Next Article in Journal
Application of Carboxymethylcellulose @ Au NPs Hydrogel Beads for Detection of Thiram in Three Fruit Juices via Surface-Enhanced Raman Scattering
Previous Article in Journal
Rapid and Accurate Quantification Detection of BHT in Edible Oils Using Raman Spectroscopy Combined with Chemometric Models
 
 
Search for Articles:
Title / Keyword
Author / Affiliation / Email
Journal
Article Type
 
 
Advanced Search
 
Section
Special Issue
Volume
Issue
Number
Page
 
Journals
Foods
Volume 15
Issue 4
10.3390/foods15040732
foods-logo
Submit to this Journal Review for this Journal Propose a Special Issue
► Article Menu

Article Menu

share Share announcement Help format_quote Cite question_answer Discuss in SciProfiles
first_page
settings
Order Article Reprints
Font Type:
Arial Georgia Verdana
Font Size:
Aa Aa Aa
Line Spacing:
Column Width:
Background:
Article

Final Residues, Storage Stability, and Dietary Exposure of Pyroxasulfone and Diflufenican in Wheat Grain and Straw

by
Min He
1,*,
Ping Han
1,
Li Chen
1,
Pingzhong Yu
1,
Junxue Wu
1,
Fajun Tian
2,*,
Xiaotong Qin
1,3 and
Ercheng Zhao
1
1
Institute of Plant Protection, Beijing Academy of Agriculture and Forestry Sciences, Beijing 100097, China
2
Zhengzhou Fruit Research Institute, Chinese Academy of Agricultural Sciences, Zhengzhou 450009, China
3
College of Plant Health and Medicine, Qingdao Agricultural University, Qingdao 266109, China
*
Authors to whom correspondence should be addressed.
Foods 2026, 15(4), 732; https://doi.org/10.3390/foods15040732
Submission received: 8 January 2026 / Revised: 11 February 2026 / Accepted: 13 February 2026 / Published: 16 February 2026
(This article belongs to the Section Food Quality and Safety)
Browse Figures
Versions Notes

Abstract

This study developed a UHPLC-MS/MS method combined with a modified QuEChERS pretreatment technique to simultaneously determine diflufenican, pyroxasulfone, and their metabolites (M-1, M-3, M-25) in wheat grain and straw. The method exhibited good linearity within the concentration range of 0.0001–0.1 mg/L (r > 0.996), with a limit of quantification of 0.002 mg/kg. At three spiked levels, the average recoveries of the target analytes ranged from 82.0% to 110.1%, with relative standard deviations ≤ 13.9%. All analytes remained stable in both grain and straw matrices when stored at ≤−18 °C for 12 months. Field trials demonstrated that diflufenican residues in grains were all below 0.002 mg/kg, while residues in straw ranged from 0.002 to 0.018 mg/kg. The total residues of pyroxasulfone and its metabolites in grains ranged from 0.010 to 0.019 mg/kg, and in straw from 0.026 to 0.357 mg/kg. Dietary risk assessment results showed that the risk quotients for diflufenican and pyroxasulfone were 0.10% and 0.27%, respectively, both far below the 100% safety threshold. Based on the residue data and risk assessment results, it is recommended that the maximum residue limits for pyroxasulfone in wheat in China be set at 0.03 mg/kg for grains and 0.6 mg/kg for straw. These proposed values align with international standards while also accommodating the practical needs of domestic agricultural production and regulatory oversight.

1. Introduction

Winter wheat is a crucial summer grain crop in China, playing a pivotal role in ensuring national food security. Weeds are a major constraint on the yield and quality of winter wheat, and chemical weed control remains the primary approach in current field management due to its operational simplicity and significant efficacy [1,2]. In recent years, the increasing prominence of herbicide resistance has made the development of new herbicide mixtures and formulations a key strategy for delaying resistance development and enhancing control effectiveness [3,4,5]. In this context, the 200 g/L pyroxasulfone–diflufenican suspension concentrate (SC) developed by Anhui Zhongtu Chemical Co., Ltd. (Hefei, China) has passed field efficacy validation and demonstrates effective control of weeds in winter wheat fields, providing a new technical solution for managing resistant weed populations.
Diflufenican (Figure 1a) is a pyridine carboxamide herbicide developed by Bayer CropScience. Its mechanism of action involves the specific inhibition of phytoene desaturase, disrupting carotenoid biosynthesis, which ultimately leads to chlorophyll degradation and plant death [6]. Pyroxasulfone (Figure 1b) is a pre-emergence herbicide belonging to the 3-sulfonylisoxazoline class. It acts as a potent inhibitor of very-long-chain fatty acid elongase, thereby blocking fatty acid synthesis and ultimately compromising cell membrane integrity. Compared to traditional herbicides, pyroxasulfone can effectively control annual grass weeds and certain small-seeded broadleaf weeds at significantly reduced application rates and shows good activity against resistant weed biotypes [7]. In plants, pyroxasulfone metabolizes into characteristic derivatives such as M-1, M-3, and M-25. Among these, M-1 (an isoxazole ring cleavage product, Figure 1c) retains partial herbicidal activity, whereas M-3 (a methyl sulfonyl oxidation product, Figure 1d) and M-25 (a pyrazole ring methyl reduction product, Figure 1e) exhibit significantly reduced activity and demonstrate more environmentally favorable degradation behavior.
Scientific and rational herbicide use is an important technical guarantee for achieving high and stable yields of winter wheat [8,9]. However, the improper application of diflufenican and pyroxasulfone may pose environmental and health risks, primarily manifesting as potential impacts on soil and aquatic ecosystems, as well as direct exposure threats to field workers and non-target organisms [10,11,12]. Long-term, low-dose exposure to herbicides may result in chronic health effects including carcinogenicity, mutagenicity, and endocrine disruption [13,14]. Additionally, the interplay of multiple herbicides and their metabolites in organisms could be synergistic or antagonistic, leading to an amplification of the composite toxicity [15]. To effectively manage pesticide residue risks, maximum residue limits (MRLs) are widely adopted as the core regulatory standard for pesticide residues in food internationally [16,17]. Due to differences in agricultural production methods and dietary structures, MRL standards vary across countries [18]. In establishing pesticide MRLs, China systematically references the regulatory systems of key trading partners, including the Codex Alimentarius Commission, the European Union, the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Australia, Japan, and the Republic of Korea [19,20]. This approach has progressively shaped an MRL framework that aligns with international norms while addressing domestic conditions [21].
At present, diflufenican is registered in China for pre-emergence weed control in crops such as wheat, garlic, and rice, while pyroxasulfone is approved for pre-emergence weed management in winter wheat, soybeans, and corn [22]. While China has established MRLs for diflufenican in wheat, no MRLs have yet been set for pyroxasulfone in this crop. MRLs represent the maximum permissible concentration of pesticide residues in agricultural products under Good Agricultural Practices (GAP) and serve as a key scientific and regulatory basis for pesticide registration and market supervision.
Table 1 summarizes and compares the MRLs for diflufenican and pyroxasulfone established by regulatory authorities across different countries and regions. Regarding diflufenican, there is consistent alignment among countries with established standards, as its residue definition refers solely to the parent compound without including metabolites. Among jurisdictions that have set MRLs for pyroxasulfone, Japan and the Republic of Korea adopt a more conservative approach by defining the residue exclusively as the parent compound pyroxasulfone and setting its limit in wheat at 0.01 mg/kg. Australia defines pyroxasulfone residues in wheat as the sum of the compound and its metabolite M-1, with the same MRL of 0.01 mg/kg. In contrast, the regulatory framework established by the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency is more scientifically rigorous and systematic, and its established MRLs are relatively higher: for wheat grain, the residue is defined as the sum of pyroxasulfone and metabolite M-3 (MRL 0.03 mg/kg), while for wheat straw, it includes the sum of pyroxasulfone and its metabolites M-1, M-3, and M-25 (MRL 0.60 mg/kg).
Countries and regions that have established MRLs for diflufenican or pyroxasulfone show significant variations in residue definitions and MRL values. Differences in MRLs and metabolite detection requirements also impose varying technical standards for pesticide residue analysis. Existing analytical methods for determining diflufenican residues, as reported in the literature, employ techniques such as gas chromatography–mass spectrometry (GC-MS) and liquid chromatography–tandem mass spectrometry (LC-MS/MS) across various matrices including wastewater [32], natural water bodies [33], sorghum and rice husk [34], pea [35], wheat [36,37] and soil [38]. For pyroxasulfone, residue analysis in honey is commonly performed using GC-MS/MS [39], whereas HPLC-UV is frequently applied for soil matrices [40]. Nevertheless, most of these methods do not include the determination of key metabolites. Although the EPA has reported an LC-MS/MS method capable of simultaneously determining pyroxasulfone and its primary metabolites M1 and M3 in soil with a limit of quantification (LOQ) of 0.002 mg/kg [41], and Lan et al. used UHPLC-MS/MS to analyze pyroxasulfone and its metabolites in wheat straw and grain [42], the reported LOQ of 0.02 mg/kg is insufficient to meet the sensitivity required for monitoring an MRL of 0.01 mg/kg.
To date, no method has been reported for the simultaneous determination of diflufenican, pyroxasulfone, and their major metabolites (M1, M3, and M25) in wheat straw and grain. Furthermore, studies on the storage stability of these compounds in wheat matrices and their comprehensive dietary risk assessment remain scarce.
Therefore, this study developed and validated a UHPLC-MS/MS method for the simultaneous quantification of pyroxasulfone, diflufenican, and their metabolites (M1, M3, and M25) in wheat straw and grain. The storage stability of these target analytes in wheat matrices under conditions of ≤−18 °C was systematically evaluated. Based on reliable residue data obtained from standardized field trials conducted across ten major winter wheat-producing regions in China during the 2023–2024 growing season, a systematic chronic dietary risk assessment was performed. The results of this study provide scientific guidance for the safe application of 200 g/L pyroxasulfone–diflufenican SC and offer robust data foundation to support regulatory authorities in establishing science-based MRLs for pyroxasulfone, thereby serving as a critical reference for government pesticide management and food safety supervision.

2. Materials and Methods

2.1. Instruments and Reagents

The 200 g/L pyroxasulfone–diflufenican SC, containing 120 g/L pyroxasulfone and 80 g/L diflufenican, was supplied by Zhongtu Chemical (Anhui) Co., Ltd. (Hefei, China). Analytical standards of diflufenican (CAS No. 83164-33-4, purity 99.9%), pyroxasulfone (CAS No. 447399-55-5, purity 99.7%), and its metabolites M-1 (CAS No. 1379794-40-7, purity 99.9%), M-3 (CAS No. 1379794-41-8, purity 99.0%), and M-25 (CAS No. 1379794-42-9, purity 99.9%), all as 100 mg/L standard solutions in ACN, were purchased from Alta Scientific Co., Ltd. (Tianjin, China). HPLC-grade ACN formic acid (purity ≥ 99.0% for both) were obtained from J&K Scientific Ltd. (Beijing, China). Anhydrous magnesium sulfate (MgSO4) and sodium chloride (NaCl), both of analytical grade, were purchased from Sinopharm Chemical Reagent Co., Ltd. (Shanghai, China). A 2 mL purification tube (50 mg C18 sorbent) and a 0.22 µm organic syringe filter unit were obtained from Bonna-Agela Technologies Co., Ltd. (Tianjin, China).
The following instruments and equipment were used in this study: a Waters ACQUITY UPLCTM coupled with a Xevo TQ-XS (Waters Corporation, Milford, MA, USA); an BEH C18 column (2.1 mm × 100 mm, 1.7 μm; Waters Corporation, USA); variable-volume pipettes (10, 100, and 1000 μL; Eppendorf, Hamburg, Germany); analytical balances (models MS105DU and XP6, Mettler-Toledo GmbH, Greifensee, Switzerland) with readabilities of 0.01 mg and 0.1 mg, respectively; UMV-2 multi-tube vortex mixer was supplied by Beijing You United Technology Co., Ltd. (Beijing, China). TDZ5-WS benchtop low-speed centrifuge and H1650-W benchtop high-speed centrifuge were obtained from Hunan Xiangyi Laboratory Instrument Development Co., Ltd. (Changsha, China). A high-speed multifunctional grinder (Model FLB-800A, Feilibo Industrial Co., Ltd., Shanghai, China) was employed for sample homogenization.

2.2. Field Trials and Sample Collection

Nationwide field trials were conducted across the major winter wheat-producing regions in China, in accordance with the Guidelines on Pesticide Residue Trials (NY/T 788-2018) [43]. A single pre-emergence soil application of 200 g/L pyroxasulfone–diflufenican SC was applied at a rate of 480 g of active ingredient per hectare (g a.i./ha) during the winter wheat growing. At each of the ten sites, treated and control plots (each with a minimum area of 100 m2) were established and subsequently harvested for comparative analysis. The corresponding field trial parameters are detailed in Table 2.
To ensure sample representativeness and homogeneity, wheat grain and straw samples were collected and prepared during the maturity stage. Within each experimental plot, twelve random samples were collected from each site for analysis. The 12 random samples from each site were collected individually.
Grain samples were collected using scissors, with each sample weighing no less than 1.0 kg. After collecting, the grain were air-dried under indoor conditions, manually threshed, and thoroughly homogenized. The homogenized grain was quartered to obtain two parallel subsamples (designated A and B), each with a minimum weight of 200 g, which were then stored in clearly labeled, sealed bags.
Straw samples were collected concurrently from the same plots by harvesting above-ground whole wheat plants at more than 12 randomly distributed points, with each sample weighing at least 1.0 kg. The straw was trimmed into segments not exceeding 1.0 cm in length using scissors, homogenized, and subsequently subjected to quartering. Two parallel subsamples (designated A and B), each with a minimum mass of 100 g, were thereby prepared.
All procedures followed established laboratory sample-handling protocols to ensure sample integrity, homogeneity, and traceability. The prepared samples were stored at −18 °C, and the storage duration from collection to analysis did not exceed 12 months for any sample.

2.3. Analytical Procedures

2.3.1. Extraction and Cleanup

A 5.0 g portion of homogenized grain or 2.0 g of straw (weighed accurately to 0.01 g) was placed into a 50 mL polytetrafluoroethylene (PTFE) centrifuge tube. Then, 20 mL of an ACN-water mixture (3:1, v/v) was added. The tube was shaken on an orbital shaker at 240 rpm for 30 min for extraction, followed by centrifugation at 4000 rpm for 5 min. The supernatant was collected into a 50 mL centrifuge tube. The extraction procedure was repeated with another 20 mL of the ACN-water mixture (3:1, v/v). The combined supernatants were thoroughly mixed. A 1.0 mL aliquot of the extract was precisely transferred into a 2 mL d-SPE tube containing C18 sorbent. The mixture was vortexed for 1 min and then centrifuged at 12,000 rpm for 3 min. The resulting supernatant was passed through a 0.22 µm organic syringe filter. The filtrate (approximately 1.0 mL) was collected into a pre-slit 2.0 mL autosampler vial for subsequent UHPLC-MS/MS analysis.

2.3.2. Instrumental Condition

The separation was performed on a Waters Acquity UPLCTM BEH C18 column at 38 °C, equipped with a Waters Acquity UPLCTM column filter unit at the front end. The autosampler temperature was maintained at 15 °C, and the injection volume was set to 3.0 µL. The mobile phase consisted of ACN (phase A) and 0.1% formic acid in water (v/v, phase B), delivered at a constant flow rate of 0.3 mL/min. The gradient elution program was set as follows: 0–1.0 min, isocratic elution (10% A); 1.0–3.0 min, linear gradient to 100% A; 3.0–4.0 min, maintained at 100% A for column cleaning; 4.0–5.0 min, linear gradient back to the initial condition (10% A); and 5.0–6.0 min, re-equilibration at 5% A. The total time per sample was 6.0 min, with a post-run extension of 1.0 min to ensure system stability.
Detection was performed using an electrospray ionization (ESI) source in positive/negative switching mode. The capillary voltage was set to 3.62 kV, with the source and desolvation temperatures maintained at 150 °C and 410 °C, respectively. The gas system used high-purity nitrogen as the desolvation gas (680 L/h) and cone gas (180 L/h), with high-purity argon introduced into the collision cell at a flow rate of 0.20 mL/min. In multiple reaction monitoring (MRM) mode, two characteristic ion transitions (quantifier and qualifier) were selected for each compound, combined with retention time to achieve triple confirmation. The optimized mass spectrometry parameters for diflufenican, pyroxasulfone, M-1, M-3, and M-25 are listed in Table 3.

2.4. Spike-And-Recovery Experiment

The intermediate mixed stock solution at 5.0 mg/L was prepared by diluting 100 mg/L of the individual a.i. stock solutions in 20 mL of ACN in a brown volumetric flask. The solution was stored at 4 °C protected from light (shelf life 30 days). Working solutions were prepared at concentrations ranging from 0.0001 to 0.1 mg/L by serial dilution (dilution factor × 10) in ACN.
Following the procedure described in Section 2.3, untreated blank samples were processed to obtain matrix extracts from both grain and straw. The absence of interference peaks from the target analytes in these extracts was confirmed by UHPLC-MS/MS analysis. According to the method, matrix-matched standard curves (0.0001 to 0.1 mg/L) were prepared using these matrix extracts as the dilution medium instead of ACN.
For method validation, blank grain and straw samples were separately spiked with the mixed standard solution at three concentration levels (0.002, 0.01, and 1.0 mg/kg). After mixing thoroughly, the samples were left to stand for 30 min to allow the solvent to evaporate, and then analyzed according to Section 2.3. Five replicate samples were processed at each concentration level within the same day for intra-day precision, while three replicates were analyzed on three consecutive days for inter-day precision. Untreated blank matrix samples were simultaneously processed as controls.

2.5. Storage Stability Test

To assess the storage stability of diflufenican, pyroxasulfone, and their metabolites (M-1, M-3, and M-25) in wheat grain and straw, the stability of these compounds was investigated according to the Guideline for Storage Stability Testing of Pesticide Residues in Plant-Derived Agricultural Products (NY/T 3094-2017) [44], using a fortified-sample storage experiment.
For grain samples at a fortification level of 0.5 mg/kg, five aliquots of 5.00 g blank matrix were accurately weighed into 50 mL PTFE centrifuge tubes, and each tube was individually spiked with 0.10 mL of a 25 mg/L standard solution corresponding to one of the analytes (diflufenican, pyroxasulfone, M-1, M-3, or M-25). After thorough homogenization, the tubes were sealed with parafilm and stored in a freezer at ≤−18 °C. For straw samples fortified at the same level (0.5 mg/kg), 2.0 g of blank matrix was weighed and spiked with 0.10 mL of a 10 mg/L mixed standard solution of the analytes, followed by identical mixing, sealing, and storage procedures.
Sampling was conducted at six designated time points: 0 days, 1 month, 2 months, 3 months, 6 months, and 12 months. At each interval, two fortified parallel samples and one blank control were analyzed, with an additional set of three backup samples (consisting of two fortified and one blank) prepared to account for potential experimental deviations. Throughout the storage duration, environmental conditions were rigorously controlled at ≤−18 °C and 30–50% relative humidity, with monthly monitoring of these parameters. All samples were analyzed within 24 h after retrieval.
In this study, the interference levels in all blank samples remained below 30% of the LOQ for the target analytes. This outcome confirms that matrix interference and background contamination were effectively controlled throughout the analytical process, meeting the methodological requirements for stability and ensuring the accuracy and reliability of the results.

2.6. Data Processing Methods

Residue quantification data were processed using the Mass Lynx V 4.2 system (Waters, USA), which is dedicated to the acquisition and analysis of UHPLC-MS/MS data. The matrix effect (ME%) was calculated according to established methods reported in the literature [45]. Statistical analysis and data visualization were performed using Microsoft Excel 2024 and Origin 2022, respectively.
The degradation rate (DR, %) of the stored samples was calculated using Equation (1):
DR = (C0 − Ct)/C0 × 100%
Here, the DR of the compound during storage is defined based on its concentration over time, where Ct (mg/kg) is the concentration at time t (days) and C0 (mg/kg) is the initial spiked concentration (at t = 0). A DR of 30% was set as the stability threshold, with samples below this value considered stable and those above it deemed unstable.
The total residue (CT, mg/kg) of pyroxasulfone in plant-derived foods, is calculated as follows:
CT = Cp + 1.261 × CM-1 + 1.504 × CM-3 + 1.321 × CM-25
In the formula, Cp, CM-1, CM-3 and CM-25 denote the concentrations (mg/kg) of pyroxasulfone, M-1, M-3, and M-25, respectively; the coefficients 1.261, 1.504, and 1.321 are conversion factors derived from the molecular weight ratios of pyroxasulfone (391.30) to its metabolites (M-1: 310.20, M-3: 260.12, M-25: 296.17). These coefficients standardize all residue quantities as “pyroxasulfone equivalents”, serving as a metrological normalization rather than an indicator of toxicological potency.
The chronic dietary risk was assessed by calculating the risk quotient (RQ), defined as the ratio of the National Estimated Daily Intake (NEDI, mg/kg bw) to the Acceptable Daily Intake (ADI, mg/kg bw), expressed as a percentage [46]. NEDI was derived using Equation (3).
NEDI = ∑STMR × Fi/bw
The risk quotient (RQ) was calculated using Equation (4):
RQ = NEDI/ADI × 100%
where STMR is a supervised trials median residue (mg/kg), ADI (acceptable daily intake) is the toxicological reference value (mg/kg bw), Fi represents the daily food consumption (kg/day) derived from the Chinese Resident Dietary Survey, with the corresponding data sourced from the Report on Nutrition and Health Status of Chinese Residents [47], and bw is the average body weight of an adult (63 kg). An RQ value of less than 100% indicates that the chronic dietary risk is acceptable. Conversely, an RQ value exceeding 100% suggests a potential health risk with unacceptable adverse effects on human health.

3. Results and Discussion

3.1. Linearity, Accuracy and Precision of the Method

The ionization modes for diflufenican, pyroxasulfone and its metabolites M-1, M-3, and M-25 were first optimized. In positive ion mode, diflufenican and pyroxasulfone exhibited efficient ionization to form prominent [M+H]+ ions, whereas metabolites M-1, M-2, and M-3 showed lower responses, likely due to the scarcity of readily protonatable sites within their molecular structures. In negative ion mode, metabolites M-1, M-3, and M-25 displayed significantly enhanced signals attributed to the presence of easily deprotonated functional groups, while the response of diflufenican and pyroxasulfone declined considerably. The inclusion of 0.1% formic acid in the mobile phase substantially improved detection sensitivity in both modes of ionization. This enhancement is ascribed to the dual function of formic acid: serving as a proton donor to promote positive ionization, and forming formate adduct ions [M+HCOO]− to strengthen detection in negative ion mode. Following precursor ion optimization, the Intellistart automated procedure was employed for product ion scanning. Through ion abundance screening, the two most sensitive ion pairs (quantitative and qualitative) were selected, while key mass spectrometric parameters, including cone voltage and collision energy, were simultaneously optimized via the instrument’s automated module.
Subsequently, LC conditions were optimized after establishing mass spectrometric parameters for diflufenican, pyroxasulfone, and their metabolites. Experimental results demonstrated that the methanol–water system, owing to its high viscosity and weak eluting strength, not only reduced the responses of the five target analytes but also significantly elevated system backpressure. In contrast, the acetonitrile–water system provided superior separation performance. The addition of 0.1% formic acid to the acetonitrile—water system markedly enhanced the sensitivity of all five compounds, primarily due to formic acid’s ability to adjust mobile–phase pH to favor protonation while suppressing secondary interactions with residual silanol groups on the stationary phase, thereby improving peak shapes. To address macromolecular interferences such as polysaccharides and pigments in wheat samples, a reversed-phase gradient elution program was implemented. The initial 95% aqueous phase (0.1% formic acid) rapidly removed polar interferences, followed by a linear increase in acetonitrile proportion over 3 min. This approach successfully confined the retention times of the target analytes within an ideal window of 2.0–4.0 min. Once these conditions were verified to satisfy the research requirements, no further optimization was pursued.
Under the finalized instrumental setup, all target analytes displayed excellent linearity across a concentration range of 0.0001–0.1 mg/L, with correlation coefficients (r) exceeding 0.996. As shown in Table 4, significant matrix effects were observed for both diflufenican and pyroxasulfone in the wheat grain matrix. Compared with the acetonitrile solvent system, the slope for diflufenican decreased by 47.5% in the grain matrix, while the matrix effect in the straw matrix was negligible (approximately 0.8%). Similarly, the slopes for pyroxasulfone decreased by 44.6% in the grain matrix and 29.0% in the straw matrix. The three metabolites exhibited distinct matrix effect patterns. Metabolite M-25, which showed the highest slope in the acetonitrile solvent system, decreased by only 9.3% in the grain matrix and 1.7% in the straw matrix. These values meet the acceptable criterion of |ME| < 10%, indicating negligible matrix interference for this metabolite. In contrast, metabolites M-1 and M-3 demonstrated matrix enhancement effects. Compared with the solvent system, the slopes of M-1 increased by 16.2% in the grain matrix and 26.7% in the straw matrix, while those of M-3 increased by 14.5% and 14.3%, respectively.
The observed matrix suppression or enhancement is likely attributable to interference from lipids, phenolic compounds, or other specific components present in the wheat grain and straw matrices, which may influence electrospray ionization efficiency through mechanisms such as charge transfer or competitive ionization. Due to the substantial variation in response characteristics under different matrix conditions, a matrix-matched external standard method was employed for quantification in this study to correct for matrix effects and ensure the accuracy and reliability of the analytical results.
Method validation was conducted by evaluating accuracy (recovery) and precision at three fortification levels (0.002, 0.01, and 0.5 mg/kg) in both wheat grain and straw matrices. Mean recoveries for diflufenican, pyroxasulfone, M-1, M-3, and M-25 were 81.6–104.1%, 82.0–104.3%, 95.3–106.9%, 99.1–104.4%, and 95.6–110.1%, respectively. Intra-day precision (RSDa, n = 5) ranged from 0.9% to 4.4%, while inter-day precision (RSDb, n = 9) ranged from 1.3% to 13.9%. All validation parameters met the acceptance criteria (recovery: 70–120%; RSD ≤ 20%) established in Chinese and European guidelines [43,48].
For samples exceeding the upper limit of the linear calibration range, a validated 10-fold dilution approach was applied, and the resulting recoveries consistently remained within acceptable levels. Due to the influence of matrix effects, the validated LOQ for this method was established at 0.002 mg/kg. Although further optimization might enable a lower method detection limit, the current LOQ meets the analytical requirements of this study, and thus no further investigation was undertaken in this study.
Representative extracted ion chromatograms of the quantifier transitions for the five compounds detected in wheat are shown in Figure 2, Figure 3, Figure 4, Figure 5 and Figure 6. In the MRM chromatogram, the target compound appears as a blue peak, while the interfering substances/impurities are visible as red peaks.

3.2. Assessment of the Storage Stability of the Herbicide

A systematic evaluation of the storage stability of diflufenican, pyroxasulfone, and their metabolites (M-1, M-3, and M-25) in wheat grain and straw was conducted. Samples were fortified at 0.5 mg/kg and stored for 12 months at ≤−18 °C. The results showed that the recoveries of all target analytes in quality control samples met the established criteria for pesticide residue analysis, as summarized in Table 5.
In grain, the DR of all compounds remained below the 30% stability threshold. Pyroxasulfone exhibited the highest DR (27%) after 3 months of storage. A similar trend was observed in straw, with the DR of all compounds remaining below 30%. Notably, the DR of pyroxasulfone in straw reached 29% after 12 months of storage, approaching the upper limit of the stability threshold. In addition, minor negative degradation values (−8% to −1%) observed for metabolites M-1 and M-3 at certain time points fell within the acceptable variation range confirmed during method validation. In conclusion, the results confirm the stability of the target compounds in wheat grain and straw over 12 months of storage and demonstrate that the residue data accurately reflect their initial concentrations throughout the test period.

3.3. Terminal Residues of the Herbicides

The final residue concentrations of diflufenican, pyroxasulfone, and their metabolites (M-1, M-3, and M-25) in wheat straw and grain from 10 experimental sites across the country are summarized in Table 6.
In wheat grain, residues of diflufenican were all below the LOQ (0.002 mg/kg), and the STMR was determined as <0.002 mg/kg. In contrast, residue concentrations in straw were generally higher and exhibited greater variability, with measured values ranging from 0.002 to 0.018 mg/kg (STMR: 0.010 mg/kg). The highest residue level (0.018 mg/kg) was observed in samples from Yunnan province. GB 2763 [23] stipulates a MRL of 0.05 mg/kg for diflufenican in wheat. The results of this study demonstrate that residue levels of diflufenican in both wheat grain and straw consistently remained below this regulatory limit, thereby confirming that diflufenican residues in wheat comply with current national food safety standards.
In wheat grain, the concentration of pyroxasulfone ranged from <0.002 to 0.010 mg/kg, corresponding to an STMR of <0.002 mg/kg. Its metabolite M-1 was consistently detected at a concentration of 0.002 mg/kg across all trial sites, corresponding to an STMR of 0.002 mg/kg. Concentrations of metabolites M-3 and M-25 ranged from 0.002 to 0.006 mg/kg and 0.002 to 0.005 mg/kg, respectively, each with an STMR of 0.002 mg/kg. In straw, the residue concentrations of pyroxasulfone ranged from <0.002 to 0.010 mg/kg (STMR: <0.002 mg/kg), with the highest value (0.010 mg/kg) also observed in Yunnan. The concentration of metabolite M-1 in straw varied from 0.005 to 0.221 mg/kg (STMR: 0.044 mg/kg), and the maximum concentration (0.221 mg/kg) was detected in Yantai, Shandong. Concentrations of M-3 and M-25 in straw ranged from 0.005 to 0.019 mg/kg (STMR: 0.009 mg/kg) and from 0.005 to 0.048 mg/kg (STMR: 0.017 mg/kg), respectively, with their peak values (0.019 mg/kg for M-3 and 0.048 mg/kg for M-25) both recorded in Yunnan.
Currently, the Joint FAO/WHO Meeting on Pesticide Residues (JMPR) [49] has not yet established assessment criteria for pyroxasulfone. Major regulatory bodies, including China, the CAC, and the EU, have not set MRLs for pyroxasulfone in wheat. In accordance with the established international MRLs, the residue concentration of pyroxasulfone quantified in this trial were found to comply with the standards set by the EPA, Japan, and Republic of Korea. However, these levels exceeded the MRL established for pyroxasulfone in Australia.

3.4. Dietary Risk Assessment

To date, no studies or regulatory reports have indicated that the toxicity of metabolites M-1, M-3, or M-25 exceeds that of the parent compound pyroxasulfone. Given that these metabolites share the same active functional groups and core pharmacophore structure with the parent compound, and in the absence of comprehensive toxicological data for individual metabolites, this study adopted a conservative risk assessment strategy by defining the total residue of pyroxasulfone as the sum of the parent compound and its metabolites M-1, M-3, and M-25. According to this definition, residue results from ten trial sites showed that the total pyroxasulfone residue in wheat grain ranged from 0.010 to 0.019 mg/kg (STMR: 0.014 mg/kg) and in straw from 0.026 to 0.357 mg/kg (STMR: 0.092 mg/kg).
GB 2763 [23] stipulates an ADI of 0.2 mg/kg bw for diflufenican but does not provide an ADI for pyroxasulfone. Based on the only publicly available official data from the U.S. EPA [26], the ADI for pyroxasulfone is 0.02 mg/kg bw. Based on the current status of pesticide registration in China and the average dietary structure model of the population, the calculated NEDI for diflufenican in the general population is 1.962 × 10−4 mg/kg bw, with a RQ of 0.10%; for pyroxasulfone, the NEDI is 5.341 × 10−5 mg/kg bw, with an RQ of 0.27% (Table 7). The dietary intake risk assessment results for both compounds are far below 100%, indicating that the application of 200 g/L pyroxasulfone–diflufenican SC in accordance with GAP does not pose an unacceptable risk to the health of the general population.
Currently, China has not established MRL standards for pyroxasulfone. Based on the assessment results and the final residue data of this study, it is recommended that the residue definition for pyroxasulfone be defined as the sum of the parent compound and its metabolites M-1, M-3, and M-25. Furthermore, it is suggested that the MRL for pyroxasulfone be set at 0.03 mg/kg in wheat grain and at 0.6 mg/kg in wheat straw. These recommended values are consistent with international standards while also meeting the practical needs of agricultural production and regulatory oversight in China.

4. Conclusions

A reliable analytical method was developed using QuEChERS sample preparation coupled with UHPLC-MS/MS, achieving a LOQ of 0.002 mg/kg. This method enables the simultaneous determination of diflufenican, pyroxasulfone, and their metabolites (M-1, M-3, and M-25) in wheat grain and straw. Method validation, conducted on spiked samples under controlled laboratory conditions, demonstrated satisfactory accuracy and precision. All target analytes remained stable in wheat matrices during storage at −18 °C for 12 months, ensuring the robustness of subsequent residue data.
Supervised field trials were performed during the 2023–2024 winter wheat growing season across ten representative agricultural regions in China. A single pre-emergence soil application of 200 g/L pyroxasulfone–diflufenican SC was carried out at the maximum label dose of 480 g a.i./ha. At harvest, residues of diflufenican in wheat grain were all below the LOQ (<0.002 mg/kg), corresponding to a supervised trials median residue (STMR) of <0.002 mg/kg—substantially lower than the current Chinese MRL of 0.05 mg/kg. Residues in straw ranged from 0.002 to 0.018 mg/kg (STMR 0.010 mg/kg), also well below the established regulatory limit. For pyroxasulfone, for which no MRL has yet been established in China, it is recommended that the residue definition be set as the sum of the parent compound and its metabolites M-1, M-3, and M-25. Based on this definition, total residues in wheat grain ranged from 0.010 to 0.019 mg/kg (STMR 0.014 mg/kg), and in straw from 0.026 to 0.357 mg/kg (STMR 0.092 mg/kg). Dietary intake risk assessment, based on the registered use pattern and the average dietary structure of the Chinese population, revealed NEDI of 1.962 × 10−4 mg/kg bw for diflufenican and 5.341 × 10−5 mg/kg bw for pyroxasulfone, with corresponding RQ of 0.10% and 0.27%, respectively. Both values are well below 100%, indicating that the application of the formulation in accordance with good agricultural practices (GAP) poses no unacceptable health risk to consumers.
Based on the residue trial data and dietary risk assessment, it is recommended that China establish MRLs for pyroxasulfone in wheat at 0.03 mg/kg for grain and 0.6 mg/kg for straw. These proposed limits are consistent with international standards and address both domestic agricultural practices and regulatory requirements, providing a scientific basis for future MRL setting and revision.

Author Contributions

Conceptualization, methodology, writing—review and editing, validation, funding acquisition, M.H.; resources, investigation, validation, P.H.; investigation, validation, formal analysis, L.C.; data curation, formal analysis, P.Y.; resources, investigation, validation, J.W.; investigation, review and editing, supervision, F.T.; resources, investigation, formal analysis, validation, X.Q.; project administration, E.Z. All authors have read and agreed to the published version of the manuscript.

Funding

This work was supported by the National Key Research and Development Program of China [Grant Numbers 2023YFD1701300 and 2022YFD1401200].

Institutional Review Board Statement

Not applicable.

Informed Consent Statement

Not applicable.

Data Availability Statement

The original contributions presented in the study are included in the article; further inquiries can be directed to the corresponding authors.

Conflicts of Interest

The authors declare no conflicts of interest.

Abbreviations

The following abbreviations are used in this manuscript:
UHPLC-MS/MSUltra-high-performance liquid chromatography–tandem mass spectrometry
QuEChERSQuick, Easy, Cheap, Effective, Rugged, Safe
MRMMultiple Reaction Monitoring
NEDINational Estimated Daily Intake
MRLMaximum Residue Limit
GAPGood Agricultural Practice
CACCodex Alimentarius Commission
LOQLimit of Quantification
EPAEnvironmental Protection Agency

References

  1. Westwood, J.H.; Charudattan, R.; Duke, S.O.; Fennimore, S.A.; Marrone, P.; Slaughter, D.C.; Swanton, C.; Zollinger, R. Weed management in 2050: Perspectives on the future of weed science. Weed Sci. 2018, 66, 275–285. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Scilit]
  2. Li, G.L.; Yang, Y.; Wang, S.M.; Li, D.Z.; Liu, R.Q.; Zhang, Y.D.; Wu, Y.B. Investigation and analysis of the residual status and distribution of long-lasting-effect herbicides in field soil: A case study of henan province, a major agricultural producing area in China. Agriculture 2025, 15, 996. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Scilit]
  3. Soltani, N.; Willemse, C.; Sikkema, P.H. Biologically effective dose of diflufenican applied preemergence for the control of multiple herbicide-resistant waterhemp in corn. Weed Technol. 2024, 38, e69. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Scilit]
  4. Chhokar, R.S.; Sharma, R.K. Weed control in wheat with pyroxasulfone and its combinations with other herbicides. Weed Biol. Manag. 2023, 23, 58–70. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Scilit]
  5. Albrecht, L.P.; Albrecht, A.J.P.; Silva, A.F.M.; Tupich, F.L.B.; Ferrari, D.H.A.; Larini, W.F.; Beninca, L.H.G.; Oliveira, V.H.D. Broad spectrum effectiveness of pyroxasulfone. Rev. Agrogeoambient. 2025, 17, e20251962. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Scilit]
  6. Hvezdová, M.; Kosubová, P.; Kosíková, M.; Scherr, K.E.; Simek, Z.; Brodsky, L.; Sudoma, M.; Skulcová, L.; Sánka, M.; Svobodová, M.; et al. Currently and recently used pesticides in central european arable soils. Sci. Total Environ. 2018, 613, 361–370. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Scilit] [PubMed]
  7. Soni, J.K.; Nibhoria, A.; Punia, S.S.; Yadav, D.B.; Choudhary, V.K.; Lalramhlimi, B.; Navik, O. Herbicide resistant in india-history of evolution, present status and its management. Phytoparasitica 2023, 51, 353–378. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Scilit]
  8. Wang, S.M.; Yang, Y.; Li, D.Z.; Xie, L.F.; Wu, Y.B.; Li, G.L. Current research status, opportunities, and future challenges of nine representative persistent herbicides. J. Agric. Food Chem. 2024, 72, 21959–21972. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Scilit]
  9. Samota, S.R.; Chhokar, R.S.; Yadav, D.B.; Kumar, N.; Gill, S.C.; Mamrutha, H.M. Pyroxasulfone based tank-mix herbicide combinations for diverse weed flora control in wheat. Crop Prot. 2024, 181, 106695. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Scilit]
  10. Bamal, D.; Duhan, A.; Pal, A.; Beniwal, R.K.; Kumawat, P.; Dhanda, S.; Goyat, A.; Hooda, V.S.; Yadav, R. Herbicide risks to non-target species and the environment: A review. Environ. Chem. Lett. 2024, 22, 2977–3032. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Scilit]
  11. Parven, A.; Meftaul, I.M.; Venkateswarlu, K.; Gopalan, S.; Megharaj, M. Pre-emergence herbicides widely used in urban and farmland soils: Fate, and potential human and environmental health risks. Environ. Geochem. Health 2024, 46, 132. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Scilit] [PubMed]
  12. Mehdizadeh, M.; Omidi, A.; Choudhury, A.R.; Abideen, Z.; Mendes, K.F. Atmospheric herbicide contamination: Sources, long-range transport, and health-environmental risks. Air Qual. Atmos. Health 2025, 18, 1861–1878. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Scilit]
  13. Zhang, X.F.; Zhang, C.H.; Zheng, J.; Li, L.X.; Geng, T.Q.; Zhang, Y. Potential biomarkers for monitoring the toxicity of long-term exposure to atrazine in rat by metabonomic analysis. Xenobiotica 2018, 48, 241–249. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Scilit] [PubMed]
  14. Panzacchi, S.; Tibaldi, E.; De Angelis, L.; Falcioni, L.; Giovannini, R.; Gnudi, F.; Iuliani, M.; Manservigi, M.; Manservisi, F.; Manzoli, I.; et al. Carcinogenic effects of long-term exposure from prenatal life to glyphosate and glyphosate-based herbicides in sprague-dawley rats. Environ. Health 2025, 24, 36. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Scilit] [PubMed]
  15. Zhou, Y.L.; Shi, J.Y.; Wei, D.D.; Zhao, M.Z.; Ma, C.C.; Geng, J.T.; Guo, Y.; Wu, X.Y.; Xu, H.R.; Chen, Z.W.; et al. Long-term herbicide mixture exposure increases hypertension risk and aging biomarkers play mediation effects: A nested case-control study. Expo. Health 2025, 17, 537–550. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Scilit]
  16. Crépet, A.; Luong, T.M.; Baines, J.; Boon, P.E.; Ennis, J.; Kennedy, M.; Massarelli, I.; Miller, D.; Nako, S.; Reuss, R.; et al. An international probabilistic risk assessment of acute dietary exposure to pesticide residues in relation to codex maximum residue limits for pesticides in food. Food Control 2021, 121, 107563. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Scilit]
  17. Karemera, D.; Xiong, B.; Smalls, G.; Whitesides, L. The political economy of maximum residue limits: A long-term health perspective. J. Agric. Econ. 2022, 73, 709–719. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Scilit]
  18. Zhang, S.Q. Maximum residue limits and agricultural trade: Evidence from China. Sustainability 2025, 17, 3435. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Scilit]
  19. MacLachlan, D.J.; Hamilton, D. Estimation methods for maximum residue limits for pesticides. Regul. Toxicol. Pharmacol. 2010, 58, 208–218. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Scilit]
  20. Guo, Y.; Li, Z.J. A lognormal model for evaluating maximum residue levels of pesticides in crops. Environ. Pollut. 2021, 278, 116832. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Scilit]
  21. Ambrus, A.; Yang, Y.Z. Global harmonization of maximum residue limits for pesticides. J. Agric. Food Chem. 2016, 64, 30–35. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Scilit]
  22. Ministry of Agriculture and Rural Affairs of the People’s Republic of China. China Pesticide Information Network. 2026. Available online: http://www.chinapesticide.org.cn (accessed on 30 January 2026).
  23. National Health Commission of the People’s Republic of China; Ministry of Agriculture and Rural Affairs; State Administration for Market Regulation. National Food Safety Standard: Maximum Residue Limits for Pesticides in Food (GB 2763-2021); Standards Press of China: Beijing, China, 2021.
  24. National Health Commission of the People’s Republic of China; Ministry of Agriculture and Rural Affairs; State Administration for Market Regulation. National Food Safety Standard: Maximum Residue Limits for 112 Pesticides Including Sodium 2,4-D Butylate in Food (GB 2763.1-2022); Standards Press of China: Beijing, China, 2022.
  25. Codex Alimentarius Commission. Pesticide Residues in Food Online Database. Available online: https://www.fao.org/fao-who-codexalimentarius/codex-texts/dbs/pestres/pesticides/en/ (accessed on 12 December 2025).
  26. United States Environmental Protection Agency. Tolerances and Exemptions for Pesticide Chemical Residues. Available online: https://www.ecfr.gov/current/title-40/chapter-I/subchapter-E/part-180/subpart-C (accessed on 12 December 2025).
  27. Australian Pesticides and Veterinary Medicines Authority. Agricultural and Veterinary Chemicals Code Instrument No. 4 (MRL Standard) 2012. Available online: https://www.legislation.gov.au/F2012L02501/latest/text (accessed on 12 December 2025).
  28. Ministry of Food and Drug Safety, Korea. Pesticide Maximum Residue Limits Database. Available online: http://www.foodsafetykorea.go.kr/residue/prd/mrls/list.do (accessed on 12 December 2025).
  29. European Commission. EU Pesticides Database: Active Substances. 2025. Available online: https://ec.europa.eu/food/plant/pesticides/eu-pesticides-database/start/screen/active-substances (accessed on 11 February 2026).
  30. European Commission. EU Pesticides Database: Maximum Residue Levels. 2025. Available online: https://ec.europa.eu/food/plant/pesticides/eu-pesticides-database/start/screen/mrls (accessed on 11 February 2026).
  31. Japan Food Chemical Research Foundation. Maximum Residue Limits of Agricultural Chemicals in Foods. Available online: http://db.ffcr.or.jp/front/ (accessed on 12 December 2025).
  32. Metin, B.; Güleryüz, A.; Chormey, D.S.; Zaman, B.T.; Bakirdere, S. Determination of diflufenican and azaconazole pesticides in wastewater samples by gc-ms after preconcentration with stearic acid functionalized magnetic nanoparticles-based dispersive solid-phase extraction. Environ. Monit. Assess. 2023, 195, 32. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Scilit]
  33. Herrero-Hernández, E.; Simón-Egea, A.B.; Sánchez-Martín, M.J.; Rodríguez-Cruz, M.S.; Andrades, M.S. Monitoring and environmental risk assessment of pesticide residues and some of their degradation products in natural waters of the spanish vineyard region included in the Denomination of Origin Jumilla. Environ. Pollut. 2020, 264, 114666. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Scilit]
  34. Han, Y.T.; Song, L.; Liu, S.W.; Zou, N.; Li, Y.J.; Qin, Y.H.; Li, X.S.; Pan, C.P. Simultaneous determination of 124 pesticide residues in chinese liquor and liquor-making raw materials (sorghum and rice hull) by rapid Multi-plug Filtration Cleanup and gas chromatography-tandem mass spectrometry. Food Chem. 2018, 241, 258–267. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Scilit] [PubMed]
  35. Parven, A.; Meftaul, I.M.; Venkateswarlu, K.; Segovia, A.C.; Megharaj, M. Potted garden pea grown in presence of pre-emergence herbicides: Impacts on soil enzymes and human health. J. Food Compos. Anal. 2025, 138, 106985. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Scilit]
  36. Qin, F.Y.; Bi, Y.Y.; Han, L.J.; Song, S.Y.; Lv, X.R. Method validation and residue analysis of mesosulfuron-methyl and diflufenican in wheat field trial by liquid chromatography with tandem mass spectrometry. Food Anal. Methods 2022, 15, 2617–2624. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Scilit]
  37. Pszczolinska, K.; Perkons, I.; Bartkevics, V.; Drzewiecki, S.; Plonka, J.; Shakeel, N.; Barchanska, H. Targeted and non-targeted analysis for the investigation of pesticides influence on wheat cultivated under field conditions. Environ. Pollut. 2023, 316, 120468. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Scilit]
  38. Hu, Z.L.; Li, J.; Zhang, Y.Z.; Shi, Y. Determination of residue of diflufenican in wheat and soil by ultra-high-pressure liquid chromatography and mass spectrometry conditions. J. Sci. Food Agric. 2021, 101, 215–219. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Scilit]
  39. Costa, L.S.; Schettino, C.F.; Sicupira, L.C.; de Pinho, G.P.; Silvério, F.O. Determining pyroxasulfone herbicide in honey samples using liquid-liquid extraction with low temperature purification (LLE-LTP). Talanta 2024, 273, 125870. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Scilit]
  40. Kaur, P.; Kaur, A.; Kaur, K. Deciphering pyroxasulfone dynamics in punjab soils: Insights into adsorption, desorption, and leaching behavior. Soil Sediment Contam. 2025, 34, 1717–1742. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Scilit]
  41. U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA). Analysis of Pyroxasulfone and Its Degradates in Soil by Liquid Chromatography/Tandem Mass Spectrometry (LC/MS/MS)—Method and Reporting Identification (MRID) 47701667. 2020. Available online: https://www.epa.gov/pesticide-analytical-methods/ecm-pyroxasulfone-degradates-soil-mrid-47701667 (accessed on 12 December 2025).
  42. Lan, F.; Sun, X.T.; Wang, R.S.; Sun, X.H.; Peng, X.X.; Zang, H.W.; Wang, J.P. Simultaneous determination of pyroxasulfone and its metabolites in wheat: Implications for safe application. Food Chem. 2025, 491, 145176. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Scilit] [PubMed]
  43. Ministry of Agriculture and Rural Affairs of the People’s Republic of China. Guideline for Pesticide Residue Trials in Crops (NY/T 788-2018); China Agriculture Press: Beijing, China, 2018.
  44. Ministry of Agriculture and Rural Affairs of the People’s Republic of China. Guideline for Storage Stability Testing of Pesticide Residues in Plant-Derived Agricultural Products (NY/T 3094-2017); China Agriculture Press: Beijing, China, 2017.
  45. Lucic, M.; Onjia, A. Probabilistic dietary exposure and risk ranking of pesticides in peppers (capsicum annuum): Regional and consumer group variability. Food Chem. 2025, 492, 145355. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Scilit] [PubMed]
  46. Lucic, M.; Onjia, A. Prioritization and sensitivity of pesticide risks from root and tuber vegetables. J. Xenobiot. 2025, 15, 125. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Scilit] [PubMed]
  47. Chinese Center for Disease Control and Prevention. Report on Nutrition and Health Status of Chinese Residents; People’s Medical Publishing House: Beijing, China, 2022.
  48. SANTE 11312/2021; Analytical Quality Control and Method Validation Procedures for Pesticide Residues Analysis in Food and Feed. European Commission: Brussels, Belgium, 2021; pp. 1–57. Available online: https://www.eurl-pesticides.eu/docs/public/tmplt_article.asp?CntID=727 (accessed on 12 December 2025).
  49. Joint Meeting on Pesticide Residues (JMPR). Inventory of Evaluations Performed by the Joint Meeting on Pesticide Residues; World Health Organization: Geneva, Switzerland, 2025. Available online: https://apps.who.int/pesticide-residues-jmpr-database/Home/Search (accessed on 12 December 2025).
Foods 15 00732 g001
Figure 1. Molecular structures of diflufenican (a), pyroxasulfone (b), M-1 (c), M-3 (d), and M-25 (e).
Figure 1. Molecular structures of diflufenican (a), pyroxasulfone (b), M-1 (c), M-3 (d), and M-25 (e).
Foods 15 00732 g001
Foods 15 00732 g002
Figure 2. MRM chromatograms of diflufenican in blank matrix (A) and spiked sample at 0.002 mg/kg (B).
Figure 2. MRM chromatograms of diflufenican in blank matrix (A) and spiked sample at 0.002 mg/kg (B).
Foods 15 00732 g002
Foods 15 00732 g003
Figure 3. MRM chromatograms of pyroxasulfone in blank matrix (A) and spiked sample at 0.002 mg/kg (B).
Figure 3. MRM chromatograms of pyroxasulfone in blank matrix (A) and spiked sample at 0.002 mg/kg (B).
Foods 15 00732 g003
Foods 15 00732 g004
Figure 4. MRM chromatograms of M-1 in blank matrix (A) and spiked sample at 0.002 mg/kg (B).
Figure 4. MRM chromatograms of M-1 in blank matrix (A) and spiked sample at 0.002 mg/kg (B).
Foods 15 00732 g004
Foods 15 00732 g005
Figure 5. MRM chromatograms of M-3 in blank matrix (A) and spiked sample at 0.002 mg/kg (B).
Figure 5. MRM chromatograms of M-3 in blank matrix (A) and spiked sample at 0.002 mg/kg (B).
Foods 15 00732 g005
Foods 15 00732 g006
Figure 6. MRM chromatograms of M-25 in blank matrix (A) and spiked sample at 0.002 mg/kg (B).
Figure 6. MRM chromatograms of M-25 in blank matrix (A) and spiked sample at 0.002 mg/kg (B).
Foods 15 00732 g006
Table 1. Comparison of MRLs for pyroxasulfone and diflufenican in crops among international standards.
Table 1. Comparison of MRLs for pyroxasulfone and diflufenican in crops among international standards.
CompoundCropMRLs (mg/kg)
China
[23,24]		CAC
[25]		EPA
[26]		Australia
[27]		Republic of Korea
[28]		EU
[29,30]		Japan
[31]
PyroxasulfoneWheat//0.030.01//0.01
Corn//0.020.01//0.01
Soybeans//0.060.06//0.01
DiflufenicanWheat0.05//0.02/0.020.10
Rice0.05//0.20/0.010.05
Garlic/////0.01/
CAC: Codex Alimentarius Commission; EPA: U.S. Environmental Protection Agency; EU: European Union.
Table 2. Field trial parameters for winter wheat experiments.
Table 2. Field trial parameters for winter wheat experiments.
LocationWheat VarietySoil TypepHOA
(g/kg)		CEC
(cmol/kg)		Spraying
Date		Sampling
Date		Analysis
Date
ShanxiYingbo 700Loam8.317.215.39 October 202325 June 202422 August 2024
GansuLongzhong No. 6Loam6.86.714.728 September 20238 July 202422 August 2024
BeijingJima 22Loam7.918.214.510 October 202318 June 202422 August 2024
HenanZhongmai 895Fluvo-aquic soil7.223.912.52 November 20235 June 202422 August 2024
SD WeifangJimai 21Loam8.012.717.72 October 202330 May 202421 August 2024
SD YantaiYannong 999Brown soil7.515.316.416 October 202331 May 202421 August 2024
AnhuiZhenmai 18Clayey fluvo-aquic soil7.115.016.331 October 202329 May 202421 August 2024
ShanghaiYangmai 26Fluvo-aquic soi7.830.119.423 November 20233 June 202422 August 2024
HunanXinong 511Red soil5.331.213.031 October 202313 May 202421 August 2024
YunnanYunmai 77Loam7.624.711.914 November 20232 May 202421 August 2024
OA: organic matter content; CEC: cation exchange capacity; SD: Shangdong.
Table 3. UHPLC-MS/MS parameters for diflufenican, pyroxasulfone, M-1, M-3, and M-25.
Table 3. UHPLC-MS/MS parameters for diflufenican, pyroxasulfone, M-1, M-3, and M-25.
CompoundMolecular
Formula		Retention TimeQualitative
Ion Pairs (m/z)		Quantitative
Ion Pairs (m/z)		Cone Voltage
(V)		Collision Energy
(V)
DiflufenicanC19H11F5N2O23.83395.1/246.0395.1/246.01640
395.1/265.91624
PyroxasulfoneC12H14F5N3O4S3.41392.1/179.0392.1/228.93628
392.1/228.93616
M-1C7H7F5N2O4S2.45309.0/195.2309.0/259.0618
309.0/259.0617
M-3C7H5F5N2O33.07259.0/149.9259.0/165.0238
259.0/165.0216
M-25C6H5F5N2O4S2.44295.0/162.9295.0/162.9820
295.0/231.0816
Table 4. Analytical parameters for diflufenican, pyroxasulfone, M-1, M-3, and M-25 in grain and straw.
Table 4. Analytical parameters for diflufenican, pyroxasulfone, M-1, M-3, and M-25 in grain and straw.
CompoundLinear Equation (Matrix)MEFortificationMean Recovery
in Grain (%)		Mean Recovery
in Wheat (%)		LOQ
(y = ax + b)(%)Level (mg/kg)(mg/kg)
Diflufenicany = 9826.2x − 2045 (ACN)/0.002104.1100.3/
y = 5158.7x + 479.84 (Grain)−47.50.0193.995.40.002
y = 9903.1x + 2669.4 (Straw)0.80.588.581.60.002
Pyroxasulfoney = 10980x − 3219.6 (ACN)/0.002102.6104.3/
y = 6087.8x − 5481.1 (Grain)−44.60.01100.898.40.002
y = 7794.4x − 4482.4 (Straw)−290.582.092.00.002
M-1y = 694.1x + 35.028 (ACN)/0.00295.595.3/
y = 806.42x + 162.44 (Grain)16.20.0197.3100.40.002
y = 879.68x + 53.705 (Straw)26.70.5106.999.60.002
M-3y = 2138.1x + 768.29 (ACN)/0.002102.1101.6/
y = 2447.3x − 83.809 (Grain)14.50.01101.599.10.002
y = 2443x + 1103.3 (Straw)14.30.5104.4103.20.002
M-25y = 1080.3x + 110.51 (ACN)/0.002110.1103.7/
y = 979.34x − 266.93 (Grain)−9.30.0198.795.70.002
y = 1062.2x − 25.326 (Straw)−1.70.595.6101.20.002
Table 5. Stability of the five target compounds in wheat grain and straw matrices under cold storage conditions.
Table 5. Stability of the five target compounds in wheat grain and straw matrices under cold storage conditions.
CompoundStorage TimeWheat GrainWheat Straw
(Months)ConcentrationDRQC RecoveryConcentrationDRQC Recovery
(mg/kg)(%)(%)(mg/kg)(%)(%)
Diflufenican00.513 ± 0.051−3980.443 ± 0.01611102
10.421 ± 0.06216990.526 ± 0.013−587
30.414 ± 0.02317970.511 ± 0.021−294
60.453 ± 0.03610840.491 ± 0.021285
120.471 ± 0.0246840.402 ± 0.0082074
Pyroxasulfone00.474 ± 0.0045930.443 ± 0.0161193
10.387 ± 0.00723820.450 ± 0.0331082
30.365 ± 0.00427850.488 ± 0.048285
60.422 ± 0.06716950.451 ± 0.0161095
120.428 ± 0.01914930.356 ± 0.0032993
M-100.519 ± 0.033−4910.538 ± 0.016−891
10.530 ± 0.008−6940.451 ± 0.0101094
30.503 ± 0.016−11030.437 ± 0.01613103
60.397 ± 0.01621850.506 ± 0.045−185
120.423 ± 0.02515900.430 ± 0.0171490
M-300.504 ± 0.011−1930.470 ± 0.002693
10.528 ± 0.015−61040.450 ± 0.00810104
30.516 ± 0.013−3990.423 ± 0.0041599
60.442 ± 0.05212820.505 ± 0.018−182
120.485 ± 0.0273810.524 ± 0.006−581
M-2500.462 ± 0.0288950.426 ± 0.0041595
10.430 ± 0.00214950.419 ± 0.0371695
30.411 ± 0.02518950.450 ± 0.0141095
60.477 ± 0.0475790.365 ± 0.0182779
120.387 ± 0.03123770.449 ± 0.0301077
Table 6. Final residues of diflufenican, pyroxasulfone and their metabolites in wheat grain and straw.
Table 6. Final residues of diflufenican, pyroxasulfone and their metabolites in wheat grain and straw.
LocationDosage
(g a.i./ha)		Spray
Times		Grain Concentration (mg/kg)Straw Concentration (mg/kg)
DiflufenicanPyroxasulfoneM-1M-3M-25DiflufenicanPyroxasulfoneM-1M-3M-25
Shanxi4801<LOQ0.0100.0020.002<LOQ0.003<LOQ0.0080.0050.005
Gansu4801<LOQ<LOQ0.002<LOQ0.0050.003<LOQ0.0090.0050.005
Beijing4801<LOQ<LOQ0.0020.005<LOQ0.010<LOQ0.0840.0120.019
Henan4801<LOQ<LOQ0.0020.0020.0020.010<LOQ0.0370.0110.016
SD Weifang4801<LOQ0.0060.0020.002<LOQ0.017<LOQ0.0500.0060.017
SD Yantai4801<LOQ0.0070.0020.0040.0030.0150.0040.2210.0100.045
Anhui4801<LOQ<LOQ0.0020.0060.0020.014<LOQ0.1440.0160.031
Shanghai4801<LOQ<LOQ0.002<LOQ<LOQ0.004<LOQ0.0050.0070.006
Hunan4801<LOQ<LOQ0.002<LOQ<LOQ0.002<LOQ0.0050.0080.006
Yunnan4801<LOQ<LOQ0.0020.002<LOQ0.0180.0100.0950.0190.048
Table 7. The dietary intake risk assessment of diflufenican and pyroxasulfone.
Table 7. The dietary intake risk assessment of diflufenican and pyroxasulfone.
Food
Classification		Fi
(kg/Day)		DiflufenicanPyroxasulfone
Reference
Limits
(mg/kg)		Sources NEDI
(mg/kg bw)		RQ
(%)		Reference
Limits
(mg/kg)		Sources NEDI
(mg/kg bw)		RQ
(%)
Rice and Its Products0.23990.05China1.904 × 10−40.10///0.27
Wheat and Its Products0.13850.002STMR4.397 × 10−60.014STMR3.078 × 10−5
Other Cereals0.0233///0.02USA7.397 × 10−6
Potatoes and Tubers0.0495//////
Legumes and Their Products0.0160///0.06USA1.524 × 10−5
Dark-colored Vegetables0.0915//////
Light-colored Vegetables0.1837//////
Pickled Vegetables0.0103//////
Fruits0.0457//////
Nuts0.0039//////
Vegetable Oil0.0327//////
Salt0.0120//////
Soy Sauce0.00900.01EU1.429 × 10−6///
Total 1.962 × 10−4 5.341 × 10−5
Disclaimer/Publisher’s Note: The statements, opinions and data contained in all publications are solely those of the individual author(s) and contributor(s) and not of MDPI and/or the editor(s). MDPI and/or the editor(s) disclaim responsibility for any injury to people or property resulting from any ideas, methods, instructions or products referred to in the content.

Share and Cite

MDPI and ACS Style

He, M.; Han, P.; Chen, L.; Yu, P.; Wu, J.; Tian, F.; Qin, X.; Zhao, E. Final Residues, Storage Stability, and Dietary Exposure of Pyroxasulfone and Diflufenican in Wheat Grain and Straw. Foods 2026, 15, 732. https://doi.org/10.3390/foods15040732

AMA Style

He M, Han P, Chen L, Yu P, Wu J, Tian F, Qin X, Zhao E. Final Residues, Storage Stability, and Dietary Exposure of Pyroxasulfone and Diflufenican in Wheat Grain and Straw. Foods. 2026; 15(4):732. https://doi.org/10.3390/foods15040732

Chicago/Turabian Style

He, Min, Ping Han, Li Chen, Pingzhong Yu, Junxue Wu, Fajun Tian, Xiaotong Qin, and Ercheng Zhao. 2026. "Final Residues, Storage Stability, and Dietary Exposure of Pyroxasulfone and Diflufenican in Wheat Grain and Straw" Foods 15, no. 4: 732. https://doi.org/10.3390/foods15040732

APA Style

He, M., Han, P., Chen, L., Yu, P., Wu, J., Tian, F., Qin, X., & Zhao, E. (2026). Final Residues, Storage Stability, and Dietary Exposure of Pyroxasulfone and Diflufenican in Wheat Grain and Straw. Foods, 15(4), 732. https://doi.org/10.3390/foods15040732

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