• google scholor
  • Views: 752

  • PDF Downloads: 2

Study the Contamination Level of Organochlorine Pesticides in Fruits During Summer Season

M. S. Khirwar* and Nisha Singh

1Department of Chemistry, R.B.S. College,, Agra, Uttar Pradesh India .

Corresponding author Email: maheshkhirwar@gmail.com

DOI: http://dx.doi.org/10.13005/OJPS07.02.04

Fruits have nutritional value, but they can also be sources of toxic contaminants, such as pesticide residues. Pesticides used for fruit production results in increased health risks and health costs, humiliation of the environment and productivity loss. This research aimed to conduct to estimate presence of pesticide residues in summer season fruit purchase from local market. Pesticides were precisely detected in fruit samples collected from the market and the technique (GC-ECD) was used for analyzing and studying organochlorine pesticides in three fruits of the summer season, i.e., (plum, kiwi fruit and pineapple). The maximum residual limits (MRLs) values were compared with pesticide concentrations. In fruit sample, mean values of pesticide concentration residues were found. All fruits were found to be contaminated with pesticides. The concentrations of monitoring pesticides were less than the (MRL) values. However, the severe health problems may be created by the regular eating of pesticide infected fruits. It can be concluded that the periodical monitoring of fruits for pesticide residues is essential to evaluating their contamination grade and producing awareness on the health hazards involved in pesticide misuse.

Fruits; GC-ECD; N-Hexane; Organochlorine Pesticides

Copy the following to cite this article:

Khirwar M. S, Singh N. Study the Contamination Level of Organochlorine Pesticides in Fruits During Summer SeasonOriental Jornal of Physical Sciences 2022; 7(2).
  DOI:http://dx.doi.org/10.13005/OJPS07.02.04

Copy the following to cite this URL:

Khirwar M. S, Singh N. Study the Contamination Level of Organochlorine Pesticides in Fruits During Summer SeasonOriental Jornal of Physical Sciences 2022; 7(2).Available from:https://bit.ly/3Gg2Lsz


Download article (pdf)
Citation Manager
Publish History


Article Publishing History

Received: 2022-11-21
Accepted: 2022-12-14
Reviewed by: Orcid Orcid Nagham Mahmood Aljamali
Second Review by: Orcid Orcid Nayeem Ahmed
Final Approval by: Dr. Pedro M. E Mancini

Introduction

Fruits are an essential component of our diet because of their nutritional value, and have a fundamental function in the diet for the protection of physical condition and preclusion of diseases.1 The majority of Indians are vegetarians, and their average diet constitutes about 150–250 g of fruits in the total meal per day, as was observed.2 As several pests attack on the fruits, they are produced under very high input pressure. For better yield and quality, pesticides are frequently applied during the entire period of growth and sometimes even at the fruiting stage.3 In a country like India, the use of pesticides has become predictable to sustain and improve the current level of crop production by protecting the crop from pests.4 Approximately, the consumption of pesticides around the world, about two million tons per year; among them, 45% of pesticides are used in Europe and in USA about 25% are expended and the rest are consumed in the remaining world; about 3.75% is India’s share.5 Now days, India has turn into the 2nd largest producer of pesticides in Asia after China and they are ranks 12th worldwide.6 The consumption of chemical pesticides, According to Ministry of Agriculture and Farmers Welfare, in the duration of 2021-2022, chemical pesticides consumption in various states was 58720 metric tons. Out of 29 Indian states, pesticide consumption in India the top four states contributing to about 62.82% are Maharashtra, Uttar Pradesh, Haryana and Telangana. The rest of pesticide 20.83% consumption in other states and 16.35% in union territories. These pesticides are absorbed by the fruits and on consumption by human beings; it may be hazardous if safe waiting period is not adopted.7 The actual risk to human health is during the exposure of pesticide residues in major and resultant agricultural yields.8 Thus, there are various problems of human health’s which are related with pesticides, ranging from short-term impacts including nausea, headaches and skin itching, to long-term impacts has been reported,9 including various cancers,10-11 birth defects, infertility,12 blood disorders,13 nerve disorders 14 for example, amyotrophic lateral sclerosis 15 diabetes, Alzheimer,16 Parkinson,17 chronic lymphocytic leukemia (CLL), multiple myeloma and endocrine disruption.18 These undesirable impacts of pesticides on the  environment and human health have encouraged to researchers toward the monitoring of different kinds of pesticides in various types of food commodities. It would be economically unrealistic and practically impossible.19 Therefore, the objectives of our present research work were to monitor of organochlorine pesticides present in selected fruits of the summer season, namely Plum, Kiwi fruit and Pineapple, because of their toxic nature, persistence and tendency to bioaccumulate as well as they have been banned in india but these pesticides are still in use.20 Therefore, it has been decided to monitor the pesticides. Due to increasing public awareness and legal issues involved with organochlorine pesticide residues in food commodities, there is a need to harmonize the monitoring of these pesticide residues in fruits.

Materials and Methods

Reagents and Equipments

All glassware and equipments should carefully wash with deionized water and rinsed by acetone and then must dry in oven at 150oC temperature for overnight before use. For the extraction of pesticide residues from fruits following solvents like ethyl acetate, acetonitrile, acetone, n-hexane and cyclohexane should distill before used. Then, adsorbent neutral alumina, charcoal and florisil should activate before the use. Although, to eliminate probable phthalate impurities from anhydrous sodium sulphate was purify with acetone and also heated for 3h on 600oC in muffle furnace. By using the technique GLC equipped with capillary columns with 63Ni electron capture detector purified the samples of fruits were analyzed. The small equipments like mechanical shaker, warring blender and rotatory evaporator etc. used during the study. A Stock solution of Standard was prepared in n-hexane.

Samples Collection

The sample consists of 250g of each fruit i.e. Plum (Prunus domestica), Kiwi (Actinidia deliciosa) and Pineapple (Ananas comosus), purchase from local market then deposit in refrigerator at 4ºC and analyzed within 3 days of collection. Each collected sample of fruits has been wash with water and dried up. After drying, the extraction part of fruit samples will be chopped into small pieces and macerated with 25g anhydrous sodium sulphate in warring blender to make a fine paste.

Sample Extraction

50g homogenize fine paste of each sample (Plum, Kiwi Fruit and Pineapple) and subjected to shaken separately with 100 ml acetonitrile through mechanical shaker for 3 h. Acetonitrile solvent was used for extraction previously and later this layer was discarded because it act as a polar aprotic solvent due to its low chemical reactivity, high miscibility with water . Then, extract was filtered and the remaining filtrate were transfer into the separating funnel and shaken gently for 2 h. For the first sample i.e plum (50 ml cyclohexane), for second sample i.e kiwi fruit (50 ml n-hexane) and for third sample i.e pineapple (50 ml acetone and n-hexane {1:4}) was added and again shaken for 3h. Thereafter, to obtain the two dissimilar layers, separating funnel was permitted at decent position for about 3h. The upper layer (cyclohexane from plum; n-hexane from kiwi fruit and pineapple) was separated out from separating funnel. The sample extraction was recurring three times by using 50 ml cyclohexane in plum; 50 ml n-hexane in kiwi fruit and 50 ml acetone and n-hexane (1:4) in pineapple at each step. The collected extract was resolute at 40ºC temperature upto desiccation (5 ml) by using rotatory evaporator and then, dissolved in 5 ml n-hexane.

Purification

The composed extracts of samples will be subjected for clean up by column-packed chromatography during silica gel: activated charcoal (5:1 w/w): silica gel. Then, each extract of sample be primary passed through column as well as eluted with 40 ml n-hexane. Then, eluted extract will be more resolute upto desiccation and re-dissolved in 15 ml n-hexane for analysis of pesticides on GC-ECD.

Results and Discussion

First by running the stock solution of standards (Fig.1), we have determined retention time of peaks and peak area for the pesticides present in the standard corresponding to 0.2 µg/µl concentrations (Table.1). The peaks of different pesticides in the standard exhibited their peaks at different Rt values. The dissimilar isomers of BHC (benzene hexachloride) the peaks exhibited at Rt values 7.264 for α-BHC, 10.666 for γ-BHC, 12.108 for β-BHC and 13.553 for δ-BHC. The peak was found at Rt valve 15.230 for heptachlor and 18.093 for heptachlor epoxide; At Rt value the peak was found 16.828 for aldrin; The peak was found at Rt values as: 20.356 (endosulfan I), 23.731 (endosulfan II) and 26.861 (endosulfan sulfate); At Rt value the peak was found 22.460 for dieldrin; At Rt value the peak was found 18.655 for γ-chlordane and 19.761for α-chlordane; At Rt values the peak was found which correspond as: 23.041(endrin), 24.837 (endrin aldehyde) and 27.713 (methoxychlor). At Rt values the peaks were found as: 21.560 (4,4’-DDE), 23.459 (4,4’-DDD) and 25.122 (4,4’-DDT); The peak was found at Rt value 32.942 for endrin ketone.    

Table.1: Peak area and retention time of standard of organochlorine pesticides

Peak

Pesticides

Ret. Time (Rt)

Area

Area %

1

α- BHC

7.264

4056398

0.3107

2

γ- BHC

10.666

69248549

5.3044

3

β- BHC

12.108

110194348

8.4409

4

δ-BHC

13.553

67783682

5.1922

5

Heptachlor

15.230

63367599

4.8540

6

Aldrin

16.828

87205582

6.6799

7

Heptachlor epoxide

18.093

4789654

0.3669

8

γ- Chlordane

18.655

65779983

5.0387

9

α- Chlordane

19.761

82997615

6.3576

10

Endosulfan I

20.356

115947358

8.8816

11

4,4’-DDE

21.560

122612908

9.3921

12

Dieldrin

22.460

60365744

4.6240

13

Endrin

23.041

74179902

5.6822

14

4,4’-DDD

23.459

60226898

4.6134

15

Endosulfan II

23.731

59156527

4.5314

16

Endrin aldehyde

24.837

82799420

6.3424

17

4,4’-DDT

25.122

70574949

5.4060

18

Endosulfan sulfate

26.861

69382904

5.3147

19

Methoxychlor

27.713

34287889

2.6265

20

Endrin ketone

32.942

525912

0.0403

Total

 

 

1305483821

100.00


 
Figure 1: Gas chromatogram of Standard

Click here to view Figure 
 
Figure 2: Gas chromatogram of Plum

Click here to view Figure
 
Figure 3: Gas chromatogram of Kiwi fruit

Click here to view Figure
 
Figure 4: Gas chromatogram of Pineapple

Click here to view Figure 


The gas chromatogram of standard comparing with the gas chromatogram of Plum (Prunus domestica) (Fig.2) exhibited one peaks at the Rt values (retention value) 23.464 for 4, 4’-DDD and indicated the presence of exceeding pesticide in the sample of Plum. In case of the gas chromatogram of Kiwi fruit (Actinidia deliciosa) (Fig.3) exhibited three peaks which were extremely close with Rt values 13.530 for δ-BHC, 16.853 for aldrin and 23.013 for endrin and indicated the existence of exceeding pesticides in the sample of Kiwi fruit. Similarly, in case of the gas chromatogram of Pineapple (Ananas comosus) (Fig.4) exhibited only one peaks at the Rt values 23.458 of 4,4’-DDD and indicated the existence of exceeding pesticides in the sample of Pineapple. Then, for the identification of pesticide in fruit samples was carried out by comparing with retention time of standard and retention time of samples with an average value difference and detected pesticides concentration have been reported in Table.2

Table 2: Concentration of pesticides and detected pesticides with Rt value evaluated through gas chromatography

S.R. No.

Name of sample

Name of

pesticide found

Ret. Time (Rt) of  standard

Ret. Time (Rt) of Sample

Concentration

of pesticides (µg/ml)

1

Plum

4,4’-DDD

23.459

23.464

0.00649

2

Kiwi fruit

δ-BHC

13.553

13.530

0.0044

Aldrin

16.828

16.853

0.0110

Endrin

23.041

23.013

0.0087

3

Pineapple

4,4’-DDD

23.459

23.458

0.00373

Conclusion

For prosecution activities as well as reduce health risk, monitoring of pesticide residues is more and more essential and important. The results of the study will indicate the contamination level of pesticides in selected fruits. We have studied the twenty organochlorine pesticides in different fruits but only five pesticides were found and all were in permissible limits. In fruit samples, there is no any pesticides were found which we have expected to be present. We have found aldrin and endrin pesticide in kiwi fruit, which have been banned for use in India. If fruits will found contaminated with pesticides then their concentration shall be compared with the MRL values set by FAO/WHO Codex Alimentarius Commission and MRL values set by Indian government. If concentration of pesticides will be found more than MRL values then farmer shall be aware to reduce the pesticides or they shall be asked to use natural pesticides by which the risk of pesticides use will be minimum to the human health and environment.

Acknowledgement

I would like to convey my heartfelt gratitude to Dr. M.S. Khirwar, Associate Professor, Department of Chemistry, R.B.S. College, Agra for his tremendous support and assistance in the completion of my research work. I also, thankful to Advanced Instrumentation Research Facility, Jawaharlal Nehru University, New Delhi for providing the facility of Gas Chromatography.

Conflict of Interest

There iare no conflict of interest.

Funding Sources

There is no funding Source

References

  1. Ssemugabo C., Bradman A., Ssempebwa J.C, Sille F. and Guwatudde D., Int. J. Food Contam., 9(1), 1-14, 2022.
    CrossRef
  2. Bhanti M. and Taneja A., Environ. Monit. Assess., 110(1), 341-346, 2005
    CrossRef
  3. Kumari B., Madan V.K. and Kathpal T.S., Environ. Monit. Assess. 123(1), 407-412, 2006.
    CrossRef
  4. Bhanti M., Shukla G. and Taneja A., Bull. Environ. Contam. Toxicol., 73(5), 787-793, 200
    CrossRef
  5. De, A., Bose, R., Kumar, A. and Mozumdar, S., “Targeted Delivery of Pesticides Using   Biodegradable Polymeric Nanoparticles”, Springer India, New Delhi, 59, 2014.
    CrossRef
  6. Nayak P. and Solanki H.,Int. J. Res. Granthaalayah, 9(5), 250-263, 2021
    CrossRef
  7. Madan V.K., Kumari B., Singh R.V., Kumar R. and Kathpal T.S., Pestic. Res. J. 8(1), 56-60, 1996.
  8. Solomon G., Ogunseitan O.A. and Kirsch J., “Pesticides and Human Health A Resource for Health Care Professionals”, California Digital Library, 1-60, 2000.
  9. Shah R., “Pesticides and Human Health. In EmergingContaminants”, IntechOpen, London, 2020.
    CrossRef
  10. Bhat A.R, Wani M.A, Kirmani A.R. and Raina T.H., IJMPO, 31(4), 110, 20
    CrossRef
  11. Calle E.E., Frumkin H., Henley S.J., Savitz D.A. and Thun M.J., CA Cancer J. Clin., 52(5), 301-309, 2002.
    CrossRef
  12. Jurewicz J., Radwan M., Wielgomas B., Sobala W., Piskunowicz M., Radwan P., Bochenek M. and Hanke W., Syst. Biol. Reprod. Med., 61(1), 37-43, 2015.
    CrossRef
  13. He B., Ni Y., Jin Y. and Fu Z., Sci. Total Environ., 729(2020), 1-9, 2020.
    CrossRef
  14. Colosio C., Tiramani M. and Maroni M., Neurotoxicology 24(4-5), 577-591, 2003.
    CrossRef
  15. Trojsi F., Monsurro M.R. and Tedeschi G., Int. J. Mol. Sci., 14(8), 15286-15311, 2013.
    CrossRef
  16. Baldi I., Lebailly P., Mohammed-Brahim B., Letenneur L., Dartigues J.F. and Brochard P., Am. J. Epidemiol., 157(5), 409-414, 2003.
  17. Le Couteur D.G., McLean A.J., Taylor M.C., Woodham B.L. and Board P.G., Biomed.Pharmacother., 53(3), 122-130, 1999.
    CrossRef
  18. Mnif W., Hassine A.I.H., Bouaziz A., Bartegi A., Thomas O. and Roig B., IJERPH, 8(6),  2265-2303, 201
    CrossRef
  19. Bhanti M. and Taneja A., Chemosphere, 69(1), 63-68, 2007.
    CrossRef
  20. Osesua, Anthony, B., Omogbehin, Adehuga, S., Umar and Abubakar, IRJASET, 5(3), 7, 2019.
Creative Commons License
This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License.