Next Article in Journal
Chickpea Proteins as Sustainable Ingredients: Techno-Functional Characterization
Next Article in Special Issue
Application of the Briggs–Rauscher Oscillatory Reaction for Tartrazine Determination in Food Dye: Spectroscopic, Microscopic, and Analytical Characterization
Previous Article in Journal
Characterization of Key Odorants in Jimo Huangjiu Using a Characteristic Aroma-Directed Screening Strategy
Previous Article in Special Issue
Food Safety in the Age of Climate Change: The Rising Risk of Pesticide Residues and the Role of Sustainable Adsorbent Technologies
 
 
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 6
10.3390/foods15061110
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:
Review

Beyond Sustainable: Geo-Adaptive Design of Carbon-Based Adsorbents Through Aligning Pesticide Remediation with Regional Agricultural Practices and Food Safety Needs

by
Tamara Lazarević-Pašti
1 and
Igor A. Pašti
2,3,*
1
VINČA Institute of Nuclear Sciences—National Institute of the Republic of Serbia, University of Belgrade, Mike Petrovica Alasa 12–14, 11000 Belgrade, Serbia
2
Faculty of Physical Chemistry, University of Belgrade, Studentski Trg 12–16, 11158 Belgrade, Serbia
3
Serbian Academy of Sciences and Arts, Kneza Mihaila 35, 11000 Belgrade, Serbia
*
Author to whom correspondence should be addressed.
Foods 2026, 15(6), 1110; https://doi.org/10.3390/foods15061110
Submission received: 23 February 2026 / Revised: 16 March 2026 / Accepted: 19 March 2026 / Published: 23 March 2026
(This article belongs to the Special Issue Responsible Approach Toward Food Safety: Contaminant Analysis and Removal Methods)
Browse Figures
Versions Notes

Abstract

The persistence of pesticide residues in food and water poses a significant challenge to global food safety, particularly under the pressures of intensive agriculture and climate variability. Despite significant progress in developing adsorbent materials for pesticide remediation, most approaches remain chemically optimized but geographically blind. This review introduces the concept of geo-adaptive design of carbon-based adsorbents, emphasizing that remediation materials should be tailored to the regional profiles of pesticide use, environmental conditions, and available biomass precursors. Pesticide contamination patterns vary widely across climates and agricultural systems, resulting in distinct chemical signatures that determine adsorption behavior. Simultaneously, locally abundant agro-industrial byproducts, such as walnut shells, rice husks, olive stones, or fruit pomace, offer sustainable carbon sources for region-specific materials. By correlating pesticide structure, adsorbent surface chemistry, and environmental parameters, geo-adaptive materials can be designed to maximize efficiency, selectivity, and sustainability in environmental remediation contexts, including the treatment of pesticide-contaminated soils and water streams. In addition, these materials may be integrated into food processing and packaging systems, where they can function as localized, low-cost mitigation strategies aligned with circular economy principles. The review highlights how regionally optimized carbon materials could connect advances in environmental remediation with the practical needs of food technology, leading toward food safety strategies that are both globally relevant and locally adaptable.

Graphical Abstract

1. Introduction

The widespread use of pesticides in modern agriculture has contributed significantly to crop protection and food security [1]. Still, it has also led to the persistent presence of pesticide residues in food products and associated processing streams [2]. Residues from pre-harvest treatments, post-harvest preservation, and contaminated irrigation water remain a major concern for food safety, particularly when conventional washing or processing steps are insufficient to fully remove chemically stable compounds [3]. Climate variability, intensification of agriculture, and expanding global food trade further complicate this issue by altering pesticide degradation pathways and redistributing contamination risks across regions [4].
Carbon-based adsorbents, including activated carbons [5], biochars [6], and graphene-derived materials [7,8], have been extensively investigated as effective tools for pesticide removal from water and food-related matrices [9,10,11]. Owing to their high surface area, well-defined surface functional groups, and strong affinity toward a wide range of organic molecules [12,13,14,15], these materials are often proposed as universal solutions for pesticide remediation. However, most existing studies focus on maximizing adsorption capacity under standardized laboratory conditions [9,10,11,16], while paying limited attention to the geographical context in which pesticide contamination actually occurs. In practice, pesticide use patterns are strongly region-dependent, shaped by local crop types, climatic conditions, regulatory frameworks, and agricultural practices [17,18]. As a result, the chemical nature of dominant pesticide residues, such as polarity, functional groups, persistence, and toxicological relevance, varies substantially between regions. At the same time, the availability of biomass resources suitable for producing carbon-based adsorbents also differs geographically, offering region-specific opportunities for sustainable material design that are rarely considered in remediation strategies [19,20].
In this paper, we propose the concept of geo-adaptive design of carbon-based adsorbents to align remediation materials with regional pesticide profiles, environmental conditions, and locally available precursors. Rather than seeking universally optimal adsorbents, a geo-adaptive approach emphasizes context-driven material selection and design to improve efficiency, selectivity, and sustainability in food safety applications. This review examines how the chemical properties of regionally dominant pesticides and local agricultural conditions can inform the rational selection and design of carbon-based adsorbents to mitigate pesticide residues in environmental matrices and in food processing and related systems.
This work is structured as a narrative review that develops a conceptual framework for geo-adaptive design of carbon-based adsorbents. The literature was identified through searches in major scientific databases, including Web of Science, Scopus, and Google Scholar, using combinations of keywords such as carbon adsorbents, biochar, pesticide adsorption, food safety, and biomass-derived carbon materials. Priority was given to peer-reviewed research articles and recent review papers addressing adsorption mechanisms, biomass-derived carbon materials, regional pesticide usage patterns, and applications relevant to food systems.

2. Global Diversity of Pesticide Use and Residues

Patterns of pesticide use vary noticeably across geographical regions [21,22,23,24,25,26], reflecting differences in dominant crops, climatic conditions, pest pressure, and regulatory frameworks. These regional differences directly influence the types and concentrations of pesticide residues detected in food commodities and associated water streams [4], thereby shaping food safety challenges at the local scale. While global monitoring programs provide valuable aggregated data, they often mask substantial regional heterogeneity that is critical for designing effective mitigation strategies.
In Mediterranean regions, including large parts of Southern Europe, organophosphates and certain triazole fungicides have historically been widely applied in fruit, vegetable, and vineyard production [24,27,28]. Although regulatory restrictions have reduced the use of some legacy compounds, their persistence in soils and irrigation systems means that residues can still be detected in raw agricultural products and processing waters [29]. In contrast, intensive rice, vegetable, and orchard farming in many Asian regions has been associated with extensive use of neonicotinoids and carbamate insecticides [30,31,32,33,34,35], compounds characterized by higher polarity and water solubility, which facilitates their transfer into aqueous food-processing streams. In North and South America, large-scale cereal and oilseed production has driven the predominant use of herbicides [21,26,36,37], particularly glyphosate-based formulations, leading to a distinct residue profile that differs fundamentally from that of insecticide-dominated systems. Table 1 presents representative pesticide active substances, grouped by functional class, across major regulatory regions to illustrate geographic differences in pesticide use relevant to food safety, while Figure 1 presents the structure of several representative pesticides from different classes.
The authorization and use of pesticides are governed by region-specific regulatory frameworks that play a central role in shaping pesticide application patterns and, consequently, food-safety-relevant residue profiles. In the United States, pesticide regulation is overseen by the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) [38], which evaluates active substances and registers pesticide products under the Federal Insecticide, Fungicide, and Rodenticide Act [39]. Approval is use-specific and subject to periodic re-evaluation, leading to the continued use of certain legacy compounds alongside newer formulations. Within the European Union, pesticide regulation follows a hazard-based approach coordinated by the European Food Safety Authority (EFSA) [40], with active substances approved at the EU level and Maximum Residue Levels (MRL) established for food commodities. This framework has led to the withdrawal of several organophosphates and herbicides [41], producing a residue landscape dominated by selected fungicides and a limited number of insecticides. In China, pesticide registration and management are conducted at the national level by the Ministry of Agriculture and Rural Affairs (MARA) [42], with extensive approval of insecticides and herbicides to support intensive crop production systems. Similarly, in India, pesticide use is regulated by the Central Insecticides Board and Registration Committee (CIBRC) [43], where a broad spectrum of active substances remains registered, reflecting the country’s diverse agro-climatic conditions and pest pressures. In South America, Brazil serves as a representative regulatory system due to its scale and agricultural output. Pesticide registration is managed by the Department of Agriculture, Livestock and Food Supply (MAPA) [44] using the AGROFIT system [45] with health-related assessments performed by the National Health Surveillance Agency (Anvisa) [46]. As a result, Brazil maintains authorization for several herbicides and insecticides that are no longer permitted in the EU, contributing to a distinct regional pesticide profile with direct implications for food safety and remediation needs.
Climatic conditions further modulate pesticide fate and persistence [4]. Temperature, solar irradiation, rainfall patterns, and soil moisture influence degradation pathways, leaching behavior, and bioavailability of pesticide residues [47,48,49]. For example, higher temperatures and intense solar exposure may accelerate photodegradation of certain compounds, while simultaneously increasing volatilization and off-site transport [50,51]. Conversely, in cooler or more humid climates, reduced degradation rates and stronger sorption to organic matter can promote residue accumulation. These climate-driven effects are increasingly altered by climate change, introducing additional uncertainty into regional contamination patterns. It underscores the need for precise monitoring of local distributions of pesticides and residues. Unfortunately, such studies are rare because they require significant resources and yield data with time-limited validity due to the variability of numerous factors that affect the distribution of these chemicals; however, some can be found in the literature. For example, Porta et al. reported pesticide application rate maps for the European Union at a 250 m spatial resolution [52], as shown in Figure 2. Such data are highly useful for planning exposure mitigation and remediation strategies, and their role in the geo-adaptive adsorbent design concept will be discussed later on.
From a food safety perspective, this geographic variability means that food products entering processing and distribution chains are exposed to fundamentally different pesticide chemistries depending on their origin. Residues may differ not only in concentration, but also in molecular structure, polarity, stability, and toxicological relevance [54,55]. Nevertheless, many remediation approaches implicitly assume a uniform contaminant profile, thus applying the same adsorbent materials or treatment strategies across regions with vastly different agricultural realities. Recognizing the global diversity of pesticide use and residue profiles is therefore a prerequisite for moving beyond generic mitigation strategies. A geographically informed understanding of dominant pesticide classes, combined with regional environmental conditions, provides the foundation for designing adsorption-based remediation approaches that are better aligned with actual food safety needs rather than idealized laboratory scenarios.

3. Matching Adsorbent Chemistry to Regional Contaminant Profiles

The effectiveness of carbon-based adsorbents in pesticide remediation is governed not only by general textural properties, such as surface area and porosity, but more critically by the compatibility between adsorbent surface features and the chemical characteristics of target pesticide residues [9,10,11]. As illustrated in Table 1, dominant pesticide classes may differ across regions, indicating that adsorption strategies optimized for one contaminant profile may not necessarily be optimal in other geographic contexts. Herbicide-dominated agricultural systems, such as those prevalent in the United States and Brazil, are largely characterized by highly polar or ionic compounds, including phosphonate- and phenoxy-based herbicides [56]. These molecules interact weakly with nonfunctionalized graphitic surfaces, which are essentially nonpolar, hydrophobic, and chemically inert. Thus, their effective removal typically requires adsorbents with oxygenated or charged surface groups capable of hydrogen-bonding or electrostatic interactions [57,58,59] (Figure 3). In such contexts, carbon materials with a higher density of acidic or basic functional groups, rather than maximized hydrophobicity, are more likely to achieve relevant removal efficiencies under food-processing conditions. In contrast, regions where insecticide use is dominated by organophosphates and carbamates, as observed in parts of Asia and India [60,61], present a mixed adsorption challenge. These compounds often combine moderate polarity with aromatic or heterocyclic moieties, enabling multiple interaction pathways, including hydrogen bonding, dipole–dipole interactions, and π-π stacking [62]. Adsorbents optimized for these systems must therefore balance surface functionality with accessible aromatic domains, emphasizing the importance of surface heterogeneity over uniform chemical modification. Fungicide-intensive regions, particularly within European and Mediterranean agricultural systems, are frequently associated with triazole and chlorinated fungicides characterized by aromatic rings, moderate hydrophobicity, and high chemical stability [63,64,65]. For these compounds, adsorption is largely driven by π-π interactions and hydrophobic affinity, favouring carbon materials with extended conjugated domains and well-preserved graphitic regions [65,66]. Excessive oxidation or highly polar surfaces may be counterproductive in such cases, despite their benefits for other contaminant classes. Figure 3 schematically presents the most important types of interactions between pesticides and carbon surfaces with different chemistries.
Beyond pesticide structure, regional environmental conditions further modulate adsorption behaviour [16]. pH, ionic strength, natural organic matter, and coexisting ions in irrigation or processing waters can significantly alter both pesticide speciation and adsorbent surface charge. As these parameters are closely linked to local climate and water sources, geo-adaptive design requires that adsorbent chemistry be considered alongside realistic environmental matrices rather than idealized laboratory conditions. These considerations emphasize that adsorption performance should be evaluated with respect to the dominant pesticide chemistries encountered in a given region and under conditions that simulate the local environment. Therefore, a geo-adaptive approach should prioritize the rational matching of pesticide class, surface functionality, and environmental conditions over the pursuit of universally high adsorption capacities. Such alignment is particularly critical in food safety applications, where mitigation strategies must operate effectively under mild processing conditions, in complex matrices, and with minimal impact on product quality. Table 2 and Figure 4 explain how regional pesticide use patterns inform material design criteria by linking dominant pesticide classes to their key chemical features and the corresponding surface characteristics required for effective adsorption. Regional pesticide usage patterns are closely linked to the dominant crops cultivated in each agricultural system. Herbicide-intensive regions such as North and South America are largely associated with large-scale cereal and oilseed production, including maize, wheat, and soybean systems, where weed management represents a major agronomic challenge. In contrast, regions characterized by intensive fruit, vegetable, and orchard production, particularly in parts of Europe and the Mediterranean, tend to rely more strongly on fungicides and insecticides. Similarly, rice- and vegetable-based agricultural systems in many Asian regions are associated with extensive use of neonicotinoid and carbamate insecticides. These crop–pesticide relationships provide important context for interpreting the regional pesticide profiles illustrated in Figure 4 and highlight the relevance of geo-adaptive adsorbent design for food-related contamination scenarios.

4. Utilizing Regional Biomass as Precursors for Sustainable Carbon-Based Adsorbents

The geo-adaptive design of adsorption materials is not limited to matching surface chemistry with regional pesticide profiles. It also extends to the selection of appropriate precursor materials. Across major agricultural regions, large volumes of agro-industrial residues are generated as byproducts of food production and processing [67]. These materials represent underutilized carbon sources that can be transformed into functional adsorbents, offering both environmental and economic advantages within region-specific food systems. The chemical composition of biomass precursors, including lignin, cellulose, hemicellulose, proteins, and inorganic minerals, strongly influences the structure and surface properties of the resulting carbon materials [68,69,70]. As a consequence, locally available biomass can yield carbon materials with characteristic textural features and surface functionalities that tend to favor the adsorption of pesticide classes prevalent in the same agricultural systems from which the biomass originates. This apparent compatibility does not arise from geographic coincidence but from shared agro-ecological and processing contexts that simultaneously shape crop-residue and pesticide-application profiles. The link between precursor composition and adsorbent properties provides a natural foundation for geo-adaptive material design.
In South-eastern and Central Europe, walnut shells and related nut-processing residues are abundant byproducts of food and oil industries [71,72,73]. Their high lignin content promotes the formation of aromatic carbon frameworks upon carbonization [74], yielding materials with pronounced π-conjugated domains and moderate surface polarity. These features are compatible with the adsorption of organophosphate insecticides and triazole fungicides, which are frequently encountered in Balkan and Southern European agricultural systems [6,75,76,77]. In addition to their adsorption performance, the local availability of walnut-derived residues supports low-cost material production while reducing the environmental footprint associated with transportation and centralized processing. Mediterranean regions of Southern Europe also generate substantial quantities of olive stones, pomace, and other fruit-processing residues [78,79,80,81]. Carbons derived from these precursors typically display a predominantly microporous structure with moderate surface polarity [82,83,84,85], features that are well suited to the adsorption of small- and medium-sized pesticide molecules commonly applied in fruit, vegetable, and vineyard production [86,87,88]. The valorization of olive- and fruit-derived residues is therefore closely aligned with circular economy strategies already embedded in Mediterranean food-producing regions.
In the same Mediterranean agricultural contexts, citrus peels and processing residues constitute an abundant, seasonally stable biomass stream directly linked to fruit and juice production chains [79]. Citrus-derived biomass, rich in pectin, cellulose, and oxygen-containing functional groups [89,90], can yield carbon materials with a relatively high density of surface oxygen functionalities after carbonization or activation [91,92]. Such surface characteristics favor interactions with moderately polar pesticide residues associated with fruit production, including selected organophosphates and fungicides [93,94]. Importantly, citrus-based carbons are particularly attractive for food-related applications due to their low cost, local availability, and seamless integration into existing citrus-processing workflows, thereby reinforcing the geo-adaptive design paradigm for Mediterranean food systems.
Across East and Southeast Asia, rice cultivation dominates agricultural landscapes and generates vast quantities of rice husks and straw as byproducts of milling and processing [95]. Rice husk-derived biomass is characterized by a unique combination of lignocellulosic components and a high intrinsic silica content [96,97], which strongly influences the structure of the resulting carbon materials [98,99,100,101]. Upon carbonization or activation, rice husk-based carbons often develop hierarchical pore architectures and relatively polar surface features [102,103,104], enhancing accessibility and interaction with water-soluble pesticide residues. These characteristics are particularly relevant in regions where neonicotinoid and carbamate insecticides are widely applied in rice and vegetables [105,106,107]. The high polarity and aqueous mobility of such compounds favor adsorption mechanisms that rely on surface functional groups and accessible pore networks rather than purely hydrophobic interactions [108]. In this context, rice husk-derived carbons represent a rational geo-adaptive platform for mitigating pesticide residues in irrigation waters and food-processing streams associated with intensive rice-based production.
In South Asia, including India, additional biomass streams such as wheat straw and fruit-processing residues further contribute to a heterogeneous pool of potential carbon precursors [109,110]. While their composition can vary seasonally and regionally, these materials can yield carbons with mixed micro- and mesoporosity and moderate surface polarity [111,112,113,114], suitable for addressing the diverse pesticide profiles encountered in decentralized and small-scale food systems.
In North and South America, large-scale cultivation of cereals, oilseeds, and sugar crops generates substantial amounts of agricultural byproducts, including corn cobs, soybean residues, and sugarcane bagasse [115]. These biomass streams are closely associated with production systems in which herbicides represent the dominant class of applied pesticides, particularly glyphosate- and phenoxy-based formulations [116]. Carbon materials derived from cellulose-rich precursors such as sugarcane bagasse and corn residues can be tailored through activation strategies to yield porous structures with adjustable surface polarity [117,118]. Such features are especially relevant for the adsorption of highly polar or ionic herbicide molecules, for which purely graphitic or hydrophobic surfaces often exhibit limited affinity [119,120]. From a geo-adaptive perspective, these precursors provide flexible starting materials for developing adsorption systems that reflect the chemical reality of herbicide-intensive agricultural regions. In Brazil, where agricultural output is tightly coupled to both domestic food production and global export chains [121], the scale and continuity of biomass availability further support the feasibility of locally produced carbon-based adsorbents. The integration of bagasse- and crop-residue-derived carbons into water management and food-processing operations offers a context-specific pathway to reduce pesticide residues while aligning with sustainability and circular-economy objectives.
Importantly, the use of regional biomass precursors contributes to sustainability beyond material performance alone. Local sourcing minimizes transportation-related emissions, enhances economic feasibility, and facilitates the decentralized production of adsorbents that can be directly integrated into food-processing or agricultural water-management systems. However, biomass variability arising from seasonal effects, cultivation practices, and processing conditions must be carefully considered to ensure reproducibility and consistent adsorption performance. Table 3 links regional biomass availability with carbon material features and pesticide classes relevant to food safety. Figure 5 graphically summarizes the locally most common biomass types and the types of carbon materials that can be obtained from these sources.

5. Towards Geo-Adaptive Food Safety Systems

The transition from a material-centered remediation toward geo-adaptive food safety systems requires moving beyond laboratory performance metrics and considering where, when, and how adsorption-based strategies can be realistically implemented along the food chain. In this context, geo-adaptive adsorbents are not envisioned as universal solutions, but as context-aware components integrated into specific processing steps, water streams, and product categories that reflect regional agricultural practices and regulatory constraints.
In many food production systems, pesticide residues enter processing lines through raw materials and associated wash waters rather than through direct application during processing [122]. Washing, blanching, soaking, and extraction steps represent potential control points for implementing adsorption-based mitigation strategies. Although experimental studies directly integrating adsorbents into food-processing environments remain limited [123], these stages offer conceptually attractive opportunities for the application of geo-adaptive adsorption materials to reduce pesticide residues. Geo-adaptive adsorbents can be selected or designed to match the dominant pesticide classes encountered at these stages, enhancing removal efficiency without requiring harsh processing conditions. For example, fruit and vegetable washing operations in fungicide- or organophosphate-dominated regions may benefit from adsorbents with accessible aromatic domains and moderate polarity, whereas herbicide-intensive systems linked to cereal and oilseed processing may require materials with a higher density of polar or charged surface sites. Importantly, adsorption systems integrated at these early stages can reduce pesticide loads before further processing, thereby lowering downstream contamination risks and improving overall food safety outcomes.
A key advantage of the geo-adaptive approach is its compatibility with decentralized and small-scale food systems. In many areas, especially in parts of Asia, South America, and the Mediterranean, food processing is performed by small or medium-sized businesses with limited access to centralized water treatment facilities [124]. Locally sourced biomass-based carbons provide a way to produce adsorbents that are both cost-effective and suited to local contamination issues. On-site adsorption units, integrated into irrigation reuse systems, washing lines, or effluent treatment steps, can deliver targeted cleanup without needing complex technology. By utilizing regionally abundant biomass and customizing material properties to local pesticide use patterns, these systems can enhance food safety in places where traditional treatment methods are difficult or too costly.
Beyond water treatment, geo-adaptive materials may also be used in food contact systems, including active packaging and contact filtration materials. While using carbon-based materials in direct contact with food requires careful consideration of migration, safety, and regulatory compliance, region-specific design principles can guide the development of materials that target locally relevant residues at trace levels. Instead of pursuing broadly adsorptive packaging materials, a geo-adaptive strategy focuses on selectivity and functionality tailored to specific food products and residue profiles. This approach is especially important for high-value fruits, juices, and minimally processed foods, where even small amounts of pesticide residues can have a disproportionate impact on regulation or consumer perception.
Any adsorption-based strategy deployed in food systems must comply with region-specific regulatory frameworks governing pesticide residues and food contact materials. Maximum residue limits, approved active substances, and food contact regulations differ substantially across regions, reinforcing the need for remediation strategies that are not only effective but also compliant. Geo-adaptive design offers a practical advantage in this respect by aligning material selection and performance targets with dominant local pesticide regulations. Instead of designing adsorbents to address globally banned or regionally irrelevant compounds, remediation efforts can focus on substances that are legally permitted yet problematic due to persistence, mobility, or cumulative exposure concerns. This alignment, schematically shown in Figure 6, increases the likelihood of regulatory acceptance and facilitates a smoother translation from laboratory research to real-world application.
Looking ahead, geo-adaptive food safety systems may incorporate responsive or modular adsorption strategies that evolve with changes in pesticide use, climatic conditions, and regulatory policies. As agricultural practices shift and new active substances are introduced or withdrawn, adsorption materials can be redesigned using the same regionally grounded principles rather than being replaced wholesale. Such adaptability emphasises the broader significance of geo-adaptive remediation as a systems-level concept. By connecting agricultural practices with locally available biomass, material design, and food safety requirements, geo-adaptive strategies provide a practical framework for reducing pesticide residues while remaining responsive to both global knowledge and local conditions.

6. Challenges, Limitations, and Future Perspectives

While the geo-adaptive design of carbon-based adsorbents offers a compelling framework for aligning pesticide remediation with regional food safety needs, several scientific, technical, and regulatory challenges must be acknowledged to ensure its responsible development and application. One of the primary limitations lies in the fragmented nature of available data on the relationships among pesticide occurrence, chemical speciation, and adsorption performance across regions. Although numerous studies report adsorption capacities for individual pesticides, these data are often generated under idealized laboratory conditions that do not reflect the complexity of real food matrices, variable water compositions, or region-specific processing environments. The absence of consistent databases that integrate pesticide use patterns, residue-monitoring data, and adsorption behavior remains a critical bottleneck to systematic geo-adaptive design.
Material reproducibility represents a second major challenge. Biomass-derived carbons inherently reflect the variability of their precursors, which are influenced by crop variety, growing conditions, seasonal factors, and processing history. While such variability underpins the geo-adaptive concept, it also complicates standardization and scale-up. Several practical strategies may help mitigate these limitations, including blending biomass batches to reduce compositional variability, optimizing carbonization or activation parameters to achieve more consistent structural properties, and post-synthesis surface modifications to tune adsorption behavior. Such approaches may improve the reproducibility and reliability of biomass-derived adsorbents while preserving the sustainability advantages of locally sourced precursors. Future research must therefore balance local adaptability with sufficient material consistency to meet food safety and regulatory expectations, potentially through controlled activation strategies or modular post-treatment approaches. From an application standpoint, translating geo-adaptive adsorbents into food systems requires careful evaluation beyond adsorption efficiency alone. Regeneration behavior, long-term stability, interactions with food components, and potential secondary contamination must be systematically assessed under food-relevant conditions. Importantly, materials intended for use in washing, filtration, or contact systems must be evaluated within existing food safety frameworks to ensure compliance with regulations governing food contact materials and residue limits. In many regulatory systems, materials that may come into contact with food products are subject to strict safety assessments addressing potential migration, toxicological risks, and long-term stability under processing conditions. Consequently, translating geo-adaptive adsorbents into food-related applications will require not only technical optimization but also careful consideration of regulatory approval pathways and risk assessment procedures.
Despite these challenges, the geo-adaptive framework offers several forward-looking opportunities. Rather than pursuing universally optimal materials, future research can adopt a design-for-context philosophy, where adsorbents are intentionally developed for specific combinations of crops, pesticides, climates, and processing practices. This shift encourages interdisciplinary collaboration among material scientists, food technologists, toxicologists, and regulatory experts, moving pesticide mitigation from a purely technical exercise toward an integrated food safety strategy.
In the longer term, geo-adaptive remediation concepts may support more resilient food systems capable of responding to evolving agricultural pressures and climate-driven changes in pesticide use. As regulatory landscapes shift and new active substances emerge, regionally grounded material design principles can be adapted without requiring the redesign of mitigation systems from first principles. In this sense, geo-adaptive adsorbents represent not a fixed technological solution, but a flexible framework for aligning material innovation with the dynamic realities of global food production.
Pesticide remediation in food systems should no longer be approached as a search for universally optimized adsorbents. Effective mitigation demands geo-adaptive strategies that explicitly align material design with region-specific agricultural practices, dominant pesticide chemistries, and food safety constraints. By reframing remediation as a locally informed, system-level challenge, and by directly linking agricultural realities, biomass valorization routes, adsorption mechanisms, and regulatory requirements, geo-adaptive design defines a clear and actionable pathway toward food safety strategies that are scientifically robust, practically relevant, and genuinely responsive to regional conditions of food production and consumption.

7. Conclusions

The concept of geo-adaptive design proposed in this review reframes pesticide remediation as a context-dependent challenge that must account for regional pesticide use patterns, environmental conditions, and locally available biomass resources. Rather than pursuing universally optimized adsorbents, this approach emphasizes the alignment between contaminant chemistry, adsorbent surface properties, and the agricultural systems in which pesticide residues occur. Within this framework, geo-adaptive carbon-based adsorbents can simultaneously address three key objectives relevant to pesticide mitigation in food systems. Efficiency is improved by matching adsorption mechanisms with the dominant pesticide classes encountered in specific agricultural regions. Selectivity arises from tailoring surface chemistry and pore structures to the molecular characteristics of target contaminants. At the same time, sustainability is enhanced by using locally abundant agro-industrial residues as carbon precursors, enabling decentralized material production while supporting circular-economy strategies within regional food systems. By integrating these dimensions, geo-adaptive design moves adsorption-based pesticide remediation beyond the search for universally optimal materials and toward solutions that are scientifically grounded, regionally relevant, and compatible with the realities of modern food production and processing.

Author Contributions

Conceptualization, T.L.-P. and I.A.P.; investigation, T.L.-P.; data curation, T.L.-P. and I.A.P.; writing—original draft preparation, T.L.-P.; writing—review and editing, T.L.-P. and I.A.P.; visualization, T.L.-P. and I.A.P.; funding acquisition, T.L.-P. and I.A.P. All authors have read and agreed to the published version of the manuscript.

Funding

This research was funded by the Serbian Ministry of Science, Technological Development and Innovations, grant numbers 451-03-34/2026-03/200146 and 451-03-33/2026-03/200017. The authors also acknowledge support from the Serbian Academy of Sciences and Arts (project no. F-49).

Institutional Review Board Statement

Not applicable.

Informed Consent Statement

Not applicable.

Data Availability Statement

No new data were created or analyzed in this study. Data sharing is not applicable to this article.

Acknowledgments

During the preparation of this manuscript, the author used ChatGPT 5.2 for the purposes of language polishing. The authors have reviewed and edited the output and take full responsibility for the content of this publication.

Conflicts of Interest

The authors declare no conflicts of interest.

Abbreviations

The following abbreviations are used in this manuscript:
AGROFITBrazilian pesticide registration information system
ANVISANational Health Surveillance Agency (Brazil)
CIBRCCentral Insecticides Board and Registration Committee (India)
EFSAEuropean Food Safety Authority
EPAEnvironmental Protection Agency (United States)
FIFRAFederal Insecticide, Fungicide, and Rodenticide Act (United States)
MAPAMinistry of Agriculture, Livestock and Food Supply (Brazil)
MARAMinistry of Agriculture and Rural Affairs (China)
MRLMaximum Residue Limit

References

  1. Sharma, S.; Kaur, I.; Nagpal, A.K. Chapter Three—Pesticides in agriculture: Food security vs. food safety. In Advances in Food Security and Sustainability; Sharma, A., Kumar, M., Sharma, P., Eds.; Elsevier: Amsterdam, The Netherlands, 2024; Volume 9, pp. 59–73. [Google Scholar]
  2. Zhou, W.; Li, M.; Achal, V. A comprehensive review on environmental and human health impacts of chemical pesticide usage. Emerg. Contam. 2025, 11, 100410. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  3. Macieira, A.; Fernandes, V.C.; Brandão, T.R.S.; Delerue-Matos, C.; Teixeira, P. Environmental and Food Safety Assessment of Pre-Harvest Activities in Local Small-Scale Fruit and Vegetable Farms in Northwest Portugal: Hazard Identification and Compliance with Good Agricultural Practices (GAPs). Foods 2025, 14, 2129. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  4. Lazarević-Pašti, T.; Tasić, T.; Milanković, V.; Pašti, I.A. Food Safety in the Age of Climate Change: The Rising Risk of Pesticide Residues and the Role of Sustainable Adsorbent Technologies. Foods 2025, 14, 3797. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  5. Terzić, T.; Milankovic, V.; Unterweger, C.; Fuerst, C.; Breitenbach, S.; Pasti, I.; Lazarević-Pašti, T. Highly Porous Cellulose-Based Carbon Fibers as Effective Adsorbents for Chlorpyrifos Removal: Insights and Applications. C 2024, 10, 58. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  6. Zlatković, M.; Kurtić, R.; Pašti, I.A.; Tasić, T.; Milanković, V.; Potkonjak, N.; Unterweger, C.; Lazarević-Pašti, T. Application of Carbon Materials Derived from Nocino Walnut Liqueur Pomace Residue for Chlorpyrifos Removal from Water. Materials 2025, 18, 3072. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  7. Anicijevic, V.; Mitrović, T.; Terzić, T.; Lazarević-Pašti, T. Graphene Oxide-Based Materials for the Remediation of Neurotoxic Organophosphates. Processes 2025, 13, 4028. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  8. Lazarević-Pašti, T.; Anićijević, V.; Baljozović, M.; Anićijević, D.V.; Gutić, S.; Vasić, V.; Skorodumova, N.V.; Pašti, I.A. The impact of the structure of graphene-based materials on the removal of organophosphorus pesticides from water. Environ. Sci. Nano 2018, 5, 1482–1494. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  9. Soffian, M.S.; Abdul Halim, F.Z.; Aziz, F.; Rahman, M.A.; Mohamed Amin, M.A.; Awang Chee, D.N. Carbon-based material derived from biomass waste for wastewater treatment. Environ. Adv. 2022, 9, 100259. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  10. Dhokpande, S.R.; Deshmukh, S.M.; Khandekar, A.R.; Sankhe, A.A. A review of carbon-based adsorbents for the removal of organic and inorganic components. Rev. Inorg. Chem. 2024, 44, 655–670. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  11. Bose, S.; Senthil Kumar, P.; Rangasamy, G.; Prasannamedha, G.; Kanmani, S. A review on the applicability of adsorption techniques for remediation of recalcitrant pesticides. Chemosphere 2023, 313, 137481. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  12. Pongwiwanna, D.; Tangsathitkulchai, C. The Use of High Surface Area Mesoporous-Activated Carbon from Longan Seed Biomass for Increasing Capacity and Kinetics of Methylene Blue Adsorption from Aqueous Solution. Molecules 2021, 26, 6521. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  13. Reljic, S.; Cuadrado-Collados, C.; Oliveira Jardim, E.; Farrando-Perez, J.; Martinez-Escandell, M.; Silvestre-Albero, J. Activated carbon materials with a rich surface chemistry prepared from L-cysteine amino acid. Fluid Phase Equilibria 2022, 558, 113446. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  14. Giannakoudakis, D.A.; Ioannidis, I.; Ioannou, K.; Salonikidou, E.D.; Florides, F.; Zeiler, S.; Kostoglou, N.; Barczak, M.; Triantafyllidis, K.; Pashalidis, I.; et al. Ultrahigh surface area nanoporous carbon for air and water purification: Pushing the boundaries and unveiling the key physicochemical features. Chem. Eng. J. 2025, 524, 169457. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  15. Choudhary, M.; Chakinala, N.; Saini, P.; Surolia, P.K.; Chakinala, A.G. Carbon foams derived from biomass with ultra-high adsorption capacity for the removal of tetracycline. Mater. Adv. 2025, 6, 7450–7468. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  16. Wu, T.; He, C.; Chang, H.; Bian, C.; Zhou, R.; Dong, Z.; Li, Y.; Li, B. Adsorption-desorption mechanisms and migration behavior of fluchlordiniliprole in four different soils under varied conditions. Ecotoxicol. Environ. Saf. 2024, 285, 117026. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  17. Zhang, Y.; Bedoussac, L.; Zhang, C.; Cong, W.-F.; Guinet, M.; Nandillon, R.; Munier-Jolain, N. Pesticide use is affected more by crop species than by crop diversity at the cropping system level. Eur. J. Agron. 2024, 159, 127263. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  18. Ricci, B.; Lavigne, C.; Alignier, A.; Aviron, S.; Biju-Duval, L.; Bouvier, J.C.; Choisis, J.-P.; Franck, P.; Joannon, A.; Ladet, S.; et al. Local pesticide use intensity conditions landscape effects on biological pest control. Proc. R. Soc. B Biol. Sci. 2019, 286, 20182898. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  19. Lehmann, J.; Joseph, S. Biochar for Environmental Management: Science and Technology; Earthscan: Barcelona, Spain, 2009. [Google Scholar]
  20. Namaswa, T.; Burslem, D.F.R.P.; Smith, J.; Afzal, W.; Wardle, J.; Oduor, N.; Kubok, L.; Muthike, G.; Malei, F. Availability and spatial distribution of crop and forest biomass residues for biochar production in Kenya. Sci. Rep. 2026; in press. [Google Scholar]
  21. Olguín-Hernández, L.; Carrillo-Rodríguez, J.; Mayek-Pérez, N.; Aquino-Bolaños, T.; Vera-Guzmán, A.; Chávez-Servia, J.L. Patterns and Relationships of Pesticide Use in Agricultural Crops of Latin America: Review and Analysis of Statistical Data. Agronomy 2024, 14, 2889. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  22. Khoury, D.; Chimjarn, S.; Delhomme, O.; Millet, M. Seasonal and spatial detection of pesticide residues in the ambient air of the Alsace region across different land use conditions. Environ. Int. 2025, 202, 109677. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  23. Chilipweli, P.; Nyanza, E.; Ngowi, A. Patterns, Practices, and Socio-Environmental Dynamics of Pesticide Use in the Horticultural Value Chain: Insights from Smallholder Farmers and Agro-Input Sellers in Iringa and Njombe, Southern Highlands, Tanzania. Agrochemicals 2025, 4, 21. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  24. Udias, A.; Galimberti, F.; Dorati, C.; Pistocchi, A. Emissions of pesticides in the European Union: A new regional-level dataset. Sci. Data 2023, 10, 869. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  25. Malaj, E.; Freistadt, L.; Morrissey, C.A. Spatio-Temporal Patterns of Crops and Agrochemicals in Canada Over 35 Years. Front. Environ. Sci. 2020, 8, 556452. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  26. Zhan, Y.; Zhang, M. Spatial and temporal patterns of pesticide use on California almonds and associated risks to the surrounding environment. Sci. Total Environ. 2014, 472, 517–529. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  27. Désert, M.; Ravier, S.; Gille, G.; Quinapallo, A.; Armengaud, A.; Pochet, G.; Savelli, J.-L.; Wortham, H.; Quivet, E. Spatial and temporal distribution of current-use pesticides in ambient air of Provence-Alpes-Côte-d’Azur Region and Corsica, France. Atmos. Environ. 2018, 192, 241–256. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  28. Kos, T.; Zorica, M.; Gašparović Pinto, A.; Rot, T.; Pasković, I.; Šerić Jelaska, L.; Broznić, D. Copper and pesticide residues in mediterranean soils: A case study of four crops in Zadar County, Croatia. Int. J. Environ. Sci. Technol. 2025, 23, 65. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  29. McGinley, J.; Healy, M.G.; Ryan, P.C.; Harmon O’Driscoll, J.; Mellander, P.E.; Morrison, L.; Siggins, A. Impact of historical legacy pesticides on achieving legislative goals in Europe. Sci. Total Environ. 2023, 873, 162312. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  30. Shao, X.; Liu, Z.; Xu, X.; Li, Z.; Qian, X. Overall status of neonicotinoid insecticides in China: Production, application and innovation. J. Pestic. Sci. 2013, 38, 1–9. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  31. Chen, Y.; Zang, L.; Liu, M.; Zhang, C.; Shen, G.; Du, W.; Sun, Z.; Fei, J.; Yang, L.; Wang, Y.; et al. Ecological risk assessment of the increasing use of the neonicotinoid insecticides along the east coast of China. Environ. Int. 2019, 127, 550–557. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  32. Kang, D.; Kim, J.Y.; Jang, H.; Mok, S.; Choi, Y.; Lee, S.-H.; Park, T.J.; Kim, S.D.; Moon, H.-B.; Jeon, J. Spatiotemporal trends and ecological risks of neonicotinoid insecticides in Korean surface waters. J. Hazard. Mater. 2025, 498, 139642. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  33. Zhang, S.; Jiang, J.-Q. Occurrence and Distribution of Neonicotinoid Pesticides in Chinese Waterways: A Review. Environments 2023, 10, 206. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  34. Zhang, J.; Guo, J.; Wu, C.; Qi, X.; Jiang, S.; Lu, D.; Feng, C.; Liang, W.; Chang, X.; Zhang, Y.; et al. Exposure to carbamate and neurodevelopment in children: Evidence from the SMBCS cohort in China. Environ. Res. 2019, 177, 108590. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  35. Thummajitsakul, S.; Thongkerd, N.; Pholmeesap, B.; Phankham, P.; Silprasit, K. Assessment of Organophosphate and Carbamate Insecticides and Heavy Metal Contamination in Canal-Grown Water Morning Glory (Ipomoea aquatica Forssk) in Nakhon Nayok Province, Thailand. Appl. Environ. Res. 2020, 42, 26–42. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  36. Ospina, M.; Schütze, A.; Morales-Agudelo, P.; Vidal, M.; Wong, L.-Y.; Calafat, A.M. Exposure to glyphosate in the United States: Data from the 2013–2014 National Health and Nutrition Examination Survey. Environ. Int. 2022, 170, 107620. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  37. Medalie, L.; Baker, N.T.; Shoda, M.E.; Stone, W.W.; Meyer, M.T.; Stets, E.G.; Wilson, M. Influence of land use and region on glyphosate and aminomethylphosphonic acid in streams in the USA. Sci. Total Environ. 2020, 707, 136008. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  38. Available online: https://www.epa.gov/pesticide-registration/about-pesticide-registration (accessed on 25 January 2026).
  39. Available online: https://www.epa.gov/enforcement/federal-insecticide-fungicide-and-rodenticide-act-fifra-and-federal-facilities (accessed on 25 January 2026).
  40. Available online: https://www.efsa.europa.eu/en/topics/topic/pesticides (accessed on 25 January 2026).
  41. Gensch, L.; Jantke, K.; Rasche, L.; Schneider, U.A. Pesticide risk assessment in European agriculture: Distribution patterns, ban-substitution effects and regulatory implications. Environ. Pollut. 2024, 348, 123836. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  42. Available online: https://english.moa.gov.cn/ (accessed on 25 January 2026).
  43. Available online: https://www.india.gov.in/ (accessed on 25 January 2026).
  44. Available online: https://www.gov.br/agricultura/pt-br (accessed on 25 January 2026).
  45. Available online: https://www.gov.br/agricultura/pt-br/assuntos/insumos-agropecuarios/insumos-agricolas/agrotoxicos/agrofit (accessed on 25 January 2026).
  46. Available online: https://www.gov.br/anvisa/pt-br (accessed on 25 January 2026).
  47. Bolan, S.; Padhye, L.P.; Jasemizad, T.; Govarthanan, M.; Karmegam, N.; Wijesekara, H.; Amarasiri, D.; Hou, D.; Zhou, P.; Biswal, B.K.; et al. Impacts of climate change on the fate of contaminants through extreme weather events. Sci. Total Environ. 2024, 909, 168388. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  48. Steffens, K.; Larsbo, M.; Moeys, J.; Jarvis, N.; Lewan, E. Predicting pesticide leaching under climate change: Importance of model structure and parameter uncertainty. Agric. Ecosyst. Environ. 2013, 172, 24–34. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  49. Yasir, M.; Hossain, A.; Pratap-Singh, A. Pesticide Degradation: Impacts on Soil Fertility and Nutrient Cycling. Environments 2025, 12, 272. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  50. Lakshmipathy, K.; Sindhu, S.; Singh, A.; Chikkaballapur Krishnappa, S.; Duggonahally Veeresh, C. A review on pesticides degradation by using ultraviolet light treatment in agricultural commodities. eFood 2024, 5, e129. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  51. Samia, B.; Socorro, J.; Durand, A.; Quivet, E.; Wortham, H. Photolytic degradation of commonly used pesticides adsorbed on silica particles. Sci. Total Environ. 2024, 949, 174964. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  52. Porta, G.M.; Casse, L.; Manzoni, A.; Riva, M.; Maggi, F.; Guadagnini, A. Pesticides application rate maps in the European Union at a 250 m spatial resolution. Sci. Data 2025, 12, 725. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  53. Available online: https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/ (accessed on 25 January 2026).
  54. Garud, A.; Pawar, S.; Patil, M.S.; Kale, S.R.; Patil, S. A Scientific Review of Pesticides: Classification, Toxicity, Health Effects, Sustainability, and Environmental Impact. Cureus 2024, 16, e67945. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  55. Available online: https://www.health.vic.gov.au/environmental-health/pesticide-classes-and-associated-hazards (accessed on 25 January 2026).
  56. Blachnio, M.; Kusmierek, K.; Swiatkowski, A.; Derylo-Marczewska, A. Adsorption of Phenoxyacetic Herbicides from Water on Carbonaceous and Non-Carbonaceous Adsorbents. Molecules 2023, 28, 5404. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  57. Auta, M.; Baba, I.A.; Yahya, M.D.; Abdulkareem, A.S.; Iyaka, Y.A.; Olutoye, M.A.; Abdurahim, A.A.; Obayomi, K.S. Graphene-based materials for the treatment of contaminants in groundwater: A systematic review. FlatChem 2026, 56, 100999. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  58. Panda, D.; Nandi, A.; Datta, S.K.; Saha, H.; Majumdar, S. Selective detection of carbon monoxide (CO) gas by reduced graphene oxide (rGO) at room temperature. RSC Adv. 2016, 6, 47337–47348. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  59. Wang, F.; Haftka, J.; Sinnige, T.; Hermens, J.; Chen, W. Adsorption of polar, nonpolar, and substituted aromatics to colloidal graphene oxide nanoparticles. Environ. Pollut. 2014, 186, 226–233. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  60. Srinivas Rao, C.; Venkateswarlu, V.; Surender, T.; Eddleston, M.; Buckley, N.A. Pesticide poisoning in south India: Opportunities for prevention and improved medical management. Trop. Med. Int. Health 2005, 10, 581–588. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  61. Balali-Mood, M.; Balali-Mood, K.; Moodi, M.; Balali-Mood, B. Health aspects of organophosphorous pesticides in asian countries. Iran. J. Public Health 2012, 41, 1–14. [Google Scholar]
  62. Krishnan, J.; Moffett, J.; Namboodiri, A. Organophosphate Insecticides: A Brief Overview of Global Use and Their Treatment with Short-Duration Isoflurane. Agrochemicals 2025, 4, 22. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  63. Thabit, T.M.A.; Abdelkareem, E.M.; Bouqellah, N.A.; Shokr, S.A. Triazole Fungicide Residues and Their Inhibitory Effect on Some Trichothecenes Mycotoxin Excretion in Wheat Grains. Molecules 2021, 26, 1784. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  64. Marciano, L.P.A.; Costa, L.F.; Cardoso, N.S.; Freire, J.; Feltrim, F.; Oliveira, G.S.; Paula, F.B.A.; Silvério, A.C.P.; Martins, I. Biomonitoring and risk assessment of human exposure to triazole fungicides. Regul. Toxicol. Pharmacol. 2024, 147, 105565. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  65. Vulpe, C.B.; Iachimov-Datcu, A.D.; Pujicic, A.; Agachi, B.V. A Systematic Review on the Toxicology of European Union-Approved Triazole Fungicides in Cell Lines and Mammalian Models. J. Xenobiotics 2025, 15, 208. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  66. Abrantes, N.; Pereira, J.L.; González, A.-B.M.; Campos, I.; Navarro, I.; de la Torre, A.; Martínez, M.Á.; Osman, R.; Khurshid, C.; Harkes, P.; et al. Towards a comprehensive methodology for ecotoxicological assessment: Prioritizing plant protection products for mixture testing in edge-of-field surface waterbodies. Sci. Total Environ. 2024, 956, 177322. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  67. Ahmad, T.; Esposito, F.; Cirillo, T. Valorization of agro-food by-products: Advancing sustainability and sustainable development goals 2030 through functional compounds recovery. Food Biosci. 2024, 62, 105194. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  68. Afzal, R.A.; Annamalai, P.K.; Tebyetekerwa, M.; Burey, P.; Bell, J.; Nanjundan, A.K.; Martin, D.J. Sustainable carbon for energy storage applications: Investigation on chemical refinements of sorghum biomass for tuneability of carbon structures and supercapacitor performance. RSC Sustain. 2025, 3, 1691–1704. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  69. Merum, D.; Kang, M. From biomass to energy storage: Sustainable carbon materials for next-generation supercapacitors. Adv. Ind. Eng. Chem. 2025, 1, 26. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  70. Choma, J.; Szczęśniak, B.; Jaroniec, M. Mechanochemical Preparation of Biomass-Derived Porous Carbons. Molecules 2025, 30, 3125. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  71. Zhu, K.; Ma, J.; Cong, J.; Zhang, T.; Lei, H.; Xu, H.; Luo, Z.; Li, M. The road to reuse of walnut by-products: A comprehensive review of bioactive compounds, extraction and identification methods, biomedical and industrial applications. Trends Food Sci. Technol. 2024, 143, 104264. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  72. Acoglu Celik, B.; Celik, M.A.; Jūrienė, L.; Jovaišaitė, J.; Kazernavičiūtė, R.; Bekar, E.; Yolci Omeroglu, P.; Venskutonis, P.R.; Kamiloglu, S. Biorefining of Walnut Shells into Polyphenol-Rich Extracts Using Ultrasound-Assisted, Enzyme-Assisted, and Pressurized Liquid Extraction Coupled with Chemometrics. Foods 2025, 14, 2245. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  73. Fordos, S.; Abid, N.; Gulzar, M.; Pasha, I.; Oz, F.; Shahid, A.; Khan, M.K.I.; Mousavi Khaneghah, A.; Aadil, R.M. Recent development in the application of walnut processing by-products (walnut shell and walnut husk). Biomass Convers. Biorefinery 2023, 13, 14389–14411. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  74. Nishide, R.N.; Truong, J.H.; Abu-Omar, M.M. Organosolv Fractionation of Walnut Shell Biomass to Isolate Lignocellulosic Components for Chemical Upgrading of Lignin to Aromatics. ACS Omega 2021, 6, 8142–8150. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  75. Zhang, G.; Fang, L.; Cheng, Z.; Taozhong, S.; Ma, X.; Li, Q.; Hua, R. Highly Efficient Adsorption Characteristics and Mechanism of Nutshell Biochars for Aromatic Organophosphorus Insecticides. Agronomy 2023, 13, 543. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  76. Xiao, F.; Pignatello, J. π+–π Interactions between (Hetero)aromatic Amine Cations and the Graphitic Surfaces of Pyrogenic Carbonaceous Materials. Environ. Sci. Technol. 2015, 49, 906–914. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  77. Zheng, K.; Shang, X.; Qin, Z.; Zhang, Y.; Shi, J.; Zou, X.; Zhang, M. Recent Advances in SERS-Based Detection of Organophosphorus Pesticides in Food: A Critical and Comprehensive Review. Foods 2025, 14, 3683. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  78. Donner, M.; Erraach, Y.; López-i-Gelats, F.; Manuel-i-Martin, J.; Yatribi, T.; Radić, I.; El Hadad-Gauthier, F. Circular bioeconomy for olive oil waste and by-product valorisation: Actors’ strategies and conditions in the Mediterranean area. J. Environ. Manag. 2022, 321, 115836. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  79. Castagna, A.; Aouatif, A.; Guendouz, A.; Scieuzo, C.; Falabella, P.; Matthes, J.; Schmid, M.; Drissner, D.; Allais, F.; Morad, C.; et al. Transforming Agricultural Waste from Mediterranean Fruits into Renewable Materials and Products with a Circular and Digital Approach. Materials 2025, 18, 1464. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  80. Enaime, G.; Dababat, S.; Wichern, M.; Lübken, M. Olive mill wastes: From wastes to resources. Environ. Sci. Pollut. Res. 2024, 31, 20853–20880. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  81. Roque, M.L.; Botelho, C.; Barros, A.N. From Waste to Resource: Chemical Characterization of Olive Oil Industry By-Products for Sustainable Applications. Molecules 2025, 30, 3212. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  82. Qu, D.; Yu, Y.; Zhu, M.; Lei, C.; Wang, B.; Wang, X.; Zhou, X. Investigating olive pomace activated carbon for degrading organic dyes in water. Sci. Rep. 2025, 15, 15062. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  83. Ramos, P.B.; Mamani, A.; Sardella, M.F.; Arencibia, A.; Sanz, R.; Sanz-Pérez, E.S.; Bavio, M.A.; Erans, M. Olive Mill Waste-Derived Activated Carbon for CO2 Capture Using Realistic Conditions. Energy Fuels 2025, 39, 5442–5452. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  84. Rahimi, V.; Pimentel, C.; Gómez-Díaz, D.; Freire, M.; Lazzari, M.; González-Álvarez, J. Development and Characterization of Biomass-Derived Carbons for the Removal of Cu and Pb from Aqueous Solutions. C 2024, 11, 2. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  85. Al-sareji, O.J.; Grmasha, R.A.; Meiczinger, M.; Al-Juboori, R.A.; Somogyi, V.; Stenger-Kovács, C.; Hashim, K.S. A sustainable and highly efficient fossil-free carbon from olive stones for emerging contaminants removal from different water matrices. Chemosphere 2024, 351, 141189. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  86. Dorosh, O.; Fernandes, V.C.; Moreira, M.M.; Delerue-Matos, C. Occurrence of pesticides and environmental contaminants in vineyards: Case study of Portuguese grapevine canes. Sci. Total Environ. 2021, 791, 148395. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  87. El-Sheikh, E.A.; Ramadan, M.M.; El-Sobki, A.E.; Shalaby, A.A.; McCoy, M.R.; Hamed, I.A.; Ashour, M.B.; Hammock, B.D. Pesticide Residues in Vegetables and Fruits from Farmer Markets and Associated Dietary Risks. Molecules 2022, 27, 8072. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  88. Nguyen, T.T.; Rosello, C.; Bélanger, R.; Ratti, C. Fate of Residual Pesticides in Fruit and Vegetable Waste (FVW) Processing. Foods 2020, 9, 1468. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  89. Zannini, D.; Monteforte, M.; Gargiulo, L.; Marino, T.; Gomez d’Ayala, G.; Santagata, G.; Dal Poggetto, G. Citrus Wastes as Source of Pectin and Bioactive Compounds Extracted via One-Pot Microwave Process: An In Situ Path to Modulated Property Control. Polymers 2025, 17, 659. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  90. Rawat, S.; Pavithra, T.; Sunil, C.K. Citrus byproduct valorization: Pectin extraction, characterization, and research advances in biomaterial derivation for applications in active film packaging. Discov. Food 2024, 4, 149. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  91. Imran, M.; Chew, J.W. Upcycling citrus waste into porous carbon and aerogel materials: State-of-the-art and prospects. Carbon Capture Sci. Technol. 2025, 16, 100462. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  92. Tiwari, B.; Joshi, A.; Mohan, P.; Kishore Sharma, R.; Singh, G. Oxygen-Rich Non-Graphitic Carbon Derived from Citrus sinensis for High-Energy Density Pseudocapacitive Charge Storage. ChemistrySelect 2020, 5, 14993–15003. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  93. Edwards, J.W.; Lee, S.-G.; Heath, L.M.; Pisaniello, D.L. Worker exposure and a risk assessment of Malathion and Fenthion used in the control of Mediterranean fruit fly in South Australia. Environ. Res. 2007, 103, 38–45. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  94. Pappas, C.J.; Kyriakidis, N.V. A comparison of dimethoate degradation in lemons and mandarins on the trees with two GC systems. Food Chem. 2003, 80, 23–28. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  95. Propper, C.R.; Sedlock, J.L.; Smedley, R.E.; Frith, O.; Shuman-Goodier, M.E.; Grajal-Puche, A.; Stuart, A.M.; Singleton, G.R. Balancing food security, vertebrate biodiversity, and healthy rice agroecosystems in Southeast Asia. Crop Environ. 2024, 3, 43–50. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  96. Ishida, S.; Kudo, S.; Asano, S.; Hayashi, J.-i. Multi-step pre-treatment of rice husk for fractionation of components including silica. Front. Chem. 2025, 13, 1538797. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  97. Nguyen, N.T.; Tran, N.T.; Phan, T.P.; Nguyen, A.T.; Nguyen, M.X.T.; Nguyen, N.N.; Ko, Y.H.; Nguyen, D.H.; Van, T.T.T.; Hoang, D. The extraction of lignocelluloses and silica from rice husk using a single biorefinery process and their characteristics. J. Ind. Eng. Chem. 2022, 108, 150–158. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  98. Wang, L.; Schnepp, Z.; Titirici, M.M. Rice husk-derived carbon anodes for lithium ion batteries. J. Mater. Chem. A 2013, 1, 5269–5273. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  99. Wang, Q.; Zhu, X.; Liu, Y.; Fang, Y.; Zhou, X.; Bao, J. Rice husk-derived hard carbons as high-performance anode materials for sodium-ion batteries. Carbon 2018, 127, 658–666. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  100. Negm, N.A.; Altalhi, A.A.; Ahmed, H.M.; Mohamed, E.A. Synergistic effect of rice husk-derived activated carbon modified by Ni/Al-layered double hydroxides for lead removal from industrial wastewater. Sci. Rep. 2024, 14, 28411. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  101. Askaruly, K.; Idrissov, N.; Abdisattar, A.; Azat, S.; Kuli, Z.; Yeleuov, M.; Malchik, F.; Daulbayev, C.; Yszhan, Y.; Sarsembayeva, B.; et al. Utilizing rice husk-derived Si/C composites to enhance energy capacity and cycle sustainability of lithium-ion batteries. Diam. Relat. Mater. 2024, 149, 111631. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  102. Chen, Z.; Wang, X.; Xue, B.; Li, W.; Ding, Z.; Yang, X.; Qiu, J.; Wang, Z. Rice husk-based hierarchical porous carbon for high performance supercapacitors: The structure-performance relationship. Carbon 2020, 161, 432–444. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  103. Alam, M.; Hossain, M.; Hossain, M.; Johir, M.A.H.; Hossen, J.; Rahman, M.S.; Zhou, J.; Hasan, A.T.M.; Karmakar, A. The Potentiality of Rice Husk-Derived Activated Carbon: From Synthesis to Application. Processes 2020, 8, 203. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  104. Nandya, T.V.; Sulaeman, A.P.; Solihudin; Kusuma, H.D.; Kurnia, I.; Edwin, R.; Laksmono, J.A. Valorization of tar-modified rice husk activated carbon for high-performance supercapacitor electrodes. Results Mater. 2025, 28, 100800. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  105. Craddock, H.A.; Huang, D.; Turner, P.C.; Quirós-Alcalá, L.; Payne-Sturges, D.C. Trends in neonicotinoid pesticide residues in food and water in the United States, 1999–2015. Environ. Health A Glob. Access Sci. Source 2019, 18, 7. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  106. Yu, Z.; Li, X.-F.; Wang, S.; Liu, L.-Y.; Zeng, E.Y. The human and ecological risks of neonicotinoid insecticides in soils of an agricultural zone within the Pearl River Delta, South China. Environ. Pollut. 2021, 284, 117358. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  107. Putri, Z.S.; Aslan; Yusmur, A.; Yamamuro, M. Neonicotinoid contamination in tropical estuarine waters of Indonesia. Heliyon 2022, 8, e10330. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  108. Song, S.; Zhang, T.; Huang, Y.; Zhang, B.; Guo, Y.; He, Y.; Huang, X.; Bai, X.; Kannan, K. Urinary Metabolites of Neonicotinoid Insecticides: Levels and Recommendations for Future Biomonitoring Studies in China. Environ. Sci. Technol. 2020, 54, 8210–8220. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  109. Escudero-Curiel, S.; Giráldez, A.; Pazos, M.; Sanromán, M. From Waste to Resource: Valorization of Lignocellulosic Agri-Food Residues through Engineered Hydrochar and Biochar for Environmental and Clean Energy Applications—A Comprehensive Review. Foods 2023, 12, 3646. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  110. Thaha, A.; Ghamari, M.; Jothiprakash, G.; Velusamy, S.; Karthikeyan, S.; Ramesh, D.; Sundaram, S. High Impact Biomass Valorization for Second Generation Biorefineries in India: Recent Developments and Future Strategies for Sustainable Circular Economy. Biomass 2025, 5, 16. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  111. Liu, W.; Mei, J.; Liu, G.; Kou, Q.; Yi, T.; Xiao, S. Nitrogen-Doped Hierarchical Porous Carbon from Wheat Straw for Supercapacitors. ACS Sustain. Chem. Eng. 2018, 6, 11595–11605. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  112. Yu, Y.; Zhang, H.; Zhang, Y.; Zhang, B.; Jin, Y.; Chen, S.; Liang, D.; Tang, S.; Li, J.; Chen, G.; et al. Fungus-mediated preparation of porous carbon based on wheat straw: Efficient removal of chromium and enhanced electrochemical properties. Ind. Crops Prod. 2024, 218, 118958. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  113. Chen, F.; Ma, L.; Ren, J.; Zhang, M.; Luo, X.; Li, B.; Song, Z.; Zhou, X. Wheat Straw-Derived N-, O-, and S-Tri-doped Porous Carbon with Ultrahigh Specific Surface Area for Lithium-Sulfur Batteries. Materials 2018, 11, 989. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  114. Hou, J.; Liang, J.; Xie, Y.; Zhang, X.; Xiao, L.; Fan, X. High-performance porous carbon derived from wheat straw for supercapacitors with excellent cycling stability and energy density. Mater. Today Commun. 2025, 46, 112744. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  115. Anderson, W.; Seager, R.; Baethgen, W.; Cane, M. Crop production variability in North and South America forced by life-cycles of the El Niño Southern Oscillation. Agric. For. Meteorol. 2017, 239, 151–165. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  116. Parven, A.; Meftaul, I.M.; Venkateswarlu, K.; Megharaj, M. Herbicides in modern sustainable agriculture: Environmental fate, ecological implications, and human health concerns. Int. J. Environ. Sci. Technol. 2025, 22, 1181–1202. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  117. Razzak, S.A.; Uddin, S.; Hasan, A.; Nawaz, A.; Siddiquee, M.N.; Bari, M.A.A.; Hossain, M.M. Biomass-derived carbon materials as sustainable platforms for advanced biomedical applications. Environ. Surf. Interfaces 2026, 4, 45–70. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  118. Almaraz-Vega, E.; Morales-Vargas, A.I.; Gómez Delgado, G.; Castellanos-Arteaga, L.; Iñiguez Gómez, O.; Flores Salcedo, C.C. Sustainable Carbon Nanomaterials from Biomass Precursors: Green Synthesis Strategies and Environmental Applications. Nanomaterials 2026, 16, 75. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  119. Briceño, S.; Arevalo-Fester, J.E. Sustainable Nanomaterials for Glyphosate Remediation. ACS Appl. Eng. Mater. 2025, 3, 3655–3677. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  120. Adeola, A.O.; Paramo, L.; Duarte, M.P.; Fuoco, G.; Naccache, R. Unraveling glyphosate sequestration: The role of natural organic matter fractions in soil-water contamination and retention. J. Environ. Manag. 2025, 393, 127264. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  121. Cruz, J.; Medina, G.; Júnior, J.R. Brazil’s Agribusiness Economic Miracle: Exploring Food Supply Chain Transformations for Promoting Win–Win Investments. Logistics 2022, 6, 23. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  122. Bajwa, U.; Sandhu, K.S. Effect of handling and processing on pesticide residues in food—A review. J. Food Sci. Technol. 2014, 51, 201–220. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  123. Flamminii, F.; Minetti, S.; Mollica, A.; Cichelli, A.; Cerretani, L. The Effect of Washing, Blanching and Frozen Storage on Pesticide Residue in Spinach. Foods 2023, 12, 2806. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  124. Alemran, A.; Bhatia, A.; Banerjee, S. Waste treatment in food processing industries. In Sustainable Solutions for Environmental Pollution; Elsevier: Amsterdam, The Netherlands, 2026. [Google Scholar]
Foods 15 01110 g001
Figure 1. Representative molecular structures of selected pesticides covering the major chemical classes of herbicides, insecticides, and fungicides. The set includes herbicides ((a1)—glyphosate, (a2)—2,4-D, (a3)—paraquat), insecticides ((b1)—chlorpyrifos, (b2)—imidacloprid, (b3)—carbaryl), and fungicides ((c1)—mancozeb, (c2)—tebuconazole, (c3)—chlorothalonil). These compounds were selected as illustrative examples of widely used pesticide classes across major agricultural regions and to represent structurally diverse molecules relevant to adsorption behavior and geo-adaptive remediation strategies (grey—carbon, white—hydrogen, red—oxygen, blue—nitrogen, green—chlorine, yellow—sulfur, orange—phosphorus).
Figure 1. Representative molecular structures of selected pesticides covering the major chemical classes of herbicides, insecticides, and fungicides. The set includes herbicides ((a1)—glyphosate, (a2)—2,4-D, (a3)—paraquat), insecticides ((b1)—chlorpyrifos, (b2)—imidacloprid, (b3)—carbaryl), and fungicides ((c1)—mancozeb, (c2)—tebuconazole, (c3)—chlorothalonil). These compounds were selected as illustrative examples of widely used pesticide classes across major agricultural regions and to represent structurally diverse molecules relevant to adsorption behavior and geo-adaptive remediation strategies (grey—carbon, white—hydrogen, red—oxygen, blue—nitrogen, green—chlorine, yellow—sulfur, orange—phosphorus).
Foods 15 01110 g001
Foods 15 01110 g002
Figure 2. Study area (blue shade in (a)) and details of sample maps of median application rates: (b) fungicide Mancozeb in southern France, (c) insecticide Dimethoate in northern Germany, (d) herbicide Glyphosate in northern Italy. All application rates are given in [kg/ha]. Background information is obtained from OpenStreetMap layers, and labels on map boundaries indicate longitude and latitude (WGS84 coordinates). Reproduced from [52]. This article is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License [53], without any modifications.
Figure 2. Study area (blue shade in (a)) and details of sample maps of median application rates: (b) fungicide Mancozeb in southern France, (c) insecticide Dimethoate in northern Germany, (d) herbicide Glyphosate in northern Italy. All application rates are given in [kg/ha]. Background information is obtained from OpenStreetMap layers, and labels on map boundaries indicate longitude and latitude (WGS84 coordinates). Reproduced from [52]. This article is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License [53], without any modifications.
Foods 15 01110 g002
Foods 15 01110 g003
Figure 3. Schematic representation of different types of pesticide interactions with carbon surfaces and the surface functional groups (grey—carbon, white—hydrogen, red—oxygen, blue—nitrogen, green—chlorine, orange—phosphorus).
Figure 3. Schematic representation of different types of pesticide interactions with carbon surfaces and the surface functional groups (grey—carbon, white—hydrogen, red—oxygen, blue—nitrogen, green—chlorine, orange—phosphorus).
Foods 15 01110 g003
Foods 15 01110 g004
Figure 4. Regional usage of most common pesticides (the structures are displayed for the underlined ones, grey—carbon, white—hydrogen, red—oxygen, blue—nitrogen, green—chlorine, yellow—sulfur, orange—phosphorus).
Figure 4. Regional usage of most common pesticides (the structures are displayed for the underlined ones, grey—carbon, white—hydrogen, red—oxygen, blue—nitrogen, green—chlorine, yellow—sulfur, orange—phosphorus).
Foods 15 01110 g004
Foods 15 01110 g005
Figure 5. Locally available biomass and the types of carbon materials that are most commonly obtained from these sources.
Figure 5. Locally available biomass and the types of carbon materials that are most commonly obtained from these sources.
Foods 15 01110 g005
Foods 15 01110 g006
Figure 6. Geo-adaptive design aligns material selectivity with local residue profiles and regulatory constraints.
Figure 6. Geo-adaptive design aligns material selectivity with local residue profiles and regulatory constraints.
Foods 15 01110 g006
Table 1. Dominant pesticide groups and representative active substances by region [21,22,23,24,25,26].
Table 1. Dominant pesticide groups and representative active substances by region [21,22,23,24,25,26].
Pesticide
(Active Substance)		Pesticide
Group		Main Crop ApplicationsUSAEUChinaIndiaBrazilComment—Regional Usage
Pattern
GlyphosateHerbicide
(phosphonate)		Cereals (maize, wheat), soybean, oilseed crops, orchards, vineyards, non-selective weed control in crop fieldsYESYES (L)YESYESYESDominant in the Americas and Brazil 
2,4-DHerbicide
(phenoxy)		Cereals (wheat, maize), pasture and grassland systems, some fruit orchardsYESYESYESYESYESWidely used in cereals (Americas, Asia)
AtrazineHerbicide
(triazine)		Maize, sorghum, sugarcaneYESNOYESYESYESBanned in the EU; common in Brazil and the USA
ChlorpyrifosInsecticide
(organophosphate)		Fruits, vegetables, citrus, orchard crops, cerealsYES (L)NOYESYESYESStill widely used in Asia and Latin America
MalathionInsecticide
(organophosphate)		Fruits, vegetables, citrus, stored grainsYESYESYESYESYESTypical for fruit and vegetable production (warm regions)
DiazinonInsecticide
(organophosphate)		Fruits, vegetables, orchards, turf, and horticultural cropsNONOYESYESYESPhased out in the EU and USA; present elsewhere
ImidaclopridInsecticide
(neonicotinoid)		Vegetables, fruits, rice, potatoes, horticultural cropsYESYES (SL)YESYESYESDominant in Asia; restricted in the EU
AcetamipridInsecticide
(neonicotinoid)		Fruits, vegetables, tea, citrus, horticultural cropsYESYESYESYESYESOne of the few neonicotinoids permitted in the EU
CarbarylInsecticide
(carbamate)		Fruits, vegetables, orchards, cerealsYESNOYESYESYESLegacy insecticide, still used outside the EU
MancozebFungicide
(dithiocarbamate)		Fruits, vegetables, potatoes, vineyardsYESYESYESYESYESWidely used in fruit and vegetable production
ChlorothalonilFungicide
(chloronitrile)		Vegetables, potatoes, cereals, fruitsYESNOYESYESYESWithdrawn in the EU; common elsewhere
TebuconazoleFungicide
(triazole)		Cereals, vineyards, fruitsYESYESYESYESYESDominant in the EU and Brazil 
PropiconazoleFungicide
(triazole)		Cereals, oilseed crops, fruitsYESYESYESYESYESSimilar to tebuconazole
ParaquatHerbicide
(bipyridylium)		Cereals, soybean, oilseed crops, plantation crops (e.g., banana, coffee), non-selective weed controlYESNOYESYESYESBanned in the EU; common in Brazil and India
YES = approved/registered, frequently with limitations, NO = prohibited or not approved (status refers to the active substance, not all formulations), L = limited, SL = strictly limited.
Table 2. Dominant pesticide groups and representative active substances by regions [21,22,23,24,25,26].
Table 2. Dominant pesticide groups and representative active substances by regions [21,22,23,24,25,26].
Dominant Pesticide ClassRepresentative Active SubstancesRegions Where It Is Commonly UsedKey Chemical CharacteristicsPreferred Adsorbent Surface FeaturesImplications for Geo-Adaptive Design
Herbicides (phosphonate, phenoxy,
triazine)		Glyphosate,
2,4-D,
atrazine		USA, Brazil, parts of China, and IndiaHighly polar or ionic; limited aromaticity; strong hydrationOxygen-containing functional groups; charged or polar surfaces; moderate porosityEmphasis on surface functionality over hydrophobicity; adsorption driven by hydrogen bonding and electrostatic interactions
Insecticides (organophosphates)Chlorpyrifos, malathion,
diazinon		China, India, South America; legacy use in the EUModerate polarity; ester and phosphoryl groups; partial aromatic characterMixed surface chemistry with both aromatic domains and polar sitesBalanced surface heterogeneity enables multiple interaction mechanisms
Insecticides (neonicotinoids)Imidacloprid,
acetamiprid		Asia, India;
restricted use in the EU		Polar heterocycles; high water solubilityPolar surfaces with accessible functional groups; controlled pore accessibilityTargeting polar adsorption without excessive surface oxidation
Fungicides (triazoles, chlorinated)Tebuconazole, propiconazole, chlorothalonilEU, Mediterranean regions, BrazilAromatic rings; moderate hydrophobicity; high chemical stabilityExtended π-conjugated domains; relatively hydrophobic graphitic surfacesPreservation of aromatic character is critical; excessive oxidation may reduce affinity
Carbamate insecticidesCarbarylIndia, China, South AmericaModerate polarity; aromatic backboneCombination of π-rich domains and hydrogen-bond-active sitesAdsorbents should allow complementary interaction modes
Table 3. Regional biomass precursors and their relevance for geo-adaptive carbon-based adsorbents.
Table 3. Regional biomass precursors and their relevance for geo-adaptive carbon-based adsorbents.
RegionDominant Agricultural ByproductsKey Biomass CharacteristicsTypical Carbon Material FeaturesTarget Pesticide ClassesFood System
Relevance
Southeastern & Central EuropeWalnut shells, nut residuesHigh lignin content; low ashAromatic carbon frameworks; pronounced π-conjugation; moderate surface polarityOrganophosphate insecticides; triazole fungicidesRelevant for fruit, vegetable, and orchard production
Mediterranean EuropeOlive stones, olive pomace, grape pomaceMixed lignocellulosic composition; residual lipidsBalanced micro/mesoporosity; moderately hydrophobic surfacesFungicides (triazoles, chlorinated); insecticidesVineyard, olive oil, fruit, and vegetable chains
Mediterranean EuropeCitrus peels and pomacePectin- and cellulose-rich; high oxygen contentOxygenated surfaces; moderate polarity; accessible porosityOrganophosphates; selected fungicidesCitrus fruit washing, juice, and beverage processing
East & Southeast AsiaRice husksHigh silica content; rigid structureHierarchical porosity; polar surface sites; enhanced accessibilityNeonicotinoids; carbamates; polar insecticidesRice-based food processing and irrigation waters
North & South America (incl. Brazil)Corn cobs, sugarcane bagasse, soybean residuesCellulose-rich; variable mineral contentTunable porosity after activation; adaptable surface functionalityHerbicides (glyphosate, phenoxy, triazines)Large-scale cereal and oilseed processing
South & Southeast AsiaRice straw, wheat straw, fruit pomaceHeterogeneous composition; seasonal variabilityMixed micro/mesoporosity; moderate polarityOrganophosphates; neonicotinoidsDiverse crops and decentralized food systems
GlobalFruit peels, juice pomaceHigh moisture; pectin-richOxygenated surface groups; lower graphitizationWater-soluble pesticide residuesJuice, beverage, and fresh produce processing
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

Lazarević-Pašti, T.; Pašti, I.A. Beyond Sustainable: Geo-Adaptive Design of Carbon-Based Adsorbents Through Aligning Pesticide Remediation with Regional Agricultural Practices and Food Safety Needs. Foods 2026, 15, 1110. https://doi.org/10.3390/foods15061110

AMA Style

Lazarević-Pašti T, Pašti IA. Beyond Sustainable: Geo-Adaptive Design of Carbon-Based Adsorbents Through Aligning Pesticide Remediation with Regional Agricultural Practices and Food Safety Needs. Foods. 2026; 15(6):1110. https://doi.org/10.3390/foods15061110

Chicago/Turabian Style

Lazarević-Pašti, Tamara, and Igor A. Pašti. 2026. "Beyond Sustainable: Geo-Adaptive Design of Carbon-Based Adsorbents Through Aligning Pesticide Remediation with Regional Agricultural Practices and Food Safety Needs" Foods 15, no. 6: 1110. https://doi.org/10.3390/foods15061110

APA Style

Lazarević-Pašti, T., & Pašti, I. A. (2026). Beyond Sustainable: Geo-Adaptive Design of Carbon-Based Adsorbents Through Aligning Pesticide Remediation with Regional Agricultural Practices and Food Safety Needs. Foods, 15(6), 1110. https://doi.org/10.3390/foods15061110

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