Next Article in Journal
Evaluation of Isoflavones as Bone Resorption Inhibitors upon Interactions with Receptor Activator of Nuclear Factor-κB Ligand (RANKL)
Previous Article in Journal
Gold Nanoparticles in Conjunction with Nucleic Acids as a Modern Molecular System for Cellular Delivery
 
 
Font Type:
Arial Georgia Verdana
Font Size:
Aa Aa Aa
Line Spacing:
Column Width:
Background:
Article

Evaluation of Pesticide Residues in Vegetables from the Asir Region, Saudi Arabia

by
Mohamed F. A. Ramadan
1,2,
Mohamed M. A. Abdel-Hamid
2,3,
Montasser M. F. Altorgoman
2,4,
Hamed A. AlGaramah
5,
Mohammed A. Alawi
6,
Ali A. Shati
7,
Hoda A. Shweeta
8 and
Nasser S. Awwad
5,*
1
Pesticide Analysis Research Department, Central Agriculture Pesticide Laboratory, Agriculture Research Centre, Dokki 12618, Giza, Egypt
2
Abha Food Safety Laboratory, Asir Municipality, Abha 61421, Saudi Arabia
3
Department of Chemistry, Faculty of Science, Alexandria University, Alexandria 21524, Egypt
4
Department of Biochemistry, Faculty of Science, Alexandria University, Alexandria 51521, Egypt
5
Research Centre for Advanced Materials Science (RCAMS), King Khalid University, P.O. Box 9004, Abha 61413, Saudi Arabia
6
Inspection and License Department Asir Municipality, Abha 61421, Saudi Arabia
7
Biology Department, Faculty of Science, King Khalid University, Abha 9004, Saudi Arabia
8
College of Pharmacy, Umm Al-Qura University, P.O. Box 715, Makkah 21955, Saudi Arabia
*
Author to whom correspondence should be addressed.
Molecules 2020, 25(1), 205; https://doi.org/10.3390/molecules25010205
Submission received: 12 December 2019 / Revised: 22 December 2019 / Accepted: 25 December 2019 / Published: 3 January 2020

Abstract

:
This study’s aim was to determine the pesticide residues in 10 different vegetable commodities from the Asir region, Saudi Arabia. We evaluated 211 vegetable samples, collected from supermarkets between March 2018 and September 2018, for a total of 80 different pesticides using ultrahigh-performance liquid chromatography–tandem mass spectrometry (UHPLC-MS/MS) and gas chromatography–tandem mass spectrometry (GC-MS/MS) after extraction with a multi-residue method (the QuEChERS method). The results were assessed according to the maximum residue limit (MRL) provided by European regulations for each pesticide in each commodity. All lettuce, cauliflower, and carrot samples were found to be free from pesticide residues. A total of 145 samples (68.7%) contained detectable pesticide residues at or lower than MRLs, and 44 samples (20.9%) contained detectable pesticide residues above MRLs. MRL values were exceeded most often in chili pepper (14 samples) and cucumber (10 samples). Methomyl, imidacloprid, metalaxyl, and cyproconazole were the most frequently detected pesticides. Based on the results of this study, we recommend that a government-supported program for the monitoring of pesticide residues in vegetables be established to promote consumers’ health and achieve sustainable farming systems.

Graphical Abstract

1. Introduction

Maintaining high agricultural output requires the use of pesticides, since, in high-input agricultural production systems, pests, among other crop invaders, including herbs and fungi, inevitably need to be managed [1]. However, reliance on pesticides is unsustainable due to their harmful effects on the environment and human health. The risk to human health comes from direct or indirect exposure to pesticide residues in primary or derived agricultural products [2]. Pesticides play a role in many human health problems, and can exert acute effects, such as dizziness, headaches, rashes, and nausea, and chronic effects, such as cancers, neurotoxicity, genotoxicity, birth defects, impaired fertility, and endocrine system disruption [3]. Children are particularly susceptible to exposure to pesticides [4]. Consequently, governments of different countries have enacted legislation in order to reduce consumer exposure to harmful pesticides, and regulate the appropriate use of pesticides in terms of the authorization that is granted, the type of registration (application rates and pre-harvest intervals), and allowing for free deliberation as to which products are to be treated with pesticides as long as the treatment complies with the established maximum residue limits (MRLs) [5]. For a specific pesticide applied to a certain food item, there is a tolerance level that, when exceeded, is called ‘violative residue’. Commonly, violation takes place when residues that exceed the established tolerance for a specific food item are detected. Tolerances may be not an accurate standard for health-related levels, but are at least suitable for the maximum residue limits that have been set for the use of pesticides by law [6]. Furthermore, violation rates do not consider the degree of consumption of various food items and the existing levels of pesticide residues [7].
The detection of pesticide residues in vegetable commodities, for the purpose of optimally evaluating vegetables’ quality and mitigating potential risks to human health, is a predominant aim of pesticide research. The most common extraction procedure for a wide range of pesticide classes is the Quick, Easy, Cheap, Effective, Rugged, and Safe (QuEChERS) method. In this method, liquid–liquid extraction (LLE) with salting-out (MgSO4 and NaCl salts) is first performed, followed by a cleanup using primary secondary amine (PSA)-bonded silica with dispersive solid phase extraction (dSPE). This method was proposed for the extraction of pesticide residues from food commodities [8]. Gas chromatographic and Liquid chromatographic methods coupled with mass spectrometric detection (GC-MS/MS and LC-MS/MS, respectively) are among the most highly selective and sensitive instruments for determining the residues of pesticides in a variety of food commodities. They also allow for a simultaneous quantitative and qualitative analysis of the targeted analytes and have excellent separation efficiency and a high speed of analysis. Several multi-residue methods, and selective and sensitive detectors, for detecting different classes of pesticides with different chemical and physical properties and separating individual compounds have been proposed [9,10,11]. There is a limited amount of information about the contamination of food, particularly vegetables, with pesticide residues in the Asir region, Saudi Arabia. There is no published literature on the contamination of vegetables with pesticide residues in Asir, which is of concern when taking into consideration the fact that vegetables are prone to being contaminated with higher pesticide levels when compared to other food groups [12]. Thus, the purpose of this study was to monitor pesticide residues in vegetables collected from supermarkets in the Asir region in order to establish a database that includes the levels of these residues in this region. We employed highly sensitive and selective multi-residue methods for the quantitative and qualitative determination of pesticides from several compound classes with different chemicals and physical properties using GC-MS/MS and LC-MS/MS. Then, we evaluated whether the results complied with existing regulations, particularly the European ones. Finally, we considered the appropriateness of the studied commodities for human consumption with respect to the official MRLs.

2. Results

2.1. Verification of the Analytical Method

The procedure for extracting multi-residue pesticides in vegetable samples was carried out using the rapid, sensitive, and rugged QuEChERS method. The method was validated under optimal conditions by investigating the recovery, precision, and detection limits. The recovery values at two fortification levels ranged from 70.5% to 126.6%, and the precision values (expressed as RSD, %) were below 20% for all of the investigated analytes (Table 1), which satisfies the criteria for quantitative methods for pesticide residues in food [13]. The limit of detection (LOD) and limit of quantitation (LOQ) were calculated by multiplying the standard deviation of repeatability by factors of 3 and 6, respectively [14]. All pesticide LOD (0.0004–0.0023 mg kg−1) and LOQ (0.0008–0.0047 mg kg−1) (Table 1) values were less than the maximum residue levels (MRLs) appointed for each analyte in each commodity. In this study, 80 pesticides from different chemical classes were deemed to be among those that are commonly used in vegetable production in Saudi Arabia. A total of 51 pesticides were analyzed by LC-MS/MS, and the remainder were analyzed by GC-MS/MS.

2.2. Evaluation by Commodity

The concentrations of pesticide residues in 211 vegetable samples from the Asir region, southwest Saudi Arabia, were determined. Detectable residues were found in 145 samples (68.7%), while 66 samples (31.3%) were found to be residue-free. The percentage of detected residues was high for all analyzed vegetables except carrot, cauliflower, and lettuce. All samples of cucumber (100%) and chili pepper (100%) were contaminated with pesticide residues, while none of the carrot, cauliflower, and lettuce samples contained pesticide residues. Only 3.9% of tomato samples, 10% of cabbage samples, 15% of eggplant samples, 18.2% of potato samples, and 25% of onion samples were pesticide-free. Cucumber (100%), chili pepper (100%), tomato (96.1%), and cabbage (90%) had the highest percentage of detected residues (Table 2).

2.3. The Frequency of Detection and Exceedance of MRLs

Pesticide residue concentrations above the MRLs stipulated by EU regulations [15] were detected in a total of 44 samples (20.9%). MRL values were surpassed most often in chili pepper and cucumber; 50% of the chili pepper samples and 41.7% of the cucumber samples were found to contain pesticide residue concentrations above the MRL values. Table 3 presents the frequency and ranges of the detectable residues in the tested commodities.

2.4. Evaluation by Pesticide Residue

In this study, the concentrations of 80 different pesticides were determined in 10 different vegetable commodities. Of the 80 pesticides, 37 were detected in the tested samples. Of the detected substances, 20 were insecticides (54.1%), 12 were fungicides (32.4%), 4 were herbicides (10.8%), and 1 was a growth regulator (2.7%). Thirty percent (30%) of the detected insecticides (6 of 20) exceeded the MRL, and the insecticide methomyl was found to most frequently exceed the MRL. Of the detected fungicides, 41.7% (5 of 12) exceeded the MRL, and the fungicide cyproconazole was found to most frequently exceed the MRL. Of all detected pesticides, methomyl, imidacloprid, metalaxyl, cyproconazole, carbendazim, triadimenol, profenofos, chlorpyrifos-methyl, malathion, and acetamiprid were found the most often. Figure 1 shows the detection frequency of the pesticides that frequently occurred in the analyzed samples.
As shown in Figure 1, methomyl was the most frequently detected pesticide in all tested commodities. Residues of methomyl were detected in tomato, chili pepper, cucumber, cabbage, onion, potato, and eggplant in the concentration range 0.005–0.307 mg kg−1 and exceeded the MRL in all of these commodities except for tomato and potato, which contained residues at or below the MRL values. Imidacloprid was the second most frequently detected pesticide in the vegetable commodities and was found in the concentration range 0.014–0.199 mg kg−1. Residues of imidacloprid were found in tomato, cucumber, cabbage, onion, eggplant, and potato; however, they did not exceed the MRLs in any of these commodities. Metalaxyl was detected in tomato, potato, cucumber, and chili pepper in the concentration range 0.007–0.419 mg kg−1, and exceeded the MRL values in only tomato and potato. Residues of cyproconazole and carbendazim were detected in cucumber, chili pepper, eggplant, and cabbage in the concentration range 0.008–0.541 mg kg−1 and 0.004–0.158 mg kg−1, respectively. Cyproconazole exceeded the MRLs in all four of these commodities, while carbendazim exceeded the MRLs only in cabbage (a concentration of 0.158 mg kg−1). Triadimenol and chlorpyrifos-methyl were found in cabbage, onion, potato, eggplant, chili pepper, and tomato in the concentration range 0.004–0.044 mg kg−1 and 0.004–0.061 mg kg−1, respectively. Profenofos exceeded the MRLs in cabbage and chili pepper with a concentration of 0.496 mg kg−1 and 0.041 mg kg−1, respectively. Profenofos was also detected in tomato; however, the concentration was within the MRL. Malathion and myclobutanil were detected in eggplant, cabbage, and cucumber in the concentration range 0.007–0.273 mg kg−1 and 0.010–0.470 mg kg−1, respectively. Myclobutanil exceeded the MRL in eggplant with a concentration of 0.470 mg kg−1 and in cucumber with a concentration of 0.436 mg kg−1. Malathion exceeded the MRL only in cucumber with a concentration of 0.273 mg kg−1. Chlorantraniliprole and tebuconazole exceeded the MRLs in potato with a concentration of 0.031 mg kg−1 and 0.039 mg kg−1, respectively. Chlorfenapyr exceeded the MRLs in cucumber and chili pepper with a concentration of 0.034 mg kg−1 and 0.026 mg kg−1, respectively. Ethion was detected only in chili pepper and exceeded the MRL with a concentration of 0.061 mg kg−1. Acetamiprid residues were found to fall within the MRL in tomato, chili pepper, and eggplant. Diazinon residues were found to fall within the MRL in chili pepper and cucumber. Additionally, measurable residues of hexaconazole were detected in tomato, chili pepper, cucumber, and potato. Of all detected pesticides, the highest concentration levels were found in chili pepper (0.541 mg kg−1, cyproconazole), cabbage (0.496 mg kg−1, profenofos), cucumber (0.436 mg kg−1, myclobutanil), tomato (0.419 mg kg−1, metalaxyl), and eggplant (0.307 mg kg−1, methomyl).

2.5. The Co-Occurrence of Pesticide Residues

The incidence of multiple residues in the tested commodities is shown in Figure 2. Of the tested commodities, 12.8% (27 samples) contained a single residue, 41.7% (88 samples) contained two residues, 10.4% (22 samples) contained three residues, and 3.79% (eight samples) contained four residues. The presence of multiple pesticide residues was observed most frequently in chili pepper, tomato, cucumber, potato, cabbage, and eggplant (Figure 3).

3. Discussion

This study, to our knowledge, is the first to monitor the concentration of 80 pesticide residues in different vegetable commodities from the southwest region of Saudi Arabia. Saudi Arabia’s southwest region is considered to be an important agricultural area due to its fertile ground, suitable climate, and torrential rain throughout the year. The three main agricultural areas in Saudi Arabia’s southwest region are located in Jizan, Baha, and Asir [16]. In this study, we tested 211 vegetable samples for pesticide residues. Of all tested samples, 66 samples (31.3%) were found to be residue-free, while 145 samples (68.7%) were found to contain a detectable amount of pesticide residue. Of the analyzed samples, 20.9% contained pesticide residues whose concentration exceeded the MRLs. Similarly, Osman et al. (2010) analyzed 160 vegetable samples collected from supermarkets in the Al-Qassim region, Saudi Arabia and found that 44.4% of the tested samples were free of pesticide residues, 55.6% contained detectable amounts of pesticide residues, and 59.6% (53 of 89) of the pesticide-contaminated samples had a residue concentration greater than the MRL values. Also, Jallow et al. (2017) analyzed 150 vegetable and fruit samples from Kuwait and found that 42% of the tested samples were residue-free, 58% contained a detectable amount of residue, and 21% contained pesticide residues whose concentration was greater than the MRL values. The incidence of pesticide residues in the tested vegetables may be due to vegetable crops being damaged by many pests and their various species [17,18] (Table 4); therefore, different pesticides are applied to protect these crops against pests and diseases, particularly vegetable crops that are cultivated under greenhouse conditions [19,20]. The humid conditions and large amount of food in greenhouse environments make them ideal habitats for pests and make crops in these environments more susceptible to pests such that successive applications of pesticide treatments are required to prevent considerable crop losses [21,22].
The highest concentrations of detected pesticides were recorded for the fungicide cyproconazole (in chili pepper), followed by the insecticide profenofos (in cabbage), the fungicide myclobutanil (in cucumber), the fungicide metalaxyl (in tomato), and the insecticide methomyl (in eggplant). The pesticide residue levels were found to vary among the vegetable types, and are greatly dependent on the harvest time, size of the fruit, and pesticide application mechanism [23,24,25]. Cyproconazole most frequently exceeded the MRL values (10 samples), followed by methomyl (nine samples), metalaxyl (eight samples), profenofos (five samples), chlorfenapyr (three samples), myclobutanil and ethion (two samples), and malathion and chlorantraniliprole (one sample). MRLs are typically set by using a scientific risk assessment [26] and dominate pesticide residue standards, which may differ from one country to another [27] due to different agricultural and climatic conditions and directly reflect the pesticide application rate [28]. MRL exceedance may be due to GAP non-compliance, cross-contamination or spray drift, contamination from a previous use of persistent pesticides, and/or unexpectedly slow degradation of residues [29]. Cyproconazole is a broad-spectrum fungicide and acts as a sterol biosynthesis inhibitor (a demethylation inhibitor) in fungi. It has moderate mobility in soil (KFoc = 173–711 mL g−1), moderate to high persistence in soil (DT50 = 72.4–347 days), and high residue stability. Cyproconazole has moderate acute toxicity when inhaled and is very highly toxic to organic organisms. The FAO/WHO set the ADI to 0.02 mg/kg bw/day and the ARfD to 0.06 mg/kg bw with a safety factor (SF) of 100 [30,31]. Methomyl is an oxime carbamate and works by inhibiting acetylcholinesterase (AChE) enzymes. The overuse of methomyl may be due to its effectiveness as a contact and systemic broad-spectrum insecticide against organophosphorus-resistant pests and foliar treatment. It also has very high mobility in soil (KFoc = 13.3–42.8 mL/g), low to moderate persistence in soil (DT50 lab 20 °C = 4.6–11.5 days), high solubility in water, and high stability. However, it was classified by the EPA as a restricted-use pesticide (RUP) due to its high acute toxicity to humans. The European Food Safety Authority (EFSA) and FAO/WHO set the ADI, ARfD, and NOAEL of methomyl to 0.0025 mg/kg bw with a safety factor (SF) of 100 [32,33,34]. In the present study, the MRL values were exceeded most often in chili pepper (14 samples), cucumber (10 samples), tomato (five samples), potato (five samples), cabbage (four samples), and eggplant (four samples). All of the tested commodities were cultivated in Saudi Arabia except for chili pepper, which was imported mainly from India. Among the tested samples, chili pepper was found to be the most highly contaminated commodity that exceeded the MRL. On May 2014, the ministry of agriculture in Saudi Arabia decided to ban the import of chili pepper from India after detecting a high level of pesticide residue in this commodity. Saudi Arabia lifted the ban after confirmation that exporters had complied with regulations on the permissible levels of pesticide residues in chili pepper. High levels of contamination with pesticide residues may be due to overuse of pesticides to control pests and/or farmers having a lack of awareness about pesticide application doses, mechanisms, and standard pre-harvest intervals (PHIs). Additionally, the non-availability of proper guidance about pesticides’ application, inadequate supervision by relevant departments, and non-compliance with best agricultural practices may lead to contaminated vegetables, which are considered to be a potential source of health hazards to consumers [35,36]. Household processing is needed to reduce the intake of pesticide residues. Washing, the most prevalent form of processing, can more effectively remove water-soluble pesticides than low-polarity materials. Peeling can also be used to reduce pesticide residue intake, particularly the intake of non-systemic pesticides that remain in the peel [37,38].
In terms of pesticide residues, some vegetables were found to contain more than one type of residue, particularly those vegetables that were cultivated under greenhouse conditions, which require consecutive applications of pesticides. In recent years, the decrease in pests’ susceptibility to pesticides has led to changes in the global chemical pesticide market and widespread use of mixtures, such as binary pesticide mixtures. Insufficient knowledge about the proper use of pesticides, a lack of awareness about integrated pest management (IPM) methods, and a desire to increase the attractiveness of a product may be additional reasons for the harmful co-occurrence of pesticide residues [39]. The occurrence of multiple residues does not entail non-compliance with MRL legislation if the individual pesticide concentrations do not exceed permissible limits. The existing law does not establish limits for those cases where pesticides co-occur. However, products with multiple pesticide residues should be evaluated carefully in order to be sure that a combination of pesticides was not used intentionally to circumvent MRL limits on single substances. The EFSA developed a software tool, called the Monte Carlo risk assessment (MCRA) tool, that is able to assess the cumulative risks arising from exposure to multiple pesticides [40]. From a toxicological viewpoint, if it has not been observed that the incidence of multiple residues could have additive or synergic effects, they may still affect the overall quality of the food. The quality index for residue (IqR) can be used to evaluate how multiple residues affect the quality of the commodity [41,42,43]. The IqR is calculated as the sum of the ratios between the residue concentrations and the corresponding MRLs (Equation (1)):
I q R = i = 1 n ( C o n c e n t r a t i o n i / M R L i ) .
This index considers the ratio of residue concentrations to the allowable limits in order to observe the degree of contamination as compared to the MRLs (see Figure 4). The Iqr divides the quality of fruit and vegetables into four groups: optimal (IqR = 0), good (IqR 0–0.6), adequate (IqR = 0.6–1), and inadequate (IqR > 1). The results presented in Table 5 show that 31.28%, 22.27%, and 15.17% of the tested samples were of optimal, good, and adequate quality, respectively, while 31.28% of the tested samples were of inadequate quality.
The excessive use of pesticides in Saudi agriculture, particularly in greenhouse crop production, is a serious problem. Precedence should be given to improving strategies for the reduction of pesticides in agriculture through tighter government regulations, including the implementation of laws in relation to pesticide use, the control of pesticide sales, adherence to pesticide label instructions, the application of appropriate pre-harvest intervals, compliance with integrated pest management approaches, and best agricultural practices [44,45]. Organic farming may be an effective and safe way to reduce excessive pesticide use. In April 2005, Saudi Arabia started an organic farming project in cooperation with the Research Institute of Organic Agriculture (FiBL) and the German Society for International Cooperation (GIZ). The project’s aim was to develop a functioning and sustainable organic farming sector. According to the GIZ report, the southwest region is a reduced organic surface region [46]. Therefore, the Saudi organic farming association (SOFA) should implement programs that help farmers convert to organic farming, which is a holistic and environmentally friendly agricultural production system.

4. Materials and Methods

4.1. Chemicals and Reagents

Pesticide active ingredients were obtained from Dr. Ehrenstorfer GmbH (Augsburg, Germany) with certified purities greater than 95%. The monitored pesticides, their classification [47,48], and technical data for the LC-MS/MS pesticides and the GC-MS/MS pesticides are listed in Table 6 and Table 7, respectively. As shown in Figure 5, the set of selected pesticides includes most insecticides. As the standards have different purities, the concentration was corrected individually for each one. Methanol and acetonitrile (pesticide-grade) were obtained from Fischer company, Dallas, TX, USA. Ultra-pure deionized water (18 MΩ cm) was obtained from a water purification system (PURELAB Option-R, ELGA, BUCKS, UK). Magnesium sulfate (MgSO4), sodium chloride (NaCl), Sodium Citrate, disodium citrate sesquihydrate, PSA, and graphite carbon black (GCB) were obtained from Agilent (Santa Clara, CA, USA).

4.2. Preparation of Intermediate, Working Solutions, and Calibration Curves

By dissolving a corrected weight of each compound (according to its purity) into 10 mL of acetonitrile, standard stock solutions were prepared at 1000 mg kg−1. An intermediate mix of standards with a concentration of 5 mg L−1 was then prepared. Lastly, the working standard solutions were used to prepare matrix-matched calibrations between 2.5 and 200 μg L−1.

4.3. Sample Collection

According to the 2002/63/EC [49] regulation, a total of 211 different vegetable samples covering 10 commodities that are frequently consumed by local people (tomato, cucumber, cabbage, eggplant, chili pepper, onion, potato, carrot, lettuce, and cauliflower) were collected from supermarkets in Asir, Saudi Arabia in the period from March 2018 to September 2018. These samples were transported under cold conditions to the laboratory and kept at 4 °C. Shortly after their arrival, they were analyzed for pesticide residues following the QuEChERS method described below.

4.4. LC-MS/MS Analysis

LC-MS/MS analysis was conducted using a liquid chromatograph (Thermo ultimate 3000, Dionex Softron GmbH, Rohrbach, Germany) combined with a triple quadruple mass detector with a heated electrospray ionization (HESI) source (Thermo, TSQ Quantum Access Max, San Jose, CA, USA) and a Thermo Scientific Hypersil GOLD aQ column (100 × 2.1 mm; 1.9 μm particles). Time-specific SRM (t-SRM) windows were used at the target compound’s retention time to maximize the performance of the mass spectrometer. The sheath gas flow rate was 55 units, the AUX gas flow rate was 15 units, the capillary temperature and the heater temperature were 280 °C and 295 °C, respectively, the spray voltage was 3500 V, and the cycle time was 0.2 s. Water containing 0.1% formic acid and 4 mM ammonium formate (mobile phase A) and methanol containing 0.1% formic acid and 4 mM ammonium formate (mobile phase B) were used for the gradient program, which started with 2% B and sharply increased to 30% B over 0.25 min, then linearly increased to 100% B over 19.75 min, and finally maintained 100% B for 6 min. The column was then reconditioned to 2% B for 4 min. The column’s temperature was set at 40 °C. The injection volume was 10 μL at a flow rate of 0.3 mL/min. At least two multi-reaction monitoring (MRM) transitions were monitored for each compound.

4.5. GC-MS/MS Analysis

All samples were analyzed using a TSQ Quantum XLS GC-MS/MS system equipped with a Thermo Scientific TRACE GC Ultra gas chromatograph with a programmable split/splitless injector. The capillary column was a Thermo Scientific TRACE TR-Pesticide II (30 m × 0.25 mm × 0.25 µm) with a 5 m guard column. Sample volumes of 1.0 μL were injected in split/splitless injection mode, and a deactivated fused-silica liner with a diameter of 2 mm was used. The temperature of the injection port was set at 240 °C (isothermal). A constant velocity of 1 mL/min was used for the helium carrier gas. The oven temperature program was initially set to hold at 80 °C for 1 min, then ramp with no hold to 140 °C at 25 °C/min, and finally ramp to 200 °C with no hold at 5 °C/min. The oven program’s total length was 39 min with an injection-to-injection time of 10 min. The transfer line and the ion source of the mass spectrometer were heated to 280 °C. A higher-level standard was used to optimize transitions in the positive electron ionization (EI)-SRM mode on the TSQ Quantum XLS GC-MS/MS. The t-SRM function tool allows one to monitor SRM transitions more effectively by monitoring only the analyzed compounds at specific elution times, allowing for partial overlap. The collision gas (Argon) pressure was 1.2 mTorr, and the Q1/Q3 resolution was 0.7 u (full width at half maximum (FWHM)). Electron ionization was set at −70 eV and the emission current was 30 µA.

4.6. Extraction Procedure

The acetate-buffered QuEChERS method was applied to determine the concentration of pesticides in the vegetable samples (AOAC 133 Official Method 2007.01) [50]. Homogenization for more than 1 min was carried out using a blender (Waring, DCA, Torrington, CT, USA) to obtain thoroughly mixed homogenates. A 15 g portion of the homogenized sample was weighed in a 50 mL PTFE tube and 15 mL of acetonitrile containing 1% acetic acid was added. Then, 6 g of MgSO4 and 2.5 g of sodium acetate trihydrate were added and the sample was shaken for 4 min. The sample was then centrifuged at 4000 rpm for 5 min (Eppendorf 5804 R, Hamburg, Germany) and 5 mL of the supernatant was transferred to a 15 mL PTFE tube containing 750 mg MgSO4 and 250 mg PSA. Furthermore, graphitized carbon was used to clean up the chili pepper (10). The extract was shaken for 20 s using a vortex mixer and then centrifuged for 5 min at 4000 rpm. Approximately 3 mL of the supernatant was filtered through a 0.45 μm PTFE filter (13 mm in diameter).

4.7. Quality Control

Recovery tests were done using blank samples that were free from pesticide. Subsamples of those blanks from the different studied commodities were spiked with two levels (0.010 and 0.1 mg kg−1) of each compound. Then, they were extracted in accordance with the above-described QuEChERS procedure. Recovery and precision (expressed as RSD, %) were measured by analyzing three samples of each commodity individually.

5. Conclusion

This study presented evidence of the incidence of pesticide residues in vegetable commodities from the southwest region of Saudi Arabia. The most highly contaminated commodities were found to be chili pepper and cucumber. Methomyl, imidacloprid, metalaxyl, and cyproconazole were the most frequently detected pesticide residues in the tested commodities. The high observed levels of pesticide residues may represent a potential health risk for consumers. As most of these vegetables are consumed raw, household processing, including washing, peeling, and cooking, is necessary in order to reduce the amount of pesticide residues in them. Based on our findings, we recommend that pesticide residues in a greater number of crops be regularly monitored over long periods in order to better protect consumers’ health.

Author Contributions

M.F.A.R.: Ideas; formulation and evolution of overarching research goals and aims. M.M.A.A.-H.: Performing the experiments, instrumentation and data interpretation, application of statistical and computational techniques to analyze and study data. M.M.F.A.: Application of statistical, mathematical, computational, and other formal techniques to analyze or synthesize study data, or data/evidence collection. H.A.A.: Management activities to annotate (produce metadata), scrub data and maintain research data. M.A.A.: Conducting a research and investigation process. Provision of study materials, laboratory samples. A.A.S.: Application of statistical, mathematical, computational, and other formal techniques to analyze or synthesize study data. H.A.S.: Development and design of methodology; creation of models. N.S.A.: Acquisition of the financial support for the project leading to this publication. Management and coordination responsibility for the research activity planning and execution. All authors have read and agreed to the published version of the manuscript.

Funding

This research was funded by Research Center for Advanced Materials (RCAMS) at King Khalid University, grant number RCAMS/KKU/006‑19.

Acknowledgments

The authors thank the Research Center for Advanced Materials (RCAMS) at King Khalid University for supporting this work through the research project program under grant number RCAMS/KKU/006‑19.

Conflicts of Interest

The authors declare no conflict of interest.

Abbreviations

UHPLC-MS/MS (LC-MS/MS)ultrahigh-performance liquid chromatography-tandem mass spectrometry
GC-MS/MSgas chromatography-tandem mass spectrometry
QuEChERSquick, easy, cheap, effective, rugged, safe
MRLmaximum residue limit
LLEliquid–liquid extraction
dSPEdispersive solid phase extraction
PSAprimary secondary amine
GCBgraphite carbon black
t-SRMtime-specific selected reaction monitoring
MRMmulti-reaction monitoring
FWHMfull width at half maximum
PTFEpolytetrafluoroethylene
LODlimit of detection
LOQlimit of quantification
RSDrelative standard deviation
GAPgood agricultural practice
KFocFreundlich organic carbon adsorption coefficient
DT50time required for 50% disappearance
FAOfood and agriculture organization
WHOWorld Health Organization
ADIacceptable daily intake
ARfDacute reference dose
AChEAcetylcholinesterase
EPAenvironmental protection agency
EFSAEuropean food safety agency
NOAELnon-observable adverse effect level
PHIpre-harvest interval
IPMintegrated pest management
MCRAMonte Carlo risk assessment
IqRresidue quality index
FiBLresearch institute of organic agriculture
GIZGerman society for international co-operation
SOFASaudi organic farming association

References

  1. Tilman, D.; Cassman, K.G.; Matson, P.A.; Naylor, R.; Polasky, S. Agricultural sustainability and intensive production practices. Nature 2002, 418, 671–677. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  2. Jeyaratnam, J. Acute pesticide poisoning: A major global health problem. World Health Stat. Q. Rapp. Trimest. Stat. Sanit. Mond. 1990, 43, 139–144. [Google Scholar]
  3. Alavanja, M.C.R.; Matthew, K.R.; Matthew, R.B. Increased cancer burden among pesticide applicators and others due to pesticide exposure. CA Cancer J. Clin. 2013, 63, 120–142. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed] [Green Version]
  4. Jallow, M.F.A.; Awadh, D.G.; Albaho, M.S.; Devi, V.Y.; Thomas, B.M. Monitoring of pesticide residues in commonly used fruits and vegetables in Kuwait. Int. J. Environ. Res. Public Health 2017, 14, 833. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  5. Winter, C.K. Pesticide tolerances and their relevance as safety standards. Reg. Toxicol. Pharmacol. 1992, 15, 137–150. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  6. Katz, J.M.; Winter, C.K. Comparison of pesticide exposure from consumption of domestic and imported fruits and vegetables. Food Chem. Toxicol. 2009, 47, 335–338. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  7. Lehotay, S.J. Determination of pesticide residues in foods by acetonitrile extraction and partitioning with magnesium sulfate: Collaborative study. J. AOAC Int. 2007, 90, 485–520. [Google Scholar]
  8. Calatayud-Vernich, P.; Calatayud, F.; Simó, E.; Picó, Y. Efficiency of QuEChERS approach for determining 52 pesticide residues in honey and honey bees. MethodsX 2016, 3, 452–458. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  9. Adalberto, F.M.; Dos Santos, F.N.; Pereira, P.A. Development, validation and application of a methodology based on solid-phase micro extraction followed by gas chromatography coupled to mass spectrometry (SPME/GC-MS) for the determination of pesticide residues in mangoes. Talanta 2010, 81, 346–354. [Google Scholar]
  10. Tankiewicz, M. Determination of selected priority pesticides in high water fruits and vegetables by modified QuEChERS and GC-ECD with GC-MS/MS confirmation. Molecules 2019, 24, 417. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  11. Bargańska, Z.; Konieczka, P.; Namieśnik, J. Comparison of two methods for the determination of selected pesticides in honey and honeybee samples. Molecules 2018, 23, 2582. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  12. Chen, C.; Qian, Y.; Chen, Q.; Tao, C.; Li, C.; Li, Y. Evaluation of pesticide residues in fruits and vegetables from Xiamen, China. Food Control 2011, 22, 1114–1120. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  13. Directorate General Health and Food Safety (DG SANTE). Guidance Document on Analytical Quality Control and Method Validation Procedures for Pesticide Residues and Analysis in Food and Feed.SANTE/11813/2017; Directorate General Health and Food Safety: Luxembourg, 2017. [Google Scholar]
  14. Hovind, H.; Magnusson, B.; Krysell, M.; Lund, U.; Mäkinen, I. Internal quality control—Handbook for chemical laboratories. NT TR 2012, 569, 04038. [Google Scholar]
  15. European Commission-EU Pesticides Database-Pesticides MRL According to Regulation (EC) No 396/2005. Available online: http://ec.europa.eu/food/plant/pesticides/eu-pesticides-database/public/?event=pesticide.residue.selection&language=EN (accessed on 1 May 2018).
  16. AQUASTAT—FAO’s Information System on Water and Agriculture. Available online: http://www.fao.org/nr/water/aquastat/countries_regions/SAU/ (accessed on 15 July 2018).
  17. Osman, K.A.; Al-Humaid, A.M.; Al-Rehiayani, S.M.; Al-Redhaiman, K.N. Monitoring of pesticide residues in vegetables marketed in Al-Qassim region, Saudi Arabia. Ecotoxicol. Environ. Saf. 2010, 73, 1433–1439. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  18. Rinehold, J.; Bell, N.; Waters, T. Common Pests of Vegetable Crops. Available online: https://pnwhandbooks.org/insect/vegetable/vegetable-pests/common-vegetable (accessed on 15 July 2018).
  19. Paradjikovic, N.; Hrlec, G.; Horvat, D. Residues of vinclozolin and procymidone after treatment of greenhouse grown lettuce, tomato and cucumber. Acta Agric. Scand. Sect. B Soil Plant Sci. 2004, 54, 241–248. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  20. Li, W.; Tai, L.; Liu, J.; Gai, Z.; Ding, G. Monitoring of pesticide residues levels in fresh vegetable form Heibei Province, North China. Environ. Monit. Assess. 2014, 186, 6341–6349. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  21. Qin, G.; Zou, K.; Li, Y.; Chen, Y.; He, F.; Ding, G. Pesticide residue determination in vegetables from Western China applying gas chromatography with mass spectrometry. Biomed. Chromatogr. 2016, 30, 1430–1440. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  22. Lozowicka, B.; Abzeitova, E.; Sagitov, A.; Kaczynski, P.; Toleubayev, K.; Li, A. Studies of Pesticide residues in tomatoes and cucumbers from Kazakhstan and the associated health risks. Environ. Monit. Assess. 2015, 187. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  23. Pose-Juan, E.; Cancho-Grande, B.; Rial-Otero, R.; Simal-Gándara, J. The dissipation rates of cyprodinil, fludioxonil, procymidone and vinclozoline during storage of grape juice. Food Control 2006, 17, 1012–1017. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  24. Gonzalez-Rodriguez, R.M.; Rial-Otero, R.; Cancho-Grande, B.; Simal-Gandara, J. Determination of 23 pesticide residues in leafy vegetables using gas chromatography-ion trap mass spectrometry and analyte protectants. J. Chromatogr. A 2008, 1196, 100–109. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  25. Chen, L.; Li, X.; Wang, Z.; Pan, C.; Jin, R. Residue dynamics of procymidone in leeks and soil in greenhouses by smoke generator application. Ecotoxicol. Environ. Saf. 2009, 73, 73–77. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  26. Torres, C.M.; Pico, Y.; Manes, J. Determination of pesticide residues in fruit and vegetables. J. Chromatogr A 1996, 754, 301–331. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  27. Abelson, P.H. Risk assessments of low-level exposures. Science 1994, 265, 1507. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed] [Green Version]
  28. Wang, S.; Wang, Z.; Zhang, Y.; Wang, J.; Guo, R. Pesticide residues in market foods in Shaanxi Province of China in 2010. Food Chem. 2013, 138, 2016–2025. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  29. European Food Safety Authority (EFSA). National summary reports on pesticide residue analysis performed in 2016. Efsa Support. Publ. 2018. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  30. European Food Safety Authority (EFSA). Conclusion on the peer review of the pesticide risk assessment of the active substance cyproconazole. EFSA J. 2010, 8, 1897. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  31. FAO/WHO. Pesticide Residues in Food 2010—Joint FAO/WHO Meeting on Pesticide Residues; FAO/WHO: Rome, Italy, 2010. [Google Scholar]
  32. European Food Safety Authority (EFSA). Peer review of the pesticide risk assessment of the active substance methomyl. EFSA Sci. Rep. 2008, 222, 1–99. [Google Scholar]
  33. FAO/WHO. JMPR Report of the Joint Meeting of the FAO Panel of Experts on Pesticide Residues in Food and the Environment and the WHO Core Assessment Group. In Pesticide Residues in Food—2001; Food and Agriculture Organization: Geneva, Switzerland, 2001; Volume 167, pp. 20–29. [Google Scholar]
  34. US EPA, OCSPP, OPP, Methomyl. Available online: https://www.epa.gov/ingredients-used-pesticide-products/methomyl (accessed on 15 June 2018).
  35. Yu, Y.; Hu, S.; Yang, Y.; Zhao, X.; Xue, J.; Zhang, J.; Gao, S.; Yang, A. Successive monitoring surveys of selected banned and restricted pesticide residues in vegetables from the northwest region of China from 2011 to 2013. BMC Public Health 2017, 18, 91. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  36. Li, Z.; Nie, J.; Yan, Z.; Cheng, Y.; Lan, F.; Huang, Y.; Chen, Q.; Zhao, X.; Li, A. A monitoring survey and dietary risk assessment for pesticide residues on peaches in China. Regul. Toxicol. Pharmacol. 2018, 97, 152–162. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  37. Hassanzadeh, N.; Bahramifar, N.; Esmaili-Sari, A. Residue content of carbaryl applied on greenhouse cucumbers and its reduction by duration of a pre-harvest interval and post-harvest household processing. J. Sci. Food Agric. 2010, 90, 2249–2253. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  38. Saeedi Saravi, S.S.; Shokrzadeh, M. Effects of washing, peeling, storage, and fermentation on residue contents of carbaryl and mancozeb in cucumbers grown in greenhouses. Toxicol. Ind. Health 2016, 32, 1135–1142. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  39. Latif, Y.; Sherazi, S.T.H.; Bhanger, M.I. Assessment of pesticide residues in commonly used vegetables in Hyderabad, Pakistan. Ecotoxicol. Environ. Saf. 2011, 74, 2299–2303. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  40. European Food Safety Authority (EFSA). Pesticides-Breakthrough on Cumulative Risk Assessment|European. Available online: https://www.efsa.europa.eu/en/press/news/160127 (accessed on 27 June 2017).
  41. Arienzo, M.; Cataldo, D.; Ferrara, L. Pesticide residues in fresh-cut vegetables from integrated pest management by ultra performance liquid chromatography coupled to tandem mass spectrometry. Food Control 2013, 31, 108–115. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  42. Lorenzin, M. Un nuovo parametro per una valutazione della qualità degli alimenti: Indice di qualità per i Residui (IqR). Sci. Degli. Aliment. 1998, 27, 175–180. [Google Scholar]
  43. Mac Loughlin, T.M.; Peluso, L.; Etchegoyen, A.; Alonso, L.L.; Castro, C.; Percudani, C.; Marino, J.G. Pesticide residues in fruits and vegetables of the argentine domestic market: Occurrence and quality. Food Control 2018, 93, 129–138. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  44. Chowdhury, M.A.Z.; Fakhruddin, A.N.M.; Islam, N.; Moniruzzaman, M.; Gan, S.H.; Alam, K. Detection of the residues of nineteen pesticides in fresh vegetable samples using gas chromatography–mass spectrometry. Food Control 2013, 34, 457–465. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  45. Bakirci, G.T.; Acay, D.B.Y.; Bakirci, F.; Otles, S. Pesticide residues in fruits and vegetables from the Aegean Region, Turkey. Food Chem. 2014, 160, 379–392. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  46. German Society for International Cooperation (GIZ). Development of Organic Farming Markets in Saudi Arabia, 2012. Available online: https://Www.Giz.de/En/Downloads/Giz2012-Organic-Agriculture-Saudi-Arabia-En.Pdf (accessed on 15 July 2018).
  47. Wood, A.M. Compendium of Pesticide Common Names According to ISO 1750. Available online: http://www.alanwood.net/pesticides/ (accessed on 15 June 2018).
  48. Pesticide Properties DataBase A to Z List of Pesticide Active Ingredients. Available online: https://sitem.herts.ac.uk/aeru/ppdb/en/atoz.htm (accessed on 15 July 2018).
  49. EU Commission. Commission directive 2002/63/EC of 11 July 2002 establishing community methods of sampling for the official control of pesticide residues in and on products of plant and animal origin and repealing directive 79/700/EEC. OJEC 2002, 2, 30–43. [Google Scholar]
  50. Kmellar, B.L.; Abranko, P.F.; Lehotay, S.J. Routine approach to qualitatively screening 300 pesticides and quantification of those frequently detected in fruit and vegetables using liquid chromatography tandem mass spectrometry (LC-MS/MS). Food Addit. Contam. Part A Chem. Anal. Control Expo. Risk Assess. 2010, 27, 1415–1430. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
Sample Availability: Samples of the compounds are not available from the authors.
Figure 1. Frequency of the most-often-detected pesticides in the analyzed samples.
Figure 1. Frequency of the most-often-detected pesticides in the analyzed samples.
Molecules 25 00205 g001
Figure 2. The co-occurrence of pesticide residues in the tested samples.
Figure 2. The co-occurrence of pesticide residues in the tested samples.
Molecules 25 00205 g002
Figure 3. The occurrence of multiple residues in different vegetables.
Figure 3. The occurrence of multiple residues in different vegetables.
Molecules 25 00205 g003
Figure 4. The calculated quality index for residue (IqR) for the selected vegetable commodities on a Log scale.
Figure 4. The calculated quality index for residue (IqR) for the selected vegetable commodities on a Log scale.
Molecules 25 00205 g004
Figure 5. Distribution of selected pesticides according to usage.
Figure 5. Distribution of selected pesticides according to usage.
Molecules 25 00205 g005
Table 1. Recovery, precision, and detection limit ranges for selected pesticides that exceeded the maximum residue levels (MRLs) in different commodities.
Table 1. Recovery, precision, and detection limit ranges for selected pesticides that exceeded the maximum residue levels (MRLs) in different commodities.
Pesticide Name Recovery Range at 0.01 mg kg−1RSD % Range at 0.01 mg kg−1Recovery Range at 0.1 mg kg−1RSD % Range at 0.1 mg kg−1LOD Range mg kg−1LOQ Range mg kg−1
Carbendazim83–1032–892–1121–100.0006–0.00210.0012–0.0042
Chlorantraniliprole74–983–889–1003–100.0008–0.00230.0016–0.0045
Chlorfenapyr76–1152–882–1082–110.0006–0.00230.0012–0.0047
Cyproconazole79–1182–784–1230.5–140.0005–0.0020.0009–0.004
Ethion76–1033–880–1041–110.0009–0.00210.0018–0.0042
Malathion75–1203–778–1231–160.0008–0.0020.0016–0.004
Metalaxyl78–1172–775–1212–160.0005–0.0020.001–0.0039
Methomyl75–915–782–901–110.0011–0.00180.0022–0.0037
Myclobutanil82–1172–989–1184–140.0006–0.00230.0012–0.0045
Profenofos76–1183–780–1081–160.0008–0.0020.0016–0.004
Tebuconazole76–1173–895–1222–130.0009–0.00230.0018–0.0045
min–max range74–1202–975–1230.5–160.005–0.00230.0009–0.0047
Table 2. Frequency of samples with pesticide residues in the Asir region, Saudi Arabia from March 2018 to September 2018.
Table 2. Frequency of samples with pesticide residues in the Asir region, Saudi Arabia from March 2018 to September 2018.
CommodityNo. of Analyzed SamplesResidue-Free SamplesSamples with Residue > LODSamples with Residue < MRLSamples with Residue > MRL
Cucumber240 (0%)24 (100%)14 (58.3%)10 (41.7%)
Chilli pepper280 (0%)28 (100%)14 (50%)14 (50%)
Tomato261 (3.9%)25 (96.1%)20 (76.9%)5 (19.2%)
Cabbage202 (10%)18 (90%)14 (70%)4 (20%)
Eggplant203 (15%)17 (85%)13 (65%)4 (20%)
Potato224 (18.2%)18 (81.8%)13 (59.1%)5 (22.7%)
Onion205 (25%)15 (75%)13 (65%)2 (10%)
Carrot1818 (100%)0 (0%)0 (0%)0 (0%)
Lettuce1717 (100%)0 (0%)0 (0%)0 (0%)
Cauliflower1616 (100%)0 (0%)0 (0%)0 (0%)
Total number211
Residue-free 66 (31.3%)
Total > LOD 145 (68.7%)
Total < MRL 101 (47.9%)
Total > MRL 44 (20.9%)
Table 3. Pesticide concentration ranges, frequencies, and MRLs in the analyzed vegetable samples.
Table 3. Pesticide concentration ranges, frequencies, and MRLs in the analyzed vegetable samples.
CommodityNo. of Samples with Residues < MRL (%)No. of Samples with Detectable Residues > MRL (%)Detected PesticideFrequencyNo. of Samples > MRLRange Min–Max mg Kg−1MRL (mg Kg−1)
Tomato20 (76.9%)5 (19.2%)Buprofezin2 0.023–0.1241
Chlorantraniliprole2 0.017–0.0310.6
Hexaconazole3 0.003–0.0050.01
Imidacloprid10 0.043–0.1160.5
Acetamiprid4 0.012–0.1370.5
Metalaxyl-M850.023–0.4190.3
Methidathion3 0.006–0.0150.02
Methomyl7 0.005–0.0080.01
Profenofos3 0.095–0.23110
Pyriproxyfen4 0.033–0.1671
Triadimenol2 0.017–0.0440.3
Chlorpyrifos-methyl1 0.0611
Lambda-Cyhalothrin1 0.0170.07
Cucumber14 (58.3%)10 (41.7%)Carbendazim6 0.013–0.0830.1
Clethodim2 0.04–0.1130.5
Cyproconazole740.023–0.1230.05
Diazinon3 0.004–0.0090.01
Difenoconazole4 0.019–0.0970.3
Hexaconazole1 0.0040.01
Imidacloprid7 0.071–0.1991
Metalaxyl-M4 0.013–0.0830.5
Methomyl520.009–0.2220.01
Metribuzin1 0.0390.1
Myclobutanil310.028–0.4360.2
Penconazole2 0.015–0.0260.1
Tebuconazole4 0.091–0.1590.6
Triadimenol1 0.0090.15
Trifloxystrobin3 0.016–0.0630.3
Malathion610.011–0.2730.02
Chlorfenapyr320.007–0.0340.01
Cypermethrin1 0.0170.2
Chlorbufam1 0.0050.01
Cyfluthrin1 0.0140.1
Kresoxim-methyl2 0.009–0.0170.05
Lambda-Cyhalothrin1 0.0230.05
Chili pepper14 (50%)14 (50%)Acetamiprid3 0.031–0.0540.3
Clethodim2 0.019–0.0430.5
Cyproconazole540.008–0.5410.05
Diazinon3 0.013–0.0260.05
Ethion520.007–0.0610.01
Hexaconazole2 0.005–0.0080.01
Hexythiazox1 0.0290.5
Metalaxyl-M4 0.033–0.01030.5
Methomyl730.005–0.1990.04
Metribuzin1 0.0110.1
Penconazole1 0.0270.2
Profenofos740.007–0.0410.01
Pyriproxyfen2 0.043–0.0561
Carbendazim4 0.022–0.0980.1
Tebuconazole1 0.0170.6
Thiacloprid1 0.0091
Triadimenol1 0.0270.5
Trifloxystrobin2 0.014–0.0350.4
Chlorfenapyr310.004–0.0260.01
Chlorpyrifos-methyl2 0.007–0.0511
Cypermethrin1 0.1110.5
Kresoxim-methyl2 0.015–0.0210.8
Cabbage14 (70%)4 (20%)Carbaryl3 0.005–0.0060.01
Carbendazim310.006–0.1580.1
Cyproconazole210.043–0.2550.05
Diazinon1 0.0090.01
Fenarimol1 0.0110.02
Forchlorfenuron2 0.005–0.0070.01
Hexythiazox1 0.0392
Imazapyr1 0.0080.01
Imidacloprid3 0.014–0.0510.5
Kresoxim-methyl1 0.0230.1
Methidathion3 0.008–0.0130.02
Methomyl510.006–0.0710.01
Myclobutanil2 0.010–0.0170.05
Penconazole1 0.0150.05
Profenofos310.007–0.4960.01
Triadimenol3 0.004–0.0070.01
Malathion3 0.007–0.0130.02
Chlorpyrifos-methyl3 0.005–0.0080.01
Lambda-Cyhalothrin2 0.027–0.0310.15
Onion13 (65%)2 (10%)Buprofezin1 0.0180.05
Dimethoate2 0.005–0.0070.01
Carbaryl4 0.009–0.0150.02
Forchlorfenuron1 0.0050.01
Methomyl520.009–0.0540.01
Triadimenol3 0.005–0.0080.01
Chlorpyrifos-methyl3 0.004–0.0080.01
Lambda-Cyhalothrin2 0.019–0.0310.2
Imidacloprid4 0.019–0.0530.1
Eggplant13 (65%)4 (20%)Carbendazim5 0.033–0.1210.5
Chlorpyrifos-methyl3 0.017–0.0261
Cyproconazole310.031–0.1410.05
Imidacloprid1 0.0450.5
Kresoxim-methyl1 0.0170.6
Malathion2 0.009–0.0130.02
Myclobutanil210.016–0.470.3
Thiacloprid4 0.013–0.0510.7
Triadimenol1 0.0390.3
Acetamiprid2 0.015–0.1020.2
Methomyl320.008–0.3070.01
Lambda-Cyhalothrin1 0.0170.3
Potato13 (59.1%)5 (22.7%)Chlorantraniliprole210.015–0.0310.02
Metalaxyl-M530.013–0.0790.02
Methomyl5 0.005–0.0100.01
Tebuconazole310.011–0.0390.02
Triadimenol3 0.005–0.0070.01
Chlorpyrifos-methyl3 0.004–0.0080.01
Imidacloprid4 0.031–0.0760.5
Cyproconazole3 0.015–0.0220.05
Hexaconazole1 0.0060.01
Cyfluthrin1 0.0210.04
Chlorbufam1 0.0090.01
Pyriproxyfen2 0.013–0.0260.05
Table 4. Common vegetable crop pests.
Table 4. Common vegetable crop pests.
HostAphidsArmyworms and CutwormsMaggots and Colorado Potato BeetlesThripsLoopersSlug and Spider Mites
Chili pepperMyzus persicaeSpodoptera exigua,
Mamestra configurata
--Autographa californicaTetranychus spp. (mite)
CucumberMyzus persicaeAgotis ipsilon,
Peridroma saucia
Delia platura (maggot)Frankliniella occidentalis,
Frankliniella williamsi
Autographa californica,
Trichoplusia ni
Tetranychus spp. (mite)
TomatoMyzus persicae,
Macrosiphum euphorbiae
Spodoptera exigua,
Mamestra configurata
Leptinotarsa decemlineata (beetle)-Macrosiphum euphorbiaeTetranychus spp. (mite)
CabbageBrevicoryne brassicaeSpodoptera exigua,
Mamestra configurata
Delia brassicaeFrankliniella occidentalis,
Frankliniella williamsi
Autographa californicaMilax gagates (slug)
EggplantMyzus persicae-Leptinotarsa decemlineata (beetle)---
PotatoMacrosyphum euphorbiae,
Myzus persicae
Mamestra configurata Walker,
Xestra c-nigrum Linnaeus
Leptinotarsa decemlineata (beetle)Thrips tabaci,
Frankliniella occidentalis
Autographa californica,
Trichoplusia ni Hubner
Deroceras reticulatumr (slug),
Tetranychus spp. (mite)
Onion-Spodoptera exigua,
Mamestra configurata
Delia antiqua,
Delia platura (maggot)
Thrips tabaci,
Frankliniella occidentalis
--
CarrotMyzus persicaeAgotis ipsilon,
Peridroma saucia
----
LettuceNasonovia ribisnigri,
Pemphigus bursarius
Spodoptera exigua,
Mamestra configurata
--Autographa californicaMilax gagates (slug)
CauliflowerMyzus persicaeSpodoptera exigua,
Mamestra configurata
Delia brassicae (maggot)Frankliniella occidentalis,
Frankliniella williamsi
Autographa californicaMilax gagates (slug)
HostWirewormsWhitefly and Diamondback MothsGarden SymphylansCucumber Beetles and Imported CabbagewormsFlea Beetles and Carrot Flies
Chili pepperLimonius spp.Trialeurodes vapariorum (whitefly)Scutigerella immaculata-Epitrix subcrinita (beetle)
CucumberLimonius spp.-Scutigerella immaculataAcalymma trivittatum (beetle)-
TomatoLimonius spp.Trialeurodes vapariorum (whitefly)--Epitrix tuberis Gentner (beetle)
CabbageCtenicera spp.,
Limonius spp.
Plutella xylostella (moth)Scutigerella immaculataPieris rapae (worm)Phyllotreta cruciferae (beetle)
EggplantLimonius spp.Trialeurodes vapariorum (whitefly)-Tetranychus spp. (beetle)Epitrix subcrinita (beetle)
PotatoCtenicera spp.,
Limonius spp.
Trialeurodes vapariorum (whitefly)Scutigerella immaculata LDiabrotica undecimpunctata Linnaeus (beetle)Epitrix tuberis Gentner (beetle)
OnionLimonius spp.----
Carrot--Scutigerella immaculata-Psila rosae (carrot fly)
LettuceLimonius spp.--Acalymma trivittatum (beetle)-
CauliflowerCtenicera spp.,
Limonius spp.
Plutella xylostella (moth)Scutigerella immaculataPieris rapae (worm)Phyllotreta cruciferae (beetle)
Table 5. The quality of the selected vegetables according to the calculated IqR.
Table 5. The quality of the selected vegetables according to the calculated IqR.
Optimal (IqR: 0)Good (IqR: 0–0.6)Adequate (IqR: 0.6–1)Inadequate (IqR: > 1)
Cucumber 6414
Chili pepper 11215
Tomato11357
Cabbage21611
Eggplant31124
Potato4189
Onion5456
Carrot18
Lettuce17
Cauliflower16
Total66473266
Percentage, %31.2822.2715.1731.28
Table 6. Summary of LC-MS/MS pesticides (properties and use).
Table 6. Summary of LC-MS/MS pesticides (properties and use).
SNPesticide NameGroupUse aRtPrecursor IonTransition 1 (Quantity)CETransition 2CETransition 3CE
1AcetamipridNeonicotinoidI3.87223.1126.12090.236
2AtrazineTriazineH9.3221617417
3BifenazateCarbazateA, I16.02301.231701915237
4BuprofezinThiadiazin (chitin synthesis inhibitor)A, I20.78306.212011211618
5CadusafosOrganophosphorousI, N20.21270.97158.9169736
6CarbarylCarbamateA, PR, I8.13202.081451012731
7CarbendazimBenzimidazole carbamateF2.75192.1160.0618132.130
8ClethodimCyclohexene oxime (cyclohexane dione)H21.38360.191642226812
9ChlorantraniliproleAnthrailic diamideI11.79482.13450.8919283.8117
10ChlorpyrifosOrganophosphorusI23.81350198169733
11CyproconazoleTriazoleF15.58292.1312530
12DesmetrynMethylthiotriazineH6.63214.11172.071682.212857.3430
13DiazinonOrganophosphorousA, I, N18.51305.03169.123153.1321
14DiethofencarbCarbanilateF12.43268.2122613180.118
15DifenoconazoleTriazoleF21.12406.172512311152
16DimethoateOrganophosphorusA, I3.68230.11199.110125.122
17EmamectinAvermectinI24.99886.71583030218
18EthionOrganophosphorusA, I23.56384.92142.972797.0946
19FamoxadoneOxazoleF20.08392.11331.227238.03186
20FenamiphosOrganophosphorusN17.47304.03217.0122234.036
21FenarimolPyrimidineF16.32331.12268228135
22ForchlorfenuronPhenylurea (Growth stimulator)PG10.77248.14129179326
23HexaconazoleConazole(triazole)F19.39314.1470.22115918
24HexythiazoxThiazolidine CarboxamideA24.03353.24228.216168.124
25ImazapyrImidazolinoneH9.64262.06216.9818201.9725
26ImidaclopridNeonicotinoidI3.29256.12209.119175.120
27IndoxacarbOxadiazineI21.9528.32033629314
28IsoproturonPhenylureaH10.09207.17218165.1514
29Kresoxim-methylStrobilurinF17.77314.07267.149222.1315
30LinuronPhenylureaH12.87249.11821916018
31MetalaxylAmide(anilide)F10.36280.11220.118192.115
32MethidathionThiadiazole organothiophosphateI, A10.92302.985.222144.924
33MethomylOxime carbamateA, I2.63163.05106.1888.111
34MetribuzinTriazinoneH6.23215.09187.0716130.9715
35MyclobutanilTriazoleF15.58289.131253070.220
36PenconazoleTriazoleF18.43284.121593270.116
37PendimethalinDinitroanilineH24.1282.0921210194.1115119.0723
38PrimicarbCarbamateI4.59239.09182187222
39ProfenfoseOrganophosphorousA, I22.05372.9302.820143.8633127.9740
40PropiconazoleTriazoleF18.91342.21593069.222
41PymetrozinPyridineI2.18218105247928
42PyriproxyfenHormone MimicI23.49322.229615185.325
43SethoxydimCyclohexene oxime (cyclohexane dione)H7.5832817818
44 Spinosyn ASpinosynI21.19732.5142369844
45Spinosyn DSpinosynI22.6746.5142339844
46SpiromesifenTetronic acidA, I24.73371.3273.314255.325
47TebuconazoleTriazoleF18.57308.2270.22012532
48TepraloxydimCyclohexene oxime (cyclohexane dione)H8.383402203224815
49ThiaclopridNeonicotinoidI4.68253.13126.12090.235
50TriadimenolTriazoleF14.26296.17015
51TrifloxystrobinStrobilurinF21.54409.318620206.115
a I: Insecticide, A: Acaricide, F: Fungicide, H: Herbicide, PG: Plant Growth regulator, N: Nematicide.
Table 7. Summary of GC-MS/MS pesticides (properties and use).
Table 7. Summary of GC-MS/MS pesticides (properties and use).
SNPesticide nameGroupUseRtParentF1CEParentF1CE
1BifenthrinPyrethroidI, A22.3180.77164.9220181.05166.0515
2Bromophos ethylOrganothiophosphateI18.46358.41284.4830358.41302.5717
3Bromophos methylOrganothiophosphateI17.24328.9313.814331315.7613
4CarbophenothionOrganothiophosphateI, A21120.864.837199142.910
5Fenchlorfos (Ronnel)OrganothiophosphateI15.3284.91269.9213286.91271.9120
6ChlorbufamCarbanilateH12.58152.7389.8817152.73124.8214
7ChlorfenapyrPyrroleI, A19.84246.71226.713246.711199.4525
8Chlorpyrifos-ethylOrganophosphorusI, A16.59196.96168.9615198.96170.9615
9Chlorpyrifos-methylOrganophosphorusI, A14.9285.52240.5620285.52270.5717
10CyanophosOrganophosphorusI12.97242.69108.8310242.69126.847
11CyfluthrinPyrethroidI25.09162.6890.9213165.0291.0115
12CyhalothrinPyrethroidI23.37180.8151.7125197.04141.0313
13Cypermethrin-1PyrethroidI25.34162.6790.8613180.78151.5320
14CafenstroleTriazoleH25.57100.0472.0313188.08119.0515
15DeltamethrinPyrethroidI28181151.7317253171.587
16DiflufenicanAnilideH21.63265.71217.8817265.71237.7712
17EsfenvaleratePyrethroidI27.13124.8588.9716167.05125.0410
18EtofenproxPyrethroid etherI25.81162.87106.8717162.87134.848
19FenamidoneImidazoleF19.03224.01125.0115224.01196.0110
20FenitrothionOrganophosphorusI16.02124.7678.947276.66259.847
21FenpropathrinPyrethroidA, I22.4997.155.16181151.922
22FenthionOrganothiophosphateI16.96277.64108.851727816914
23FenvaleratePyrethroidA, I26.75124.8288.9420167.05125.0410
24Fluazifop-butylAryloxyphenoxypropionateH20.0528291.218282238.116
25MalathionOrganophosphorusA, I16.38126.898.917172.898.8613
26ProcymidoneDicarboximideF18.1595.9531695.967.18
27PropyzamideBenzamideH13.16172.69108.8125172.69144.713
28ResmethrinPyrethroidI21.8122.8880.9510171.11128.089
29SulfotepOrganothiophosphateI, A11.19321.57145.520321.57201.8310
a I: Insecticide, A: Acaricide, F: Fungicide, H: Herbicide, N: Nematicide.

Share and Cite

MDPI and ACS Style

Ramadan, M.F.A.; Abdel-Hamid, M.M.A.; Altorgoman, M.M.F.; AlGaramah, H.A.; Alawi, M.A.; Shati, A.A.; Shweeta, H.A.; Awwad, N.S. Evaluation of Pesticide Residues in Vegetables from the Asir Region, Saudi Arabia. Molecules 2020, 25, 205. https://doi.org/10.3390/molecules25010205

AMA Style

Ramadan MFA, Abdel-Hamid MMA, Altorgoman MMF, AlGaramah HA, Alawi MA, Shati AA, Shweeta HA, Awwad NS. Evaluation of Pesticide Residues in Vegetables from the Asir Region, Saudi Arabia. Molecules. 2020; 25(1):205. https://doi.org/10.3390/molecules25010205

Chicago/Turabian Style

Ramadan, Mohamed F. A., Mohamed M. A. Abdel-Hamid, Montasser M. F. Altorgoman, Hamed A. AlGaramah, Mohammed A. Alawi, Ali A. Shati, Hoda A. Shweeta, and Nasser S. Awwad. 2020. "Evaluation of Pesticide Residues in Vegetables from the Asir Region, Saudi Arabia" Molecules 25, no. 1: 205. https://doi.org/10.3390/molecules25010205

Article Metrics

Back to TopTop