Next Article in Journal
Reducing Defocused-Information Crosstalk to Multi-View Holography by Using Multichannel Encryption of Random Phase Distribution
Next Article in Special Issue
Identification of Novel Molecular Targets of Four Microcystin Variants by High-Throughput Virtual Screening
Previous Article in Journal
Influence of Seismic Loads Considering Soil Properties and Wave Passage Effect on the Seismic Response of a Multi-Span PSC Girder Bridge
Previous Article in Special Issue
In Vitro Genotoxicity Assessment from the Glycyrrhiza New Variety Extract
 
 
Font Type:
Arial Georgia Verdana
Font Size:
Aa Aa Aa
Line Spacing:
Column Width:
Background:
Article

Assessment of Pesticide Content in Apples and Selected Citrus Fruits Subjected to Simple Culinary Processing

by
Grażyna Kowalska
1,*,
Urszula Pankiewicz
2 and
Radosław Kowalski
2
1
Department of Tourism and Recreation, University of Life Sciences in Lublin, 15 Akademicka Street, 20-950 Lublin, Poland
2
Department of Analysis and Evaluation of Food Quality, University of Life Sciences in Lublin, 8 Skromna Street, 20-704 Lublin, Poland
*
Author to whom correspondence should be addressed.
Appl. Sci. 2022, 12(3), 1417; https://doi.org/10.3390/app12031417
Submission received: 5 January 2022 / Revised: 21 January 2022 / Accepted: 26 January 2022 / Published: 28 January 2022
(This article belongs to the Special Issue Toxicants and Contaminants in Food)

Abstract

:
Over the span of the last decade, certain pesticides have been banned in apple tree and citrus tree cultivations. Hence, it is important to conduct research focused on estimating the occurrence of residues of pesticides from the perspective of compliance with the relevant legislative regulations. Equally important is to estimate the reduction in pesticide residues through simple procedures such as washing and peeling. This research was conducted in the years 2012 and 2020. An assessment was made of the effect of in-house processing, such as conventional washing with tap water and peeling, on the level of pesticide residues in apples and citrus fruits (oranges, grapefruits and lemons). The level of pesticide residue was determined with the use of the QuEChERS method of extraction in conjunction with LC-MS/MS analysis. One can clearly observe a smaller number of pesticides identified in the edible parts of fruits in 2020 (seven pesticides in apples and three in citrus fruits) compared to 2012 (26 pesticides in apples and 4 in citrus fruits). In apples from 2012, only in the case of disulfoton was the maximum residue limit (MRL) exceeded, while in samples of apples from 2020 no instance of exceeded MRL was noted. This study did not reveal exceeded MRL values in the edible parts of citrus fruits in the analysed years. The absence of detected instances of pesticides not approved for use in the analysed years indicates that the producers complied with the relevant legislative regulations. The results obtained indicate that conventional washing with water (about 1.5 L/one fruit) did not have any effect on the level of pesticide residues in the analysed fruits. Apple peeling allowed for a reduction in pesticide levels in the range of 24% (carbendazim) to 100% (triflumuron, thiodicarb, tebuconazole).

1. Introduction

Apples and citrus fruits are extensively consumed in many countries, and they are considered to be valuable health-promoting food as they contain biologically active components such as ascorbic acid, carotene (provitamin A) and group B vitamins, flavonoids, carotenoids, and phenolic acids, which have beneficial effects for human health [1,2,3,4]. Systematic consumption of fruits and vegetables reduces the risk of civilisation diseases and also facilitates body mass control [5,6,7,8]. Reports of the World Health Organisation of the Food and Agriculture Organisation recommend that adults should consume at least five portions of fruits and vegetables daily [9,10]. On the other hand, cultivations of apple trees and citrus trees are attacked by numerous pathogenic fungi and by pests. For this reason, plant protection agents are commonly applied in conventional cultivations (as well as in sustainable agriculture systems), at various stages of plant development, to control pests and diseases which can cause a reduction in yields [11]. Residues of pesticides in fruits originating from such cultivations may constitute a hazard for human health [12,13,14].
European Union (EU) regulations specify the maximum residue limit (MRL) for pesticides in food of plant origin [15]. In the United States (US), the US Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) approves and registers the use of pesticides and establishes the maximum level of pesticide chemical residues (tolerances) allowed to remain in or on food after treatment with approved pesticides (tolerances may be known as MRL in other countries) [16]. It should be mentioned that the values of MRL are updated on the basis of current data on the safety of application of such plant protection agents, and within the last decade, certain pesticides have been banned from use in crop plant cultivations. Incorrect use of pesticides may result in food contamination, and in consequence, cause harm to consumers, therefore it is important to monitor the level of residues of those contaminants in fruits. Knowledge of the effect of home processing on the level of pesticide residues in fruits is necessary to reduce dietary hazards.
Numerous studies have demonstrated the presence of pesticide residues in apples and citrus fruits, and although home processing of fruits, such as cooking, frying, baking and blanching, leads to a considerable reduction in pesticide residues [17], those fruits are most often consumed with no prior processing. Apples are often eaten directly after washing, or they are peeled, but it needs to be emphasised that certain consumers eat apples even without washing them first. For apple washing under tap water to be effective, a sufficient amount of water must be used, and the duration of the washing process is also important. In model experiments, apple washing time of 2 minutes is specified [18]. However, it should be emphasised that consumers often do not wash fruits at all, or else they wash them for a notably shorter time, e.g., 5–10 s, which results from various reasons, such as the high speed of life or ecological considerations. In the case of apples, the peel can be easily removed by peeling, which will also remove most of the pesticide residues, however, important nutrients (e.g., polyphenolic compounds, fibres, pigments, vitamins and minerals) will be lost as well [18]. In the case of citrus fruits, it is routine procedure to peel them before eating, with the exception of lemons, which are often used unpeeled for spice purposes. The aim of the study was to conduct an estimation of pesticide residues in various parts of apples and citrus fruits, taking into account different aspects such as the effect of simple culinary procedures, the type of washing under tap water and peeling, and keeping in mind the compliance of fruit producers with changes in the relevant legislative regulations.

2. Materials and Methods

2.1. Experimental Material

The test material consisted of fresh fruits: apples (cultivars Jonagold, Gala, Gloster, Rubin, Jonagored, Szampion, Ligol, Alwa, Golden Delicious), oranges, grapefruits (red) and lemons, purchased from markets in Lublin, Eastern Poland (22°34′ E, 51°15′ N). The apples were from a Polish production, while the citrus fruits were imported (Spain, Cyprus, Turkey, South Africa). The fruit samples originated from the harvests of 2012 (nine batches of apples and two batches each of oranges, grapefruits and lemons, respectively) and 2020 (five batches of apples and two batches each of oranges, grapefruits and lemons, respectively), which allowed for observations, important for the experiment, concerning the analysis of pesticide residues in fruits over a long time period.

2.2. Culinary Processing

Prior to the analyses, the fruits were subjected to simple culinary processing routinely performed in households:
  • Apples: the test material consisted of whole fruits, unpeeled and unwashed, apple peel and flesh, and also samples of whole apples after simple washing in a stream of cold tap water for 15 s (about 1.5 L/1 fruit, the time of washing under tap water was shorter than in the model experiment [18], which was aimed at reproducing actual conditions of apple washing in households).
  • Citrus fruits: the conventional procedure for preparation for consumption was applied, i.e., the test samples consisted of peeled fruits, in this case samples of peel and flesh, without prior washing of the fruits.

2.3. Chemicals

High-purity pesticide standards (250) were used for testing (98–99%, Dr. Ehrenstorfer GmbH, Augsburg, Niemcy; ChemService, West Chester, PA, USA): 2,4,5-T, 2,4-D, 2,4-DB, 3,5-dichloroaniline, 3-hydroxycarbofuran, abamectin, acephate, acetamiprid, acrinathrin, alachlor, aldicarb, aldicarb sulfoxide, aldicarb sulphone, ametryn, amitraz, atrazine, azinophos-ethyl, azinophos-methyl, azoxystrobin, benfuracarb, bentazon, benzoylprop ethyl, bifenazate, bromacil, bromoxynil, bromuconazole, buprofezine, butoxycarboxin, cAp (captan), carbaryl, carbendazim, carbetamide, carbofuran, carbosulfan, carboxin, chlorantraniliprole, chloridazon, chlorotoluron, chlorpyrifos, chlorsulfuron, clofentezine, clomazone, clothianidin, coumaphos, cyanazine, cyanofenphos, cycloate, cymoxanil, cyphenothrin, cyprofuram, dEf (decafentin), demeton-S-methyl, demeton-S-methylsulphon, desethyl atrazin, desisopropyl atrazin, desmedipham, desmetryn, diafenthiuron, dialifos, diazinon, dicamba, dichlofluanid, dichloprop (2.4-dP), dichlorvos, dicrotophos, diflubenzuron, dimefuron, dimethachlor, dimethenamide, dimethoate, dimethomorph, diniconazole, diphenamide, diphenylamine, disulfoton, ditalimfos, diuron, dMf (2,4-dimethyl-phenyl-formamidine), dodine, epoxiconazole, etaconazole, ethiofencarb, ethirimol, ethofenprox, etoxazole, etrimphos, fenamidon, fenamiphos, fenazaquin, fenbuconazole, fenhexamid, fenoxap-p-ethyl, fenoxycarb, fenpropimorph, fenpyroximate, fenthion, fenthion sulfon, fenuron, fipronil, flazasulfuron, florosulam, fluazifop, fluazifop-p-butyl, fluazinam, fludioxonil, flufenacet, flufenoxuron, fluometuron, fluroxypyr, flurtamon, fluthiacet methyl, flutriafol, fonofos, fosthiazate, fuberidazol, furathiocarb, halfenprox, haloxyfop, haloxyfop methyl, haloxyfop-2-ethoxyethyl, heptenophos, hexaflumuron, hexazinone, hexythiazox, imazalil, imazamox, imazapyr, imidacloprid, indoxacarb, ioxynil, iprodione, iprovalicarb, isazofos, isocarbamide, isomethiozin, isoproturon, isoxaflutole, lenacil, linuron, lufenuron, malaoxon, malathion, mCpA (2-methyl-4-chlorophenoxyacetic acid), mCpB (4-(2-methyl-4-chlorophenoxy) butyric acid), mCpP (mecoprop), mecarbam, mepanipyrim, metalaxyl, metalaxyl-M, metamitron, metazachlor, metconazol, methabenzthiazuron, methacrifos, methamidophos, methidathion, methiocarb, methoprotryne, methoxyfenozide, metobromuron, metolachlor, metolachlor S, metosulam, metoxuron, metrafenon, monocrotophos, monolinuron, monuron, myclobutanil, nicosulfuron, nitenpyram, norflurazon, novaluron, omethoate, oxamyl, oxycarboxin, oxydemethon methyl, paraoxon ethyl, paraoxon methyl, parathion ethyl, pebulat, penconazole, pencycuron, phenkapton, phenmedipham, phenothrin, phenthoate, phorate, phosalone, phosmet, phosphamidon, phoxim, picoxystrobin, pirimicarb, pirimiphos methyl, prochloraz, profenofos, prometryn, propamocarb, propanil, propaquizafop, prophos, prosulfuron, pyraclostrobin, pyraflufen ethyl, pyridaphenthion, pyridate, pyrimiphos ethyl, pyriproxyfen, quinmerac, quizalofop-p-ethyl, resmethrine, rimsulfuron, sebuthylazin, sethoxydim, siltiopham, simazine, simetryn, spinosad A, spinosad D, spirotetramat, spiroxamin, sulfotep, sulprofos, tebuconazole, tebufenozide, tebufenpyrad, tebutam, teflubenzuron, tepraloxydim, terbucarb, terbumeton, terbuthialzine desethyl, terbuthylazine, tetramethrin, thiabendazole, thiacloprid, thiamethoxam, thiodicarb, thiophanate methyl, tolclofos methyl, tolylfluanid, triadimefon, tri-allate, triamiphos, triazophos, trichlorofon, triclopyr, trifloxystrobin, triflumuron, triforine. Standard solutions of pesticide in acetonitrile, with a concentration of approximately 1000 mg/L, were prepared. Next, standard solutions of a mixture of pesticides in acetonitrile, with concentration of about 35 mg/L, were prepared for each of the compounds. Working standard solutions were prepared by diluting the standard mixtures of pesticide solutions with acetonitrile. All standard solutions were stored at temperatures lower than −20 °C. The choice of analysed pesticides resulted from the demand of apple and citrus producers’ customers for analyses in line with the laboratory services market in the region. In addition, only pesticides for which the criteria for analytical quality were met were included in the analysis.

2.4. Preparation of Samples, Analytical Methods and Instrumentation

The analytical procedure was described in detail in earlier works [19,20]. The content of pesticide residues in the analysed samples (in 2012 and 2020) was assayed following a modified procedure developed in accordance with the standard PN-EN 15662:2008 [21], with the use of the QuEChERS method combined with LC-MS/MS analysis, a Shimadzu Prominence/20 series HPLC system (Shimadzu, Tokyo, Japan) and AB SCIEX 4000 QTRAP® LC-MS/MS system with Turbo V source (Foster City, CA, USA). Both transitions were used for quantification and confirmation purposes (see the Supplementary Material: Tables S1 and S2). The procedure applied in the study has been approved by the Polish Centre of Accreditation (PCA AB 1375).
In addition, in 2020, the tested samples of apples and citrus fruits were analysed at the AGROLAB laboratory (Deblin, Poland) for the content of the following pesticides: boscalid, chlorpyrifos–methyl with the use of the GC-MS/MS method, pyrimethanile, spirotetramat-monohydroxy, sum spirotetramat-enol, -ketohydroxy, -monohydroxy, -enol-glucosid, THPI (tetrahydrophthalimide), flonicamid, TFNG (N-(4-trifluoromethylnicotinoyl)glycine) and TFNA (4-(trifluoromethyl)nicotinic acid) with the use of the LC-MS/MS method, in conformance with the methodology described in the standard PN-EN 15662:2018-06. The procedure applied in the study has been approved by the Polish Centre of Accreditation (PCA AB 444).

2.5. Statistical Analysis

Data were analysed using one way ANOVA followed by Duncan’s test using the SAS statistical system (SAS Version 9.1, SAS Inst., Cary, NC, USA). The significance of all tests was set at p ≤ 0.05.

3. Results and Discussion

3.1. Pesticide Residues in Apples and Citrus Fruits—Comparison

3.1.1. Apples

Figure 1 and Figure 2 present the content of pesticide residues in apples from the harvests of 2012 and 2020, respectively. Table 1 presents data concerning the levels of the individual pesticides in the analysed apples, taking into account the values of MRL and the limit of quantification (LOQ).
In the samples of whole apples from 2012, the number of identified pesticides was 26: boscalid (fungicide), carbendazim (fungicide), chlorpyrifos (acaricide, insecticide), bupirimate (fungicide), difenoconazole (fungicide), diphenylamine (plant growth regulator), disulfoton (insecticide), hexythiazox (acaricide, insecticide), fenazaquin (acaricide), malathion (acaricide, insecticide), propargite (acaricide), pyraclostrobin (fungicide, plant growth regulator), pyrimethanil (fungicide), thiophanate methyl (fungicide), thiacloprid (insecticide), triflumuron (insecticide), flusilazole (fungicide), pirimicarb (insecticide), trifloxystrobin (fungicide), methoxyfenozide (insecticide), thiodicarb (insecticide), epoxiconazole (fungicide), hexaflumuron (insecticide), triadimenol (fungicide), indoxacarb (insecticide), and cyprodinil (fungicide), as shown in Figure 1, Table 1. In contrast, only seven pesticides were identified in whole apples from the 2020 harvest: boscalid (fungicide), pyraclostrobin (fungicide, plant growth regulator), captan (fungicide), fludioxonil (fungicide), tetrahydrophthalimide (THPI) (metabolite of captan–fungicyd), fluopyram (fungicide), tebuconazole (fungicide), as shown in Figure 2, Table 1. One can clearly note that the number of pesticides identified in apples in 2020 was lower. Only two pesticides, boscalid and pyraclostrobin, were identified in both analysed batches of whole apples from 2012 and 2020.
The group of pesticides most often identified in 2012 was that of insecticides (50%), followed by fungicides (46%) and growth regulators (8%). In 2020, only fungicides were identified in whole apple samples. This may be due to the fact that at that time there was an increased interest in alternative methods of plant protection, including fruit production in a sustainable system, where one of the primary assumptions is conducting activities aimed at the creation of biological equilibrium. Numerous studies indicate that side effects of chemical control include the destruction of natural flora and fauna and the contamination of water, soil and air, which has an impact on plant resistance to diseases and pests [11,60,61].
In the analysed samples of apples from 2012, cases of disulfoton levels higher than the MRL (0.01 mg/kg) [32] were only noted in four samples (0.0204 mg/kg, 0.0268 mg/kg, 0.0314 mg/kg and 0.0321 mg/kg); in four other samples of apples, the levels corresponded to the value of MRL or were only slightly higher (0.0113 mg/kg, 0.0114 mg/kg, 0.0125 mg/kg and 0.0154 mg/kg). Earlier legislation, i.e., the Commission Regulation (EC) No. 149/2008 of 29 January 2008 [30], specifies a higher value of MRL, i.e., 0.02 mg/kg. At present, disulfoton is not approved for use in the European Union. Disulfoton is an insecticide, and it is used among other things for the control of aphids and spinning mites. This pesticide has a highly toxic effect in the case of ingestion or absorption through the peel. In the case of long-term exposure, it may have mutagenic effects and cause incorrect synthesis of DNA in fibroblasts [62,63]. The Directive of the European Commission 2003/14/EC of 10 February 2003, amending Directive 91/321/EEC on preparations for infants and related preparations [64], does not allow the use of disulfoton in agricultural raw materials for the production of infant food. The American Environmental Protection Agency placed restrictions on the use of this substance in the USA [65]. The Forest Stewardship Council put a ban on the use of this substance in forests and plantations certificated by that organisation, and classified disulfoton as “extremely hazardous” (class IA according to the World Health Organisation).
In the apples analysed in 2020, no cases of exceeded MRL were noted among the detected pesticide residues. It should be emphasised that the samples of apples from 2020 analysed in the experiment did not contain any pesticides that are not approved for use in European Union. The reduction in the diversity of the detected pesticides in 2020 compared to 2012 results from the observed trends of limitation in the use of pesticides and promotion of sustainable development.
The available publications of studies on the content of pesticides in food report infrequent instances of exceeded MRL of those agents in apples. Monitoring of pesticide residues in food conducted in Poland in the years 2004–2007 by the State Sanitary Inspection revealed exceeded MRL in 2.3% of analysed samples of apples [66]. In a study conducted by Łozowicka et al. [67] in the years 2008–2011, the presence of pesticides was noted in 11.9% (from 1.7% to 19%) of samples of apples from the regions of north-eastern Poland; pesticide levels exceeding the MRL were observed in the range from 0% to 4.4% of the analysed samples of apples. Nonrecommended substances were identified in 0.5% of analysed samples of apples (among fungicides—boscalid, among insecticides—dimethoate) [67]. The cited study demonstrated that 32.4% of fruit samples and 67.6% of samples of vegetables were free of residues of plant protection agents [67]. Nowacka et al. (2010) identified, in apples from the 2009 harvest, the following pesticides: acetamiprid (6.6%), bifenthrin (1.7%), boscalid (0.8%%), captan (22.3%), carbendazim (5.8%), chlorpyrifos (3,3%), cypermethrin (1.7%), cyprodinil (3.3%), difenoconazole (0.8%), dimethoate (0.8%), and dithiocarbamates (11.6%), but none of them were at levels exceeding the MRL value. Another study on agricultural produce from the area of south-eastern Poland, conducted in 2011 by Szpyrka et al. (2008) [68], demonstrated that 46% of analysed samples of apples contained residues of plant protection agents such as: boscalid (20%), chlorpyrifos (8%), cypermethrin (6%), cyprodinil (8%), diazinon (2%), difenoconazole (1%), dithiocarbamates (2%), fenazaquin (4%), fenitrothion (2%), flusilazole (1%), iprodione (1%), captan (46%), kresoxim-methyl (2%), pirimethanil (8%), pirimicarb (7%), and trifloxystrobin (8%). In the case of diazinon (0.02 mg/kg, MRL 0.01 mg/kg) and fenitrothion (0.01–0.03 mg/kg, MRL 0.01 mg/kg), the observed levels exceeded the MRL, and in addition, the use of those two pesticides was prohibited [68].
A 9-year experiment on apples produced in Poland (2009–2013), conducted by Łozowicka [69], revealed that in 66.5% of analysed samples, 34 pesticides were identified, among which the MRL was exceeded in 3% of the analysed samples. Furthermore, 35% of the samples contained from two to six pesticides, and one sample contained seven identified compounds. Among the 34 identified pesticides, the most frequently detected were fungicides. Samples with pesticide levels exceeding the highest permissible concentrations were more often identified in the group of insecticides.
According to the Ministry of Health Report [70], in Poland in 2017, in all 85 analysed samples of apples, the presence of a total of 29 pesticides residues were identified (out of 280 pesticides included in the analyses). In four samples, five instances of exceeded MRL values were noted. In 29% of the analysed samples no presence of pesticide residues was found [70]. In 71% of the samples residues of at least one pesticide was detected. In 39% of the sample, residues of at least two pesticides were noted. None of the analysed samples contained residues of more than six pesticides. The most frequently identified pesticides were: captan (35% of the samples, with mean concentration of 0.171 mg/kg) and boscalid (22% of the samples, with mean concentration of 0.017 mg/kg) [70]. In addition, the authors of the report noted the presence of tebuconazole in 12% of the samples, and fludioxonil in 9% of the samples [70].
A study on pesticide residues in apples grown in Greece demonstrated that 84% of analysed fruits contained pesticide residues, 55.6% of the analysed samples contained from two to four pesticides, while in 7% of the analysed samples a minimum of four of the analysed compounds were detected [71]. The most frequently detected compound was carbendazim (45.7%), followed by chlorpyrifos (44.4%). The average detected levels of concentration varied from 0.169 ppm (fluopyram) to 0.005 ppm (triazofos). Furthermore, 19 out of the 40 analysed pesticides were not identified in any of the analysed samples of apples. In several instances, the detected levels of concentration exceeded the relevant MRL values for four pesticides.
A monitoring study on apples conducted in Kuwait revealed that 90% of the analysed samples of apples contained a detectable residue of pesticides, with 80% exceeding the MRL values [72]. In five samples of the analysed apples, values above the MRL were noted for imidacloprid, in one sample the excessive concentration related to deltamethrin, and in two samples it related to malathion.
Figure 3 presents the frequency of occurrence of pesticides in the analysed samples of apples in the years of the experiment, expressed in the form of percentage share of burdened samples. In 2012, diphenylamine, a growth regulator, was detected in all samples of apples, but the level of the substance did not exceed the MRL. Furthermore, 89% of the samples of apples contained the insecticide disulfoton, and the next most frequently identified compound, at 67%, was the acaricide propargite, whereas in 2020, fungicides were detected in apple samples: boscalid with frequency of 80%, followed by pyraclostrobin and captan, detected in 60% of the analysed samples.
This report also takes into account the long-term hazard, characterised in the form of estimated daily intake of pesticide residues with apples, and indicates that the chronic exposure to captan and boscalid at the average levels observed in the analyses does not pose a threat to any consumer group. The highest estimated daily intake was noted in the case of captan, and it amounted to 213% of the value of the Acceptable Daily Intake (ADI). It was found that, in the case of children, the potential one-time (one day) intake of chlorpyrifos with a large portion of apples exceeds the value of the Acute Reference Dose (ARfD), which created a potential hazard for consumer health in that individual instance [70].
In Poland, in the period of 2014–2019, the following frequency of pesticide residue occurrence in apples was noted: from the group of fungicides, captan (88%), boscalid (38%), pyraclostrobin (28%), tebuconazole (21%), difeconazole (14%), pirymethanil (12%), fludioxonil (12%), tiofanate methyl (12%), fluopyram (10%), cyprodinil (4%), trifloxystrobin (5%), fluksapyroksad (2%), tetraconazole (2%), bupirymat (1%), izopirazam (1%), and pentiopyrad (1%); and from the insecticides, acetamiprid (58%), methoxyfenozide (30%), indoxacarb (22%), pyrimicarb (13%), chlorpyrifos methyl (10%), thiacloprid (*%), phosmet (5%), flonicamid (4%), and deltamethrin (1%) [17].
More than one pesticide was identified in many samples of analysed apples in Kuwait [72]. Co-occurrence of pesticide residues in a single sample may result from the application of various kinds of pesticides to protect fruits against various pests or diseases. In the cited study, the presence of a single compound was noted in 13 analysed samples of apples (16.25%), while the co-occurrence of two pesticides was identified in two samples (2.5%). Additionally, 16 samples (20%) contained residues of three, four, five and six pesticides, and eight samples (10%) were contaminated with residues of 7 to 14 pesticides [72]. The most frequent two-component combination of pesticides was chlorpyrifos and cypermethrin. In four-component combinations, the most frequently identified were combinations of insecticides with fungicides—boscalid, chlorpyrifos, cypermethrin and pyraclostrobin, while in samples with five pesticide residues, the most frequently identified were combinations of insecticides, fungicides and acaricides—boscalid, chlorpyrifos, cypermethrin, propargite and pyraclostrobin. The sample with the largest number of identified pesticides (as many as 14) contained three systemic insecticides (acetamiprid, boscalid, lufenuron), seven nonsystemic insecticides (chlorpyrifos, cypermethrin, deltamethrin, lambda-cyhalothrin, profenofos, triazofos, thiacloprid), two systemic fungicides (difenoconazole, pyraclostrobin), one nonsystemic fungicide (pirymethanil) and one nonsystemic acaricide (propargite) [72].
The results obtained in the study are in conformance with the results obtained by Mladenov and Shterev [73], and by Bakırcı et al. [74]. The highest levels of pesticide residues were assayed in apples from Bulgaria, produced in the conventional manner, with residues of chlorpyrifos and fenitrothion [73], and in apples from the Aegon region in Turkey, with residues of propargite and thiabendazole [74].

3.1.2. Citrus Fruits

Figure 4 and Figure 5 present the content of identified pesticides in edible parts of citrus fruits (flesh), in samples from 2012 and 2020, respectively.
In 2012, the presence of four pesticides were found in the flesh of citrus fruits—chlorpyrifos (insecticide), imazalil (fungicide), prochloraz (fungicide) and pyrimethanil (fungicide). In 2020, in the flesh of the analysed samples of citrus fruits the following pesticides were identified: imazalil, pyrimethanil and compounds from the spirotetramat group (insecticides), such as spirotetramat-enol and spirotetramat-enol-glucoside. In the years of the analyses, no instances of exceeded MRL values were noted for the identified pesticide residues.
Góralczyk et al. [66] conducted a study in the years 2004–2007 analysing the residues of pesticides in samples of fruits, including, among others, oranges, mandarins and nectarines. Exceeded values of MRL were observed by the authors only in the case of nectarines, and the pesticide with excessive concentration was chlorpyrifos. Thurman et al. [75] identified prochloraz and imazalil, and their primary products of degradation, in extracts of citrus fruits. Blasco et al. [76] assayed pesticide residues in oranges and tangerines from Valencia (Spain). Among 116 samples analysed by the authors, 52 contained residues of plant protection agents. The most frequently detected pesticides were the following: carbendazim, hexythiazox, metydation, imidacloprid and metiokarb, and in addition, in some samples they also identified piriproksyfen, thiabendazole, trichlorofon and imazalil. In 22 instances, the cited authors detected hexythiazox at concentrations in the range of 0.02–0.05mg/kg, and in eight samples they assayed imazalil at levels from 0.02 to 1.2 mg/kg. However, they did not observe any nonconformance with MRL in force in the territory of the EU. In a majority of cases, the samples contained residues of individual pesticides. Infrequently, two or three pesticides were identified in a sample, and in only one sample, residues of four pesticides were identified at the same time—carbendazim, hexythiazox, imazalil and metydation.
In a study on apples and lemons, Jurak et al. [77] demonstrated that 18.3% of analysed samples were contaminated with pesticides. The most frequently identified compound was izmalil, detected in 18 analysed samples (range of 0.02–4.10 mg/kg), followed by chlorpyrifos, identified in 8 samples, at concentrations from 0.03 mg/kg to 0.27 mg/kg. Imazalil constituted the highest percentage (66.6%) of pesticides identified in the analysed fruits. In eight samples of the fruits, pesticide residues were higher than the MRL and were identified as hazardous for human consumption.
A study by Calvaruso et al. [78] focused on pesticide contamination of citrus fruits (oranges, lemons and mandarins) cultivated in Italy, and demonstrated that 60% of the analysed samples of fruits contained residues of one pesticide, while in two samples (4%) the presence of two pesticides was noted. Samples of oranges contained the highest average levels of pesticides (2491 ± 1024 μg/kg), with the maximum level (4468 μg/kg) being that of imazalil, which was the most frequently identified pesticide in orange samples (83%). This confirms the extensive use of this compound in the protection of citrus fruits. The presence of imazalil was noted also in samples of mandarins, with an average level of 3841.25 ± 2145 μg/kg and a maximum of 4456 μg/kg.
A study on pesticide residues in citrus fruits (peeled grapefruit, lemon, orange and mandarin) grown in the Jordan Valley [79] revealed the presence of chlorothalonil and daminozide in the majority of the analysed samples. Their average concentrations in grapefruit, lemon, orange and mandarin exceeded the maximum residue limit (MRL) values. In some of the fruits, several other pesticides, e.g., bensulphuron methyl and demeton-S-methyl-sulphoxide, were noted at levels above the MRL.
In a study by Jurak et al. [77], pesticide residues were detected in 31 out of 200 (15.5%) samples of fruits (oranges, grapefruits, lemons, mandarins, peaches, pears, grapes) and vegetables (tomato, potato). In fruit samples, pesticide residues were found in 22 out of 120 (18.3%) analysed samples. Imazalil was identified in 18 samples (range of 0.020–4.1 mg/kg). Chlorpyrifos was detected in eight samples at concentrations from 0.030 mg/kg to 0.27 mg/kg, and foran in three samples, at low concentrations ranging from 0.011 mg/kg to 0.019 mg/kg. In a single sample, ethion was detected at a concentration of 0.27 mg/kg. Imazalil constituted the highest percentage (66.6%) of pesticides identified in the analysed fruits. In eight samples of fruits, pesticide residues exceeded the MRL values and were classified as hazardous if used for human consumption.
Figure 6 presents the frequency of occurrence of pesticides in the analysed samples of citrus fruit flesh, expressed in the form of percentage share of burdened samples.
In 2012 and in 2020, in all analysed samples of citrus fruits, the presence of the fungicide imazalil was detected. The second most frequent pesticide in the analysed samples of citrus fruits was the fungicide pyrimethanil, whose residues were detected in 50% of the analysed samples in the years of the study. Imazalil and pyrimethanil are fungicides extensively used in agriculture, especially in the cultivation of citrus fruits. They provide surface protection of fruits, especially citrus fruits, against the growth of moulds on their surface. Unfortunately, analyses on the flesh of fruits protectively coated with those compounds prove that the fungicides penetrate into the fruits [75,76].
Comparing the results concerning the content of pesticide residues in apples and in citrus fruits, one can note that apples were characterised by a significantly greater diversity of identified pesticides, i.e., 27 and 8 identified compounds in apples, and only 4 pesticides in citrus fruits.
According to the Report of the Ministry of Health [70] in Poland in 2017, no instances of exceeded values of MRL in analysed samples of oranges were observed. No pesticide residues were found in 7% of the analysed samples [70]. In 93% of the analysed oranges, the presence of at least one pesticide was detected. In 80% of the samples, the presence of at least two pesticides was noted. None of the samples of oranges contained residues of more than nine identified pesticides. The most often identified pesticides were the following: imazalil (91% of the samples, with average concentration of 0.603 mg/kg), thiabendazole (48% of the samples, with average concentration of 0.380 mg/kg), chlorpyrifos (41% of the samples, with average concentration of 0.023 mg/kg), pyrimethanil (34% of the samples, with average concentration of 0.267 mg/kg), 2,4-D (30% of the samples, with average concentration of 0.030 mg/kg) and 2-phenylphenol (29% of the samples, with average concentration of 0.212 mg/kg), as well as carbendazim (16% of the samples), dithiocarbamates (14% of the samples), propiconazole (14% of the samples), buprofezin (13% of the samples), azoxystrobin (11% of the samples), pyraclostrobin (11% of the samples) and chlorpyrifos methyl (9%) [70].
Imazalil is a fungicide which is used mainly after the harvest, which means that it should be found on the peel of orange fruits [80]. A study conducted by Swiss researchers on citrus fruits demonstrated that imazalil was detected in 70% of cases [81]. Chlorpyrifos was identified in eight samples at concentrations from 0.030 mg/kg to 0.27 mg/kg. Chlorpyrifos is an organophosphate insecticide extensively used in agriculture. Due to the high hazard to human health, and also environmental pollution, this pesticide is prohibited from use in the EU [82]. Foran was detected in three samples at very low concentrations ranging from 0.011 mg/kg to 0.019 mg/kg. Foran is a phosphoroorganic pesticide used as an insecticide, withdrawn from use in the EU. Although it is forbidden by the EU from use in third-party countries, it can still be identified. The presence of foran was confirmed in a study conducted in India [83]. In a single sample, ethion was detected at the concentration of 0.27 mg/kg.

3.2. Effect of Peeling on the Content of Pesticides

Figure 7 and Figure 8 present the residues of pesticides in the peels of apples from the years 2012 and 2020.
In 2012, in apple peel, 31 compounds were identified (Figure 7, Table 1), compared to 26 compounds identified in whole apples (Figure 1). The pesticide group identified the most frequently in apple peels in 2012 was that of insecticides (52%), followed by fungicides (42%), growth regulators (6%) and herbicides (3%), whereas in 2020, residues of nine pesticides were detected in apple peels (Figure 8) compared to eight identified in whole apples (Figure 2, Table 1). Among the pesticides identified in apple peels in 2020, eight represented compounds from the group of fungicides (89%), and one represented the group of insecticides (acetamiprid, 11%).
Analysing the levels of individual pesticides in apple peels in the years 2012 and 2020, one should note that only in 2012 was the value of MRL exceeded in the cases of chlorpyrifos (MRL 0.05 mg/kg [25]) in 33% of the samples (from 0.102 mg/kg to 0.269 mg/kg), and disulfoton (MRL 0.01 mg/kg [32]) in 78% of the samples—within an 8–19-fold range compared to the allowable levels (from 0.077 mg/kg to 0.186 mg/kg). Pesticide concentrations in apple peels were significantly higher than in whole apples. It should be emphasised that the European Commission decided not to renew the approval for two active substances: chlorpyrifos and chlorpyrifos methyl, after acquiring the opinion of the European Food Safety Authority (EFSA). According to EFSA, plant protection agents containing those substances may have a negative impact on human health, and on children in particular. The fundamental argument is focused on the potential effect of the genotoxicity and developmental neurotoxicity of those chemical compounds, this being supported by epidemiological data indicating the occurrence of such effects in the population. Chlorpyrifos and chlorpyrifos methyl raise controversy not only in Europe, but also in the USA. The Californian Environmental Protection Agency arrived at similar conclusions to the EFSA, perceiving an effect of those substances on brain damage in children. While as of the 31st of December 2020, farmers in California could not possess nor use plant protection agents containing chlorpyrifos and chlorpyrifos methyl, in all other states of the USA the registration of these insecticides is currently extended till 2022. The Implementing Regulations (EU) No. 2020/18 [84] and 2020/17 [85] on the nonrenewal of the approval for the above active substances were finalised on 10 January 2020. The licence for chlorpyrifos and chlorpyrifos methyl expired on 31 January 2020. By 16 February 2020, all permits for plant protection agents containing chlorpyrifos and chlorpyrifos methyl as active substances were annulled. From that date, new batches of such insecticides could not be placed on the market, and those already on the market before 16 February 2020 could only be offered for sale until 1 April 2020. The ultimate deadline for the use of those insecticides in the territory of the European Union was the 16 April 2020. The fact that no instances of identification of chlorpyrifos in samples of apples in 2020 were noted shows that the producers of plant protection agents have complied with the above regulations.
For comparison, the content of pesticides in the flesh of fruits was determined after peeling off the peels. Figure 9 and Figure 10 present the levels of pesticide residues in the flesh of apples in the years 2012 and 2020.
In the flesh of apples from 2012, 24 pesticides were identified, i.e., two fewer than in whole apples and seven compounds fewer than in the peels acquired from those apples (31 pesticides), whereas in the flesh of apples from 2020, only six pesticides were detected (with identification of captan metabolites), i.e., one pesticide fewer than in the whole apples and three fewer than in peels peeled off the apples. The analysis of the levels of residues of individual pesticides in apple flesh did not reveal any instances of values exceeding the MRL in the years of the study.
Accumulation of pesticides in fruits is dependent on the method of operation of plant protection agents [17]. In the case of systemic compounds, e.g., boscalid, bupirymat, cyprodinil, difenokonazol, flonicamid, fluopyram, pyraklostrobin, pirymethanil, pirymicarb, tebuconazole, tiachlopryd, tiofanate methyl, and trifloxystrobin, they penetrate into plant tissues, due to which their concentration in peeled apples is higher and more difficult to remove through the use of technological processes. In the case of nonsystemic contact operations (e.g., deltamethrin, fludioxonil and methoxyfenozide), a higher level of reduction in the levels of residues is observed in fruits with the peel removed [17].
A study conducted by Łozowicka et al. [86] on the level of contamination of apples from south Kazakhstan demonstrated that 50% of the samples contained 24 pesticides at concentrations of 0.006–0.62, 0.005–0.46 and 0.02–1.38 mg/kg, in whole apples, in the flesh and in the peel, respectively. Furthermore, 26 identified compounds had concentrations higher than the MRL, primarily the insecticide chlorpyrifos in 13 samples (MRL 0.01 mg/kg), the acaricide propargite in 10 samples (MRL 0.01 mg/kg), and triazophos (MRL 0.01 mg/kg). The compounds detected in the apples represented three groups of pesticides: acaricides (2), fungicides (8) and insecticides (14), and their concentrations ranged from 0.004 to 1.38 mg/kg in the peel, from 0.001 to 0.46 mg/kg in the flesh, and from 0.003 to 0.62 mg/kg in whole apples. The highest concentrations of the identified compounds in apple peel were noted in the case of the acaricide propargite (1.38 mg/kg), followed by the insecticides triazophos (1.25 mg/kg) and chlorpyrifos (1.03 mg/kg), whereas in samples of apple flesh, lower concentrations of pesticide residues were noted relative to the apple peels, with the highest concentrations observed in the cases of propargite (0.46 mg/kg), chlorpyrifos (0.31 mg/kg), and the fungicide boscalid (0.22 mg/kg). In whole apples, the highest concentrations were identified in the cases of propargite and chlorpyrifos, at 0.62 and 0.42 mg/kg, respectively. The next most frequently identified active substance was cypermethrin (22.5% of all analysed samples), a representative of the group of insecticides, with concentrations of 0.006–0.29 mg/kg in apple peels, 0.002–0.06 mg/kg in the flesh, and up to 0.2 mg/kg in whole apples. In 22.5% of the analysed samples, another insecticide was identified—acetamiprid—with concentrations of 0.017–0.813 mg/kg in the peel, 0.003–0.134 mg/kg in the flesh, and 0.003–0.089 mg/kg in whole apples.
In a study on four apple cultivars, Mladenova and Shtereva [73] observed significantly lower pesticide residues (below 0.05 mg/kg) in whole apples relative to the analysed samples of apple peels (0.45 mg/kg–0.77 mg/kg).
Mechanical peeling, typical of home processing, and chemical peeling, used mainly in industrial processing, are treatments which significantly contribute to a reduction in the level of pesticide residues in the flesh of fruits. Most of the pesticide residues are removed with the fruit peel [87]. In this case, the systemic operation of pesticide residues is not always correlated with lower reduction in pesticide residues through peeling [87].
Our experiment demonstrated a significant effect of peeling on the content of pesticides in apples (Figure 11 and Figure 12). Peeling allowed us to reduce the levels of pesticides, expressed in %, within the range from 24% (carbendazim) to 100% (triflumuron, thiodicarb, tebuconazole).
Figure 13 and Figure 14 illustrate the content of pesticide residues in the peel of citrus fruits from the harvests of 2012 and 2020. Table 2 presents data concerning the occurrence of individual pesticides in the analysed citrus fruits, taking into account the MRL and LOQ values.
Peels of citrus fruits are not used for direct consumption, with the exception of lemons, whose peel has some spice value. Peels of citrus fruits can be processed and used as an additive in confectionery products, or they can be raw materials for the production of essential oils.
In 2012, in the peel of citrus fruits, two more pesticides were identified relative to the results for the fruit flesh, i.e., pyriproxyfen (insecticide) and thiabendazole (fungicide). If we compare the normative requirements relating to the peels of citrus fruits to those relating to citrus fruits, instances of levels in excess of the MRL value (0.01 mg/kg [25]) were noted only in the case of chlorpyrifos in all of the analysed samples, with detected concentrations in the range from 0.030 mg/kg to 0.045 mg/kg (lemons), 0.040 mg/kg to 0.096 mg/kg (oranges), and from 0.541 mg/kg to 1.135 mg/kg (grapefruits). In samples of the peel of citrus fruits from 2020, six pesticides were identified, i.e., chlorpyrifos, imazalil, pyrimethanil, spirotetramat-enol-glucoside, acetamiprid and hexythiazox. As in 2012, in the samples of citrus fruit peels from the year 2020, excessive levels of pesticides were noted only in the case of chlorpyrifos—in two samples of grapefruit peels the values were 0.074 mg/kg and 0.138 mg/kg, and in one sample of orange peels the assayed value was 0.12 mg/kg (the MRL was unchanged relative to earlier regulations and equalled 0.01 mg/kg [26]).
The levels of pesticide residues in the flesh of citrus fruits have been presented in the preceding subchapter (Figure 4 and Figure 5).
The results clearly indicate a high accumulation of pesticides in the peels of citrus fruits. In the case of the flesh of citrus fruits, residues of plant protection agents were identified in minimal amounts and never exceeded the valid MRL values. Similar conclusions were formulated by Ortelli et al. [81] following an experiment on various citrus fruits: lemons, oranges, mandarins, grapefruits, limes, pomelo and kumquats. Among 240 analysed samples, 207 samples contained residues of plant protection agents such as imazalil, thiabendazole and prochloraz, in 70%, 36% and 11% of the samples, respectively. In addition, those authors observed notable levels of chlorpyrifos, hexythiazox, methidathion and tebufenpyrad. They also noted considerable concentrations of pesticides in the peels of the analysed fruits. On the basis of an experiment on lemons and oranges, they concluded that fungicides applied after the harvest of the fruits accumulated in 85–90% in the fruit peel.
In samples of lemon peels, the presence of fenhexamid was detected, at an average concentration of 30.25 ± 18.34 mg/kg and a maximum of 66 mg/kg [78]. Analysis of the specific parts of the fruits of orange and mandarin revealed significant differences in the level of imazalil. In addition, differences in the level of fenhexamid were noted in the analysed parts of lemon fruit samples. In the analysed samples of orange, 6% of imazalil migrated from the peel to the flesh, while in the case of mandarin that value was as low as 1.6%. In the case of samples of mandarins, 16% of carbendazim migrated from the peel to the flesh, and in the case of samples of lemons 25% of fenhexamid penetrated from the peel to the flesh. The relatively low rate of penetration of fungicides to the flesh probably resulted from the physicochemical properties of the analytes under examination and of the peel of the analysed fruit samples. In reality, the levels of both fungicides were considerably higher in the peels than in the whole fruits. In view of the above, and of the lack of knowledge on the origin of the products, it is not recommended to use peels of citrus fruits for the preparation of meals or drinks. In actual life, the peels of citrus fruits are often used in the preparation of liqueurs, jams, or pastry.
In a study on oranges, Li et al. [91] demonstrated a significantly higher content of pesticides in the peels compared to the flesh (7.5–17.9%), with the exception of prochloraz, whose content in the flesh of the fruits was 65.4%. Peeling resulted in a significant reduction in the level of residues of pesticides in the fruit flesh [91].
Impregnation of citrus fruits through immersion in a solution containing fungicides is extensively applied to prevent losses during fruit storage and distribution [81]. That procedure was the cause of residue levels exceeding the MRL demonstrated by the cited authors in the case of chlorpyrifos and imazalil. In the case of imazalil, the highest concentration was ca. 1.1 mg/kg, and in the case of chlorpyrifos ca. 1.6 mg/kg, i.e., considerably higher than in the peels of citrus fruits analysed in this study. Such a situation poses a potential hazard to the consumer, especially when also fruit peels are consumed, e.g., candied peel of lemons, oranges and grapefruits (commonly used in the confectionery industry).
Another important aspect is the total content of all pesticides, which can have a synergistic effect on human health, hence the importance of limitation of the use of pesticides. This is reflected in the observed trend, especially in the case of apples, where in 2020 the levels and numbers of identified pesticides were significantly lower compared to the year 2012.

3.3. Effect of Conventional Washing of Fruits on the Content of Pesticides

Figure 15 and Figure 16 illustrate the levels of pesticides in apples from the harvests of 2012 and 2020, respectively, subjected to conventional washing with tap water. The experiment demonstrated that conventional washing of fruits does not cause any reduction of the number of identified pesticides, i.e., 26 pesticides were detected in 2012 and 7 pesticides in samples of apples from 2020. Analysing the levels of residues of the particular pesticides, no significant differences were noted between samples of apples washed with water and those which were not subjected to the process of washing.
Yang et al. [18] also demonstrated a low effectiveness of washing apples for 2 minutes in tap water in the removal of residues of pesticides that had been introduced as standard into the analysed samples.
In a study conducted in 2015 in Iran, it was demonstrated that 67% of the analysed samples of apples contained pesticide residues [92]. The cited report describes the effect of washing and peeling on the reduction in the levels of residues of three pesticides (diazinon, chlorpyrifos and abamectin). Washing with water for 3 minutes caused a reduction in the content of the pesticides in the apples by as little as 17%, while peeling reduced the content of diazinon and chlorpyrifos by an average of 80% [92].
Sekachaie et al. demonstrated that washing with water, with water with a detergent, and peeling, resulted in a reduction in the level of malathion by 34.4%, 55.8%, 60.6% and 74.7%, respectively [93]. The washing of agricultural produce with water or with other disinfecting solutions causes the removal of only a part of pesticide residues from the surface, and also contributes to a reduction in further penetration of pesticides from the peel to the flesh of fruits and vegetables. Literature data on the effect of washing on the level of pesticide residues in fruits and vegetables are inconsistent, and all of them indicated an absence of correlation between solubility in water and the reduction in pesticides after washing [87].

4. Conclusions

Research reports published to date indicate the significance of studies concerned with the estimation of the occurrence of residues of plant protection agents in fruits in terms of compliance with the relevant regulations. Systematic research on the toxicity of pesticides contributes to continuous and dynamic verification of approvals for the use of plant protection agents in cultivations, and to the updating of the values of MRL. The results of studies show that the ban on the use of certain pesticides leads to the expected reduction in their residues in apple and citrus fruit crops. In addition, the growing consumer awareness in the area of food safety and on the subject of the effect of pesticides on the environment results in the producers’ interest in the limitation of the use of such chemicals, and in the search for alternative methods of crops cultivation, such as integrated production or organic farming. Additionally, important factors in reducing the level of pesticide residues are the simple procedures of washing and peeling, which can be performed in every household. The research carried out indicates that in the fruit of apples grown in Poland, as well as imported citrus fruits over the period of 8 years, one can clearly observe a limitation in the use of pesticides, which results in higher quality of the most popular fruits in the diet. In addition, in recent years there were no instances of identification of pesticides banned from use, which shows that producers comply with the current regulations. The simple culinary treatment of conventional peeling can largely reduce the level of pesticide residues in the edible parts of fruits.

Supplementary Materials

The following supporting information can be downloaded at: https://www.mdpi.com/article/10.3390/app12031417/s1, Table S1: List of pesticides determined in the positive ionization mode; Table S2: List of pesticides determined in the negative ionization mode.

Author Contributions

Conceptualization, G.K. and R.K.; methodology G.K. and R.K.; software, G.K. and R.K.; validation, G.K., R.K. and U.P.; formal analysis, G.K. and R.K.; investigation, G.K. and R.K.; resources, G.K., R.K. and U.P.; data curation, G.K., R.K. and U.P.; writing—original draft preparation, G.K., R.K.; writing—review and editing, G.K. and R.K.; visualization, U.P.; supervision, G.K.; project administration, G.K. and R.K.; funding acquisition, G.K., R.K. and U.P. All authors have read and agreed to the published version of the manuscript.

Funding

This work was financed by a statutory activity subsidy from the Polish Ministry of Science and Higher Education for the Faculty of Agrobioengineering of University of Life Sciences in Lublin and for the Faculty of Food Science and Biotechnology of University of Life Sciences in Lublin.

Institutional Review Board Statement

Not applicable.

Informed Consent Statement

Not applicable.

Data Availability Statement

Not applicable.

Conflicts of Interest

The authors declare no conflict of interest.

References

  1. Turner, T.; Burri, B. Potential Nutritional Benefits of Current Citrus Consumption. Agriculture 2013, 3, 170–187. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  2. Lončarić, A.; Matanović, K.; Ferrer, P.; Kovač, T.; Šarkanj, B.; Skendrović Babojelić, M.; Lores, M. Peel of Traditional Apple Varieties as a Great Source of Bioactive Compounds: Extraction by Micro-Matrix Solid-Phase Dispersion. Foods 2020, 9, 80. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed] [Green Version]
  3. Slavin, J.L.; Lloyd, B. Health Benefits of Fruits and Vegetables. Adv. Nutr. 2012, 3, 506–516. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  4. Wallace, T.C.; Bailey, R.L.; Blumberg, J.B.; Burton-Freeman, B.; Chen, C.O.; Crowe-White, K.M.; Drewnowski, A.; Hooshmand, S.; Johnson, E.; Lewis, R.; et al. Fruits, vegetables, and health: A comprehensive narrative, umbrella review of the science and recommendations for enhanced public policy to improve intake. Crit. Rev. Food Sci. Nutr. 2020, 60, 2174–2211. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  5. Park, H.-M.; Heo, J.; Park, Y. Calcium from plant sources is beneficial to lowering the risk of osteoporosis in postmenopausal Korean women. Nutr. Res. 2011, 31, 27–32. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  6. Williamson, G. Protective effects of fruits and vegetables in the diet. Nutr. Food Sci. 1996, 96, 6–10. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  7. Celik, F.; Topcu, F. Nutritional risk factors for the development of chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD) in male smokers. Clin. Nutr. 2006, 25, 955–961. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  8. Payne, M.E.; Steck, S.E.; George, R.R.; Steffens, D.C. Fruit, Vegetable, and Antioxidant Intakes Are Lower in Older Adults with Depression. J. Acad. Nutr. Diet. 2012, 112, 2022–2027. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  9. Rejman, K.; Górska-Warsewicz, H.; Kaczorowska, J.; Laskowski, W. Nutritional Significance of Fruit and Fruit Products in the Average Polish Diet. Nutrients 2021, 13, 2079. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  10. Pem, D.; Jeewon, R. Fruit and vegetable intake: Benefits and progress of nutrition education interventions-narrative review article. Iran. J. Public Health 2015, 44, 1309–1321. [Google Scholar]
  11. Damos, P.; Colomar, L.-A.; Ioriatti, C. Integrated Fruit Production and Pest Management in Europe: The Apple Case Study and How Far We Are from the Original Concept? Insects 2015, 6, 626–657. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  12. Khan, N.; Yaqub, G.; Hafeez, T.; Tariq, M. Assessment of Health Risk due to Pesticide Residues in Fruits, Vegetables, Soil, and Water. J. Chem. 2020, 2020, 1–7. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  13. Łozowicka, B.; Kaczyński, P.; Rutkowska, E.; Jankowska, M.; Hrynko, I. Evaluation of pesticide residues in fruit from Poland and health risk assessment. Agric. Sci. 2013, 4, 106–111. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  14. Kowalska, G.; Kowalski, R. Pestycydy—Zakres i ryzyko stosowania, korzyści i zagrożenia. Praca przeglądowa. Ann. Hortic. 2019, 29, 5–25. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  15. The European Commission Regulation (EU). No 396/2005 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 23 February 2005 on maximum residue levels of pesticides in or on food and feed of plant and animal origin and amending Council Directive 91/414/EEC. Off. J. Eur. Union 2005, L70, 1–16. [Google Scholar]
  16. Liang, C.-P.; Sack, C.; McGrath, S.; Cao, Y.; Thompson, C.J.; Robin, L.P. US Food and Drug Administration regulatory pesticide residue monitoring of human foods: 2009–2017. Food Addit. Contam. Part A 2021, 38, 1520–1538. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  17. Łozowicka, B.; Hrynko, I.; Iwaniuk, P.; Jankowska, M.; Kaczyński, P.; Konecki, R.; Pietraszko, A.; Rusiłowska, J.; Rutkowska, E. Sprawozdanie z Badań Podstawowych Prowadzonych w 2020 Roku na Rzecz Rolnictwa Ekologicznego. Available online: https://www.ior.poznan.pl/plik,3877,sprawozdanie-prof-dr-hab-bozena-lozowicka-pj-re-027-2020-1-pdf.pdf (accessed on 21 December 2021).
  18. Yang, T.; Doherty, J.; Zhao, B.; Kinchla, A.J.; Clark, J.M.; He, L. Effectiveness of Commercial and Homemade Washing Agents in Removing Pesticide Residues on and in Apples. J. Agric. Food Chem. 2017, 65, 9744–9752. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  19. Kowalska, G. Pesticide Residues in Some Polish Herbs. Agriculture 2020, 10, 154. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  20. Kowalska, G.; Pankiewicz, U.; Kowalski, R. Estimation of Pesticide Residues in Selected Products of Plant Origin from Poland with the Use of the HPLC-MS/MS Technique. Agriculture 2020, 10, 192. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  21. PN-EN 15662 Foods of Plant Origin—Determination of Pesticide Residues Using GC-MS and/or LC-MS/MS Following Acetonitrile Extraction/Partitioning and Cleanup by Dispersive SPE—QuEChERS-Method 2008; The Polish Committee for Standardization: Warsaw, Poland, 2008; pp. 1–81.
  22. The European Commission Regulation (EU) No 459/2010 of 27 May 2010 amending Annexes II, III and IV to Regulation (EC) No 396/2005 of the European Parliament and of the Council as regards maximum residue levels for certain pesticides in or on certain products. Off. J. Eur. Union 2010, L129, 3–149.
  23. The European Commission Regulation (EU) 2016/156 of 18 January 2016 amending Annexes II and III to Regulation (EC) No 396/2005 of the European Parliament and of the Council as regards maximum residue levels for boscalid, clothianidin, thiamethoxam, folpet and tolclofo. Off. J. Eur. Union 2016, L31, 1–44.
  24. The European Commission Regulation (EU) No 559/2011 of 7 June 2011 amending Annexes II and III to Regulation (EC) No 396/2005 of the European Parliament and of the Council as regards maximum residue levels for captan, carbendazim, cyromazine, ethephon, fenamiphos, thi. Off. J. Eur. Union 2011, L152, 1–21.
  25. The European Commission Regulation (EU) No 839/2008 of 31 July 2008 amending Regulation (EC) No 396/2005 of the European Parliament and of the Council as regards Annexes II, III and IV on maximum residue levels of pesticides in or on certain products. Off. J. Eur. Union 2008, 000.003, 1–245.
  26. The European Commission Corrigendum to Commission Regulation (EU) 2020/1085 of 23 July 2020 amending Annexes II and V to Regulation (EC) No 396/2005 of the European Parliament and of the Council as regards maximum residue levels for chlorpyrifos and chlorpyrifos-methy. Off. J. Eur. Union 2020, L245, 31–42.
  27. The European Commission Regulation (EU) 2020/1566 of 27 October 2020 amending Annexes II and III to Regulation (EC) No 396/2005 of the European Parliament and of the Council as regards maximum residue levels for bupirimate, carfentrazone-ethyl, ethirimol, and pyriofen. Off. J. Eur. Union 2020, L358, 30–58.
  28. The European Commission Regulation (EU) No 441/2012 of 24 May 2012 amending Annexes II and III to Regulation (EC) No 396/2005 of the European Parliament and of the Council as regards maximum residue levels for bifenazate, bifenthrin, boscalid, cadusafos, chlorantranil. Off. J. Eur. Union 2012, L135, 4–56.
  29. The European Commission Regulation (EU) 2019/552 of 4 April 2019 amending Annexes II and III to Regulation (EC) No 396/2005 of the European Parliament and of the Council as regards maximum residue levels for azoxystrobin, bicyclopyrone, chlormequat, cyprodinil, difeno. Off. J. Eur. Union 2019, L96, 6–49.
  30. The European Commission Regulation (EU) No 149/2008 of 29 January 2008 amending Regulation (EC) No 396/2005 of the European Parliament and of the Council by establishing Annexes II, III and IV setting maximum residue levels for products covered by Annex I thereto. Off. J. Eur. Union 2008, L58, 1–398.
  31. The European Commission Regulation (EU) 2018/1515 of 10 October 2018 amending Annexes III and V to Regulation (EC) No 396/2005 of the European Parliament and of the Council as regards maximum residue levels for diphenylamine and oxadixyl in or on certain products. Off. J. Eur. Union 2018, L256, 33–44.
  32. The European Commission Regulation (EU) No 899/2012 of 21 September 2012 amending Annexes II and III to Regulation (EC) No 396/2005 of the European Parliament and of the Council as regards maximum residue levels for acephate, alachlor, anilazine, azocyclotin, benfurac. Off. J. Eur. Union 2012, L273, 1–75.
  33. The European Commission Regulation (EU) No 592/2012 of 4 July 2012 amending Annexes II and III to Regulation (EC) No 396/2005 of the European Parliament and of the Council as regards maximum residue levels for bifenazate, captan, cyprodinil, fluopicolide. Off. J. Eur. Union 2012, L176, 1–37.
  34. The European Commission Regulation (EU) No 893/2010 of 8 October 2010 amending Annexes II and III to Regulation (EC) No 396/2005 of the European Parliament and of the Council as regards maximum residue levels for acequinocyl, bentazone, carbendazim, cyfluthrin, fenami. Off. J. Eur. Union 2010, L266, 10–39.
  35. The European Commission Regulation (EU) 2019/50 of 11 January 2019 amending Annexes II, III, IV and V to Regulation (EC) No 396/2005 of the European Parliament and of the Council as regards maximum residue levels for chlorantraniliprole, clomazone, cyclaniliprole, fen. Off. J. Eur. Union 2019, L10, 8–59.
  36. The European Commission Rregulation (EU) No 270/2012 of 26 March 2012 amending Annexes II and III to Regulation (EC) No 396/2005 of the European Parliament and of the Council as regards maximum residue levels for amidosulfuron, azoxystrobin, bentazone, bixafen, cyproc. Off. J. Eur. Union 2012, L89, 5–63.
  37. The European Commission Regulation (EU) 2015/399 of 25 February 2015 amending Annexes II, III and V to Regulation (EC) No 396/2005 of the European Parliament and of the Council as regards maximum residue levels for 1,4-dimethylnaphthalene, benfuracarb, carbofuran, car. Off. J. Eur. Union 2015, L71, 1–55.
  38. The European Commission Regulation (EU) 2018/832 of 5 June 2018 amending Annexes II, III and V to Regulation (EC) No 396/2005 of the European Parliament and of the Council as regards maximum residue levels for cyantraniliprole, cymoxanil, deltamethrin, difenocona. Off. J. Eur. Union 2018, L140, 38–86.
  39. The European Commission Regulation (EU) No 978/2011 of 3 October 2011 amending Annexes II and III to Regulation (EC) No 396/2005 of the European Parliament and of the Council as regards maximum residue levels for acetamiprid, biphenyl, captan, chlorantraniliprole, cyf. Off. J. Eur. Union 2011, L258, 12–69.
  40. The European Commission Regulation (EU) 2020/1633 of 27 October 2020 amending Annexes II, III, IV and V to Regulation (EC) No 396/2005 of the European Parliament and of the Council as regards maximum residue levels for azinphos-methyl, bentazone, dimethomorph, fludiox. Off. J. Eur. Union 2020, L367, 1–38.
  41. The European Commission Regulation (EU) No 813/2011 of 11 August 2011 amending Annexes II and III to Regulation (EC) No 396/2005 of the European Parliament and of the Council as regards maximum residue levels for acequinocyl, emamectin benzoate, ethametsulfuronmethyl. Off. J. Eur. Union 2018, L208, 23–79.
  42. The European Commission Regulation (EU) 2018/1516 of 10 October 2018 amending Annexes II and III to Regulation (EC) No 396/2005 of the European Parliament and of the Council as regards maximum residue levels for penoxsulam, triflumizole and triflumuron in or on certai. Off. J. Eur. Union 2018, L256, 45–57.
  43. The European Commission Regulation (EU) No 703/2014 of 19 June 2014 amending Annexes II, III and V to Regulation (EC) No 396/2005 of the European Parliament and of the Council as regards maximum residue levels for acibenzolar-S-methyl, ethoxyquin, flusilazole, is. Off. J. Eur. Union 2014, L186, 1–48.
  44. The European Commission Rregulation (EU) No 750/2010 of 7 July 2010 amending Annexes II and III to Regulation (EC) No 396/2005 of the European Parliament and of the Council as regards maximum residue levels for certain pesticides in or on certain products. Off. J. Eur. Union 2010, L220, 1–56.
  45. The European Commission Regulation (EU) 2016/71 of 26 January 2016 amending Annexes II, III and V to Regulation (EC) No 396/2005 of the European Parliament and of the Council as regards maximum residue levels for 1-methylcyclopropene, flonicamid, flutriafol, indolylac. Off. J. Eur. Union 2016, L20, 1–47.
  46. The European Commission Regulation (EU) 2019/1791 of 17 October 2019 amending Annexes II, III and IV to Regulation (EC) No 396/2005 of the European Parliament and of the Council as regards maximum residue levels for 1-decanol, 2,4-D, ABE-IT 56, cyprodinil, dimethenami. Off. J. Eur. Union 2016, L277, 1–65.
  47. The European Commission Regulation (EU) No 897/2012 of 1 October 2012 amending Annexes II and III to Regulation (EC) No 396/2005 of the European Parliament and of the Council as regards maximum residue levels for acibenzolar-S-methyl, amisulbrom, cyazofamid, diflufeni. Off. J. Eur. Union 2012, L266, 1–31.
  48. The European Commission Regulation (EU) 2015/1040 of 30 June 2015 amending Annexes II, III and V to Regulation (EC) No 396/2005 of the European Parliament and of the Council as regards maximum residue levels for azoxystrobin, dimoxystrobin, fluroxypyr, methoxyfenozide. Off. J. Eur. Union 2015, L167, 10–56.
  49. The European Commission Rregulation (EU) 2016/1822 of 13 October 2016 amending Annexes II, III and V to Regulation (EC) No 396/2005 of the European Parliament and of the Council as regards maximum residue levels for aclonifen, deltamethrin, fluazinam, methomyl, sulcot. Off. J. Eur. Union 2016, L281, 1–44.
  50. The European Commission Regulation (EU) 2017/627 of 3 April 2017 amending Annexes II, III and V to Regulation (EC) No 396/2005 of the European Parliament and of the Council as regards maximum residue levels for fenpyroximate, triadimenol and triadimefon in or on. Off. J. Eur. Union 2017, L96, 44–70.
  51. The European Commission Regulation (EU) No 520/2011 of 25 May 2011 amending Annexes II and III to Regulation (EC) No 396/2005 of the European Parliament and of the Council as regards maximum residue levels for benalaxyl, boscalid, buprofezin, carbofuran, carbosulfan. Off. J. Eur. Union 2011, L140, 2–47.
  52. The European Commission Regulation (EU) 2015/845 of 27 May 2015 amending Annexes II and III to Regulation (EC) No 396/2005 of the European Parliament and of the Council as regards maximum residue levels for azoxystrobin, chlorantraniliprole, cyantraniliprole, dicamba. Off. J. Eur. Union 2015, L138, 1–69.
  53. The European Commission Regulation (EU) 2020/1565 of 27 October 2020 amending Annexes II, III and IV to Regulation (EC) No 396/2005 of the European Parliament and of the Council as regards maximum residue levels for 1,4-diaminobutane, 1-methylcyclopropene, ammonium ac. Off. J. Eur. Union 2020, L358, 3–29.
  54. The European Commission Regulation (EU) 2020/856 of 9 June 2020 amending Annexes II and III to Regulation (EC) No 396/2005 of the European Parliament and of the Council as regards maximum residue levels for cyantraniliprole, cyazofamid, cyprodinil, fenpyroximate, flud. Off. J. Eur. Union 2020, L195, 9–51.
  55. The European Commission Regulation (EU) No 777/2013 of 12 August 2013 amending Annexes II, III and V to Regulation (EC) No 396/2005 of the European Parliament and of the Council as regards maximum residue levels for clodinafop, clomazone, diuron, ethalfluralin, ioxyni. Off. J. Eur. Union 2013, L221, 1–48.
  56. The European Commission Regulation (EU) 2019/1015 of 20 June 2019 amending Annexes II and III to Regulation (EC) No 396/2005 of the European Parliament and of the Council as regards maximum residue levels for aminopyralid, captan, cyazofamid, flutianil, kresoxim-. Off. J. Eur. Union 2019, L165, 23–64.
  57. The European Commission Regulation (EU) No 524/2011 of 26 May 2011 amending Annexes II and III to Regulation (EC) No 396/2005 of the European Parliament and of the Council as regards maximum residue levels for biphenyl, deltamethrin, ethofumesate, isopyrazam, propicon. Off. J. Eur. Union 2011, L142, 1–56.
  58. The European Commission Regulation (EU) 2018/1514 of 10 October 2018 amending Annexes II, III and IV to Regulation (EC) No 396/2005 of the European Parliament and of the Council as regards maximum residue levels for abamectin, acibenzolar-S-methyl, clopyralid, emamect. Off. J. Eur. Union 2018, L256, 8–32.
  59. The European Commission Regulation (EU) 2019/88 of 18 January 2019 amending Annex II to Regulation (EC) No 396/2005 of the European Parliament and of the Council as regards maximum residue levels for acetamiprid in certain products. Off. J. Eur. Union 2019, L22, 1–12.
  60. Valiuškaitė, A.; Uselis, N.; Kviklys, D.; Lanauskas, J.; Rasiukevičiūtė, N. The effect of sustainable plant protection and apple tree management on fruit quality and yield. Zemdirbyste-Agriculture 2017, 104, 353–358. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  61. Beckerman, J.L.; Sundin, G.W.; Rosenberger, D.A. Do some IPM concepts contribute to the development of fungicide resistance? Lessons learned from the apple scab pathosystem in the United States. Pest Manag. Sci. 2015, 71, 331–342. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  62. Agency for Toxic Substances and Disease Registry. Toxicological Profile for Disulfoton (Draft for Public Comment); U.S. Department of Health and Human Service: Atlanta, GA, USA, 2021. Available online: https://www.atsdr.cdc.gov/ToxProfiles/tp65.pdf (accessed on 21 December 2021).
  63. Santos, M.G.; Vitor, R.V.; Nakamura, M.G.; de Souza Morelini, L.; Ferreira, R.S.; Paiva, A.G.; Azevedo, L.; Boralli Marques, V.B.; Martins, I.; Figueiredo, E.C. Study of the correlation between blood cholinesterases activity, urinary dialkyl phosphates, and the frequency of micronucleated polychromatic erythrocytes in rats exposed to disulfoton. Braz. J. Pharm. Sci. 2013, 49, 149–154. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  64. The European Commission Directive 2003/14/EC of 10 February 2003 amending Directive 91/321/EEC on infant formulae and follow-on formulae. Off. J. Eur. Union 2003, L41, 37–40.
  65. US EPA. Finalization of Interim Reregistration Eligibility Decisions (IREDs) and Interim Tolerance Reassessment and Risk Management Decisions (TREDs) for the Organophosphate Pesticides, and Completion of the Tolerance Reassessment and Reregistration Eligibility Process for the Organophosphate Pesticides; US Environmental Protection Agency, Office of Prevention, Pesticides and Toxic Substances: Washington, DC, USA, 2006; Volume 31. [Google Scholar]
  66. Góralczyk, K.; Struciński, P.; Korcz, W.; Czaja, K.; Hernik, A.; Snopczyński, T.; Ludwicki, J.K. The survey of pesticide residues in food of plant origin in Poland, 2004–2007. Ann. Natl. Inst. Hyg. 2009, 60, 113–119. [Google Scholar]
  67. Łozowicka, B.; Hrynko, I.; Rutkowska, E.; Jankowska, M.; Kaczyński, P.; Janowicz, T. Pesticide residues in fruit and vegetables from north-eastern Poland (2008–2011). Prog. Plant Prot. 2012, 52, 423–430. [Google Scholar]
  68. Szpyrka, E.; Kurdziel, A.; Matyaszek, A.; Podbielska, M.; Rupar, J.; Słowik-Borowiec, M. Pesticide residues in crops from the south-eastern region of Poland. Prog. Plant Prot. 2012, 52, 149–152. [Google Scholar]
  69. Łozowicka, B. Health risk for children and adults consuming apples with pesticide residue. Sci. Total Environ. 2015, 502, 184–198. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  70. Struciński, P.; Hernik, A.; Czaja, K.; Liszewska, M.; Korcz, W.; Minorczyk, M.; Soliwoda, U. Analiza Potencjalnego Zagrożenia Zdrowia Konsumentów Wynikającego z Obecności Pozostałości Pestycydów w Żywności Dostępnej na Polskim Rynku w Roku 2017; Ministerstwo Zdrowia: Warszawa, Poland, 2019. Available online: https://www.pzh.gov.pl/wp-content/uploads/2020/03/Raport-Analiza-potencjalnego-zagro%C5%BCenia-zdrowia-konsument%C3%B3w-...-pozosta%C5%82o%C5%9Bci-pestycyd%C3%B3w-2017-na-stron%C4%99.pdf (accessed on 21 December 2021).
  71. Tzatzarakis, M.; Kokkinakis, M.; Renieri, E.; Goumenou, M.; Kavvalakis, M.; Vakonaki, E.; Chatzinikolaou, A.; Stivaktakis, P.; Tsakiris, I.; Rizos, A.; et al. Multiresidue analysis of insecticides and fungicides in apples from the Greek market. Applying an alternative approach for risk assessment. Food Chem. Toxicol. 2020, 140, 111262. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  72. Jallow, M.F.A.; Awadh, D.G.; Albaho, M.S.; Devi, V.Y.; Ahmad, N. 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]
  73. Mladenova, R.; Shtereva, D. Pesticide residues in apples grown under a conventional and integrated pest management system. Food Addit. Contam. Part A 2009, 26, 854–858. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  74. Bakırcı, G.T.; Yaman Acay, D.B.; Bakırcı, F.; Ötleş, S. Pesticide residues in fruits and vegetables from the Aegean region, Turkey. Food Chem. 2014, 160, 379–392. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  75. Thurman, E.M.; Ferrer, I.; Zweigenbaum, J.A.; García-Reyes, J.F.; Woodman, M.; Fernández-Alba, A.R. Discovering metabolites of post-harvest fungicides in citrus with liquid chromatography/time-of-flight mass spectrometry and ion trap tandem mass spectrometry. J. Chromatogr. A 2005, 1082, 71–80. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  76. Blasco, C.; Font, G.; Picó, Y. Evaluation of 10 pesticide residues in oranges and tangerines from Valencia (Spain). Food Control 2006, 17, 841–846. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  77. Jurak, G.; Bošnir, J.; Đikić, D.; Ćuić, A.M.; Prokurica, I.P.; Racz, A.; Jukić, T.; Stubljar, D.; Starc, A. The Risk Assessment of Pesticide Ingestion with Fruit and Vegetables for Consumer’s Health. Int. J. Food Sci. 2021, 2021, 1–8. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  78. Calvaruso, E.; Cammilleri, G.; Pulvirenti, A.; Lo Dico, G.M.; Lo Cascio, G.; Giaccone, V.; Vitale Badaco, V.; Ciprì, V.; Alessandra, M.M.; Vella, A.; et al. Residues of 165 pesticides in citrus fruits using LC-MS/MS: A study of the pesticides distribution from the peel to the pulp. Nat. Prod. Res. 2020, 34, 34–38. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  79. Al-Nasir, F.M.; Jiries, A.G.; Al-Rabadi, G.J.; Alu’datt, M.H.; Tranchant, C.C.; Al-Dalain, S.A.; Alrabadi, N.; Madanat, O.Y.; Al-Dmour, R.S. Determination of pesticide residues in selected citrus fruits and vegetables cultivated in the Jordan Valley. LWT 2020, 123, 109005. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  80. Kruve, A.; Lamos, A.; Kirillova, J.; Herodes, K. Pesticide residues in commercially available oranges and evaluation of potential washing methods. Proc. Est. Acad. Sci. Chem. 2007, 56, 134–141. [Google Scholar]
  81. Ortelli, D.; Edder, P.; Corvi, C. Pesticide residues survey in citrus fruits. Food Addit. Contam. 2005, 22, 423–428. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  82. Foong, S.Y.; Ma, N.L.; Lam, S.S.; Peng, W.; Low, F.; Lee, B.H.K.; Alstrup, A.K.O.; Sonne, C. A recent global review of hazardous chlorpyrifos pesticide in fruit and vegetables: Prevalence, remediation and actions needed. J. Hazard. Mater. 2020, 400, 123006. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  83. Gowda, A.; Reddy A, S.R.K.; Ramesh, H.L. Analysis of pesticide residues in carrot retailed in vegetable markets in five districts of Karnataka, India. GSC Biol. Pharm. Sci. 2020, 10, 027–038. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  84. The European Commission Implementing Regulation (EU) 2020/18 of 10 January 2020 concerning the non-renewal of the approval of the active substance chlorpyrifos, in accordance with Regulation (EC) No 1107/2009 of the European Parliament and of the Council concerning th. Off. J. Eur. Union 2020, L7, 14–16.
  85. The European Commission Implementing Regulation (EU) 2020/17 of 10 January 2020 concerning the non-renewal of the approval of the active substance chlorpyrifos-methyl, in accordance with Regulation (EC) No 1107/2009 of the European Parliament and of the Council concer. Off. J. Eur. Union 2020, L7, 11–13.
  86. Łozowicka, B.; Kaczyński, P.; Mojsak, P.; Rusiłowska, J.; Beknazarova, Z.; Ilyasova, G.; Absatarova, D. Systemic and non-systemic pesticides in apples from Kazakhstan and their impact on human health. J. Food Compos. Anal. 2020, 90, 103494. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  87. Andrade, G.C.R.M.; Monteiro, S.H.; Francisco, J.G.; Figueiredo, L.A.; Rocha, A.A.; Tornisielo, V.L. Effects of Types of Washing and Peeling in Relation to Pesticide Residues in Tomatoes. J. Braz. Chem. Soc. 2015, 26, 1994–2002. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  88. The European Commission Regulation (EU) 2020/192 of 12 February 2020 amending Annexes II and III to Regulation (EC) No 396/2005 of the European Parliament and of the Council as regards maximum residue levels for prochloraz in or on certain products. Off. J. Eur. Union 2020, L40, 4–17.
  89. The European Commission Regulation (EU) 2017/1164 of 22 June 2017 amending Annexes II and III to Regulation (EC) No 396/2005 of the European Parliament and of the Council as regards maximum residue levels for acrinathrin, metalaxyl and thiabendazole in or on certain p. Off. J. Eur. Union 2017, L170, 3–30.
  90. The European Commission Regulation (EU) 2021/644 of 15 April 2021 amending Annexes II and III to Regulation (EC) No 396/2005 of the European Parliament and of the Council as regards maximum residue levels for fluxapyroxad, hymexazol, metamitron, penflufen and spirotet. Off. J. Eur. Union 2021, L133, 9–28.
  91. Li, Y.; Jiao, B.; Zhao, Q.; Wang, C.; Gong, Y.; Zhang, Y.; Chen, W. Effect of commercial processing on pesticide residues in orange products. Eur. Food Res. Technol. 2012, 234, 449–456. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  92. Pirsaheb, M.; Rahimi, R.; Rezaei, M.; Sharafi, K.; Fatahi, N. Evaluating the effect of peeling, washing and storing in the refrigerator processes on reducing the Diazinon, Chlorpyrifos and Abamectin pesticide residue in apple. Int. J. Pharm. Technol. 2016, 8, 12858–12873. [Google Scholar]
  93. Sekachaie, A.D.; Ghorbani, M.; Shokrzadeh, M.; Maghsoudlou, Y.; Babaee, Z. The effect of conventional processes on residualcontent of Malathion in cucumber fruit of Food keeping procedures. Gorgan Univ. Agric. Sci. Nat. Resour. 2011, 2, 1–15. [Google Scholar]
Figure 1. Content of pesticides in samples of whole apples from the harvest of 2012.
Figure 1. Content of pesticides in samples of whole apples from the harvest of 2012.
Applsci 12 01417 g001
Figure 2. Content of pesticides in samples of whole apples from the harvest of 2020.
Figure 2. Content of pesticides in samples of whole apples from the harvest of 2020.
Applsci 12 01417 g002
Figure 3. Frequency of occurrence of pesticides in the analysed samples of whole apples in 2012 and 2020, expressed as percentage share.
Figure 3. Frequency of occurrence of pesticides in the analysed samples of whole apples in 2012 and 2020, expressed as percentage share.
Applsci 12 01417 g003
Figure 4. Content of pesticides from the edible parts of citrus fruits from the harvest of 2012.
Figure 4. Content of pesticides from the edible parts of citrus fruits from the harvest of 2012.
Applsci 12 01417 g004
Figure 5. Content of pesticides from the edible parts of citrus fruits from the harvest of 2020.
Figure 5. Content of pesticides from the edible parts of citrus fruits from the harvest of 2020.
Applsci 12 01417 g005
Figure 6. Frequency of occurrence of pesticides in the analysed samples of citrus flesh in 2012 and 2020, expressed as percentage share.
Figure 6. Frequency of occurrence of pesticides in the analysed samples of citrus flesh in 2012 and 2020, expressed as percentage share.
Applsci 12 01417 g006
Figure 7. Content of pesticides in samples of peels of apples from the harvest of 2012.
Figure 7. Content of pesticides in samples of peels of apples from the harvest of 2012.
Applsci 12 01417 g007
Figure 8. Content of pesticides in samples of peels of apples from the harvest of 2020.
Figure 8. Content of pesticides in samples of peels of apples from the harvest of 2020.
Applsci 12 01417 g008
Figure 9. Content of pesticides in samples of flesh of apples from the harvest of 2012.
Figure 9. Content of pesticides in samples of flesh of apples from the harvest of 2012.
Applsci 12 01417 g009
Figure 10. Content of pesticides in samples of flesh of apples from the harvest of 2020.
Figure 10. Content of pesticides in samples of flesh of apples from the harvest of 2020.
Applsci 12 01417 g010
Figure 11. Percentage reduction in pesticide residues in apples as a result of peeling in 2012.
Figure 11. Percentage reduction in pesticide residues in apples as a result of peeling in 2012.
Applsci 12 01417 g011
Figure 12. Percentage reduction in pesticide residues in apples as a result of peeling in 2020.
Figure 12. Percentage reduction in pesticide residues in apples as a result of peeling in 2020.
Applsci 12 01417 g012
Figure 13. Content of pesticides in peels of citrus fruits from the harvest of 2012.
Figure 13. Content of pesticides in peels of citrus fruits from the harvest of 2012.
Applsci 12 01417 g013
Figure 14. Content of pesticides in peels of citrus fruits from the harvest of 2020.
Figure 14. Content of pesticides in peels of citrus fruits from the harvest of 2020.
Applsci 12 01417 g014
Figure 15. Content of pesticides in samples of apples washed with water (2012).
Figure 15. Content of pesticides in samples of apples washed with water (2012).
Applsci 12 01417 g015
Figure 16. Content of pesticides in samples of apples washed with water (2020).
Figure 16. Content of pesticides in samples of apples washed with water (2020).
Applsci 12 01417 g016
Table 1. Levels of individual pesticides in apples and the values of MRL.
Table 1. Levels of individual pesticides in apples and the values of MRL.
PesticideGroupRange of Pesticides ConcentrationMRLLOQ
mg/kg
Whole ApplesApple Peels
2012 2020 2012 2020 20122020
boscalidF<LOQ–0.0613 d<LOQ–0.1300 c<LOQ–0.3245 b<LOQ–0.7820 a2 mg/kg [22]2 mg/kg [23]0.0005
carbendazimF<LOQ–0.0298 b<LOQ c<LOQ–0.1691 a<LOQ c0.2 mg/kg [24]not approved0.0001
chlorpyrifosA, I<LOQ–0.0490 b<LOQ c<LOQ–0.2685 a<LOQ c0.05 mg/kg [25]not approved
0.01 mg/kg [26]
0.0001
bupirimateF<LOQ–0.0098 b<LOQ c<LOQ–0.5000 a<LOQ c0.3 mg/kg0.3 mg/kg [27]0.0001
difenoconazoleF<LOQ–0.0096 b<LOQ c<LOQ–0.0432 a<LOQ c0.5 mg/kg [28]0.8 mg/kg [29]0.0002
diphenylaminePGR0.02820–0.130 b<LOQ c0.1536–0.6773 a<LOQ c5 mg/kg [30]not approved
0.05 mg/kg [31]
0.025
disulfotonI<LOQ–0.0321 b<LOQ c<LOQ–0.1858 a<LOQ c0.01 mg/kg [32]not approved0.0001
hexythiazoxA, I<LOQ–0.0119 b<LOQ c<LOQ–0.068 a<LOQ c1 mg/kg [33]1 mg/kg [33]0.0001
fenazaquinA<LOQ–0.0117 b<LOQ c<LOQ–0.044 a<LOQ c0.1 mg/kg [34]0.1 mg/kg [35]0.0005
malathionA, I<LOQ–0.0291 b<LOQ c<LOQ–0.1534 a<LOQ c0.02 mg/kg [36]0.02 mg/kg [37]0.0001
propargiteA<LOQ–0.3540 b<LOQ c<LOQ–1.4943 a<LOQ c3 mg/kg [30]not approved
0.01 mg/kg [38]
0.0001
pyraclostrobinF, PGR <LOQ–0.0370 d<LOQ–0.087 c<LOQ–0.1928 b<LOQ–0.4470 a0.3 mg/kg [39] 0.5 mg/kg [40]0.0002
pyrimethanilF<LOQ–0.1590 b<LOQ c<LOQ–0.6658 a<LOQ c5 mg/kg [39]15 mg/kg [38]0.0005
thiophanate methylF<LOQ–0.2380 b<LOQ c<LOQ–1.3310 a<LOQ c0.5 mg/kg [24]not approved0.0005
thiaclopridI<LOQ–0.0161 b<LOQ c<LOQ–0.0867 a<LOQ c0.3 mg/kg [41] not approved
0.3 mg/kg [35]
0.0001
triflumuronI<LOQ–0.0082 b<LOQ c<LOQ–0.0508 a<LOQ c0.5 mg/kg [25]not approved
0.5 mg/kg [42]
0.0001
flusilazoleF<LOQ–0.0145 a<LOQ b<LOQ–0.0132 a<LOQ b0.02 mg/kg [22]not approved
0.01 mg/kg [43]
0.0002
pirimicarbI<LOQ–0.092 b<LOQ c<LOQ–0.5001 a<LOQ c2 mg/kg [44]0.5 mg/kg [45]0.0001
trifloxystrobinF<LOQ–0.0116 b<LOQ c<LOQ–0.0793 a<LOQ c0.5 mg/kg [41]0.7 mg/kg [46]0.0001
methoxyfenozideI<LOQ–0.0136 b<LOQ c<LOQ–0.0932 a<LOQ–0.0190 b2 mg/kg [47]2 mg/kg [48]0.0001
thiodicarbI<LOQ–0.0056 b<LOQ c<LOQ–0.0346 a<LOQ c0.2 mg/kg [30]not approved
0.01 mg/kg [49]
0.0001
epoxiconazoleF<LOQ–0.0116 b<LOQ c<LOQ–0.075 a<LOQ c0.05 mg/kg [39]not approved0.0001
hexaflumuronI<LOQ–0.0615 b<LOQ c<LOQ–0.321 a<LOQ c0.01 mg/kg [15]not approved0.0001
triadimenolF<LOQ–0.0128 b<LOQ c<LOQ–0.0791 a<LOQ c0.2 mg/kg [22]not approved
0.2 mg/kg [50]
0.001
indoxacarbI<LOQ–0.0338 b<LOQ c<LOQ–0.2153 a<LOQ c0.5 mg/kg [51]0.5 mg/kg [52]0.0002
cyprodinilF<LOQ–0.0094 b<LOQ c<LOQ–0.0588 a<LOQ c1 mg/kg [33]2 mg/kg [53]0.001
fenpyroximateA<LOQ b<LOQ b<LOQ–0.0332 a<LOQ b0.3 mg/kg [28]0.3 mg/kg [54]0.0001
iprovalicarbF<LOQ b<LOQ b<LOQ–0.0269 a<LOQ b0.05 mg/kg [30]0.01 mg/kg [55]0.0001
lufenuronI<LOQ b<LOQ b<LOQ–0.0282 a<LOQ b0.5 mg/kg [30] not approved
1 mg/kg [54]
0.0002
bentazonH<LOQ b<LOQ b<LOQ–0.0311 a<LOQ b0.1 mg/kg [36] 0.03 mg/kg [40]0.001
teflubenzuronI<LOQ b<LOQ b<LOQ–0.0286 a<LOQ b1 mg/kg [25]
not approved
1 mg/kg [40]
0.0001
captanF-<LOQ–0.0230 b-<LOQ–0.396 a3 mg/kg [33]10 mg/kg (sum of captan and THPI, expressed as captan) [56]0.01
fludioxonilF-<LOQ–0.0970 b-<LOQ–0.5300 a5 mg/kg [28]5 mg/kg [40]0.0001
tetrahydrophthalimide (THPI)–captan metaboliteF-0.0530–0.4600 b-0.3360–2.6610 a 10 mg/kg (sum of captan and THPI, expressed as captan) [56]0.01
fluopyramF-<LOQ–0.0220 b-<LOQ–0.1310 a0.6 mg/kg [36]0.6 mg/kg [46]0.01
tebuconazoleF-<LOQ–0.0130 b-<LOQ–0.081 a1 mg/kg [57]0.3 mg/kg [58]0.0001
acetamipridI-<LOQ b-<LOQ–0.128 a0.7 mg/kg [39]0.4 mg/kg [59]0.0001
F—fungicide, H—herbicide, I—insecticide, A—acaricide, PGR—plant growth regulator, LOQ—limit of quantification. a, b, c, …—values designated with the same letters in line do not significantly differ at 5% error (Duncan’s test).
Table 2. Occurrence of individual pesticides in citrus fruits and the values of MRL.
Table 2. Occurrence of individual pesticides in citrus fruits and the values of MRL.
PesticideGroupRange of Pesticides ConcentrationMRLLOQ
mg/kg
Citrus PulpCitrus Peels
2012 2020 2012 2020 20122020
chlorpyrifosA, I<LOQ–0.0070 c<LOQ d0.0300–1.1350 a<LOQ–0.1380 b0.01 mg/kg [25]not approved
0.01 mg/kg [26]
0.0001
imazalilF0.0050–0.0190 c0.0050–0.0210 c0.0160–0.3860 b0.4320–1.10 a5mg/kg [44]grapefruits and oranges 4 mg/kg
lemons 5 mg/kg [54]
0.0005
prochlorazF<LOQ–0.0080 b<LOQ c<LOQ–0.8840 a<LOQ c10 mg/kg [51]0.03 mg/kg [88]0.0002
pyrimethanilF<LOQ–0.0180 c<LOQ–0.0180 c0.0090–1.5550 b0.0100–1.8000 a10 mg/kg [39]8 mg/kg [38]0.0005
pyriproxyfenI<LOQ b<LOQ b<LOQ–0.0720 a<LOQ b0.6 mg/kg [25]0.6 mg/kg [54]0.0001
thiabendazoleF<LOQ b<LOQ b<LOQ–0.0640 a<LOQ b5 mg/kg [30]7 mg/kg [89]0.0001
spirotetramat-enol
spirotetramat-enol-glucoside
F-
-
<LOQ–0.0330 a
<LOQ–0.0290 a
-
-
<LOQ b
0.0090–0.0240 a
0.5 mg/kg [90]
1 mg/kg (expressed as spirotetramat) [56]
0.01
acetamipridI-<LOQ b-<LOQ–0.0170 a1 mg/kg [39]0.9 mg/kg [59]0.0001
hexythiazoxA, I-<LOQ b-<LOQ–0.0110 a1 mg/kg [33]1 mg/kg [33]0.0001
F—fungicide, I—insecticide, A—acaricide, LOQ—limit of quantification. a, b, c, …—values designated with the same letters in line do not significantly differ at 5% error (Duncan’s test).
Publisher’s Note: MDPI stays neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.

Share and Cite

MDPI and ACS Style

Kowalska, G.; Pankiewicz, U.; Kowalski, R. Assessment of Pesticide Content in Apples and Selected Citrus Fruits Subjected to Simple Culinary Processing. Appl. Sci. 2022, 12, 1417. https://doi.org/10.3390/app12031417

AMA Style

Kowalska G, Pankiewicz U, Kowalski R. Assessment of Pesticide Content in Apples and Selected Citrus Fruits Subjected to Simple Culinary Processing. Applied Sciences. 2022; 12(3):1417. https://doi.org/10.3390/app12031417

Chicago/Turabian Style

Kowalska, Grażyna, Urszula Pankiewicz, and Radosław Kowalski. 2022. "Assessment of Pesticide Content in Apples and Selected Citrus Fruits Subjected to Simple Culinary Processing" Applied Sciences 12, no. 3: 1417. https://doi.org/10.3390/app12031417

Note that from the first issue of 2016, this journal uses article numbers instead of page numbers. See further details here.

Article Metrics

Back to TopTop