DOCSLIB.ORG

Malathion Human Health and Ecological Risk Assessment Final Report

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text
Malathion Human Health and Ecological Risk Assessment Final Report SERA TR-052-02-02c Malathion Human Health and Ecological Risk Assessment Final Report Submitted to: Paul Mistretta, COR USDA/Forest Service, Southern Region 1720 Peachtree RD, NW Atlanta, Georgia 30309 USDA Forest Service Contract: AG-3187-C-06-0010 USDA Forest Order Number: AG-43ZP-D-06-0012 SERA Internal Task No. 52-02 Submitted by: Patrick R. Durkin Syracuse Environmental Research Associates, Inc. 5100 Highbridge St., 42C Fayetteville, New York 13066-0950 Fax: (315) 637-0445 E-Mail: [email protected] Home Page: www.sera-inc.com May 12, 2008 Table of Contents Table of Contents............................................................................................................................ ii List of Figures................................................................................................................................. v List of Tables ................................................................................................................................. vi List of Appendices ......................................................................................................................... vi List of Attachments........................................................................................................................ vi ACRONYMS, ABBREVIATIONS, AND SYMBOLS ............................................................... vii COMMON UNIT CONVERSIONS AND ABBREVIATIONS.................................................... x CONVERSION OF SCIENTIFIC NOTATION ........................................................................... xi EXECUTIVE SUMMARY .......................................................................................................... xii 1. INTRODUCTION ...................................................................................................................... 1 2. PROGRAM DESCRIPTION..................................................................................................... 4 2.1. OVERVIEW ....................................................................................................................... 4 2.2. CHEMICAL DESCRIPTION AND COMMERCIAL FORMULATIONS....................... 5 2.3. APPLICATION METHODS.............................................................................................. 7 2.4. MIXING AND APPLICATION RATES ........................................................................... 7 2.4.1. Mosquito Control.......................................................................................................... 7 2.4.2. Pest Control in Seed Orchards ...................................................................................... 8 2.4.3. Other Pest Control Applications ................................................................................... 9 2.5. USE STATISTICS.............................................................................................................. 9 3. HUMAN HEALTH RISK ASSESSMENT............................................................................. 11 3.1. HAZARD IDENTIFICATION......................................................................................... 11 3.1.1. Overview.................................................................................................................... 11 3.1.2. Mechanism of Action................................................................................................. 13 3.1.3. Pharmacokinetics ....................................................................................................... 14 3.1.3.1. Overview of Information ..................................................................................... 14 3.1.3.2. Kinetic Values Used in Risk Assessment ............................................................ 17 3.1.4. Acute Oral Toxicity ................................................................................................... 19 3.1.5. Subchronic or Chronic Systemic Toxic Effects......................................................... 20 3.1.6. Effects on Nervous System........................................................................................ 22 3.1.7. Effects on Immune System ........................................................................................ 25 3.1.7.1. General Considerations....................................................................................... 25 3.1.7.2. Immune Enhancement ......................................................................................... 26 3.1.7.3. Immune Suppression............................................................................................ 27 3.1.7.4. U.S. EPA and ATSDR Evaluations of Immunotoxicity...................................... 28 3.1.8. Effects on Endocrine System..................................................................................... 30 3.1.9. Reproductive and Teratogenic Effects....................................................................... 31 3.1.9.1. Developmental (Teratology) Studies ................................................................... 31 3.1.9.2. Reproduction Studies........................................................................................... 32 3.1.9.3. Developmental Neurotoxicity.............................................................................. 33 3.1.9.4. Target Organ Toxicity.......................................................................................... 33 3.1.9.5. Human Data ......................................................................................................... 34 ii 3.1.10. Carcinogenicity and Mutagenicity........................................................................... 35 3.1.10.1. Mutagenicity ...................................................................................................... 35 3.1.10.2. Carcinogenicity.................................................................................................. 37 3.1.11. Irritation and Sensitization (Effects on the Skin and Eyes) ..................................... 39 3.1.12. Systemic Toxic Effects from Dermal Exposure ...................................................... 40 3.1.13. Inhalation Exposure ................................................................................................. 40 3.1.14. Inerts and Adjuvants ................................................................................................ 40 3.1.15. Impurities and Metabolites .................................................................................. 41 3.1.15.1. Metabolites........................................................................................................ 41 3.1.15.2. Impurities ........................................................................................................... 42 3.1.16. Toxicological Interactions ....................................................................................... 44 3.2. EXPOSURE ASSESSMENT ........................................................................................... 47 3.2.1. Overview.................................................................................................................... 47 3.2.2. Workers...................................................................................................................... 48 3.2.2.1. General Exposures .............................................................................................. 49 3.2.2.2. Accidental Exposures.......................................................................................... 50 3.2.3. General Public............................................................................................................ 52 3.2.3.1.1. Malaoxon Exposures..................................................................................... 52 3.2.3.1.2. Likelihood and Magnitude of Exposure ....................................................... 56 3.2.3.1.3. Summary of Assessments ............................................................................. 57 3.2.3.2. Direct Spray ........................................................................................................ 57 3.2.3.3. Dermal Exposure from Contaminated Vegetation.............................................. 58 3.2.3.4. Contaminated Water ............................................................................................ 58 3.2.3.4.1. Accidental Spill............................................................................................ 59 3.2.3.4.2. Accidental Direct Spray/Drift for a Pond or Stream..................................... 59 3.2.3.4.3. GLEAMS Modeling..................................................................................... 60 3.2.3.4.4. Other Modeling Efforts................................................................................. 61 3.2.3.4.5. Monitoring Data............................................................................................ 62 3.2.3.4.6. Concentrations in Water Used for Risk Assessment .................................... 62 3.2.3.5. Oral Exposure from Contaminated Fish .............................................................. 64 3.2.3.6. Dermal Exposure from Swimming in Contaminated Water................................ 65 3.2.3.7. Oral Exposure from Contaminated Vegetation.................................................... 66 3.3. DOSE-RESPONSE ASSESSMENT ................................................................................ 67 3.3.1. Overview...................................................................................................................
Load more

Recommended publications
  • ACEPHATE (Addendum)
    3 ACEPHATE (addendum) First draft prepared by Professor P.K. Gupta 1 and Dr Angelo Moretto 2 1 Rajinder Nagar, Bareilly, UP, India; 2 Dipartimento Medicina Ambientale e Sanità Pubblica, Università di Padova, Padova, Italy Explanation..........................................................................................................3 Evaluation for acceptable daily intake.................................................................4 Biochemical aspects ......................................................................................4 Oral absorption, distribution, excretion and metabolism .......................4 Toxicological studies.....................................................................................5 Acute toxicity.........................................................................................5 Short-term studies of toxicity.................................................................6 Special studies........................................................................................7 Studies on inhibition of cholinesterase activity in vitro ..................7 Short-term study of neurotoxicity ...................................................7 Developmental neurotoxicity..........................................................9 Observations in humans ..............................................................................10 Comments..........................................................................................................12 Toxicological evaluation ...................................................................................13
    [Show full text]
  • Carbamate Pesticides Aldicarb Aldicarb Sulfoxide Aldicarb Sulfone
    Connecticut General Statutes Sec 19a-29a requires the Commissioner of Public Health to annually publish a list setting forth all analytes and matrices for which certification for testing is required. Connecticut ELCP Drinking Water Analytes Revised 05/31/2018 Microbiology Total Coliforms Fecal Coliforms/ E. Coli Carbamate Pesticides Legionella Aldicarb Cryptosporidium Aldicarb Sulfoxide Giardia Aldicarb Sulfone Carbaryl Physicals Carbofuran Turbidity 3-Hydroxycarbofuran pH Methomyl Conductivity Oxamyl (Vydate) Minerals Chlorinated Herbicides Alkalinity, as CaCO3 2,4-D Bromide Dalapon Chloride Dicamba Chlorine, free residual Dinoseb Chlorine, total residual Endothall Fluoride Picloram Hardness, Calcium as Pentachlorophenol CaCO3 Hardness, Total as CaCO3 Silica Chlorinated Pesticides/PCB's Sulfate Aldrin Chlordane (Technical) Nutrients Dieldrin Endrin Ammonia Heptachlor Nitrate Heptachlor Epoxide Nitrite Lindane (gamma-BHC) o-Phosphate Metolachlor Total Phosphorus Methoxychlor PCB's (individual aroclors) Note 1 PCB's (as decachlorobiphenyl) Note 1 Demands Toxaphene TOC Nitrogen-Phosphorus Compounds Alachlor Metals Atrazine Aluminum Butachlor Antimony Diquat Arsenic Glyphosate Barium Metribuzin Beryllium Paraquat Boron Propachlor Cadmium Simazine Calcium Chromium Copper SVOC's Iron Benzo(a)pyrene Lead bis-(2-ethylhexyl)phthalate Magnesium bis-(ethylhexyl)adipate Manganese Hexachlorobenzene Mercury Hexachlorocyclopentadiene Molybdenum Nickel Potassium Miscellaneous Organics Selenium Dibromochloropropane (DBCP) Silver Ethylene Dibromide (EDB)
    [Show full text]
  • Additive Interactions of Some Reduced-Risk Biocides and Two
    www.nature.com/scientificreports OPEN Additive interactions of some reduced‑risk biocides and two entomopathogenic nematodes suggest implications for integrated control of Spodoptera litura (Lepidoptera: Noctuidae) Rashad Rasool Khan 1,2*, Muhammad Arshad 1*, Asad Aslam 3 & Muhammad Arshad 4 Higher volumes of conventional and novel chemical insecticides are applied by farmers to control resistant strains of armyworm (Spodoperta litura) in Pakistan without knowing their risks to the environment and to public health. Ten reduced‑risk insecticides were tested for their compatibility with two entomopathogenic nematodes (EPNs); Heterorhabditis indica and Steinernema carpocapsae rd against S. litura. The insecticide emamectin benzoate was highly toxic (LC50 = 2.97 mg/l) against 3 instar S. litura larvae when applied alone whereas, novaluron and methoxyfenozide were the least toxic (LC50 = 29.56 mg/l and 21.06 mg/l), respectively. All the insecticides proved harmless against the two EPNs even 96 h after treatment. Indoxacarb, fubendiamide and spinetoram produced the greatest mortalities (72–76%) of S. litura larvae after 72 h when applied in mixtures with H. indica. Lowest mortalities (44.00 ± 3.74% and 48.00 ± 2.89) were observed for mixtures of H. indica with methoxyfenozide and chlorfenapyr, respectively. The positive control treatments with both EPNs (S. carpocapsae and H. indica) produced > 50% mortality 96 h after treatment. For insecticide mixtures with S. carpocapsae, only indoxacarb produced 90% mortality of larvae, whereas, indoxacarb, fubendiamide, emamectin benzoate, and spinetoram produced 90–92% mortality of larvae when applied in mixtures with H. indica. Additive interactions (Chi‑square < 3.84) of EPN mixtures with reduced volumes of reduced‑risk insecticides suggest opportunities to develop more environmentally favorable pest management programs for S.
    [Show full text]
  • Coleoptera: Dytiscidae) Rasa Bukontaite1,2*, Kelly B Miller3 and Johannes Bergsten1
    Bukontaite et al. BMC Evolutionary Biology 2014, 14:5 http://www.biomedcentral.com/1471-2148/14/5 RESEARCH ARTICLE Open Access The utility of CAD in recovering Gondwanan vicariance events and the evolutionary history of Aciliini (Coleoptera: Dytiscidae) Rasa Bukontaite1,2*, Kelly B Miller3 and Johannes Bergsten1 Abstract Background: Aciliini presently includes 69 species of medium-sized water beetles distributed on all continents except Antarctica. The pattern of distribution with several genera confined to different continents of the Southern Hemisphere raises the yet untested hypothesis of a Gondwana vicariance origin. The monophyly of Aciliini has been questioned with regard to Eretini, and there are competing hypotheses about the intergeneric relationship in the tribe. This study is the first comprehensive phylogenetic analysis focused on the tribe Aciliini and it is based on eight gene fragments. The aims of the present study are: 1) to test the monophyly of Aciliini and clarify the position of the tribe Eretini and to resolve the relationship among genera within Aciliini, 2) to calibrate the divergence times within Aciliini and test different biogeographical scenarios, and 3) to evaluate the utility of the gene CAD for phylogenetic analysis in Dytiscidae. Results: Our analyses confirm monophyly of Aciliini with Eretini as its sister group. Each of six genera which have multiple species are also supported as monophyletic. The origin of the tribe is firmly based in the Southern Hemisphere with the arrangement of Neotropical and Afrotropical taxa as the most basal clades suggesting a Gondwana vicariance origin. However, the uncertainty as to whether a fossil can be used as a stem-or crowngroup calibration point for Acilius influenced the result: as crowngroup calibration, the 95% HPD interval for the basal nodes included the geological age estimate for the Gondwana break-up, but as a stem group calibration the basal nodes were too young.
    [Show full text]
  • Neurotoxicity in Preclinical Models of Occupational Exposure to Organophosphorus Compounds
    CORE Metadata, citation and similar papers at core.ac.uk Provided by Frontiers - Publisher Connector REVIEW published: 18 January 2017 doi: 10.3389/fnins.2016.00590 Neurotoxicity in Preclinical Models of Occupational Exposure to Organophosphorus Compounds Jaymie R. Voorhees 1, 2*, Diane S. Rohlman 2, 3, Pamela J. Lein 4 and Andrew A. Pieper 1, 2, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9* 1 Department of Psychiatry, University of Iowa Carver College of Medicine, Iowa City, IA, USA, 2 Interdisciplinary Graduate Program in Human Toxicology, University of Iowa Carver College of Medicine, Iowa City, IA, USA, 3 Department of Occupational and Environmental Health, University of Iowa College of Public Health, Iowa City, IA, USA, 4 Department of Molecular Biosciences, School of Veterinary Medicine, University of California, Davis, Davis, CA, USA, 5 Department of Neurology, University of Iowa Carver College of Medicine, Iowa City, IA, USA, 6 Department of Free Radical and Radiation Biology Program, University of Iowa Carver College of Medicine, Iowa City, IA, USA, 7 Department of Radiation Oncology Holden Comprehensive Cancer Center, University of Iowa Carver College of Medicine, Iowa City, IA, USA, 8 Department of Veteran Affairs, University of Iowa Carver College of Medicine, Iowa City, IA, USA, 9 Weill Cornell Autism Research Program, Weill Cornell Medical College, New York, NY, USA Organophosphorus (OPs) compounds are widely used as insecticides, plasticizers, and fuel additives. These compounds potently inhibit acetylcholinesterase (AChE), the enzyme that inactivates acetylcholine at neuronal synapses, and acute exposure to high Edited by: OP levels can cause cholinergic crisis in humans and animals. Evidence further suggests Stefano L.
    [Show full text]
  • Florida State Emergency Response Commission
    Florida State Emergency Response Commission Sub-Committee on Training (SOT) HAZARDOUS MATERIALS MEDICAL TREATMENT PROTOCOLS Version 3.3 TOXIDROMES Toxidromes are clinical syndromes that the patient presents with. These patterns of signs and symptoms are essential for the successful recognition of chemical exposure. The toxidromes identified in this protocol are chemical exposure based while others such as the opioids are found within general medical protocol. These chemical toxidromes are identified clinically into five syndromes: Irritant Gas Toxidrome Asphyxiant Toxidrome Corrosive Toxidrome Hydrocarbon and Halogenated Hydrocarbons Toxidrome Cholinergic Toxidrome Each can present as a clinical manifestation of the chemical/poisoning involved with some cross-over between toxidromes. This list combines the toxic syndromes found within NFPA 473 (A.5.4.1(2) and traditional syndromes. Toxidrome Correlation to NFPA Standard 473 and Traditional Syndromes Toxidrome NFPA 473 A.5.4.1(2) Hazardous Materials Protocol Correlation Irritant Gas (j) Irritants Bronchospasm OC Pepper spray & lacrimants Asphyxiant (c) Chemical asphyxiants Carbon Monoxide (d) Simple asphyxiants Aniline dyes, Nitriles, Nitrares (h) Blood Agents Cyanide & Hydrogen Sulfide (n) Nitrogen Compounds Closed Space Fires Simple Asphyxants Corrosive (a) Corrosives Hydrofluroic Acid (g) Vesicants Chemical burns to the eye Choramine and Chlorine Hydrocarbon (e) Organic solvents Phenol and (q) Phenolic Compounds Halogenated Hydrocarbons Halogenated Hydrocarbons Cholinergic (b) Pesticides
    [Show full text]
  • The Spruce Budworm, Choristoneura Fumiferana
    02-01370 Spruce Budworm Bro 10/10/02 11:09 AM Page 1 MORE INFORMATION The he spruce budworm, Choristoneura fumiferana For more information on Spruce Budworms call: The Tree Line Spruce (Clemens), is the most destructive and widely (204) 945-7866. Or write: Budworm distributed forest defoliator in North America. Manitoba Conservation Forestry Branch In Manitoba T Forest Health and Ecology The destructive phase of this pest is the larval or caterpillar 200 Saulteaux Crescent Winnipeg, Manitoba R3J 3W3 stage. Massive budworm outbreaks occur periodically, Web site: www.gov.mb.ca/natres/forestry/ destroying hundreds of thousands of hectares of valuable fir and spruce. Aerial view of budworm damage In eastern Canada the budworm’s preferred food is balsam fir, Photos courtesy of Canadian Forest Service, Great Lakes Forest Research Centre, white spruce and red spruce. In Manitoba, the budworm Sault Ste. Marie, Ontario and Northern Forest Research Centre, Edmonton, Alberta. feeds primarily on white spruce and balsam fir, and, less frequently, on black spruce. 02-01370 Spruce Budworm Bro 10/10/02 11:09 AM Page 2 DESCRIPTION OF LIFE STAGES LIFE CYCLE DAMAGE CONTROL The adult moth has a wingspread of The female moth lays In light and moderate infestations Various insecticides are used 21 to 30 mm. It is grey-brown in its eggs in July on the damage is restricted to a partial against the spruce budworm to colour with silvery white patches on underside of needles. loss of new foliage, particularly in protect valuable spruce and fir the forewings. Normally, the eggs the upper crown trees.
    [Show full text]
  • Method 8141B
    METHOD 8141B ORGANOPHOSPHORUS COMPOUNDS BY GAS CHROMATOGRAPHY 1.0 SCOPE AND APPLICATION 1.1 This method provides procedures for the gas chromatographic (GC) determination of organophosphorus (OP) compounds. The compounds listed in the table below can be determined by GC using capillary columns with a flame photometric detector (FPD) or a nitrogen-phosphorus detector (NPD). Triazine herbicides can also be determined with this method when the NPD is used. Although performance data are presented for each of the listed chemicals, it is unlikely that all of them could be determined in a single analysis. This limitation results because the chemical and chromatographic behavior of many of these chemicals can result in co-elution. The analyst must select columns, detectors, and calibration procedures for the specific analytes of interest. Any listed chemical is a potential method interference when it is not a target analyte. Analyte CAS Registry No. Organophosphorus Pesticides Asponb 3244-90-4 Azinphos-methyl 86-50-0 Azinphos-ethyla 2642-71-9 Bolstar (Sulprofos) 35400-43-2 Carbophenothiona 786-19-6 Chlorfenvinphosa 470-90-6 Chlorpyrifos 2921-88-2 Chlorpyrifos methyla 5598-13-0 Coumaphos 56-72-4 Crotoxyphosa 7700-17-6 Demeton-Oc 8065-48-3 Demeton-Sc 8065-48-3 Diazinon 333-41-5 Dichlorofenthiona 97-17-6 Dichlorvos (DDVP) 62-73-7 Dicrotophosa 141-66-2 Dimethoate 60-51-5 Dioxathiona,c 78-34-2 Disulfoton 298-04-4 EPN 2104-64-5 Ethiona 563-12-2 Ethoprop 13194-48-4 Famphura 52-85-7 8141B - 1 Revision 2 November 2000 Analyte CAS Registry No. Fenitrothiona
    [Show full text]
  • Cardiovascular Monitoring with Acetylcholinesterase Inhibitors: a Clinical Protocol† Jeremy P
    Advances in Psychiatric Treatment (2007), vol. 13, 178–184 doi: 10.1192/apt.bp.106.002725 Cardiovascular monitoring with acetylcholinesterase inhibitors: a clinical protocol† Jeremy P. Rowland, John Rigby, Adam C. Harper & Rosalind Rowland Abstract There has been significant anxiety among prescribers regarding the potential for cardiac adverse effects associated with acetylcholinesterase (AChE) inhibitors in Alzheimer’s disease. There is no consensus on how to manage this cardiovascular risk, and memory clinics vary widely in their practice. Review of published evidence reveals that the incidence of cardiovascular side-effects is low, and that serious adverse events are rare. Intensive cardiovascular screening such as pre-treatment electrocardiograms or 24 h cardiac monitoring is not justified. Furthermore, there are no high-risk groups to target. This article suggests pragmatic guidelines for managing cardiovascular risk in patients receiving AChE inhibitors. The guidelines are intended to be easy to incorporate into routine clinical practice in a memory clinic. A few years ago it was estimated that almost 18 thus followed some uncertainty as to how treatment million people worldwide had dementia (Alzheimer’s should be properly managed. Society, 2004), with Alzheimer’s disease accounting Since the manufacturers’ cautions remain (see the for over half of cases (Fratiglioni, 2000). The second- relevant entries in http://emc.medicines.org.uk) and generation acetylcholinesterase (AChE) inhibitors guidance has been unforthcoming, services now vary donepezil, rivastigmine and galantamine were widely in their practice: some, for example, require introduced into clinical practice from 1997 for the electrocardiograms (ECGs) before use and during symptomatic treatment of Alzheimer’s disease, and treatment, whereas others do not.
    [Show full text]
  • RR Program's RCL Spreadsheet Update
    RR Program’s RCL Spreadsheet Update March 2017 RR Program RCL Spreadsheet Update DNR-RR-052e The Wisconsin DNR Remediation and Redevelopment Program (RR) has updated the numerical soil standards in the August 2015 DNR-RR- 052b RR spreadsheet of residual contaminant levels (RCLs). The RCLs were determined using the U.S. EPA RSL web- calculator by accepting EPA exposure defaults, with the exception of using Chicago, IL, for the climatic zone. This documentThe U.S. provides EPA updateda summary its Regionalof changes Screening to the direct-contact Level (RSL) RCLs website (DC-RCLs) in June that2015. are To now reflect in the that March 2017 spreadsheet.update, the The Wisconsin last page ofDNR this updated document the has numerical the EPA exposuresoil standards, parameter or residual values usedcontaminant in the RCL levels calculations. (RCLs), in the Remediation and Redevelopment program’s spreadsheet of RCLs. This document The providesU.S. EPA a RSL summary web-calculator of the updates has been incorporated recently updated in the Julyso that 2015 the spreadsheet.most up-to-date There toxicity were values no changes for chemi - cals madewere certainlyto the groundwater used in the RCLs,RCL calculations. but there are However, many changes it is important in the industrial to note that and the non-industrial web-calculator direct is only a subpartcontact of the (DC) full RCLsEPA RSL worksheets. webpage, Tables and that 1 andthe other 2 of thissubparts document that will summarize have important the DC-RCL explanatory changes text, generic tablesfrom and the references previous have spreadsheet yet to be (Januaryupdated.
    [Show full text]
  • Pesticide Residue Monitoring in Sediment and Surface Water Within the South Florida Water Management District Volume 2
    Technical Publication 91-01 Pesticide Residue Monitoring in Sediment and Surface Water Within the South Florida Water Management District Volume 2 by Richard J. Pfeuffer January 1991 This publication was produced at an annual cost of $243.75 or $.49 per copy to inform the public. 500 191 Produced on recycled paper. Water Quality Division Research and Evaluation Department South Florida Water Management District West Palm Beach, Florida A IBSTRAC'I' Pesticide monitoring data are collected under the requirements of several permits and agreements as an indicator of water quality. The monitoring provides data to determine shifts or adverse trends in the quality of water being delivered to Lake Okeechobee, Everglades National Park, and the Water Conservation Areas. In addition, pesticide residue data are collected throughout the South Florida Water Management District at locations selected to determine water quality conditions at the major water control points. Special investigations are performed on selected pesticides as required and follow-up sampling is conducted based on the pesticides detected. Data were collected from 13 stations in 1984. By 1988, the network was expanded to 29 stations. Currently, water and sediment samples are collected quarterly and analyzed for 67 pesticides, herbicides and degradation products. Out of a total of 197 surface water samples, 13 percent had detectable residues, while 25 percent of the 208 sediment samples had detectable residues. The compounds detected in the water samples included atrazine and zinc phosphide while a variety of compounds, including DDT, have been detected in the sediment. None of the residues detected are considered to have adverse health or environmental effects.
    [Show full text]
  • Determination of Organophosphorus Pesticide Residues in Vegetables Using Solid Phase Micro-Extraction Coupled with Gas Chromatography–flame Photometric Detector
    Arabian Journal of Chemistry (2015) xxx, xxx–xxx King Saud University Arabian Journal of Chemistry www.ksu.edu.sa www.sciencedirect.com ORIGINAL ARTICLE Determination of organophosphorus pesticide residues in vegetables using solid phase micro-extraction coupled with gas chromatography–flame photometric detector Haizarul Aida Sapahin, Ahmad Makahleh *, Bahruddin Saad * School of Chemical Sciences, Universiti Sains Malaysia, 11800 Minden, Penang, Malaysia Received 17 July 2014; accepted 9 December 2014 KEYWORDS Abstract An adequate and simple analytical method based on solid-phase microextraction Organophosphorus pesticide; (SPME) followed by gas chromatography–flame photometric detection (GC–FPD) for the determi- Direct immersed-solid phase nation of eleven organophosphorus pesticide residues (i.e., ethoprophos, sulfotep, diazinon, tolclo- microextraction; fos-methyl, fenitrothion, chlorpyrifos, isofenphos, methidathion, ethion, triazophos, leptophos) in Gas chromatography–flame vegetables samples (cabbage, kale and mustard) was developed. Important parameters that influ- photometric detector; ence the extraction efficiency (i.e., fibre type, extraction modes, extraction time, salt addition, Vegetables desorption time and temperature) were systematically investigated. Four types of commercially available fibres (i.e., 50/30 lm divinylbenzene/carboxen/polydimethylsiloxane (DVB/CAR/PDMS), 65 lm polydimethylsiloxane/divinylbenzene (PDMS/DVB), 100 lm polydimethylsiloxane (PDMS), and 85 lm polyacrylate (PA)) were evaluated. PA fibre exhibited the best performance and was used for the rest of the studies. The optimised extraction conditions were: extraction time, 30 min at room temperature; stirring speed, 1275 rpm; salt content, 10% NaCl; desorption time and temper- ature, 11 min at 260 °C; and no pH adjustment of the sample extract. The method was validated over the range 0.1–100 lg/L.
    [Show full text]