Organophosphate pesticides in herbal mixtures from Bayelsa State, Nigeria: implication for human exposure and risks
Godswill O. Tesi , Bulouebibo Lari , Anthony A. Ogbuta , Iniebiyo Felagha , Given C. Obodoka , Wellington E. Ogbomade , Kingsley E. Okpara , Ejovi Osioma , Iwekumo E. Agbozu
Journal of Environmental Exposure Assessment ›› 2025, Vol. 4 ›› Issue (1) : 2
This study investigated the presence of organophosphate pesticides (OPPs) in fifty herbal mixture samples obtained from major towns in Bayelsa, Nigeria, to evaluate their safety. OPPs were quantified using a gas chromatograph (GC) coupled with a mass-selective detector after solvent extraction. The results showed that all fifty herbal mixtures contained detectable levels of OPPs, with detection frequencies for individual OPP congeners ranging from 52% for pyraclofos to 90% for diazinon, the most frequently detected congener. At least three OPPs were detected in each sample. Total OPP concentrations varied from 3.80 to 48.0 ng·L-1, 4.50 to 51.6 ng·g-1, and 2.96 to 18.1 ng·g-1 in liquid, powder, and capsule herbal mixtures, respectively. These concentrations were below the maximum residue limits (MRLs) set by the European Pharmacopeia. Computed hazard index (HI) values were generally < 1, indicating no significant non-carcinogenic risk associated with the ingestion of these herbal mixtures. The contribution of individual OPP congeners to the HI followed the order: O-ethyl O-4-nitrophenyl phenylphosphonothioate (EPN) > diazinon > pirimiphos-methyl > quinalphos > chlorpyrifos > chlorpyrifos-methyl. This study underscores the need for continuous monitoring and the application of rigorous scientific standards to herbal mixtures to ensure consumer safety.
OPPs / hazard index / daily intake / non-carcinogenic risk / GC-MSD
| [1] |
USEPA. Basic information about pesticide ingredients. 2024. Available from: https://www.epa.gov/ingredients-used-pesticide-products/basic-information-about-pesticide-ingredients. [Last accessed on 6 Jan 2025] |
| [2] |
|
| [3] |
|
| [4] |
|
| [5] |
|
| [6] |
|
| [7] |
|
| [8] |
|
| [9] |
|
| [10] |
|
| [11] |
|
| [12] |
|
| [13] |
|
| [14] |
|
| [15] |
|
| [16] |
|
| [17] |
|
| [18] |
|
| [19] |
|
| [20] |
|
| [21] |
|
| [22] |
European Commission. Guidance document on pesticide analytical methods for risk assessment and post-approval control and monitoring purposes. SANTE/2020/12830. Available from: https://food.ec.europa.eu/system/files/2021-03/pesticides_ppp_app-proc_guide_res_mrl-guidelines-2020-12830.pdf. [Last accessed on 6 Jan 2025] |
| [23] |
European Commission. Analytical quality control and method validation for pesticide residues analysis in food and feed. SANTE/12682/2019. Available from: https://www.eurl-pesticides.eu/userfiles/file/eurlall/aqcguidance_sante_2019_12682.pdf. [Last accessed on 6 Jan 2025] |
| [24] |
|
| [25] |
USDOE (United States Department of Energy). The risk assessment information system. Available from: https://rais.ornl.gov/documents/RAIS_ORNL_6942.pdf. [Last accessed on 6 Jan 2025] |
| [26] |
|
| [27] |
USEPA. Regional screening levels (RSL) summary tables. 2022. Available from: https://www.hawaiipublicschools.org/DOE%20Forms/HIDOE-Soil-Sampling-LahainaSchools-Lab-Results.pdf. [Last accessed on 6 Jan 2025] |
| [28] |
|
| [29] |
|
| [30] |
|
| [31] |
|
| [32] |
|
| [33] |
|
| [34] |
|
| [35] |
|
| [36] |
|
| [37] |
|
/
| 〈 |
|
〉 |