-SIM technique and spike calibration curve for simultaneous determination of determine 58 pesticides with difference in physicochemical properties in wheat flour marketed in Tehran, Iran. The other outcome of this study is calculating the estimated daily intake (EDT) of the pesticides via wheat flour and its comparison with the acceptable daily intake (ADI). Methods
Samples Collection
Tehran city was divided into five districts and samples from each district was collected independently and equally of different Bakery in January of 2014 (Barbari (n=10), Sangak (n=10). Baguette (n=10) and Lavash (n=10)).
Sample preparation
For sample preparation, an aliquot of 5 μL of internal standard solution (Triphenylmethane: 1000 mg/L) was added to 10 g of wheat flour samples in a warring blender and after being left for 1 h at ambient temperature in dark, 12 mL acetonitrile was added. The mixture was blended at high speed for 1 min. One gram of NaCl and tow grams MgSO4 were added to the mixture and blending was continued for an additional 90 sec. After centrifugation for 5 min at 4500 rpm in – 5 °C, 1 g of Mg SO4 and 0.3 g of PSA added to the supernatant. The mixture was blended at high speed for 2 min. The mixture was centrifuged again. The supernatant was evaporated to dryness by Nitrogen gas. The residue was reconstituted in 1 mL toluene and the mixture was blended at high speed for 3 min, then 2 μL of the solution was injected into gas chromatograph (
Figure 1) (
18).
Flow diagram of the procedure of pesticides determination in wheat flour samples by GC/MS method
A representative chromatogram obtained for the 58 pesticides and internal standard
Spiked calibration curve for Propoxure in wheat flour
Chromatogram of wheat flour sample spiked with 2, 4 DDE at 200 µg/kg and contaminated baguette flour sample with 2, 4 DDE at 19.88 µg/kg (ppb).
Chromatogram of wheat flour sample spiked with 2, 4 DDE at 200 µg/kg and contaminated baguette flour sample with 2, 4 DDE at 13.7 µg/kg (ppb
| Compound | Total average recovery(%), (n=18) | Range of RSDr(%) (n=6) |
|---|
| Propoxure 1 | 116.60 | 8.22-15.07 |
| Dichlorvos | 99.64 | 7.13-16.69 |
| Captan | 115.77 | 0.88-19.56 |
| Carbaryl 1 | 110.06 | 1.00-18.80 |
| Propoxure 2 | 108.84 | 1.20-19.60 |
| Diphenyl amine | 110.92 | 3.80-14.90 |
| Alpha HCH | 102.08 | 5.90-16.60 |
| Dimetoate | 99.17 | 1.72-14.93 |
| Beta HCH | 96.10 | 3.70-14.70 |
| Gamma HCH | 102.43 | 7.40-18.40 |
| Diazinon | 114.56 | 2.00-19.63 |
| Etrimfos | 111.56 | 5.11-18.91 |
| Chlortalonil | 101.48 | 4.92-19.30 |
| Pirimicarb | 101.62 | 3.48-16.21 |
| Chlorpyrifos- methyl | 112.17 | 1.58-12.03 |
| Carbaryl 2 | 89.68 | 7.34-19.75 |
| Metalaxyl | 104.03 | 4.20-18.23 |
| Heptachlor | 95.34 | 5.20-19.55 |
| Primiphos methyl | 107.82 | 3.85-13.60 |
| Fenitrothion | 106.22 | 2.80-19.00 |
| Malathion | 109.13 | 3.30-17.80 |
| Fention | 109.85 | 3.40-19.75 |
| Chlorpyrifos | 104.28 | 2.80-18.85 |
| Aldrine | 106.33 | 3.96-19.13 |
| Dicofol | 113.57 | 4.85-16.42 |
| Bioalthrin | 100.89 | 6.16-19.30 |
| Heptachlor-exo-epoxide | 109.00 | 5.69-15.82 |
| Triadimenol 1 and 2 | 100.01 | 4.50-13.90 |
| Heptachlor-endo-epoxide | 88.48 | 8.15-19.51 |
| Procymidone | 89.42 | 2.63-17.51 |
| 2,4 DDE | 101.35 | 9.09-17.60 |
| Fenamiphos | 105.40 | 5.85-17.25 |
| Alpha-endosulfan | 97.25 | 5.67-17.40 |
| Hexaconazole | 106.81 | 2.34-12.26 |
| 4,4 DDE | 107.61 | 6.32-12.56 |
| Dieldrin | 100.43 | 4.89-19.58 |
| Ethion | 86.61 | 5.32-18.15 |
| Trifloxystrobin | 102.19 | 3.51-16.85 |
| Propiconazole 1 | 91.91 | 8.08-18.88 |
| Propiconazole 2 | 106.21 | 7.71-13.95 |
| Edifenphos | 88.80 | 4.52-14.40 |
| Endosulfan-suiphat | 110.65 | 1.64-18.61 |
| Propargite | 115.80 | 10.49-19.93 |
| Piperonyl butoxide | 102.08 | 2.63-17.10 |
| Tebuconazole | 102.48 | 2.98-18.96 |
| Fenpropathrin | 94.73 | 10.97-18.38 |
| Etoxazole | 115.73 | 7.47-11.79 |
| Fenazaquin | 108.26 | 11.19-18.62 |
| Tetradifon | 111.46 | 4.19-18.49 |
| Phosalon | 111.43 | 2.84-16.91 |
| Azinphos-Methyl | 82.46 | 5.68-17.91 |
| Lambda cyhalothrin | 101.46 | 5.08-14.62 |
| Azinphos- Ethyl | 108.30 | 5.89-18.14 |
| Permethrin 1 | 104.54 | 2.80-11.10 |
| Permethrin 2 | 104.97 | 1.27-19.96 |
| Fenvalerate 1 | 102.04 | 2.43-17.14 |
| Fenvalerate 2 | 94.43 | 2.45-18.80 |
| Range | 81.46-116.06 | 0.88-19.96 |
| Sample | Pesticides | Concentration(µg/Kg) | MRL(µg/Kg) |
|---|
| Baguette | 2,4-DDE | 19.88±15.24 | 50 |
| Barbari | 2,4-DDE | 13.7±15.24 | 50 |
| Sangak1 | Malathion | 50.96±11.38 | 500 |
| Sangak2 | Malathion | 62.088±11.38 | 500 |
| Pesticides | ADI | EDIa،c،d | ADI% | EDIb،c،d | ADI% |
|---|
| Malathion | 300 | 0.08 | 0.02 | 0.50 | 0.16 |
| 2،4، DDE | - | 0.10 | - | 0.16 | - |
The EDI based on the average concentration of contaminants
The EDI based on maximum contamination
Calculated on basis of the adult body weight (60 kg)
Per capita wheat consumption is 482.2 gr/day.
Chemicals and reagents
All pesticide standards were purchased from Dr. Ehrenstorfer Co. (Augsburg, Germany). All organic solvents, intended for extraction, were at least of Chromatography grade and purchased from Merck (Darmstadt, Germany). Bulk quantities of anhydrous MgSO4 and NaCl were obtained from Merck (Darmstadt, Germany).
GC–SQ/MS
An Agilent Technologies 6890N Network GC System chromatographs (Wilmington, USA) with a SQ mass detector and equipped with an Agilent 7683B autosampler (Agilent technologies, USA) was used. A HP-5 capillary column (30 m × 0.25 mm I.D., 1 μm film thicknesses) was used for separation
Quality assurance/Quality control
For quality assurance of the results method validation was carried out according to ICH criteria and for quality assurance of the tests in each run two quality control samples were tested with along with the real samples.
Calibration standards
Individual stock standard solutions (10 µg/mL) were prepared in ethyl acetate and stored in dark at – 20 °C. They were kept for 1 h at ambient temperature prior to their use.
Spiked calibration standards were prepared by addition of 10 μL, 25 μL, 50 μL, 100 μL, 200 μL, 300 μL, 500 μL and 1000 μL of mixed standard stock solution respectively to 10 g of blank wheat flour samples in each case. A stock solution of triphenylmethane (TPM) in ethyl acetate at concentration of 500 µg/L was used as internal standard. An aliquot of 5 μL of TPM solution in ethyl acetate was added to the spiked flour sample as internal standard. The samples so obtained were treated as described in sample preparation section.
Recovery studies
For recovery determination, spiked wheat flour blank samples at concentration levels of 15, 25, 75, 150, 250, 450 and 750 µg/mL were prepared in triplicates and then treated according to the procedure described in sample preparation. Calibration curve was drawn for each pesticide by Excel program
GC-SQ–MS analysis
The GC-SQ-MS was employed with helium as the carrier gas at a constant flow rate of 1 mL/min. The oven temperature started at 75 °C and remained at this temperature for 3 min increasing to 120 °C in a ramp rate of 25 °C/min and then increased to 300 °C at 5 °C/min ramp, holding at 300 °C for 11 min. The injection port was adjusted at 250 °C and the splitless mode was used.
After acquisition of the total ion chromatogram for the mixed stock standard solutions in scan mode, peaks were identified by their retention time and mass spectra. The identification was confirmed by comparing the relative abundances for three ions (one quantifier and two qualifiers) of the experimental standards to the known relative abundances of the Pest Library reference spectra. The most abundant ion that showed no evidence of chromatographic interference and had the highest signal-to-noise ratio was taken for quantification purposes.
Quantitation
The concentrations of pesticides were determined by interpolation of the relative peak areas for each pesticide to internal standard peak area in the sample on the spiked calibration curve. In order to compensate for losses during sample processing and instrumental analysis, internal standard (TPM) was used.
Uncertainty management
Uncertainty using the coverage factor of 2 and at the confidence level of 95% was expressed (
19,
20).