PMID- 10693021
OWN - NLM
STAT- MEDLINE
DCOM- 20000316
LR  - 20190729
IS  - 1060-3271 (Print)
IS  - 1060-3271 (Linking)
VI  - 83
IP  - 1
DP  - 2000 Jan-Feb
TI  - Pesticide residues on fruits and vegetables from Ontario, Canada, 1991-1995.
PG  - 196-213
AB  - For the 5-year period 1991 to 1995, 1536 vegetable and 802 fruit samples were 
      analyzed. The purpose of this study was to determine if pesticides were present 
      on Ontario-produced fruits and vegetables, and if so, to determine if residues 
      violated maximum residue limits (MRLs). Overall, 31.5% of the samples had no 
      detectable pesticide residues, whereas 68.5% contained one or more residues. Most 
      of the residues were present at very low concentrations; 48% of the detections 
      were < 0.1 parts per million (ppm), and 86% were < 1 ppm. However, violations of 
      MRL were observed in only 3.2% of the vegetables samples and 3.1% of the fruit 
      samples. In addition, 4.8% of the samples contained a "technical" violation, that 
      is, there was no specified MRL for the pesticide-commodity combination and the 
      residues exceeded 0.1 ppm. Of the detectable residues, 63% were < 10% of the MRL, 
      whereas 89% were < 50% of the MRL. More fruit samples (91.4%) had a detectable 
      residue, compared with vegetable samples (56.6%). Fruit is often treated close to 
      harvest or post harvest to ensure that wholesome produce reaches the consumer. 
      Forty-six percent of the samples contained 2 or more residues, and 2% of all 
      samples had more than 5 different pesticides detected; fruit samples tended to 
      have more multiple residues. The most frequently found pesticides were captan, 
      the dithiocarbamate fungicides, endosulfan, azinphos-methyl, phosmet, parathion, 
      and iprodione. These pesticides were also used in the greatest quantity for crop 
      production. Overall, the data agree fairly closely with those reported for the 
      U.S. Department of Agriculture Pesticide Data Program because the 2 programs have 
      similar analytical goals and objectives.
FAU - Ripley, B D
AU  - Ripley BD
AD  - University of Guelph, Laboratory Services Division, ON, Canada.
FAU - Lissemore, L I
AU  - Lissemore LI
FAU - Leishman, P D
AU  - Leishman PD
FAU - Denomme, M A
AU  - Denomme MA
FAU - Ritter, L
AU  - Ritter L
LA  - eng
PT  - Journal Article
PL  - England
TA  - J AOAC Int
JT  - Journal of AOAC International
JID - 9215446
RN  - 0 (Fungicides, Industrial)
RN  - 0 (Hydantoins)
RN  - 0 (Insecticides)
RN  - 0 (Pesticide Residues)
RN  - 265842EWUV (Azinphosmethyl)
RN  - 360-97-4 (Aminoimidazole Carboxamide)
RN  - 61G466064D (Parathion)
RN  - EOL5G26Q9F (Captan)
RN  - OKA6A6ZD4K (Endosulfan)
RN  - S3AYV2A6EU (iprodione)
RN  - VN04LI540Y (Phosmet)
SB  - IM
MH  - Aminoimidazole Carboxamide/analogs & derivatives/analysis
MH  - Azinphosmethyl/analysis
MH  - Captan/analysis
MH  - Endosulfan/analysis
MH  - Fruit/*chemistry
MH  - Fungicides, Industrial
MH  - *Hydantoins
MH  - Insecticides/analysis
MH  - Ontario
MH  - Parathion/analysis
MH  - Pesticide Residues/*analysis
MH  - Phosmet/analysis
MH  - Vegetables/*chemistry
EDAT- 2000/02/29 09:00
MHDA- 2000/03/18 09:00
CRDT- 2000/02/29 09:00
PHST- 2000/02/29 09:00 [pubmed]
PHST- 2000/03/18 09:00 [medline]
PHST- 2000/02/29 09:00 [entrez]
PST - ppublish
SO  - J AOAC Int. 2000 Jan-Feb;83(1):196-213.