Residue of Pesticides in Fruits, Vegetables, and Their Management in Ethiopia

Gelaye, Yohannes; Negash, Belete

doi:https://doi.org/10.1155/2024/9948714

Journal of Chemistry

On this page

Abstract Introduction Conclusion Data Availability Conflicts of Interest Authors’ Contributions References Copyright Related Articles

Review Article | Open Access

Volume 2024 | Article ID 9948714 | https://doi.org/10.1155/2024/9948714

Residue of Pesticides in Fruits, Vegetables, and Their Management in Ethiopia

Yohannes Gelaye¹and Belete Negash¹

Academic Editor: Eulogio J. Llorent Mart Nez

Received24 Feb 2023

Revised21 Mar 2023

Accepted15 Dec 2023

Published03 Jan 2024

Abstract

In Ethiopia, using pesticides to manage pests in the growing of fruits and vegetables is a standard practice. Various classes of pesticides have been approved to combat pests, but the majority of those in use now are outdated broad-spectrum insecticides with significant residual effects on crops of freshly eaten fruits and vegetables. This review reveals that Ethiopia’s assessment of the residual pesticide level in fruits and vegetables has been lacking. According to the reviewed literature, crops that are often treated with pesticides in many countries have significant residual pesticide levels. However, Ethiopia has not adequately reported on this issue. Furthermore, due to a lack of knowledge regarding the impact of pesticide residues on human health, Ethiopians frequently use pesticides improperly to control pests in fruits and vegetables. The majority of consumers eat their fruits and vegetables unprocessed, without washing or cooking them first. To reduce the risk of pesticide residues in fruits and vegetables for consumer safety and to battle the health effects of toxic chemicals in humans, monitoring pesticide residues and raising awareness about the adverse effects of pesticides on humans are urgently needed. Before they may be registered and sold, pesticide residues in fruits and vegetables as well as in the environment must also undergo proper testing and evaluation. New pesticide generations that have fewer side effects on fruits and vegetables must also be developed. By washing, peeling, canning, or boiling fruits and vegetables before consumption, the detrimental effects of pesticide residues on human health can be minimized.

1. Introduction

Fruits and vegetables are essential elements of our daily diet and play a significant role in human nutrition and health and are important sources of carbs, vitamins, trace minerals, and antioxidants, including fruits and vegetables [1]. Vegetable and fruit consumption and demand have increased as a result of greater public knowledge of their health advantages. Increased consumption of fruits and vegetables has been recommended to prevent conditions such as vitamin deficiencies and to lower the occurrence of serious illnesses such as cancer and cardiovascular disorders [2]. Based on the National Bank of Ethiopia, fresh fruits and vegetables earned $56 million in export sales, or approximately 2% of all agricultural exports from Ethiopia in 2016-17 [3].

One of the main production challenges that Ethiopian fruit and vegetable growers encounter is pests, and in the Ethiopian agricultural system, weeds, illnesses, and insects all play significant roles in lowering crop yields and causing food poverty [4]. Pesticides are used in the majority of agricultural production sectors to reduce pests, increase output, and enhance product quality. Pesticides are used during cropping in conjunction with other pest control approaches to eradicate insects and stop illnesses to minimize loss and maintain the quality of fruits and vegetables during harvest [5]. To avoid, eliminate, or deter pests that could harm crops, pesticides are used in the production of fruits and vegetables, and because pesticides function quickly and require less work than other pest management techniques, their use has expanded [6]. To avoid crop damage from insects, mites, rodents, and other pests or to limit the growth of weeds and fungi, pesticides are routinely used in a number of various ways during the production of food. It is currently a necessary component of modern life and is employed to safeguard agricultural land, grain bins, and flower gardens and to eliminate pests that spread infectious diseases that are deadly, and nearly $38 billion is thought to be spent annually on insecticides worldwide [7]. However, fruits and vegetables commonly have pesticide residues after harvest because pesticides are frequently used throughout production [8]. Numerous elements of the water, air, and soil ecosystem have been contaminated by the continual application of persistent and nonbiodegradable pesticides [9]. Additionally, pesticides have bioaccumulated at the upper tropic level of the food chain, and more recently, exposure to pesticides has been linked to a number of acute and chronic human disorders [10].

Although Ethiopia has previously used few chemical pesticides, recent changes in increased agricultural production and the floriculture business have led to increased pesticide consumption [11]. Food quality has significantly declined because of extensive pesticide use in agricultural fields, and small-scale vegetable growers in Ethiopia disregard recommendations and use pesticides carelessly [12]. The environment, farmer and consumer health, and agricultural sustainability are all affected by these pesticide use practices, and a major global public health concern is the presence of pesticide residues in horticulture products at unsafe levels [13]. Since the majority of them are consumed raw, fruits and vegetables are likely to have higher levels of pesticide residue than other food groups of plant origin [14].

Pesticide residual effects have been a major source of worry; however, replacing high-toxic chemicals with new pesticide formulations that have less of an impact on humans and taking into account nonchemical pest control strategies such as biological, resistance cultivar, and cultural control, as well as technological innovation for producing low-risk pesticides and developing effective application approaches and improving organic farming systems, can lessen the impact of pesticide residue [15]. In addition, depending on the type of pesticide and the time of treatment, pasteurization, blanching, boiling, heating, steaming, canning, and scrambling have all been reported to be beneficial in the degradation of different pesticides [16]. To increase agricultural output, many pesticides, including herbicides, insecticides, fungicides, pyrethroids, organochlorines, and organophosphorus, are commonly used in Ethiopia to grow fruits and vegetables [17]. The amount and use of pesticides in agriculture have significantly increased over the last several years, and it is projected that this development trend will remain in the near future [18]. Despite the benefits of pesticides, their negative effects on human health and environmental quality have been extensively studied worldwide and are a major source of concern on a local, national, regional, and international scale [19]. Ethiopia has limited knowledge regarding the quantity of pesticide residues present in fruits and vegetables and how such residues affect human health [20]. Thus, the objective of this review is to better inform the public on the impacts of pesticide residues and available strategies for reducing them in fruits and vegetables.

2. Pesticide Use in Fruits and Vegetables

When a product or mixture of compounds is used to kill, deter, or control pests such as rodents, weeds, mites, or insects, it is referred to as a pesticide, and pesticides are usually categorized as insecticides, herbicides, fungicides, acaricides, rodenticides, and other substances used to control specific target pests [21]. In agriculture, pesticides are frequently employed mostly to increase crop yields and generate a large amount of food to feed the world’s expanding population; additionally, they are utilized to control insect-borne diseases and safeguard crops from pests [22]. Pesticide residues in food products accumulate excessively, and the increased usage of pesticides contaminates the environment, both of which have long been of concern [23]. The main benefits of employing pesticides include increasing crop yields or productivity by protecting crops from weeds, diseases, and pests, as well as preventing crop products from going bad while being kept and extending the shelf life of fruits and vegetables to maintain marketability.

Different types of pesticides are used on different crops in different nations to avoid pests, insects, and weeds, and more crops that have been treated with pesticides are being imported into other countries as global trade expands [24]. Public health issues arise from the spread of pesticide residues across international borders because of interactions. Pesticides come in a wide range, 500 insecticides with diverse applications are now in use, and the most hazardous insecticides to the environment are those that include organochlorines [25]. The recent addition of a number of diverse chemical groups to pesticides has increased agricultural production in Ethiopia by providing crop growers with a variety of options for improved insect management. The increase in investment in agricultural fields is to blame for the worrisome increase in the sensible use of pesticides, and pesticides are, therefore, imported without being registered or put through an efficacy test [26]. In the central rift valley of Ethiopia, vegetable growers utilized 24 pesticides, of which 2/3 were not approved for use on vegetables [11]. Additionally, as a result of the recent rapid expansion, particularly of large-scale floriculture firms, the nation now utilizes more pesticides and handles them poorly. Many pesticides, such as carbamate, pyrethroid, organochlorine, and organophosphorus insecticides, fungicides, and herbicides, are frequently used in the production of fruits and vegetables to increase agricultural productivity [27]. Ridomil, Selecron, Mancozeb, Ethiotate, Cruzate, Profit, Karate, and Malathion, among other pesticides, are routinely used 5–8 times per season on agricultural fields that grow irrigated crops [28]. Organophosphates, in particular acephate, diazinon, dichlorvos, monocrotophos, dimethoate, profenofos, and cadusafos, have been outlawed since 1990 as one of the classes of pesticides most dangerous to vertebrates. However, Ethiopia continues to utilize the bulk of organophosphate insecticides to manage pests on fruits and vegetables [29].

Pesticide residues, which are sometimes present in food products after harvesting, are beyond the consumer’s control and are harmful to human health, and pesticide residues are a significant barrier to the worldwide trade of food products [30]. Some international markets do not accept horticulture exports from some poor countries due to residual pesticide levels, and the location of pesticides in food varies depending on the type and amount of food material, the type and amount of the pesticide molecule, and environmental conditions [31].

What happens to pesticides after being applied to fruits and vegetables?

As a result of transportation, partitioning, transformation, or degradation, an agent’s fate refers to the pattern of distribution of that agent, its derivatives, or its metabolites in an organism, system, compartment, or (sub)population of concern [32]. After being applied to crops, pesticides may interact with the surfaces of the plants, are exposed to environmental variables such as wind and sunlight, and may be washed off during rain [33]. The pesticide may be absorbed by the plant surface (waxy cuticle and root surfaces) and go systemically into the plant or it may remain on the plant’s surface (contact), and the pesticide can degrade chemically and microbiologically while it is still on the surface of the crop through wash-off, volatilization, photolysis (Figure 1), and other processes [34]. Only 1% of pesticides sprayed on the ground actually kill the intended insect; the other 99% end up polluting the environment (bodies of water, soil, air, and nontarget creatures) through drift, volatilization, leaching, and runoff [35]. The three main mechanisms reported by scholars that determine the fates of pesticides on the target site are adsorption, transfer, and degradation [36].

2.1. Adsorption

A pesticide is chemically bonded or adsorbed to a soil particle through the process of adsorption, and for instance, fragments of a positively charged pesticide molecule might electrically bond with negatively charged clay minerals or organic material [37]. The characteristics of the soil and pesticide affect the adsorption, and the interaction between the chemical characteristics of the pesticide, its concentration in the soil water, the pH of the soil, and the makeup of the soil determines the strength of the bonding (percent sand, silt, loam, clay, and organic matter). The herbicide is unlikely to leach or discharge if it is bonded to the soil, and some insecticides that are extremely soluble adhere firmly to the soil [38]. The soil holds the pesticide more tightly and makes it immobile the more clay and organic matter there are in the soil, and pesticide molecules that have been heavily adsorbed do not leak or move until the soil particles to which they have adhered do so (via erosion) [39]. A pesticide’s molecules are more likely to undergo microbial breakdown the longer they are retained, which lowers the risk of leaching and runoff.

2.2. Transfer

The term “transfer” describes the procedures that take the pesticide from the application site away, such as crop removal, volatilization, runoff, leaching, and absorption, and transferring the insecticide is sometimes necessary for pest control [40]. For instance, certain preemergence herbicides require irrigation or rainfall to penetrate the soil and reach the roots of weed seeds that germinate.

2.2.1. Volatilization

When a liquid or solid transforms into a gas and spreads away from the original application location, this process is known as volatilization, and the insecticide typically begins to volatilize immediately after being applied in the field [41]. The procedure is reliant on the pesticide’s vapor pressure, and low vapor pressure pesticides stay on the surface for a longer period of time than those with high vapor pressure, which tend to volatilize quickly into the air [42]. The rate of volatilization is also influenced by external variables, including temperature and wind speed, and the rate of pesticide evaporation increases with increasing speed and temperature [43].

2.2.2. Absorption

The uptake of pesticide compounds into plant tissues is referred to as absorption, and this action eliminates the herbicide from the environment and stops it from contaminating the water supply [44]. Once a pesticide is ingested, the majority of it degrades, and when a plant decomposes, pesticide residues may be broken down or may still be there and be released back into the environment [44]. Some pesticides persist in the soil long enough for plants planted in a field to be exposed to them years later.

2.2.3. Movement in Runoff Water

Pesticides that are either dissolved in or suspended in runoff waters travel across the soil surface from the application location when they are either soluble or insoluble [45]. Pesticides that are dissolved or suspended in runoff water can swiftly contaminate surface waters, including lakes, streams, and rivers, and the ease with which a pesticide dissolves in water depends on its water solubility [46]. A pesticide that is very soluble has a higher chance of being removed from any surface where it has been used, and the maximum amount of a pesticide that will dissolve in 1 liter (1.06 quarts) of water is how solubility is typically expressed [47].

2.2.4. Leaching to Groundwater

Pesticides migrate downward in the soil through pores and fissures, which is known as leaching, and as water descends, soil typically filters it to remove impurities such as pesticides [48]. Pesticide migration can be influenced by the characteristics of the soil, the pesticides, location, and weather (leaching), and pesticides that leak through soil may contaminate ground water [49]. Pesticide application (rate of application and application method), soil qualities (organic matter, soil texture, and soil acidity), pesticide properties (solubility, adsorption, and persistence), and weather conditions are the elements that affect leaching [50]. If the pesticide is water soluble, the soil is sandy, a rain event happens soon after spraying, the pesticide is not strongly adsorbed to the soil, or all four, leaching may be exacerbated [40].

2.3. Degradation

Degradation is the process by which a pesticide is broken down after use, and microbes, chemical processes, and light or photodegradation breakdown pesticides [51]. Depending on the surrounding environment and the chemical properties of the pesticide, this process can take hours, days, weeks, or even years [52].

2.3.1. Microbial Degradation

Microbial metabolism has the potential to breakdown certain pesticides and microorganisms, such as fungi, bacteria, and other soil microbes, which is known as microbial degradation, breaking down pesticides [39]. Microbial degradation is influenced by soil organic matter, texture, and site conditions such as moisture, temperature, aeration, and pH, and most microbial activity typically occurs in soils that are warm, moist, well aerated, and pH neutral [53]. When the following conditions are met: soil pH is favorable, soil moisture and oxygen are sufficient, and soil fertility is high, microbial decomposition tends to rise, and in places with large levels of organic matter, particularly in the surface soil layers, the microbial breakdown happens more quickly [54]. The rate often drops as one goes deeper into the soil, where microbial activity is less favored by factors including moisture, temperature, and aeration [55]. Pesticides can be broken down into carbon dioxide and water by microorganisms by using them as nutrients, or they can be converted into metabolites [39]. Pesticides cannot always be assimilated by bacteria due to variations between their molecules and those found in naturally occurring organic compounds and pesticides, although they may be changed at reactive sites, and depending on the original substance, the metabolites produced might be more or less harmful [56].

2.3.2. Chemical Degradation

Hydrolysis and chemical reduction or oxidation reactions are a few examples of chemical degradation processes, and when a pesticide interacts with water, oxygen, or other compounds in the soil, chemical breakdown takes place [57]. Microbial activity often declines as soil pH goes from severely acidic to excessively alkaline, and these circumstances might, however, encourage quick chemical deterioration [58]. Pesticides are broken down chemically in the soil through chemical reactions, and soil temperatures, pH levels, and pesticide binding to the soil influence the rate and kind of chemical reactions that take place [59].

2.3.3. Hydrolysis

By breaking down large molecules into smaller ones through a process known as hydrolysis, water also breaks down pesticides, and pesticides can hydrolyze on the soil’s surface, in the root zone, or wherever there is access to water [60]. At or close to the soil surface, warm water may have high hydrolysis activity, and the rate of hydrolysis decreases as the water temperature drops below the root zone and hydrolysis significantly slows down in deep groundwater [61].

2.3.4. Photodegradation

Photolysis, also known as photodecomposition, is the process by which compounds are broken down by light, and plants, soil, water, and any other surface that receives sunshine all experience photolysis [62]. When molecules take in solar energy, photolysis takes place, which leads to the breakdown of pesticides, and the indirect reaction can also result from other compounds that are broken down by sunlight and their byproducts reacting with insecticides [63]. To some extent, photodegradation can affect all insecticides, and the rate of photodegradation is influenced by the amount of sunlight, the amount of time exposed, and the characteristics of the pesticide. Pesticides that are integrated into the soil are less likely to photodegrade than those that are applied on foliage or the soil’s surface, and pesticides may deteriorate more quickly in greenhouses wrapped in plastic than in glass since the latter blocks most of the UV light that causes pesticide degradation [64].

3. Residue Levels of Pesticides

Based on the appropriate daily intake (ADI) and acute reference dosage, it has been shown that consuming plant food products with pesticide residue levels over the MRLs can result in acute illness and chronic disorders (ARfD) [65]. It has become known that appropriate daily intake for short-term exposure or ARfD is used to compare safety limits, and if the estimated dietary intake of a pesticide residue does not exceed the ADI or the ARfD, the consumer is not regarded as being at risk. To prevent the negative effects of hazardous chemicals on human health, monitoring and setting maximum residue levels for pesticide residues in food products is an efficient control method [66]. The highest amounts of residues anticipated to be present in food when a pesticide is used in accordance with approved agricultural practices are known as maximum residue levels [67]. The use pattern established from effectiveness studies that results in the lowest effective rate for the specific 12 pest-crop combinations is known to be a good agricultural practice (GAP) and is characterized as such [68]. The application rate and the preharvest interval, often known as the time between the most recent application and harvest, are part of the use pattern (PHI), and a variety of climates, growth techniques, crops, and cultivars that the pesticide has been sprayed to utilizing GAP are covered by the residue data used to calculate the MRL [69]. To establish the MRLs, a minimum quantity of field trials must be conducted, and when a pesticide is used in crucial GAP, the supervised trials should accurately represent the range of residues that are expected to be present in typical agricultural practices [70]. Critical GAP describes the situations in which the pesticide formulation’s maximum application rate and minimal PHI are employed and each country and region will inevitably have its own GAP, but the GLOBALGAP organization has launched an endeavor to create one standard for GAP with a variety of product applications that may be applied to all global agriculture [71]. More than 100 countries around the world already have organizations in operation, and MRLs are set using modeling and statistical techniques, expert judgment, or both [72]. There are currently no procedures that are universally applicable for estimating MRLs for pesticides, and expert opinion is necessary for calculating MRL, particularly during the data selection stage. It is important to realize that MRLs are not absolute safety thresholds; food residues might have levels beyond MRL and still be safe to eat, and risk assessment organizations, such as the EFSA in the EU or JMPR for CODEX Alimentarius, evaluate the data from supervised trials [73]. Safety limits are evaluated in relation to acute reference doses (ARfD) for short-term exposure or recommended daily intakes (ADI) for long-term exposure, and the lowest limit of the analytical determination is established as the MRL in the absence of the MRL [74]. The EU standard is 0.01 mg/kg, and MRLs are established according to legal requirements in most countries [75].

4. Monitoring of Pesticide Residues

Pesticide monitoring systems are designed to ensure that fruit and vegetable residues do not exceed the maximum residue levels (MRLs) permitted by the nation’s government. They make sure that pesticides are not misused in a way that leaves unintended residues in food and that GAP is upheld [76]. Some initiatives are carried out as a result of expectations placed on them by international trade, primarily in developing nations. The outcomes of these monitoring programs are also utilized by regulatory organizations for upcoming MRL innovations and public health risk assessment exercises [77]. Since pesticide residues in food have drawn much attention as a crucial component of food safety, national and international legislation has tightened MRL observance, and reliable analytical techniques are needed to monitor residue levels in food [78]. However, pesticides are typically found in very small amounts in both the environment and food, and they are numerous and have various physicochemical characteristics. Researching and quantifying their residues is an ongoing task that calls for the use of extremely sensitive and trustworthy multiresidue analysis techniques, and there are various methods of analysis, which one is used depending on the type of pesticides being investigated and the matrices being targeted [79]. Analyzing pesticide residues is a crucial step in establishing the safety of applying particular pesticides, and there are several analytical techniques intended to identify various pesticide residues [14]. New extraction techniques, such as solid-phase microextraction and supercritical fluid extraction, have been developed in recent years [80]. The most popular approach for determining pesticide residue in vegetables and fruits includes HPLC and GC (Tables 1 and 2), and they are straightforward application technologies [14]. The primary benefits of these technologies include streamlining laboratory sample preparation tasks and lowering solvent and glassware usage, low cost, and generation of small amounts of waste, unlike other conventional techniques [92].

QuEChERS’ benefits include using less material and solvent, taking less time to prepare the sample, and having a highly effective extraction process [93]. More than 200 different compound types can be detected simultaneously, and the recovery rate is better than 80%. Correction is carried out using an internal standard method, which has high precision and accuracy. It is also easy to use and has a short detection time, and 30–40 preweighed samples can be processed in one hour. The QuEChERS approach, however, has a poor purifying capacity, which might cause contamination issues and impair measurement accuracy [94]. It has always been challenging to prepare samples for the investigation of trace chemicals in problematic matrices [95].

5. Determination of Pesticides

After the extraction procedure is finished, the isolated chemicals are separated, recognized, and tested in the analysis process, and gas chromatography (GC) and liquid chromatography are typically utilized for the identification and quantification of pesticides, depending on the type of pesticides being examined [96]. Gas chromatography, GC-mass spectrometry, GC-ion trap mass spectrometry, and GC-tandem mass spectrometry are typically used to determine pesticides [97]. Other conventional quantification techniques exist in addition to GC‒MS, such as high-performance liquid chromatography (HPLC), HPLC-mass spectrometry, low-pressure gas chromatography-mass spectrometry, and liquid chromatography-tandem mass spectrometry [98].

6. Pesticide Residues in Fruits and Vegetables

Fruits and vegetables are significant components of Ethiopian horticulture, where pesticides are heavily utilized [99]. While the histories of pest control, increased pesticide use, and pesticide problems in these two regions are similar, they differ in terms of their organizational structures, farm sizes, on-farm technical and human capacities, the state’s commitment and involvement, the degree of international embeddedness of the product chain, and the actions (strategies) taken to influence pesticide use [100]. Diseases and insect pests are some of the main issues facing Ethiopian growers of fruits and vegetables, and these are extremely susceptible to a variety of illnesses and insect pests, necessitating careful pest management [101]. Fruit and vegetables are frequently sprayed with pesticides during growth by most farmers and commercial producers because pesticides reduce the toxins produced by food-infecting organisms, boost productivity, and require less labor [102]. Because pesticides are known to have potentially hazardous effects on humans, the presence of pesticide residues worries customers, and when data presented for fruits, vegetables, and processed crop-based foods were evaluated independently, higher rates of pesticide residues in conventional crops were found [102]. Pesticide residues were more frequently found in conventional fruits than in vegetables and crop-based compound foods, although contamination rates among the various organic crop types were quite similar [103]. Detectable residues were found more frequently in conventional fruits (75%) than in vegetables (32%), which may indicate that crop protection inputs were used at higher levels in fruit crops [104]. However, the use of more persistent chemicals, different sprayer technologies, and/or the timing of pesticide applications closer to harvest could also explain this difference [105]. There were up to nine residues found in grapes and tea, up to five to nine residues in citrus fruits such as oranges, mandarins, lemons, peaches, and pears, and up to three residues in pomegranates, plums, cucumbers, tomatoes, and strawberries [106]. Many commodities included multiple residues per product, and imazalil, thiabendazole, chlorpyrifos, maneb group, procymidone, methidathion, lambda-cyhalothrin, carbendazim, iprodione, orthophenylphenol, vinclozolin, endosulfan, pyrimethanil, fenhexamid, prochloraz, cyprodinil, and boscalid were the pesticide residues [107]. Thiabendazole and imazalil residues are frequently found because these pesticides are frequently applied to citrus fruits and bananas after harvest to protect the crop during the transport process, which can take several weeks [108]. Apples have been rated as the most contaminated crop for five years in a row, followed by strawberries, nectarines, peaches, celery, grapes, cherries, spinach, tomatoes, sweet bell peppers, cherry tomatoes, and cucumbers on the Environmental Working Group’s (EWG) 2014 list of the 12 most pesticide-contaminated vegetables and fruits [109]. Pesticides are routinely applied indoors and outdoors in Ethiopia to boost productivity and protect various food items from pests both before and after harvest. Smallholder farmers frequently use pesticides improperly, which can result in acute poisoning and health problems such as headaches, vomiting, skin irritation, and eye irritation, as well as high residual pesticide levels in food and drinking water [110]. Additionally, the Ethiopian Federal Ministry of Health uses indoor residual pesticides such as DDT and dieldrin to shield people from diseases spread by mosquitoes [111]. These operations might possibly contaminate various food products made in Ethiopia, which could, therefore, have an impact on public health and extensive and incorrect pesticide application in the field, resulting in pesticide residues (MRLs) on commercialized maize, teff, red pepper, and coffee that are too high according to the Codex Alimentarius. The remaining one-third of the samples had residue levels over the maximum residue limits, whereas two-thirds of the samples had residue levels below the respective maximum residue limits [111]. Pesticide residues have been found in frequently consumed fruits and vegetables in Kuwait, and in 21% of the samples, pesticide residues over the maximum residue limits (MRLs) were found, while in 79% of the samples, no pesticide residues were found or the amount of residue found was below the MRL [112]. Four samples were contaminated with more than four pesticide residues, and 40% of samples containing two to four pesticides included multiple residues. Sixteen of the pesticides under investigation were found, with the MRLs being surpassed for imidacloprid, deltamethrin, cypermethrin, malathion, acetamiprid, monocrotophos, chlorpyrifos-methyl, and diazinon [113].

In Ghana, fruits and vegetables have been shown to contain pyrethroid, organochlorine, and organophosphate pesticides, and the analysis results revealed that 39.2% of the samples of fruits and vegetables had no detectable amounts of the pesticides under observation, 51.0% had trace levels of pesticide residues below the maximum residue limit (MRL), and 9.8% had levels over the MRL [114]. A total of 317 samples of fruits and vegetables from Poland’s central and eastern regions were examined in 2014 for pesticide residues, and in 89 (28.1%) of the tested samples, pesticide residues were found in 65 (38.2%) fruit samples and 24 (16.3%) vegetable samples [115]. In 2 samples (0.6%), MRLs were surpassed, and 100% of the gooseberry samples and 71.4% of the apple samples had pesticide residues.

In 518 samples from 20 different types of vegetables used in this investigation, a total of 32 pesticide residues were found, and the MRLs were exceeded by 7.7% of the observed pesticide residues [116]. For leafy, melon and fruit, and root vegetables, the percentages of residues that exceeded the MRLs were 11.2%, 5.1%, and 1.6%, respectively, and the percentage of samples that exceeded the MRLs for various vegetables did not vary by season [117]. A total of 84.3% (27/32) of pesticides were found in quantities that were higher than MRLs, and in addition, 11 (40.7%) of the 27 pesticides that exceeded MRLs were prohibited from use in agriculture [118]. The three pesticides that were most commonly found were dimethoate (8.1%), dichlorvos (8.7%), and malathion (9.4%) [119].

7. Management of Pesticide Residues in Fruits and Vegetables

Different pesticides are employed in many nations for a variety of crops to control pests, insects, and weeds, and foods that have been pesticide-treated are being imported into more nations because of increased global trade [120]. These international trades contribute to the spread of pesticide residues around the globe, posing a risk to public health. By taking preventive measures, such as using pesticides responsibly, washing and properly processing food products, utilizing organic farming practices, using natural pesticides and biopesticides, and strictly enforcing and amending pesticide-related laws, the impact of pesticide residues can be reduced [121]. Depending on the type of pesticide and the time of the treatment, several thermal processing techniques, such as pasteurization, blanching, boiling, heating, steaming, canning, and scrambling, have been proven to be beneficial in the degradation of various pesticides, and other studies have shown that it is crucial to wash, peel, cook or boil, fry, ferment, or grind food products to reduce pesticide residues [122].

7.1. Organic Farming

Eating organic foods rather than conventional foods was advised to reduce pesticide residue and is excellent for human health as one of the strategies used to reduce the influence of pesticide residue in food [123]. In conventional meta-analyses, nonorganic crops were four times more likely than organic crops to contain detectable pesticide residues [124]. There is evidence to suggest that eating organic food may lessen exposure to pesticide residues in food, and in general, across areas and production seasons, organic crops have fewer pesticide residues than their nonorganic counterparts [22]. Pesticide residues were significantly more common in conventionally cultivated fruit (75 ± 5%), or roughly seven times more frequently than in organic fruit [125]. In conventional vegetables and crop-based processed foods, the frequency of pesticide residues was three to four times higher than that in organic foods [126].

7.2. Washing Food Products

Removing pesticide residues from fruits and vegetables requires washing with water or detergent, and the washing solution, the pesticide’s chemical characteristics, the surface area, the type of food, the amount of time the pesticide is in contact with the food, and the pesticide’s formulation and application method all affect how effective washing treatments are at removing pesticides [127]. The pesticide typically becomes embedded in wax-like exterior layers before moving inside, making washing and removing the pesticides less effective, and the reduction in pesticide residues seen in the literature review ranged from 0 to 90% [128]. The effectiveness is influenced by the residue’s location, age, water solubility, temperature, and washing method.

7.3. Processing Food Products

The bulk of foods go through processing procedures including washing, peeling, canning, or cooking before consumption, all of which contribute to a reduction in residues left on crops upon harvest [129]. Boiling may eliminate 35–60% of organophosphate residues and 20–25% of organochlorine residues, reducing the amount of pesticide residues in food [130]. With the exception of systemic pesticides, it has been demonstrated that peeling and trimming fruits and vegetables considerably reduces or eliminates pesticide residues, and it has been shown that after peeling, nonsystemic chlorpyrifos was eliminated while systemic disyston in potatoes was reduced by 35% [131]. According to a different study, peeling mandarins that contained the pesticides fenoxycarb, flufenoxuron, lufenuron, and pyriproxyfen eliminated any remaining residue, and the reduction after peeling potatoes treated with the systemic fungicide metalaxyl was just 11% [132]. The deposited profenofos was virtually completely removed (100%) when pepper and eggplant fruits were blanched and fried, and additionally, after one week and two weeks, the pickling process eliminated 92.58 and 95.61%, respectively, from the hot pepper fruit [133]. Studies on how pesticide residues in peaches used in infant food are affected by canning have shown that vinclozolin (14%) increased, whereas the levels of procymidone (65%), fenitrothion (63%), and chlorpyrifos-methyl (65%) decreased [134].

7.4. Rational Use of Pesticides

The proper choice of pesticides, dosage rates, dilutions, timing, frequency of application, treatment intervals, mode of application, precautions, and limitations are all part of the rational use of pesticides [135]. Pesticide residues in food products can be decreased through the prudent use of pesticides, and a pesticide may not always be necessary, especially when cultural or biological techniques work well [136].

7.5. Use of Nonsynthetic Chemicals

Biopesticides are environmentally safe and biodegradable, leaving behind no toxic residues, and biochemical pesticides that are derived from microorganisms and other natural sources that offer protection against insect damage are referred to as biopesticides and include a wide variety of microbial pesticides [136]. Some repellents for insects can also be used to avoid the buildup of pesticide residues in cereals, vegetables, and fruits [137]. Natural insecticides, such as those derived from neem tree extracts and chemicals, are also particularly effective at preventing the buildup of pesticide residues in food products [138].

8. Review Gaps

Research on the short- and long-term consequences of pesticide residues sprayed on fruits and vegetables is currently lacking. The hazards associated with pesticide pollution, health impacts, and social and political ramifications have not been investigated due to the complexity of pesticide compounds. The degree of risk in fruit and vegetable residue problems has not yet been investigated. Additionally, the impact of pesticide residues in low- and middle-income nations has not been carefully examined.

9. Summary and Conclusion

Since they are abundant in vitamins, carbs, antioxidants, and other nutrients, fruits and vegetables are widely grown in Ethiopia and are an important source of revenue and nourishment. Due to its excellent climate and inexpensive labor for both domestic use and export, Ethiopia has a tremendous opportunity for the production of fruits and vegetables. Due to increased agricultural practices, including the use of pesticides, fruit and vegetable production has increased. In Ethiopia, pesticides have been used in agriculture to manage crop pests and reduce production loss without taking public health into account. Pesticide use among farmers has rapidly increased in both quantity and frequency every year. Additionally, this growing pattern is anticipated to intensify over the coming decades. The majority of the pesticides that are now registered and used to control fruits and vegetables are nonspecific and nonbiodegradable. However, fruit and vegetables frequently have pesticide residues after harvest since persistent and nonspecific insecticides are frequently used throughout manufacturing.

It is challenging to increase output without the use of pesticides while simultaneously reducing the impact of pesticide residues in fruits and vegetables. Because most fruits and vegetables are consumed raw and greater pesticide residue levels are anticipated compared to other food groups of plant origin, it is necessary to minimize postharvest treatment of fruits and vegetables to limit the greatest pesticide residual effect on the crop. Additionally, producers and researchers should focus on creating new pesticide formulations that are biodegradable and nonpermanent. Ethiopia has not yet made a thorough assessment of the pesticide residue in fruits and vegetables; as a result, monitoring of the pesticide residue in high pesticide-consumed fruits and vegetables is necessary in Ethiopia. In addition, fruit and vegetable pest management requires integrated pest management (IPM) combining low-toxic pesticides with integrated nonchemical control practices. To increase international trade and guarantee clean local food consumption, organic farming practices must be improved.

Data Availability

The dataset that supports the findings of this review is included in the article.

Conflicts of Interest

The authors declare that they have no conflicts of interest.

Authors’ Contributions

The concept of the review was developed by Yohannes Gelaye while the design, data analysis and synthesis, interpretation and drafting, and final write-up of the paper were performed by both of the authors.

References

R. Arumugam, B. Elanchezhian, C. Sarikurkcu, S. Jayakumar, K. Amirthaganesan, and S. Sudhakar, “Nutraceutical assessment of conventional leafy vegetables of South India,” South African Journal of Botany, vol. 152, pp. 304–312, 2023.
View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
H. Shakoor, J. Feehan, A. S. Al Dhaheri et al., “Immune-boosting role of vitamins D, C, E, zinc, selenium and omega-3 fatty acids: could they help against COVID-19?” Maturitas, vol. 143, pp. 1–9, 2021.
View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
N. Ababulgu, N. Abajobir, and H. Wana, “The embarking of COVID-19 and the perishable products’ value chain in Ethiopia,” Journal of Innovation and Entrepreneurship, vol. 11, no. 1, p. 34, 2022.
View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
G. Yigezu Wendimu, “The challenges and prospects of Ethiopian agriculture,” Cogent Food & Agriculture, vol. 7, no. 1, Article ID 1923619, 2021.
View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
N. Desneux, P. Han, R. Mansour et al., “Integrated pest management of Tuta absoluta: practical implementations across different world regions,” Journal of Pest Science, vol. 95, pp. 17–39, 2022.
View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
S. Singh, A. Gupta, H. Waswani, M. Prasad, and R. Ranjan, “Impact of pesticides on the ecosystem,” in Agrochemicals in Soil and Environment: Impacts and Remediation, pp. 157–181, Springer, Berlin, Heidelberg, 2022.
View at: Google Scholar
A. S. Tanda, M. Kumar, A. K. Tamta, and M. Deeksha, “Advances in integrated management technology of insect pests of stored grain,” in Advances in Integrated Pest Management Technology: Innovative and Applied Aspects, pp. 157–196, Springer, Berlin, Heidelberg, 2022.
View at: Google Scholar
C. Phat, Y. Sereyvath, F. Kuok, E. M. Andrews, W. Kuriniawan, and H. Hinode, “Pesticide residues in vegetables from provinces around tonle sap lake,” in Water and Life in Tonle Sap Lake, pp. 407–416, Springer, Berlin, Heidelberg, 2022.
View at: Google Scholar
M. Beglaryan, D. Pipoyan, G. Tepanosyan, and L. Sahakyan, “Toxic element contents and associated multi-medium health risk assessment in an area under continuous agricultural use,” Environmental Monitoring and Assessment, vol. 194, no. 3, p. 184, 2022.
View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
T. Gaine, P. Tudu, S. Ghosh et al., “Differentiating wild and apiary honey by elemental profiling: a case study from mangroves of indian sundarban,” Biological Trace Element Research, vol. 200, no. 10, pp. 4550–4569, 2022.
View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
B. Atinkut Asmare, B. Freyer, and J. Bingen, “Women in agriculture: pathways of pesticide exposure, potential health risks and vulnerability in sub-Saharan Africa,” Environmental Sciences Europe, vol. 34, pp. 89–114, 2022.
View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
C. A. Damalas, S. D. Koutroubas, and G. Abdollahzadeh, “Herbicide use in conventional cereal production in northern Greece: an appraisal through the theory of planned behavior,” Pest Management Science, vol. 78, no. 11, pp. 4668–4678, 2022.
View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
T. Kifle, D. Y. Ayal, and M. Mulugeta, “Factors influencing farmers adoption of climate smart agriculture to respond climate variability in Siyadebrina Wayu District, Central highland of Ethiopia,” Climate Services, vol. 26, Article ID 100290, 2022.
View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
S. Wahab, K. Muzammil, N. Nasir et al., “Advancement and new trends in analysis of pesticide residues in food: a comprehensive review,” Plants, vol. 11, no. 9, p. 1106, 2022.
View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
A. Adamu and W. Abebe, “Practices and challenges of wheat producer farmers on safe pesticide use in Basoliben district, East Gojjam zone, Ethiopia,” Journal of the Saudi Society of Agricultural Sciences, vol. 21, no. 1, pp. 43–50, 2022.
View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
A. M. Oumer, A. Mugera, M. Burton, and A. Hailu, “Technical efficiency and firm heterogeneity in stochastic Frontier models: application to smallholder maize farms in Ethiopia,” Journal of Productivity Analysis, vol. 57, no. 2, pp. 213–241, 2022.
View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
A. S. Baghel, A. S. Baghel, A. Bhardwaj, and W. Ibrahim, “Optimization of pesticides spray on crops in agriculture using machine learning,” Computational Intelligence and Neuroscience, vol. 2022, Article ID 9408535, 10 pages, 2022.
View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
T. P. Orkodjo, G. Kranjac-Berisavijevic, and F. K. Abagale, “Impact of climate change on future precipitation amounts, seasonal distribution, and streamflow in the Omo-Gibe basin, Ethiopia,” Heliyon, vol. 8, no. 6, Article ID e09711, 2022.
View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
M. O. Raimi, A.-A. Iyingiala, O. H. Sawyerr et al., “Leaving no one behind: impact of soil pollution on biodiversity in the global south: a global call for action,” in Biodiversity in Africa: Potentials, Threats and Conservation, pp. 205–237, Springer, Berlin, Heidelberg, 2022.
View at: Google Scholar
M. T. Mergia, E. D. Weldemariam, O. M. Eklo, and G. T. Yimer, “Pesticide residue levels in surface water, using a passive sampler and in the sediment along the littoral zone of Lake Ziway at selected sites,” SN Applied Sciences, vol. 4, no. 3, p. 83, 2022.
View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
M. Riyaz, P. Mathew, R. A. Shah, K. Sivasankaran, and S. Zuber, “Environmental pesticide degradation: mechanisms and sustainability,” in Bioremediation and Phytoremediation Technologies in Sustainable Soil Management, pp. 3–51, Apple Academic Press, New Jersey, NJ, USA, 2023.
View at: Google Scholar
E. Nicholls, A. Ely, L. Birkin, P. Basu, and D. Goulson, “The contribution of small-scale food production in urban areas to the sustainable development goals: a review and case study,” Sustainability Science, vol. 15, no. 6, pp. 1585–1599, 2020.
View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
E. F. I. Raj, M. Appadurai, and K. Athiappan, “Precision farming in modern agriculture,” in Smart Agriculture Automation Using Advanced Technologies: Data Analytics and Machine Learning, Cloud Architecture, pp. 61–87, Springer, Berlin, Heidelberg, 2022.
View at: Google Scholar
N. Masood, R. Akram, M. Fatima et al., “Insect pest management under climate change,” Building Climate Resilience in Agriculture: Theory, Practice and Future Perspective, Springer, Berlin, Heidelberg, 2022.
View at: Google Scholar
Y. Vasseghian, P. Arunkumar, S.-W. Joo et al., “Metal-organic framework-enabled pesticides are an emerging tool for sustainable cleaner production and environmental hazard reduction,” Journal of Cleaner Production, vol. 373, Article ID 133966, 2022.
View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
M. O. Raimi, A. O. Saliu, A. Babatunde et al., “The challenges and conservation strategies of biodiversity: the role of government and non-governmental organization for action and results on the ground,” in Biodiversity in Africa: Potentials, Threats and Conservation, pp. 473–504, Springer, Berlin, Heidelberg, 2022.
View at: Google Scholar
S. Rashid, W. Rashid, R. X. S. Tulcan, and H. Huang, “Use, exposure, and environmental impacts of pesticides in Pakistan: a critical review,” Environmental Science and Pollution Research, vol. 29, pp. 43675–43689, 2022.
View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
B. Mengistie, “Policy-practice nexus: pesticide registration, distribution and use in Ethiopia,” SM Journal of Environmental Toxicology, vol. 2, pp. 1006–1019, 2016.
View at: Google Scholar
M. Roșca, G. Mihalache, and V. Stoleru, “Banned pesticides with high persistence: the impact of their use in agriculture and their removal by microbial biodegradation,” in Microbial Bioremediation: Sustainable Management of Environmental Contamination, pp. 33–75, Springer, Berlin, Heidelberg, 2022.
View at: Google Scholar
U. Bajwa and K. S. Sandhu, “Effect of handling and processing on pesticide residues in food-a review,” Journal of Food Science & Technology, vol. 51, no. 2, pp. 201–220, 2014.
View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
E. Mkuna, “Determinants of horticultural export and welfare impact of smallholder farmers: evidence from common beans (Phaseolus vulgaris L) farming in Arusha Tanzania,” in Trade and Investment in East Africa: Prospects, Challenges and Pathways to Sustainability, pp. 267–292, Springer, Berlin, Heidelberg, 2022.
View at: Google Scholar
G. Rand, P. Wells, and L. McCarty, “Introduction to aquatic toxicology,” in Fundamentals of Aquatic Toxicology, pp. 3–67, CRC Press, Boca Raton, FL, USA, 2020.
View at: Google Scholar
S. Arya, R. Kumar, O. Prakash, A. Rawat, and A. Pant, “Impact of insecticides on soil and environment and their management strategies,” in Agrochemicals in Soil and Environment: Impacts and Remediation, pp. 213–230, Springer, Berlin, Heidelberg, 2022.
View at: Google Scholar
K. F. Mendes, K. C. Mielke, L. D’Antonino, and A. Alberto da Silva, “Retention, absorption, translocation, and metabolism of herbicides in plants,” in Applied Weed and Herbicide Science, pp. 157–186, Springer, Berlin, Heidelberg, 2022.
View at: Google Scholar
P. I. Devi, M. Manjula, and R. Bhavani, “Agrochemicals, environment, and human health,” Annual Review of Environment and Resources, vol. 47, no. 1, pp. 399–421, 2022.
View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
R. S. Bhende, U. Jhariya, S. Srivastava, S. Bombaywala, S. Das, and N. A. Dafale, “Environmental distribution, metabolic fate, and degradation mechanism of chlorpyrifos: recent and future perspectives,” Applied Biochemistry and Biotechnology, vol. 194, no. 5, pp. 2301–2335, 2022.
View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
W. Li, R. Shan, Y. Fan, and X. Sun, “Effects of tall fescue biochar on the adsorption and desorption of atrazine in different types of soil,” Environmental Science and Pollution Research, vol. 28, no. 4, pp. 4503–4514, 2021.
View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
P.-J. De Buyck, S. W. Van Hulle, A. Dumoulin, and D. P. Rousseau, “Roof runoff contamination: a review on pollutant nature, material leaching and deposition,” Reviews in Environmental Science and Biotechnology, vol. 20, no. 2, pp. 549–606, 2021.
View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
S. Ahmad, H. W. Ahmad, and P. Bhatt, “Microbial adaptation and impact into the pesticide’s degradation,” Archives of Microbiology, vol. 204, no. 5, p. 288, 2022.
View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
V. Sharma, T. Ghosh, K. Sahil et al., “Biotechnological interventions for pesticide remediation and soil health reclamation,” in Microbial and Biotechnological Interventions in Bioremediation and Phytoremediation, pp. 501–539, Springer, Berlin, Heidelberg, 2022.
View at: Google Scholar
C. Launay, S. Houot, S. Frédéric et al., “Incorporating energy cover crops for biogas production into agricultural systems: benefits and environmental impacts. A review,” Agronomy for Sustainable Development, vol. 42, no. 4, p. 57, 2022.
View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
R. Alhashim and A. Anandhi, “Global warming and toxicity impacts: peanuts in Georgia, USA using life cycle assessment,” Sustainability, vol. 14, no. 6, p. 3671, 2022.
View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
J. I. Hwang, J. K. Norsworthy, M. M. Houston et al., “Large‐scale evaluation of physical drift and volatility of 2, 4‐D choline in cotton: a four‐year field study,” Pest Management Science, vol. 78, no. 8, pp. 3337–3344, 2022.
View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
X. Wang, M. U. Sial, M. A. Bashir et al., “Pesticides xenobiotics in soil ecosystem and their remediation approaches,” Sustainability, vol. 14, no. 6, p. 3353, 2022.
View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
M. Raby, L. Lissemore, G. Kaltenecker, D. Beaton, and R. S. Prosser, “Characterizing the exposure of streams in southern Ontario to agricultural pesticides,” Chemosphere, vol. 294, Article ID 133769, 2022.
View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
R. RamyaPriya and L. Elango, “Geogenic and anthropogenic impacts on the water quality of cauvery river,” in Riverine Systems: Understanding the Hydrological, Hydrosocial and Hydro-Heritage Dynamics, pp. 149–170, Springer, Berlin, Heidelberg, 2022.
View at: Google Scholar
I. Braschi, S. Blasioli, S. Lavrnić et al., “Removal and fate of pesticides in a farm constructed wetland for agricultural drainage water treatment under Mediterranean conditions (Italy),” Environmental Science and Pollution Research, vol. 29, no. 5, pp. 7283–7299, 2022.
View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
W. Liu, T. Pan, H. Liu, M. Jiang, and T. Zhang, “Adsorption behavior of imidacloprid pesticide on polar microplastics under environmental conditions: critical role of photo-aging,” Frontiers of Environmental Science & Engineering, vol. 17, no. 4, p. 41, 2023.
View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
G. B. Davis, J. L. Rayner, and M. J. Donn, “Advancing “Autonomous” sensing and prediction of the subsurface environment: a review and exploration of the challenges for soil and groundwater contamination,” Environmental Science and Pollution Research, vol. 30, no. 8, pp. 19520–19535, 2023.
View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
M. Siedt, A. Schäffer, K. E. Smith, M. Nabel, M. Roß-Nickoll, and J. T. van Dongen, “Comparing straw, compost, and biochar regarding their suitability as agricultural soil amendments to affect soil structure, nutrient leaching, microbial communities, and the fate of pesticides,” Science of the Total Environment, vol. 751, Article ID 141607, 2021.
View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
I. O. Daramola, M. O. Ojemaye, A. I. Okoh, and O. O. Okoh, “Occurrence of herbicides in the aquatic environment and their removal using advanced oxidation processes: a critical review,” Environmental Geochemistry and Health, vol. 45, no. 5, pp. 1231–1260, 2022.
View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
E. G. de Campos, B. R. B. da Costa, F. S. Dos Santos et al., “Alternative matrices in forensic toxicology: a critical review,” Forensic Toxicology, vol. 40, pp. 1–18, 2022.
View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
C. A. Edwards and N. Q. Arancon, “The influence of environmental factors on earthworms,” in Biology and Ecology of Earthworms, pp. 191–232, Springer, Berlin, Heidelberg, 2022.
View at: Google Scholar
D. Biswal, “Soil nematodes as the silent sufferers of climate-induced toxicity: analysing the outcomes of their interactions with climatic stress factors on land cover and agricultural production,” Applied Biochemistry and Biotechnology, vol. 195, no. 4, pp. 2519–2586, 2022.
View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
L. Kakati, L. N. Kakati, L. Thyug, and L. Mozhui, “Vermicomposting: an eco-friendly approach for waste management and nutrient enhancement,” Tropical Ecology, vol. 63, no. 3, pp. 325–337, 2022.
View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
A. E. D. Mahmoud, M. Fawzy, H. Khairy, and A. Sorour, “Environmental bioremediation as an eco-sustainable approach for pesticides: a case study of mena region,” in Pesticides Bioremediation, pp. 479–494, Springer, Berlin, Heidelberg, 2022.
View at: Google Scholar
K. Hachem, M. J. Ansari, R. O. Saleh et al., “Methods of chemical synthesis in the synthesis of nanomaterial and nanoparticles by the chemical deposition method: a review,” BioNanoScience, vol. 12, no. 3, pp. 1032–1057, 2022.
View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
B. Poddar, S. Nakhate, R. Gupta et al., “A comprehensive review on the pretreatment of lignocellulosic wastes for improved biogas production by anaerobic digestion,” International journal of Environmental Science and Technology, vol. 19, no. 4, pp. 3429–3456, 2022.
View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
S. Rasool, T. Rasool, and K. M. Gani, “A review of interactions of pesticides within various interfaces of intrinsic and organic residue amended soil environment,” Chemical Engineering Journal Advances, vol. 11, Article ID 100301, 2022.
View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
A. Tawfik, M. Mohsen, S. Ismail, N. S. Alhajeri, A. I. Osman, and D. W. Rooney, “Methods to alleviate the inhibition of sludge anaerobic digestion by emerging contaminants: a review,” Environmental Chemistry Letters, vol. 20, no. 6, pp. 3811–3836, 2022.
View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
A. Kanwal, M. Zhang, F. Sharaf, and L. Chengtao, “Screening and characterization of novel lipase producing Bacillus species from agricultural soil with high hydrolytic activity against PBAT poly (Butylene adipate co terephthalate) co-polyesters,” Polymer Bulletin, vol. 79, no. 11, pp. 10053–10076, 2022.
View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
A. O. Adeola, O. T. Ore, O. Fapohunda et al., “Psychotropic drugs of emerging concerns in aquatic systems: ecotoxicology and remediation approaches,” Chemistry Africa, vol. 5, no. 3, pp. 481–508, 2022.
View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
M. Castañeda-Juárez, I. Linares-Hernández, V. Martínez-Miranda, E. A. Teutli-Sequeira, L. A. Castillo-Suárez, and A. G. Sierra-Sánchez, “SARS-CoV-2 pharmaceutical drugs: a critical review on the environmental impacts, chemical characteristics, and behavior of advanced oxidation processes in water,” Environmental Science and Pollution Research, vol. 29, no. 45, pp. 67604–67640, 2022.
View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
H. Karimi, S. Mahdavi, B. Asgari Lajayer et al., “Insights on the bioremediation technologies for pesticide-contaminated soils,” Environmental Geochemistry and Health, vol. 44, no. 4, pp. 1329–1354, 2022.
View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
F. Xu, Z. Lu, D. Xu, H. Lu, J. Qiu, and X. Zha, “Dissipation behavior, residue transfer, and safety evaluation of chlorantraniliprole and indoxacarb during tea growing and brewing by ultrahigh-performance liquid chromatography-tandem mass spectrometry,” Environmental Science and Pollution Research, vol. 29, no. 42, pp. 63735–63752, 2022.
View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
V. Mahdavi, H. Gordan, S. Ramezani, and A. Mousavi Khaneghah, “National probabilistic risk assessment of newly registered pesticides in agricultural products to propose maximum residue limit (MRL),” Environmental Science and Pollution Research, vol. 29, no. 36, pp. 55311–55320, 2022.
View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
S. Nitzko, E. Bahrs, and A. Spiller, “Pesticide residues in food and drinking water from the consumerʼs perspective: the relevance of maximum residue levels and product-specific differences,” Sustainable Production and Consumption, vol. 30, pp. 787–798, 2022.
View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
M. M. Steingrímsdóttir, A. Petersen, and P. Fantke, “A screening framework for pesticide substitution in agriculture,” Journal of Cleaner Production, vol. 192, pp. 306–315, 2018.
View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
L. Song, Z. Zhong, Y. Han et al., “Dissipation of sixteen pesticide residues from various applications of commercial formulations on strawberry and their risk assessment under greenhouse conditions,” Ecotoxicology and Environmental Safety, vol. 188, Article ID 109842, 2020.
View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
F. Malhat, E.-S. Saber, S. Abd El-Salam, C. Anagnostopoulos, and M. Tawfic Ahmed, “Dissipation behavior of the fungicide tebuconazole in strawberries using liquid chromatograph tandem mass spectrometry (LC-MS/MS), a dryland ecosystem–based study,” International Journal of Environmental Analytical Chemistry, vol. 102, no. 19, pp. 7394–7408, 2022.
View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
S. Sabzevari and J. Hofman, “A worldwide review of currently used pesticides' monitoring in agricultural soils,” The Science of the Total Environment, vol. 812, Article ID 152344, 2022.
View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
A. W. Mossa, D. Gashu, M. R. Broadley et al., “The effect of soil properties on zinc lability and solubility in soils of Ethiopia–an isotopic dilution study,” Soils, vol. 7, no. 1, pp. 255–268, 2021.
View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
N. Logan, S. A. Haughey, L. Liu et al., “Handheld SERS coupled with QuEChERs for the sensitive analysis of multiple pesticides in basmati rice,” Npj Science of Food, vol. 6, no. 1, p. 3, 2022.
View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
P. Mojsak, B. Łozowicka, and P. Kaczyński, “Estimating acute and chronic exposure of children and adults to chlorpyrifos in fruit and vegetables based on the new, lower toxicology data,” Ecotoxicology and Environmental Safety, vol. 159, pp. 182–189, 2018.
View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
S. N. Ali, N. Rafique, S. Akhtar, T. Taj, and F. Mehboob, “Analysis of multiple pesticide residues in market samples of okra and associated dietary risk assessment for consumers,” Environmental Science and Pollution Research, vol. 29, no. 31, pp. 47561–47570, 2022.
View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
S. Sharma, S. Kumar, V. Kumar, and R. Sharma, “Pesticides and vegetables: ecological and metabolic fate with their field and food significance,” International journal of Environmental Science and Technology, vol. 20, no. 2, pp. 2267–2292, 2021.
View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
A. Hossain, M. Habibullah-Al-Mamun, I. Nagano, S. Masunaga, D. Kitazawa, and H. Matsuda, “Antibiotics, antibiotic-resistant bacteria, and resistance genes in aquaculture: risks, current concern, and future thinking,” Environmental Science and Pollution Research, vol. 29, no. 8, pp. 11054–11075, 2022.
View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
R. Pandiselvam, R. Kaavya, A. C. Khanashyam et al., “Research trends and emerging physical processing technologies in mitigation of pesticide residues on various food products,” Environmental Science and Pollution Research, vol. 29, no. 30, pp. 45131–45149, 2022.
View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
A. Kaufmann, “Analytical performance of the various acquisition modes in Orbitrap MS and MS/MS,” Journal of Mass Spectrometry, vol. 53, no. 8, pp. 725–738, 2018.
View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
A. Khodayari, S. Sohrabnezhad, S. Moinfar, and A. Pourahmad, “GNP/Al-MOF nanocomposite as an efficient fiber coating of headspace solid-phase micro-extraction for the determination of organophosphorus pesticides in food samples,” Microchimica Acta, vol. 189, no. 1, p. 45, 2022.
View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
J. Fillion, R. Hemdle, M. Lacrolx, and J. Selwyn, “Multiresidue determination of pesticides in fruit and vegetables by gas chromatography–mass-selective detection and liquid chromatography with fluorescence detection,” Journal of AOAC International, vol. 78, no. 5, pp. 1252–1266, 1995.
View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
A. Gelsomino, B. Petrovičová, S. Tiburtini, E. Magnani, and M. Felici, “Multiresidue analysis of pesticides in fruits and vegetables by gel permeation chromatography followed by gas chromatography with electron-capture and mass spectrometric detection,” Journal of Chromatography A, vol. 782, no. 1, pp. 105–122, 1997.
View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
B. K. Park, S. H. Kwon, M. S. Yeom, K. S. Joo, and M. J. Heo, “Detection of pesticide residues and risk assessment from the local fruits and vegetables in Incheon, Korea,” Scientific Reports, vol. 12, no. 1, p. 9613, 2022.
View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
J. Fenik, M. Tankiewicz, and M. Biziuk, “Properties and determination of pesticides in fruits and vegetables,” Trends in Analytical Chemistry, vol. 30, no. 6, pp. 814–826, 2011.
View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
A. Lal, G. Tan, and M. Chai, “Multiresidue analysis of pesticides in fruits and vegetables using solid-phase extraction and gas chromatographic methods,” Analytical Sciences, vol. 24, no. 2, pp. 231–236, 2008.
View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
Z. Cheng, F. Dong, J. Xu et al., “Simultaneous determination of organophosphorus pesticides in fruits and vegetables using atmospheric pressure gas chromatography quadrupole-time-of-flight mass spectrometry,” Food Chemistry, vol. 231, pp. 365–373, 2017.
View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
S. Mekonen, A. Ambelu, and P. Spanoghe, “Pesticide residue evaluation in major staple food items of Ethiopia using the Quechers method: a case study from the Jimma zone,” Environmental Toxicology & Chemistry, vol. 33, no. 6, pp. 1294–1302, 2014.
View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
J. Martı́nez Vidal, F. Arrebola, and M. Mateu-Sánchez, “Application of gas chromatography–tandem mass spectrometry to the analysis of pesticides in fruits and vegetables,” Journal of Chromatography A, vol. 959, no. 1-2, pp. 203–213, 2002.
View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
G. Dinede, W. Bihon, L. Gazu et al., “Assessment of pesticide residues in vegetables produced in central and eastern Ethiopia,” Frontiers in Sustainable Food Systems, vol. 7, Article ID 1143753, 2023.
View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
T. Portolés, J. G. Mol, J. V. Sancho, F. J. López, and F. Hernandez, “Validation of a qualitative screening method for pesticides in fruits and vegetables by gas chromatography quadrupole-time of flight mass spectrometry with atmospheric pressure chemical ionization,” Analytica Chimica Acta, vol. 838, pp. 76–85, 2014.
View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
K. Adou, W. R. Bontoyan, and P. J. Sweeney, “Multiresidue method for the analysis of pesticide residues in fruits and vegetables by accelerated solvent extraction and capillary gas chromatography,” Journal of Agricultural and Food Chemistry, vol. 49, no. 9, pp. 4153–4160, 2001.
View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
A. Benayad, D. Diddens, A. Heuer et al., “High‐throughput experimentation and computational freeway lanes for accelerated battery electrolyte and interface development research,” Advanced Energy Materials, vol. 12, no. 17, Article ID 2102678, 2022.
View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
J. S. Câmara, R. Perestrelo, C. V. Berenguer et al., “Green extraction techniques as advanced sample preparation approaches in biological, food, and environmental matrices: a review,” Molecules, vol. 27, no. 9, p. 2953, 2022.
View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
W.-H. Zhao and Y.-P. Shi, “A porous boron nitride nanorods-based QuEChERS analysis method for detection of five neonicotinoid pesticide residues in goji berries,” Journal of Chromatography A, vol. 1670, Article ID 462968, 2022.
View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
P. Hajeb, L. Zhu, R. Bossi, and K. Vorkamp, “Sample preparation techniques for suspect and non-target screening of emerging contaminants,” Chemosphere, vol. 287, Article ID 132306, 2022.
View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
M. Petrović, M. Jovanović, S. Lević et al., “Valorization potential of Plantago major L. solid waste remaining after industrial tincture production: insight into the chemical composition and bioactive properties,” Waste and Biomass Valorization, vol. 13, pp. 1–13, 2022.
View at: Google Scholar
P. Rajput, P. Chakraborty, and P. Devi, “Optical techniques for monitoring persistent organic pollutants in water and wastewater,” in Legacy and Emerging Contaminants in Water and Wastewater: Monitoring, Risk Assessment and Remediation Techniques, pp. 179–199, Springer, Berlin, Heidelberg, 2022.
View at: Google Scholar
S. Wang, X. Wang, Q. He et al., “Simultaneous determination of seven pesticides and metabolite residues in litchi and longan through high-performance liquid chromatography-tandem mass spectrometry with modified QuEChERS,” Molecules, vol. 27, no. 17, p. 5737, 2022.
View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
B. M. Teklu, A. Haileslassie, and W. Mekuria, “Pesticides as water pollutants and level of risks to environment and people: an example from Central Rift Valley of Ethiopia,” Environment, Development and Sustainability, vol. 24, no. 4, pp. 5275–5294, 2022.
View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
N. Alexandridis, G. Marion, R. Chaplin‐Kramer et al., “Archetype models upscale understanding of natural pest control response to land‐use change,” Ecological Applications: A Publication of the Ecological Society of America, vol. 32, no. 8, Article ID e2696, 2022.
View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
M. Chala, “Review of pesticide use in vegetable farms and its consequences in Ethiopia's central rift valley,” Journal of Agricultural Research Pesticides and Biofertilizers, vol. 3, 2022.
View at: Google Scholar
A. R. K. Pathan, B. L. Jakhar, S. R. Dhaka et al., “Persistence and dissipation kinetics of novaluron 9.45%+ lambda-cyhalothrin 1.9% ZC insecticides in tomato crop under semi-arid region,” Environmental Geochemistry and Health, vol. 45, pp. 1–10, 2023.
View at: Google Scholar
P. Taylor and R. Reeder, “Antibiotic use on crops in low and middle-income countries based on recommendations made by agricultural advisors,” CABI Agriculture and Bioscience, vol. 1, pp. 1–14, 2020.
View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
M. A. Salem, H. E. A. Mansour, E. M. Mosalam, R. A. El-Shiekh, S. M. Ezzat, and A. Zayed, “Valorization of by-products derived from onions and potato: extraction optimization, metabolic profile, outstanding bioactivities, and industrial applications,” Waste and Biomass Valorization, vol. 14, no. 6, pp. 1823–1858, 2023.
View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
A. Monteiro and S. Santos, “Sustainable approach to weed management: the role of precision weed management,” Agronomy, vol. 12, no. 1, p. 118, 2022.
View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
A. K. Srivastava and C. Hu, Fruit Crops: Diagnosis and Management of Nutrient Constraints, Elsevier, Amsterdam, Netherlands, 2019.
K. Neme and N. Satheesh, “Review on pesticide residue in plant food products: health impacts and mechanisms to reduce the residue levels in food,” Archives of Applied Science Research, vol. 8, pp. 55–60, 2016.
View at: Google Scholar
R. H. Waring, S. C. Mitchell, and I. Brown, “Agrochemicals in the food chain,” in Present Knowledge in Food Safety, pp. 44–61, Elsevier, Amsterdam, Netherlands, 2023.
View at: Google Scholar
A. F. L. Camelo, “Manual for the preparation and sale of fruits and vegetables: from field to market,” Food & Agriculture, vol. 151, 2004.
View at: Google Scholar
K. O. Boateng, E. Dankyi, I. K. Amponsah, G. K. Awudzi, E. Amponsah, and G. Darko, “Knowledge, perception, and pesticide application practices among smallholder cocoa farmers in four Ghanaian cocoa-growing regions,” Toxicology Reports, vol. 10, pp. 46–55, 2023.
View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
R. K. Nash, B. Lambert, R. NʼGuessan et al., “Systematic review of the entomological impact of insecticide-treated nets evaluated using experimental hut trials in Africa,” Current research in parasitology & vector-borne diseases, vol. 1, Article ID 100047, 2021.
View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
B. K. Park, K. S. Joo, and M. J. Heo, “Evaluation of pesticide residues in vegetables and risk assessment from Incheon, Korea,” Environmental Science and Pollution Research, vol. 30, no. 15, pp. 43795–43803, 2023.
View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
M. Surma, A. Sadowska-Rociek, and A. Draszanowska, “Levels of contamination by pesticide residues, polycyclic aromatic hydrocarbons (PAHs), and 5-hydroxymethylfurfural (HMF) in honeys retailed in Europe,” Archives of Environmental Contamination and Toxicology, vol. 84, no. 2, pp. 165–178, 2023.
View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
G. Blankson, P. Osei-Fosu, E. Adeendze, and D. Ashie, “Contamination levels of organophosphorus and synthetic pyrethroid pesticides in vegetables marketed in Accra, Ghana,” Food Control, vol. 68, pp. 174–180, 2016.
View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
M. Kachuri, Investigation of Genetic Profiles in Chromosome 5p15. 33 and Telomere Length in Lung Cancer Risk and Clinical Outcomes, University of Toronto, Toronto, Canada, 2018.
Z. Ju, J. Fan, Z. Meng, R. Lu, H. Gao, and W. Zhou, “A high-throughput semi-automated dispersive liquid–liquid microextraction based on deep eutectic solvent for the determination of neonicotinoid pesticides in edible oils,” Microchemical Journal, vol. 185, Article ID 108193, 2023.
View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
M. Goss, “The efficacy of Moringa oleifera plant extracts against selected fungal and bacterial plant pathogens infecting selected vegetable crops in Zimbabwe,” 2018, https://researchspace.ukzn.ac.za/handle/10413/16712.
View at: Google Scholar
R. El-Saman, A. R. Emara, N. M. Selim, and H. M. Ibrahim, “Study of chemical stability for chlorothalonil and their fungicidal effect against Fusarium solani and Botrytis cinerea,” Caspian Journal of Environmental Sciences, vol. 21, pp. 35–48, 2023.
View at: Google Scholar
M. García-Vara, C. Postigo, P. Palma, and M. López de Alda, “Development of QuEChERS-based multiresidue analytical methods to determine pesticides in corn, grapes and alfalfa,” Food Chemistry, vol. 405, Article ID 134870, 2023.
View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
J. A. Siddiqui, R. Fan, H. Naz et al., “Insights into insecticide-resistance mechanisms in invasive species: challenges and control strategies,” Frontiers in Physiology, vol. 13, Article ID 1112278, 2022.
View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
L. K. Verma, P. Singh, N. K. Nag, S. Tomer, and J. Singh, “Chapter-7 organic farming for eco-friendly crop production & sustainable agriculture development,” Chief Editor Dr RK Naresh, vol. 91, p. 121, 2020.
View at: Google Scholar
X. Song, E. Capanoglu, J. Simal-Gandara, F. Chen, and J. Xiao, “Different food processing technologies: a general background,” in Retention of Bioactives in Food Processing, pp. 37–89, Springer, Berlin, Heidelberg, 2022.
View at: Google Scholar
E. C. Hemler, J. E. Chavarro, and F. B. Hu, “Organic foods for cancer prevention—worth the investment?” JAMA Internal Medicine, vol. 178, no. 12, pp. 1606-1607, 2018.
View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
M. Barański, D. Średnicka-Tober, N. Volakakis et al., “Higher antioxidant and lower cadmium concentrations and lower incidence of pesticide residues in organically grown crops: a systematic literature review and meta-analyses,” British Journal of Nutrition, vol. 112, no. 5, pp. 794–811, 2014.
View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
H. Sandoval-Insausti, Y.-H. Chiu, Y.-X. Wang et al., “Intake of fruits and vegetables according to pesticide residue status in relation to all-cause and disease-specific mortality: results from three prospective cohort studies,” Environment International, vol. 159, Article ID 107024, 2022.
View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
S. Kang, L. Li, X. Ren, M. Zhang, W. Li, and Z. Chen, “Occurrence and fate characteristics of isoproturon from garlic cultivation to household processing: implication for human exposure,” Journal of Hazardous Materials, vol. 448, Article ID 130936, 2023.
View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
S. A. Mir, B. Dar, M. M. Mir et al., “Current strategies for the reduction of pesticide residues in food products,” Journal of Food Composition and Analysis, vol. 106, Article ID 104274, 2022.
View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
M. J. Castro, C. Ojeda, and A. F. Cirelli, “Surfactants in agriculture,” Green Materials for Energy, Products and Depollution, Springer, Berlin, Heidelberg, 2013.
View at: Google Scholar
B. Luh, “Principles and applications of vegetable processing,” in Processing Vegetables, pp. 3–48, Taylor & Francis, New York, NY, USA, 2023.
View at: Google Scholar
H. S. Magoha, Destruction of Polycyclic Aromatic Hydrocarbons (PAH's) and Aliphatic Hydrocarbons in Soil Using ball Milling, Auckland University of Technology, Auckland, New Zealand, 2004.
Z. Li, “A coupled ODE-diffusion modeling framework for removing organic contaminants in crops using a simple household method,” Environmental Pollution, vol. 265, Article ID 115071, 2020.
View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
Y. S. Nizama Salazar, “Determinación toxicológica de plaguicidas en mandarinas expendidas en los principales mercados de frutas de Lima Metropolitana,” 2020, https://hdl.handle.net/20.500.12672/16154.
View at: Google Scholar
A. Intisar, A. Ramzan, T. Sawaira et al., “Occurrence, toxic effects, and mitigation of pesticides as emerging environmental pollutants using robust nanomaterials–A review,” Chemosphere, vol. 293, Article ID 133538, 2022.
View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
J. Zhang, X. Sheng, J. Cao et al., “Occurrence and risk exposure assessment of multiple pesticide residues in edible mint in China,” Journal of Food Composition and Analysis, vol. 116, Article ID 105071, 2023.
View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
D. A. Thompson, D. W. Kolpin, M. L. Hladik et al., “Prevalence of neonicotinoid insecticides in paired private-well tap water and human urine samples in a region of intense agriculture overlying vulnerable aquifers in eastern Iowa,” Chemosphere, vol. 319, Article ID 137904, 2023.
View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
E. Assadpour, A. Can Karaça, M. Fasamanesh et al., “Application of essential oils as natural biopesticides; recent advances,” Critical Reviews in Food Science and Nutrition, vol. 2023, pp. 1–21, 2023.
View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
I. G. de Sousa, J. Oliveira, A. Mexia et al., “Advances in environmentally friendly techniques and circular economy approaches for insect infestation management in stored rice grains,” Foods, vol. 12, no. 3, p. 511, 2023.
View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
H. S. Elshafie, I. Camele, and A. A. Mohamed, “A comprehensive review on the biological, agricultural and pharmaceutical properties of secondary metabolites based-plant origin,” International Journal of Molecular Sciences, vol. 24, no. 4, p. 3266, 2023.
View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar

Copyright

Copyright © 2024 Yohannes Gelaye and Belete Negash. This is an open access article distributed under the Creative Commons Attribution License, which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original work is properly cited.

PDF Download Citation

Download other formats

Order printed copies

Views

2030

Downloads

465

Citations