Open access peer-reviewed chapter

Extraction and Identification Techniques for Quantification of Carbamate Pesticides in Fruits and Vegetables

Written By

Nasir Md Nur ’Aqilah, Kana Husna Erna, Joseph Merillyn Vonnie and Kobun Rovina

Submitted: 21 December 2021 Reviewed: 22 December 2021 Published: 02 November 2022

DOI: 10.5772/intechopen.102352

From the Edited Volume

Pesticides - Updates on Toxicity, Efficacy and Risk Assessment

Edited by Marcelo L. Larramendy and Sonia Soloneski

Chapter metrics overview

500 Chapter Downloads

View Full Metrics

Abstract

The usage of carbamate pesticides in agriculture is increasing year by year. Carbamate pesticides are thioesters and esters, which are derived from aminocarboxylic acid. Carbamates are commonly utilized to improve agricultural production and protect humans and animals from disease. They were also used to control and prevent agricultural pests. However, carbamate can be highly toxic if not applied properly. Therefore, carbamate pesticides need to be monitored in fruits and vegetables. Sensitive and selective detection of carbamate pesticides using nanotechnology helps overcome the drawback of conventional methods of detecting carbamates. Nowadays, the demand for rapid, highly sensitive, and selective pesticide detection techniques is expanding to facilitate detection without complicated equipment. Due to this, this chapter focuses on nanotechnology and current detection methods for detecting residual carbamate pesticides in fruits and vegetables more precisely and faster.

Keywords

  • carbaryl
  • carbofuran
  • toxicology
  • recent approaches
  • traditional techniques
  • fresh produce

1. Introduction

A pesticide is a hazardous chemical compound or a mixture of biological agents or chemicals that are deliberately presented into the environment to prevent, dissuade, eliminate, or control populations of insects, rodents, weeds, fungus, or other unwanted pests. Pesticides play an important role in attracting, enticing, and killing or repelling organisms. Generally, pesticides are widely applied and reported at approximately 5.2 billion pounds per year to reduce various harmful species such as microscopic fungi, weeds, rodents, and insects. Pesticide is highly applicable for pest control in agricultural areas and households to control mosquitoes, ticks, cockroaches, rats, fleas, and other dangerous creatures [1]. Using pesticides improves crop yields by controlling pathogenic microorganisms, resulting in better consumption of fresh fruits and vegetables [2]. There are four types of pesticides, namely organochlorines, carbamates, organophosphates, and pyrethroids, illustrated in Figure 1 with their chemical structures.

Figure 1.

Classification of pesticides with chemical structure.

Carbamate pesticides are known as esters of carbamic acid (R1-S-CO-NR2R3), which are not structurally complex. They are commonly employed in farming to protect many crops, including fruits, cotton, rice, and vegetables, due to their broad biological activity, less mammalian toxicity, and minimal bioaccumulation potential [3]. Besides, it was applied as a therapeutic drug in human medicine and veterinary medicine. Carbamate has a high polarity, is water-soluble and thermodynamically unstable, which contains insecticides like carbaryl, acaricides, and fungicides [4]. Previous research found that carbamate pesticides are capable absorb in the food source’s tissues such as fish, poultry, and meat, in processed foods such as vegetables, nuts, dehydrated fruits, and vegetable oils [5]. Based on FAO and WHO, in 2016, Codex Alimentarius Commission for carbamate maximum residue levels was set up to 4844 but required the presence of different combinations of pesticides. However, in European Union, carbaryl was banned in most countries [6]. This is because the carbamate residual in foods functions as acetylcholinesterase inhibitors, which can damage the brain, nervous systems, liver, muscles, and pancreas over the long term [7, 8].

It is essential to track and measure the carbamate amounts in fresh products and improve the sensitivity of the detection methods that have been developed. Previously, conventional methods such as chromatography, immunoassay, and surface-enhanced Raman spectroscopy (SERS), have been applied and show reliability and sensitivity to determine the presence of carbamate. However, these techniques are typically insufficient for real-time and on-site detection, which necessitates advancements in terms of preparation time and cost of machinery and highly skilled workers [9]. Hence, the development of advanced nanotechnology is one of the alternative methods that show rapid, low-cost, easy to use, and capable of detecting low concentrations of carbamate in food samples. This chapter focuses on the latest information on sample pretreatment and analytical detection strategies available from 2000 to 2021. Also, we highlight the reader with an understanding of some innovative ways to increase carbamate pesticides detection in food products.

Advertisement

2. Types of carbamate pesticides

Carbamate is an N-methyl produced from carbonic acid, responsible for the carbamylation of acetylcholinesterase at neuromuscular junctions in the brain and spinal cord and at neuronal synapses. Carbamate is classified as an insecticide that is physically and mechanistically comparable to organophosphate (OP) insecticides in both structure and mechanism of action. Carbamates have a reversible binding to acetylcholinesterase and do not cause the irreversible phosphorylation of the enzyme that occurs when organophosphates interact with it [10]. Consequently, carbamates are toxicologically similar to OP poisoning, with a toxic period of fewer than 24 hours [11]. Aldicarb, carbaryl, carbofuran, bendiocarb, fenobucarb, methomyl, oxamyl, propoxur, and methiocarb are the most common agents that lead to dangerous exposure. Figure 2 below illustrates the chemical structure of carbamate pesticides available in agriculture applications.

Figure 2.

Chemical structure of types of carbamate pesticides.

Carbaryl is a member of the chemical family N-methyl carbamate and was discovered in 1959 for use as a carbamate pesticide in cotton in the United States. Carbaryl is a popular insecticide in agriculture, specialist turf control, ornamental production, and residential settings. Carbaryl is mildly toxic when taken orally and has low toxicity when applied topically or inhaled [12]. In outdoor conditions, carbaryl has a low persistence rate. Human exposure occurs by ingestion of residues in food, skin contact, and inhalation of airborne particles. Carbaryl blocks acetylcholinesterase in the neurological system, causing acetylcholine buildup and cholinergic hyperstimulation. In contrast to adults, immature organisms are more sensitive to the inhibition of cholinesterase (ChE). In addition to reproductive and developmental toxicity, carbaryl can also alter the immune system. It may also cause cancer in humans and be highly harmful to non-target organisms [13, 14].

Aldicarb is a carbamate insecticide active against insects, mites, and nematodes belonging to the chemical family of N-methyl carbamates. Aldicarb is water-soluble at pH 7 and a colorless crystalline substance that acts as a cholinesterase inhibitor, soil contaminant, carcinogen, and a possible endocrine disruptor. Aldicarb is acutely toxic and causes cholinergic symptoms by inhibiting acetylcholinesterase (AChE), neither genotoxic nor cancer-causing. Much information about toxicity includes developmental, long-term, short-term, reproductive, and neurotoxic studies. They are dose-dependent, rapidly reversible, and do not manifest at levels of human exposure predicted [15]. The toxicity of aldicarb is evident in even small doses with stomach cramping, dizziness, nausea, diarrhea, and convulsions [16, 17].

Carbofuran is a wide-spectrum of N-methyl carbamate insecticide commonly used in farming to combat insects, nematodes, and mites in soil or protect forest crops, fruit, and vegetables. It is incredibly toxic to birds, mammals, fish, and wildlife due to its anticholinesterase action that inhibits acetylcholinesterase and butyrylcholinesterase. Carbofuran can disrupt the neuroendocrine system, cause reproductive disorders, and be genotoxic and cytotoxic to humans [18]. However, it did not affect a humoral immune response [15]. Besides, it is a relatively unstable chemical that degrades in weeks or months. Recently, Amatatongchai et al. [19] found carbofuran in potatoes, corn, soybean, fruits, and vegetables. Similarly, Lan et al. [20] detected carbofuran in watermelon, long bean, mango, and chives samples.

Methomyl is known as metomil or mesomile, commonly used to treat crops. It is a colorless crystalline structure soluble in organic solvents and water, which may pollute the environment. It has a wide application in biological activities and is efficient against insects [21]. Methomyl is categorized as a harmful and dangerous pesticide by the World Health Organization and the European Union [22]. Acetylcholinesterase (AChE) is inhibited by methomyl lead in a reduction of the ability of the enzyme to hydrolyze acetylcholine that buildup in the body. The most common signs of methanol include tearing of the eyes, vomiting, nausea, stomach pain, diarrhea, loss of consciousness (coma), and death due to respiratory failure [23, 24, 25]. The endocrine system is also affected by methomyl because of its capability to influence estrogen production and reproductive capabilities [26]. Presently, Guo et al. [27] identified methomyl residue in barley, millet, wheat, and rice grains. Besides, Rasolonjatovo et al. [28] found methomyl residues in tomatoes.

Methiocarb is a carbamate pesticide that colorless, crystalline substance sparingly soluble in water and xylenes. However, it is unstable in alkaline media (pH 9). Methiocarb is a contact wide-spectrum, a residual insecticide which acts as a molluscicide, acaricide, and bird repellent since the 1960s [13]. Methiocarb is used on fruit crops and orchids to control snails and rice insects [29]. Sivaperumal et al. [30] found the methiocarb residues in mango fruits. The molecule is oxidized sequentially to sulfoxide and sulfone in the vertebrate liver. Methiocarb sulfoxide is also available in methiocarb sulfone in the form of iocarb sulfone and the combination known as methiocarb [31].

The chemical name for propoxur is 2-isopropoxyphenyl-N-methylcarbamate with a molecular weight of 209.24, which is hydrolyzed by strong alkali. Propoxur is unstable in alkaline media and has a half-life at a pH of 10 for 40 minutes. It is a non-systemic insecticide primarily used against household insect pests and domestic animal pests [32]. However, propoxur causes neurotoxicity by inhibiting acetylcholinesterase in a significant reversible manner [33]. Based on Borahan et al. [34], propoxur has been detected in raisins by gas chromatography-mass spectrometry (GC-MS). Besides, Xiao-Xue et al. [35] found propoxur in fruit samples such as plum, pear, and loquat by employing the molecularly imprinted photoelectrochemical sensor.

Through the oral pathway, oxamyl is highly toxic. Like other carbamates, exposure to oxamyl can result in cholinesterase inhibition over a short period [36]. The pure compound has a slightly sulfurous odor and is a white crystalline solid, which melts at 100–102°C and shifts to a different crystalline structure between 108 and 110°C [32]. Yaseen et al. [37] found oxamyl in peach fruit using a surface-enhanced Raman scattering. Bendiocarb is a carbamate insecticide efficient against a broad spectrum of agricultural pests. Bendiocarb is poisonous to fish, birds, and bees, and research has demonstrated that bendiocarb is unable to bioaccumulate in animals [38]. Kowalska et al. [39] stated that terbucarb residues were found in plants, and HP-LC detected it with tandem mass spectrometry (HPLC-MS/MS). Liquid fenobucarb pesticides are pale yellow or pale red. Pelle et al. [40] found fenobucarb residues in grain samples.

Advertisement

3. Physical and chemical properties of carbamate pesticide

The straightforward technique to identify carbamate pesticides is to look at their carbamic acid N- or S-substitutions. The carbamates are classified into nine major groups: dithiocarbamates, thiocarbamates, benzimidazole carbamates, N-phenyl carbamates, ethylenebisdithiocarbamate, N,N-methyl carbamates, N-methyl carbamates, aminophenyl N-methylcarbamates, and oxime N-methylcarbamates [41]. Carbamates are typically insoluble in water molecules because it has low solubility in polar organic solvents, ethanol, or acetone. Carbamate is a polar molecule soluble in solvents with a medium polarity, including benzene, chloroform, toluene, xylene, dichloromethane, or 1,2-dichloromethanebut are insoluble in nonpolar organic solvents [42, 43]. Pure carbamate pesticides are crystalline, white, practically odorless solids with low vapor pressure and high melting point. Carbamate pesticide features include physical form, melting point, vapor pressure, and solubility [41].

Advertisement

4. Toxicology of carbamate pesticide

Carbamates are carbamic acid esters substituted for N-methyl carbamic acid that act as AChE inhibitors to catalyze acetylcholine (ACh). The reaction enhanced the ACh level at a nerve synapse or neuromuscular junction, raising nerve-ending stimulation by reversible cholinesterase inhibition [44]. In contrast to organophosphates, the cholinesterase-inhibiting action of carbamates is reversible. Carbamates are toxic to rodents in doses ranging between LD50 > 200 mg/kg and LD50 > 50 mg/kg [45]. According to the classification system, the US Environmental Protection Agency and the World Health Organization (WHO) have classified carbamate as class II (moderate). Several additional factors, such as route and frequency of exposure, interactions with other impurities, and compromised physiological conditions, such as liver impairment, may all impact the level of toxicity [25, 46]. Besides, WHO includes carbamates on its endocrine-disrupting chemicals (EDCs), potentially harmful to animals and human health [47]. They discovered that EDCs might disrupt hormone production, transport, metabolism, and elimination, with developmental, behavioral, and reproductive effects resulting from these hormone-active compounds. De Coster and Van Larebeke [48] examined the endocrine-disrupting properties of chlorpropham, carbaryl, benomyl, methiocarb, pirimicarb, and propamocarb by highlighting various pathways, including nuclear receptor activation, estrogen-associated receptor activation, and membrane-bound estrogen-receptor activation, among others.

High-potential AChE-inhibitors have been utilized as toxicants, but low-potential AChE-inhibitors have been used as prevention agents against nerve agents or as therapeutic agents in treating illnesses such as glaucoma, Alzheimer’s disease, and myasthenia gravis, among other things [49]. The primary benefits of carbamate are its intense insecticidal action and poor durability since it degrades swiftly within weeks or months after being applied to crops. Carbamates are effective against a wide range of pests by blocking the enzyme cholinesterase, causing neurotoxicity, and interfering with the nervous system of the pests [50]. These chemicals also exhibit a range of neurotoxic effects not mediated by a cholinergic mechanism. Carboxylated acetylcholinesterase enzyme is a volatile version of the enzyme, and regeneration of this enzyme is comparatively quick when contrasted with the regeneration of a phosphorylated form of the enzyme [51]. Carbamates produce mild eye irritation and moderate skin irritation, depending on the specific vehicle employed, the duration of contact, and the substance applied directly to the skin that has been harmed or is in good condition, according to the manufacturer [51, 52].

Advertisement

5. Extraction techniques of carbamates pesticides

The separation of pesticides is necessary from the sample before introducing into the instrument. This approach is expected to limit measuring interferences while enhancing the analyte concentration for research. Besides, the extraction method is a standard procedure that begins with releasing a preferred analyte from matrices and ends with a purification procedure, which directs to a series of stages via the analytical approach wherein a high proportion of potential interference co-extracts is eliminated using chemical or physical means [53]. Liquid-liquid extraction (LLE), solid-phase extraction (SPE), solid-phase microextraction (SPME), quick, easy, cheap, effective, rugged, and safe, microwave-assisted extraction (QuEChERS), and microwave accelerated selective Soxhlet extraction are among the extraction technologies available.

5.1 Liquid-liquid extraction (LLE)

Liquid-liquid extraction (LLE) has become a standard procedure in sample preparation due to its convenience and efficacy for insecticide contamination of food [54]. However, LLE requires a lot of solvents, which is terrible for the environment compared to solventless extraction technologies like solid-phase microextraction. On the other hand, the LLE approach is poor in yield analyte concentration, laborious, and requires a significant volume of toxic organic solvents [55]. Previously, liquid-liquid extraction/low-temperature purification incorporated with HPLC-UV was applied for determining aldicarb, carbofuran, and carbaryl in water samples. The separation for the carbamates aldicarb, carbofuran, and carbaryl show a high recovery rate. Although in small amounts of material and solvent, the extraction method was selective, with a limit of detection was found 5.0 and 10.0 g L−1 [56].

5.2 Solid-phase extraction (SPE)

Solid-phase extraction (SPE) was initially presented during the 1970s, then widely accessible in 1978. At the moment, the most often used widely is SPE procedures for the pretreatment of environmental materials [55]. SPE is simpler, acceptable, and convenient than traditional LLE. Wang et al. [57] recently published an SPE technique utilizing porous organic polymers as an absorbent to extract isoprocarb, metolcarb, bassa, carbaryl, and lastly, diethofencarb, from white wine, milk, and juice before HPLC-diode array detection. The findings showed that milk and white wine samples have excellent linearity, with low detection limits for milk, white wine, and juice samples.

Earlier, Li et al. [58] used a simple one-step synthesis technique to make graphene-based magnetic nanoparticles by using MSPE to detect trace carbamate insecticides in tomatoes. Under ideal conditions, this technique has high enrichment factors, good linearities, low detection, and satisfactory spiking recoveries. The findings show that this approach was an adequate preparation and enhancement approach that may be used to extract and determine trace carbamate pesticides in complicated matrices. Besides that, Shi et al. [59] used graphene-based solid-phase extraction with ultra-HPLC-tandem mass spectrometry to analyze carbamate in ambient water samples. The LOD ranged from 0.5 to 6.9 ng L−1, with relative standard deviations of 5.54%. The graphene-packed SPE cartridge may be reused over 100 times for a typical solution after proper regeneration with no appreciable performance degradation. The target analytes’ has good enrichment values, which indicate that the developed approach successfully determined carbamate pesticide residues in ambient water samples.

5.3 Solid-phase microextraction (SPME)

Solid-phase microextraction (SPME) is a technology that is a highly selective, sensitive, and solvent-free sample and is frequently used to extract volatile and semi-volatile chemicals by its absorption fibers. The range of SPME coatings available, dependent on the analytes’ polarity, results in high sensitivity and selectivity because of the strong coating affinity for particular analytes that build up in the environment until they reach equilibrium [60]. Zhou and Fang [61] developed a graphene-modified TiO2 nanotube array by electrodeposition utilizing a cyclic voltammetric reduction approach to detect carbamate. When utilized in TiO2 nanotube arrays for MSPE, the combination of graphene’s adsorptive solid properties and its higher extraction capabilities results in remarkable sample preconcentration performance. These results indicate that graphene-modified TiO2 nanotube arrays have a high capacity for adsorption of contaminants. The technique demonstrates a quick and efficient alternative analytical solution for detecting and quantifying carbamate in fruits and vegetables.

5.4 QuEChERS (quick, easy, cheap, effective, rugged, safe) extraction

Quick, easy, cheap, effective, rugged, safe (QuEChERS) is a sensitive food analysis technology that has undergone numerous revisions and advancements. QuEChERS is a two-stage technology employed to detect carbamate residues in foods that includes salting-out partitioning, which involves the transition between an aqueous and an organic layer. This technique necessitates further cleaning to remove interfering chemicals by combining magnesium sulfate with various sorbents like C18, graphitized carbon black (GCB), or primary-secondary amines (PSA). It may be used to clean a variety of complex substances like food products while also allowing for a less organic solvent [62]. Due to its numerous advantages, the QuEChERS technique has gained massive attention and is widely utilized and regarded as a preferable approach for measuring toxic contaminants in foods.

Previously, Anastassiades et al. [63] introduced the QuEChERS technique to extract carbamate from food matrices by using a small quantity of acetonitrile, followed by a clean-up step employing DSPE. This method was first used to examine fruits and vegetables. Nonetheless, recent research adapted QuEChERS and used dried samples, animal-based food, cereal, milk-based products, and soil-sediment analysis [64]. The approach is based on analyte extraction in buffered acetonitrile (MeCN) and subsequent separation by salting out and d-SPE. The primary disadvantage of this technique is that the natural elements of the sample must be removed. Based on a study by Zhang et al. [65], they adopted LC-MS/MS to assess 60 different insecticide contaminants in cinnamon bark using a repeated dispersive SPE with QuEChERS.

Some studies reported that almost 54 pesticides residues were extracted and analyzed by acetonitrile. Furthermore, Reddy and Reddy [66] employed QuEChERS to extract pesticides from sunflower oil using modified charcoal to reduce fat and pigment thermal deterioration during analysis. Furthermore, according to Neufeld et al. [67], QuEChERS extraction has a high sensitivity to organophosphates and carbamates. Besides, the QuEChERS technique combined with magnetic SPE and DLLME was developed to remove pesticides from high-solid vegetable, fruit, and nectar samples [68].

5.5 Microwave-assisted extraction (MAE)

Environmental Canada pioneered microwave-assisted extraction (MAE), which is currently used in research applications and industrial settings. This approach employs microwave radiation to induce polar molecules and ions to migrate and dipoles to spin to heat solvents and assist the transfer of the target from the food matrix to the extractant [69]. According to Wang et al. [70], the significant edges of adopting MAE are reducing the time extraction, which could be assigned to the differences in the microwave and traditional heating performance. MAE also allows for on-the-fly connection to different analytical processes and the simultaneous execution of several samples. A quick and straightforward analytical method based on LC-MS/MS has been established to measure carbamate residues and mycotoxins in apples using MAE simultaneously. In the recovery rate range of 70–116%, the technique displayed strong linearity with high acceptable accuracy and a lower limit of detection [71].

5.6 Microwave accelerated selective Soxhlet extraction (MA-SSE)

Microwave accelerated selective Soxhlet extraction (MA-SSE) is a technique similar to traditional Soxhlet extraction but employs microwaves to improve the procedure [72]. Although MA-SSE is fast and effective, its poor selectivity requires additional cleaning operations. Besides, a selective MA-SE approach is required due to its time-consuming and labor-intensive nature. Zhou et al. [72] employed MA-SSE as a selective extraction strategy in their investigation to detect the carbamate contaminants in ginseng. The MA-SSE extracts the sample’s target analytes and interfering components using microwave-irradiated extraction solvent. After the solvent passed through the extraction container, the sorbent adsorbed the interfering elements in the solvent and collected the target analytes. Because of the effect of microwave irradiation, MA-SSE outperformed conventional extraction processes significantly. According to the findings, MA-SSE has much potential as a fast and reliable method for preparing samples to detect pesticide residue in complex matrices.

Advertisement

6. Conventional techniques for detection of carbamate pesticides

Various techniques for identifying carbamate residues are summarized in Table 1.

Detection methodCarbamate pesticidesFood productsReference(s)
Surface-enhanced Raman spectroscopy (SERS)CarbarylOrange juice, grapefruit, milk[73]
ELISA immunoassay (IA)CarbofuranCucumbers, apples, leek, sweet potato, potato[74, 75]
Terahertz time-domain spectroscopy (THz-TDS)MethomylWheat, rice flour[76]
Gas chromatography-mass spectroscopy (GC-MS/MS)MethiocarbCabbage[77]
High performance liquid chromatography (HPLC)PropoxurLemonade, grape juice[78]
Liquid chromatography-tandem mass spectrum (LC-MS/MS)AldicarbVegetable[79]
Surface-enhanced Raman spectroscopy (SERS)OxamylPeach, milk[37, 80]
High performance liquid chromatography with tandem mass spectrometry (HPLC-MS/MS)TerbucarbPlants[39]
High performance liquid chromatography (HPLC)FenobucarbLemonade, grape juice[57]

Table 1.

Detection techniques of carbamate pesticides.

6.1 Capillary electrophoresis (CE)

Capillary electrophoresis (CE) is a proper analytical method that could also be applied in various situations and is expected to offer several advantages, including fewer chemicals and samples, higher removal efficiency, and time efficiency. The capillary’s inner diameter (50–75 m) is tiny, allowing only a limited sample volume to be injected into the system, thus limiting sensitivity detection. Due to the small volume of sample that can be injected into such a capillary system, CE has been combined with sensitive detection [81] and combined with internet-based-concentration methods. Attig et al. [82] described a microextraction technique for selective preconcentration of N-methyl carbamate in water prior to CE analysis using temperature-controlled IL-DLPME in an alkaline buffer. Microextraction with ionic liquid and elution with a trace amount of dichloromethane was used to obtain the samples. MMWCNTs enhanced ionic liquid-analyte binding and recovery compared to using simple nanomaterials as a sorbent. Cheng et al. [83] developed a CE with amperometric detection based on a polyamide-modified carbon paste electrode to determine carbamate in alkaline water solutions. According to Zhang et al. [84], an efficient method for simultaneous determination of carbamate pesticides in vegetables included solid-phase microextraction for purification and enrichment, followed by CE separation. Standard addition recoveries of 86.1–115.8% for vegetable samples are quick and accurate. The presence of carbamates has been determined using nanomaterials such as graphene and gold nanoparticles in pesticide biosensors [85]. Direct electrodeposition of electrochemically reduced graphene oxide-gold nanoparticles-cyclodextrin and Prussian blue-Chitosan modified glass carbon electrodes was used to identify pesticides. Carbamate pesticides inhibit AChE activity, with malathion having a LOD of 4.14 pg mL−1 and carbaryl having a LOD of 1.15 pg mL−1.

6.2 Micellar electrokinetic capillary chromatography (MEKC)

Micellar electrokinetic capillary chromatography (MEKC), a hybrid methodology incorporating chromatographic and electrophoretic extraction principles, extends the usability of capillary electrophoretic procedures to neutral analytes. Surfactants are added to the buffer solution at quantities remarkably different from their essential micellar concentrations, producing micelles that move electrophoretically like any other charged particle. The separation is based on the differential partitioning of an analyte between two-phase systems: the moving aqueous phase and the micellar pseudo stationary phase [86]. Using MEKC with a UV-Vis detector, the best separation conditions were 20 mM phosphate buffer (pH 8.0) and 15 mM sodium dodecyl sulfate. The detecting wavelength was set at 200 nm, with a voltage of 12.5 kV supplied. Baseline separation of five pesticides took 15 minutes under these circumstances with low detection limits. This method produced high repeatability, reproducibility, separation efficiency, and a reasonable recovery rate in rice samples [87]. MEKC has evolved into an effective separation technology for neutral and ionic chemicals in complex mixtures, including a broad spectrum of analytes. MEKC is based on the separation of the micellar and aqueous phases. See et al. [88] originally described a technique for determining glyphosate and aminomethylphosphonic acid in tap and river water using a dynamic supported liquid membrane tip extraction approach followed by MEKC with capacitively linked contactless conductivity detection. Besides, Sung et al. [89] used in-line LLE surface analysis with CE to detect pesticides on solid surfaces of apples. Other research used the SPE-MEKC approach to identify trifloxystrobin, tebufenozide, and halofenozide in foods with detection limits ranging from 0.088 to 0.094 mg/kg [90]. Moreover, Santalad et al. [91] described an SPE-MEKC approach for determining the presence of six carbamate pesticides with low detection limits. Water-soluble CdTe/CdSe core-shell quantum dots were employed to enhance pesticides selective fluorescence enhancement [92]. The baseline separation took 12 minutes, and the detection limits obtained varied from 50 to 180 μg/kg [93]. DLLME coupled with sweeping in MEKC, a quick, easy, and sensitive approach for detecting certain neonicotinoid pesticides in cucumber samples has been devised. Under optimal circumstances, enrichment factors ranging from 4000 to 10,000 were obtained. The method’s linearity ranged from 2.7 to 200 ng g−1 for thiacloprid, acetamiprid, and imidacloprid in cucumber samples and from 4.0 to 200 ng g−1 for imidaclothiz, with the limit of detection varied from 0.8 to 1.2 ng g−1. The new approach successfully analyzed neonicotinoid pesticides in cucumbers, promising outcomes [94].

6.3 Enzyme-linked immunosorbent assay (ELISA)

Immunochemical techniques, such as enzyme-linked immunosorbent assay (ELISA), have recently gained interest and recognition as rapid and low-cost extraction and detection procedures for pesticide compounds. Based on the antigen-antibody interaction, this analytical technique can give high sensitivity and specificity (selectivity) for particular kinds of pesticides. Additionally, since it can load many samples concurrently, it enables rapid and precise assessment of pesticide residues in agricultural items prior to shipping. Indeed, the primary advantage of ELISA for identifying pesticide residues is the convenience of sample preparation methods [95]. Bellemjid et al. [96] created a rapid ELISA to detect carbamates such as carbendazim and carbofuran using synthetic compounds with acid functions linked with BSA protein and injected into rabbits with antibodies collected for the immunoanalytical test. Zhang et al. [97] used nanobody Nb316 to develop an indirect competitive enzyme-linked immunosorbent test (ELISA) to detect carbofuran in vegetable and fruit samples. A phage display platform was used to extract and characterize unique nanobodies against the pesticide carbofuran from an immunized library. The average recovery rate of spiked samples was 82.3–103.9%, comparable to the conventional UPLC-MS/MS approach.

6.4 Gas chromatography-mass spectroscopy (GC-MS)

James and Martin [98] devised the gas chromatography (GC) technology in 1952. The fundamental working concept of gas chromatography is the volatilization of the sample in the input or injector of the gas chromatograph, followed by the separation of the mixture’s components in a specially designed column. Pesticide residues were recently found in Chinese liquor using gas chromatography-mass spectrometry [99]. In general, Chinese liquor is an extraction of fermented food. They are a trendy alcoholic beverage in China. In Chinese liquor, ethyl carbamate was found at a detection limit of 0.56 μg/L and a limit of quantification of 1.87 μg/L. Ethyl carbamate was also discovered in Chinese rice wine using gas chromatography-mass spectrometry [100]. According to Yao et al. [101], GC-MS detected ethyl carbamate in grain co-products. A gas chromatography-mass spectrometry assay with the limit of detection of 0.7 ng/g was developed to measure ethyl carbamate extracted from different distillers grains co-products. It was identified in all of the co-products of distillers grains examined in this investigation. The greatest concentration of ethyl carbamate was found in corn condensed distillers solubles, ranging from 1618 to 2956 ng/g. Other kinds of distillers grains co-products exhibited ethyl carbamate concentrations ranging from 17 to 917 ng/g.

Advertisement

7. Advanced techniques for detection of carbamate pesticides

In pesticide analysis, advanced technologies are presented as an alternative to the conventional chromatographic methods combined with selective sensors. The chromatographic procedures yielded sensitive, specific, and dependable analytical findings. However, they are time-consuming, complicated, and costly, with a high organic solvent usage, which is unsuitable for analyzing large samples [102]. New approaches are challenging to implement in most developing countries. The advancement of improved methodologies has resulted in promising instruments for easy and fast operation, affordable cost, and suitable for in-situ evaluation. Furthermore, they perform well in terms of pesticide detection accuracy and precision.

7.1 Molecular imprinted polymer (MIP) biosensor

Biosensors based on molecularly imprinted polymers (MIP) are widely used as sensitive sensing materials because they detect molecules with many biological weights. MIP has effectively created artificial materials that behave similarly to biological receptors; however, it has limited stability. MIP has also been indicated as a biosensing breakthrough due to its ability to overcome the drawbacks of current specific molecular elements such as antibodies, peptides, and enzymes [103]. MIP is used to detect pesticides by imitating biological receptors, polymerizing a functional monomer in the analyte, and finally removing the template using a polymer matrix [104]. Hence, this approach can detect pesticide residues in food since they are inexpensive, simple to use, and have excellent chemical and physical stability. Recently, Li et al. [105] published a work that demonstrated the construction of a MIPs biosensor to detect pesticides utilizing a carbon paste electrode modified with surface MIP microspheres and evaluated using cyclic voltammetry. The approach used on vegetable samples showed high sensitivity, with significant recoveries ranging from 97.2 to 101%. Additionally, Wang et al. [106] used a MIP sensor modified with polyquercetin(Qu)-polyresorcinol(Re)-AuNPs to assess methyl parathion in waters, juice drinks, and vegetable juice. Nevertheless, the analytical performance of sensors created to detect methyl parathion was lower. Xie et al. [107] detected pesticides in brown rice using MIP sensors and linear sweep voltammetry. Additionally, the MIPs sensor was produced via free-radical polymerization of p-vinylbenzoic acid on the surface of a modified glassy carbon electrode. The study demonstrated that the approach could detect thiamethoxam residues with an 88.7–94.0% recovery range. Li et al. [108] used differential pulse voltammetry to build a MIP-based sensor to analyze paraoxon and exhibited excellent stability after 3 months.

7.2 Optical biosensors

Optical biosensors have attracted considerable interest and are being applied in various fields, including food safety and security, biological sciences, environmental sensing, and medical science. The optical characteristics of the optical transducers, including absorption, reflectance, and fluorescence emission, will change in response to the analyte. In many instances, optical biosensors have been used to detect pesticides, especially enzyme-based biomolecules Yotova and Medhat [109] developed an optical biosensor to identify pesticides contaminants based on the parallel immobilization of AChE and choline oxidase enzymes in silicon dioxide hybrid membranes. The bioactive component of the sensor is a multi-enzyme system that includes AChE and choline oxidase covalently immobilized on new hybrid membranes. It demonstrates a constant value of acetylcholine at concentrations ranging from 2.5 to 30 mM. Previously, Xavier et al. [110] studied an optical fiber biosensor for assessing propoxur and carbaryl in vegetable crops, employing chlorophenol red as an optical transducer of the analyte’s inhibitory impact on the AChE enzyme. The linear dynamic ranges of carbaryl and propoxur are 0.8–3.0 mg L−1 and 0.03–0.50 mg L−1, respectively. However, propoxur has a lower detection limit (0.4 ng) than carbaryl in the biosensor (25 ng). Ultrasonic extraction was utilized to detect propoxur in spiked onion and lettuce, with recovery rates ranging from 93 to 95% for onion samples at the different concentration levels studied.

7.3 Electrochemical biosensor

Electrochemical biosensors are gaining traction as a novel detection principle, increasing sensitivity, specificity, and repeatability [111]. Biosensors, in theory, are made up of two or three-electrode systems, comprising auxiliary, reference, and working electrodes, that create electrical signals when a target biomolecule interacts with a recognition element [112, 113]. For example, Chauhan and Pundir [114] used iron oxide nanoparticles and carboxylated multi-walled carbon nanotubes nanocomposite-based AChE enzymes. The enzyme AChE was isolated from maize seedlings and covalently attached to a modified gold electrode as a working electrode. The modified gold electrode was developed to measure the presence of different pesticides, including malathion, chlorpyrifos, monocrotophos, and endosulfan in water and milk samples with LODs as low as 0.1 nmol L−1.

Similarly, Zhao et al. [84] established direct electrodeposition of electrochemically based reduced graphene oxide-gold nanoparticles-cyclodextrin and Prussian blue-Chitosan modified glass carbon electrodes for pesticide determination. The AChE enzyme was immobilized via adsorption with a low detection limit for carbaryl. An AChE enzyme-based biosensor based on rGO-coated GCE was also created to detect carbamate herbicides in tomatoes with a detection limit of 1.9 nmol L−1 [115]. Additionally, Sun et al. [116] have created an amperometric AChE biosensor-based poly (diallyldimethyl-ammonium chloride)-multi-walled carbon nanotubes-graphene hybrid film to evaluate carbaryl in vegetables. Besides, Cesarino et al. [117] used polyaniline and multi-walled carbon nanotubes core-shell modified glassy carbon electrode to construct electrochemical AChE biosensors to measure carbamate pesticides in apple, broccoli, and cabbage. The detection limits for carbaryl and methomyl were 1.4 and 0.95 mol L−1, which shows lower than the allowed concentrations indicated by Brazilian regulatory regulations for the pesticides tested in the samples. Besides that, Song et al. [118] detected the carbamate pesticides using citrate-capped gold nanoparticles. The biosensor was made by first creating 3D MPS networks on an Au electrode and then adding citrate-capped AuNPs via an Au–S bond. Based on the inhibitory effect of carbamate insecticides on AChE activity, the pesticide’s action may be evaluated at a shallow potential. It was also demonstrated that the method could detect carbamate pesticides in real-world samples.

Advertisement

8. Conclusion

Pesticides and other environmental pollutants are being extensively monitored due to their potential threat to humans and agriculture. As a result, multiple methods for assessing pesticide residues in various matrices have arisen. Scientifically, capillary electrophoresis, immunoassay, GC, HPLC, and fluorescence detectors have high sensitivity. On the other hand, the earlier approaches are time-consuming, costly, and need highly skilled personnel. As a result, newer technologies have developed as a feasible choice for determining insecticide contaminant levels. Pesticides are increasingly analyzed using enzyme-based biosensors instead of analytical methods. Experts seek to build low-cost, ecologically friendly technologies as pesticide residues become increasingly urgent. The established enzymatic biosensor methods must be used to detect pesticide residuals below the approved safety level. Nanobiosensors allows for simultaneous monitoring of food products such as packaged food components, fruits, vegetables, juices, and the environment. A single and miniature biosensor that employs nanomaterials has a bright future in pesticides detection.

Advertisement

Acknowledgments

The authors would like to thank all the researchers involved in the project. This work was supported by the Grant from Universiti Malaysia Sabah (Grant No: PHD0024-2019).

Advertisement

Conflict of interest

The authors declare no conflict of interest.

References

  1. 1. Kaur R, Mavi GK, Raghav S, Khan I. Pesticides classification and its impact on environment. International Journal of Current Microbiology and Applied Sciences. 2019;8(3):1889-1897. DOI: 10.20546/ijcmas.2019.803.224
  2. 2. Duke SO. Interaction of chemical pesticides and their formulation ingredients with microbes associated with plants and plant pests. Journal of Agricultural and Food Chemistry. 2018;66(29):7553-7561. DOI: 10.1021/acs.jafc.8b02316
  3. 3. Lushchak VI, Matviishyn TM, Husak VV, Storey JM, Storey KB. Pesticide toxicity: A mechanistic approach. EXCLI Journal. 2018;17:1101. DOI: 10.17179%2Fexcli2018-1710
  4. 4. Mustapha MU, Halimoon N, Johar WL, Abd Shukor MY. An overview on biodegradation of carbamate pesticides by soil bacteria. Pertanika Journal of Science and Technology. 2019;27(2):547-563
  5. 5. Chung SW, Chen BL. Determination of organochlorine pesticide residues in fatty foods: A critical review on the analytical methods and their testing capabilities. Journal of Chromatography. A. 2011;1218(33):5555-5567. DOI: 10.1016/j.chroma.2011.06.066
  6. 6. Fan Y, Lai K, Rasco BA, Huang Y. Determination of carbaryl pesticide in Fuji apples using surface-enhanced Raman spectroscopy coupled with multivariate analysis. LWT- Food Science and Technology. 2015;60(1):352-357. DOI: 10.1016/j.lwt.2014.08.011
  7. 7. Karami-Mohajeri S, Abdollahi M. Toxic influence of organophosphate, carbamate, and organochlorine pesticides on cellular metabolism of lipids, proteins, and carbohydrates: A systematic review. Human & Experimental Toxicology. 2011;30(9):1119-1140. DOI: 10.1177/0960327110388959
  8. 8. Oliveira TM, Ribeiro FW, Sousa CP, Salazar-Banda GR, de Lima-Neto P, Correia AN, et al. Current overview and perspectives on carbon-based (bio) sensors for carbamate pesticides electroanalysis. TrAC, Trends in Analytical Chemistry. 2020;124:115779. DOI: 10.1016/j.trac.2019.115779
  9. 9. Songa EA, Okonkwo JO. Recent approaches to improving selectivity and sensitivity of enzyme-based biosensors for organophosphorus pesticides: A review. Talanta. 2016;155:289-304. DOI: 10.1016/j.talanta.2016.04.046
  10. 10. Silberman J, Taylor A. Carbamate toxicity. In: Bookshelf National Center for Biotechnology Information. Treasure Island, FL: StatPearls Publishing LLC; 2018
  11. 11. Vale A, Lotti M. Organophosphorus and carbamate insecticide poisoning. Handbook of Clinical Neurology. 2015;131:149-168. DOI: 10.1016/B978-0-444-62627-1.00010-X
  12. 12. Krieger R, editor. Handbook of Pesticide Toxicology, Two-Volume Set. London, United Kingdom: Academic Press; 2001
  13. 13. Koshlukova SE, Reed NR. Carbaryl. Amsterdam: Elsevier; 2014. pp. 668-672. DOI:10.1016/B978-0-12-386454-3.00107-X
  14. 14. Jing X, Wang H, Huang X, Chen Z, Zhu J, Wang X. Digital image colorimetry detection of carbaryl in food samples based on liquid phase microextraction coupled with a microfluidic thread-based analytical device. Food Chemistry. 2021;337:127971. DOI: 10.1016/j.foodchem.2020.127971
  15. 15. Blacker AM, Kelly ID, Lantz JL, Mihlan GJ, Jones RL, Young BM. Aldicarb: Toxicity, exposure and risks to humans. In: Hayes’ Handbook of Pesticide Toxicology. 2010. pp. 1619-1632. DOI: 10.1016/B978-0-12-374367-1.00075-6
  16. 16. Paranjape K, Gowariker V, Krishnamurthy VN, Gowariker S. The Pesticide Encyclopedia. United Kingdom: CABI; 2014
  17. 17. Liu L, Suryoprabowo S, Zheng Q, Song S, Kuang H. Rapid detection of aldicarb in cucumber with an immunochromatographic test strip. Food and Agricultural Immunology. 2017;28(3):427-438. DOI: 10.1080/09540105.2017.1293015
  18. 18. Mishra S, Zhang W, Lin Z, Pang S, Huang Y, Bhatt P, et al. Carbofuran toxicity and its microbial degradation in contaminated environments. Chemosphere. 2020;259:127419. DOI: 10.1016/j.chemosphere.2020.127419
  19. 19. Amatatongchai M, Thimoonnee S, Jarujamrus P, Nacapricha D, Lieberzeit PA. Novel amino-containing molecularly-imprinted polymer coating on magnetite-gold core for sensitive and selective carbofuran detection in food. Microchemical Journal. 2020;158:105298. DOI: 10.1016/j.microc.2020.105298
  20. 20. Lan J, Wang M, Ding S, Fan Y, Diao X, Li QX, et al. Simultaneous detection of carbofuran and 3-hydroxy-carbofuran in vegetables and fruits by broad-specific monoclonal antibody-based ELISA. Food and Agricultural Immunology. 2019;30(1):1085-1096. DOI: 10.1080/09540105.2019.1664997
  21. 21. Shen S, Chen M, Wang T, Fei T, Yang D, Cao M, et al. Determination of methomyl residue in tobacco samples by heart-cutting two-dimensional liquid chromatography with tandem mass spectrometry. International Journal of Analytical Chemistry. 2020;2020:8813142. DOI: 10.1155/2020/8813142
  22. 22. Derbalah A, Massoud A, El-Mehasseb I, Allah MS, Ahmed MS, Al-Brakati A, et al. Microbial detoxification of dimethoate and methomyl residues in aqueous media. Water. 2021;13(8):1117. DOI: 10.3390/w13081117
  23. 23. Fan J, Shao X, Xu H, Feng S. A novel inhibitory kinetic fluorimetric method for the determination of trace methomyl in environmental samples. Luminescence: The Journal of Biological and Chemical Luminescence. 2009;24(4):266-270. DOI: 10.1002/bio.1120
  24. 24. Kinoshita H, Tanaka N, Jamal M, Kumihashi M, Okuzono R, Tsutsui K, et al. Application of energy dispersive X-ray fluorescence spectrometry (EDX) in a case of methomyl ingestion. Forensic Science International. 2013;227(1-3):103-105. DOI: 10.1016/j.forsciint.2012.08.026
  25. 25. Kim KH, Kwon IH, Lee JY, Yeo WH, Park HY, Park KH, et al. Clinical significance of national patients sample analysis: Factors affecting mortality and length of stay of organophosphate and carbamate poisoned patients. Healthcare Informatics Research. 2013;19(4):278-285. DOI: 10.4258/hir.2013.19.4.278
  26. 26. Silva CC, De Souza D. Polished silver solid amalgam electrode and cationic surfactant as tool in electroanalytical determination of methomyl pesticide. Talanta. 2018;189:389-396. DOI: 10.1016/j.talanta.2018.07.029
  27. 27. Guo Y, Wang H, Chen Z, Jing X, Wang X. Determination of methomyl in grain using deep eutectic solvent-based extraction combined with fluorescence-based enzyme inhibition assays. Spectrochimica Acta, Part A: Molecular and Biomolecular Spectroscopy. 2022;266:120412. DOI: 10.1016/j.saa.2021.120412
  28. 28. Rasolonjatovo MA, Cemek M, Cengiz MF, Ortaç D, Konuk HB, Karaman E, et al. Reduction of methomyl and acetamiprid residues from tomatoes after various household washing solutions. International Journal of Food Properties. 2017;20(11):2748-2759. DOI: 10.1080/10942912.2016.1250099
  29. 29. Pietrzak D, Kania J, Malina G, Kmiecik E, Wątor K. Pesticides from the EU first and second watch lists in the water environment. Clean: Soil, Air, Water. 2019;47(7):1800376. DOI: 10.1002/clen.201800376
  30. 30. Sivaperumal P, Anand P, Riddhi L. Rapid determination of pesticide residues in fruits and vegetables, using ultra-high-performance liquid chromatography/time-of-flight mass spectrometry. Food Chemistry. 2015;168:356-365. DOI: 10.1016/j.foodchem.2014.07.072
  31. 31. European Food Safety Authority. The 2010 European Union report on pesticide residues in food. EFSA Journal. 2013;11(3):3130
  32. 32. Hayes WJ, Laws ER. Handbook of Pesticide Toxicology. San Diego: Academic Press; 1991. DOI: 10.1016/j.microc.2020.105298
  33. 33. Karimi Z, Alizadeh AM, Dolatabadi JE, Dehghan P. Nigella sativa and its derivatives as food toxicity protectant agents. Advanced Pharmaceutical Bulletin. 2019;9(1):22. DOI: 10.15171%2Fapb.2019.004
  34. 34. Borahan T, Tekin Z, Zaman BT, Chormey DS, Bakirdere S. An analytical strategy for propoxur determination in raisin samples with matrix matching method after dispersive liquid-liquid microextraction. Journal of Food Composition and Analysis. 2019;84:103315. DOI: 10.1016/j.jfca.2019.103315
  35. 35. Xiao-Xue SH, Xiu-Qi LI, Xiao-Ping WE, Jian-Ping LI. Molecularly imprinted photoelectrochemical sensor based on AgBiS2/Bi2S3 for determination of propoxur. Chinese Journal of Analytical Chemistry. 2020;48(3):396-404. DOI: 10.1016/S1872-2040(20)60004-4
  36. 36. Fan AM. Biomarkers in toxicology, risk assessment, and environmental chemical regulations. In: Biomarkers in Toxicology. London, United Kingdom: Academic Press; 2014. pp. 1057-1080. DOI: 10.1016/B978-0-12-404630-6.00064-6
  37. 37. Yaseen T, Pu H, Sun DW. Fabrication of silver-coated gold nanoparticles to simultaneously detect multi-class insecticide residues in peach with SERS technique. Talanta. 2019;196:537-545. DOI: 10.1016/j.talanta.2018.12.030
  38. 38. Ghoraba Z, Aibaghi B, Soleymanpour A. Ultrasound-assisted dispersive liquid-liquid microextraction followed by ion mobility spectrometry for the simultaneous determination of bendiocarb and azinphos-ethyl in water, soil, food and beverage samples. Ecotoxicology and Environmental Safety. 2018;165:459-466. DOI: 10.1016/j.ecoenv.2018.09.021
  39. 39. Kowalska G, Pankiewicz U, Kowalski R. Estimation of pesticide residues in selected products of plant origin from Poland with the use of the HPLC-MS/MS technique. Agriculture. 2020;10(6):192. DOI: 10.3390/agriculture10060192
  40. 40. Pelle FD, Angelini C, Sergi M, Del Carlo M, Pepe A, Compagnone D. Nano carbon black-based screen printed sensor for carbofuran, isoprocarb, carbaryl and fenobucarb detection: Application to grain samples. Talanta. 2018;186:389-396. DOI: 10.1016/j.talanta.2018.04.082
  41. 41. Toldra F. Handbook of Food Analysis-Two Volume Set. Boca Raton: CRC Press; 2015. DOI: 10.1201/b18668
  42. 42. Nollet LM, Rathore HS, editors. Handbook of Pesticides: Methods of Pesticide Residues Analysis. Boca Raton: CRC Press; 2016
  43. 43. Sabljic A, editor. Environmental and Ecological Chemistry—Volume II. Oxford, United Kingdom: EOLSS Publications; 2009
  44. 44. Jokanović M. Medical treatment of acute poisoning with organophosphorus and carbamate pesticides. Toxicology Letters. 2009;190(2):107-115. DOI: 10.1016/j.toxlet.2009.07.025
  45. 45. Saber M, Parsaeyan E, Vojoudi S, Bagheri M, Mehrvar A, Kamita SG. Acute toxicity and sublethal effects of methoxyfenozide and thiodicarb on survival, development and reproduction of Helicoverpa armigera (Lepidoptera: Noctuidae). Crop Protection. 2013;43:14-17. DOI: 10.1016/j.cropro.2012.09.011
  46. 46. Gil HW, Jeong MH, Park JS, Choi HW, Kim SY, Hong SY. An outbreak of food borne illness due to methomyl pesticide intoxication in Korea. Journal of Korean Medical Science. 2013;28(11):1677-1681. DOI: 10.3346/jkms.2013.28.11.1677
  47. 47. WHO. State of the Science of Endocrine Disrupting Chemicals 2012: An Assessment of the State of the Science of Endocrine Disruptors Prepared by a Group of Experts for the United Nations Environment Programme and World Health Organization. Geneva: WHO; 2013
  48. 48. De Coster S, Van Larebeke N. Endocrine-disrupting chemicals: associated disorders and mechanisms of action. Journal of Environmental and Public Health. 2012;99(8):34-38. DOI: 10.1155/2012/713696
  49. 49. Masondo NA, Stafford GI, Aremu AO, Makunga NP. Acetylcholinesterase inhibitors from southern African plants: An overview of ethnobotanical, pharmacological potential and phytochemical research including and beyond Alzheimer’s disease treatment. South African Journal of Botany. 2019;120:39-64. DOI: 10.1016/j.sajb.2018.09.011
  50. 50. Abubakar Y, Tijjani H, Egbuna C, Adetunji CO, Kala S, Kryeziu TL, et al. Pesticides, history, and classification. In: Natural Remedies for Pest, Disease and Weed Control. London, United Kingdom: Academic Press; 2020. pp. 29-42. DOI: 10.1016/B978-0-12-819304-4.00003-8
  51. 51. Nollet L. Handbook of Food Analysis. New York: Marcel Dekker; 2004
  52. 52. Roberts JR, Reigart JR. Recognition and Management of Pesticide Poisonings. United States: Govt Printing; 2013
  53. 53. Narenderan ST, Meyyanathan SN, Babu B. Review of pesticide residue analysis in fruits and vegetables. Pre-treatment, extraction and detection techniques. Food Research International. 2020;133:109141. DOI: 10.1016/j.foodres.2020.109141
  54. 54. Musarurwa H, Tavengwa NT. Deep eutectic solvent-based dispersive liquid-liquid micro-extraction of pesticides in food samples. Food Chemistry. 2021;342:127943. DOI: 10.1016/j.foodchem.2020.127943
  55. 55. Nasiri M, Ahmadzadeh H, Amiri A. Sample preparation and extraction methods for pesticides in aquatic environments: A review. TrAC, Trends in Analytical Chemistry. 2020;123:115772. DOI: 10.1016/j.trac.2019.115772
  56. 56. Goulart SM, Alves RD, Neves AA, De Queiroz JH, De Assis TC, De Queiroz ME. Optimization and validation of liquid–liquid extraction with low temperature partitioning for determination of carbamates in water. Analytica Chimica Acta. 2010;671(1-2):41-47. DOI: 10.1016/j.aca.2010.05.003
  57. 57. Wang X, Meng X, Wu Q, Wang C, Wang Z. Solid phase extraction of carbamate pesticides with porous organic polymer as adsorbent followed by high performance liquid chromatography-diode array detection. Journal of Chromatography. A. 2019a;1600:9-16. DOI: 10.1016/j.chroma.2019.04.031
  58. 58. Li N, Chen J, Shi YP. Magnetic graphene solid-phase extraction for the determination of carbamate pesticides in tomatoes coupled with high performance liquid chromatography. Talanta. 2015;141:212-219. DOI: 10.1016/j.talanta.2015.04.018
  59. 59. Shi Z, Hu J, Li Q, Zhang S, Liang Y, Zhang H. Graphene based solid phase extraction combined with ultra high performance liquid chromatography–tandem mass spectrometry for carbamate pesticides analysis in environmental water samples. Journal of Chromatography. A. 2014;1355:219-227. DOI: 10.1016/j.chroma.2014.05.085dq
  60. 60. Sýkora M, Vítová E, Jeleń HH. Application of vacuum solid-phase microextraction for the analysis of semi-hard cheese volatiles. European Food Research and Technology. 2020;246(3):573-580. DOI: 10.1007/s00217-020-03426-x
  61. 61. Zhou Q, Fang Z. Graphene-modified TiO2 nanotube arrays as an adsorbent in micro-solid phase extraction for determination of carbamate pesticides in water samples. Analytica Chimica Acta. 2015;869:43-49. DOI: 10.1016/j.aca.2015.02.019
  62. 62. Nantia EA, Moreno-González D, Manfo FP, Gámiz-Gracia L, García-Campaña AM. QuEChERS-based method for the determination of carbamate residues in aromatic herbs by UHPLC-MS/MS. Food Chemistry. 2017;216:334-341. DOI: 10.1016/j.foodchem.2016.08.038
  63. 63. Anastassiades M, Lehotay SJ, Štajnbaher D, Schenck FJ. Fast and easy multiresidue method employing acetonitrile extraction/partitioning and “dispersive solid-phase extraction” for the determination of pesticide residues in produce. Journal of AOAC International. 2003;86(2):412-431. DOI: 10.1093/jaoac/86.2.412
  64. 64. Manav ÖG, Dinç-Zor Ş, Alpdoğan G. Optimization of a modified QuEChERS method by means of experimental design for multiresidue determination of pesticides in milk and dairy products by GC–MS. Microchemical Journal. 2019;144:124-129. DOI: 10.1016/j.microc.2018.08.056
  65. 65. Zhang Z, Dong M, Hao X, Han L, Song S, Yao W. Evaluation of cleanup procedures in pesticide multi-residue analysis with QuEChERS in cinnamon bark. Food Chemistry. 2019a;276:140-146. DOI: 10.1016/j.foodchem.2018.10.019
  66. 66. Reddy CS, Reddy GV. Pesticide residues recovery studies by QuEChERS sample technique using gas chromatography. The Madras Agricultural Journal. 2017;104(1-3):64-67
  67. 67. Neufeld DS, Åkerson N, Barahona D. Pesticide analysis in vegetables using QuEChERS extraction and colorimetric detection. Virginia Journal of Science. 2015;66(4):4. DOI: 10.25778/8rzd-1z63
  68. 68. Farajzadeh MA, Safi R, Yadeghari A. Combination of QuEChERS extraction with magnetic solid phase extraction followed by dispersive liquid–liquid microextraction as an efficient procedure for the extraction of pesticides from vegetable, fruit, and nectar samples having high content of solids. Microchemical Journal. 2019;147:571-581. DOI: 10.1016/j.microc.2019.03.074
  69. 69. Luque D, Castillo P. Microwave-assisted extraction of food components. In: Innovative Food Processing Technologies. Amsterdam: Elsevier; 2016. pp. 57-110. DOI: 10.1016/B978-0-08-100294-0.00003-1
  70. 70. Wang H, Ding J, Ren N. Recent advances in microwave-assisted extraction of trace organic pollutants from food and environmental samples. TrAC, Trends in Analytical Chemistry. 2016;75:197-208. DOI: 10.1016/j.trac.2015.05.005
  71. 71. Kalogiouri NP, Papadakis EN, Maggalou MG, Karaoglanidis GS, Samanidou VF, Menkissoglu-Spiroudi U. Development of a microwave-assisted extraction protocol for the simultaneous determination of mycotoxins and pesticide residues in apples by LC-MS/MS. Applied Sciences. 2021;11(22):10931. DOI: 10.3390/app112210931
  72. 72. Zhou T, Xiao X, Li G. Microwave accelerated selective soxhlet extraction for the determination of organophosphorus and carbamate pesticides in ginseng with gas chromatography/mass spectrometry. Analytical Chemistry. 2012 Jul 3;84(13):5816-5822. DOI: 10.1021/ac301274r
  73. 73. Alsammarraie F, Lin M. Using standing gold nanorod arrays as surface-enhanced Raman spectroscopy (SERS) substrates for detection of carbaryl residues in fruit juice and milk. Journal of Agricultural and Food Chemistry. 2017;65(3):666-674. DOI: 10.1021/acs.jafc.6b04774
  74. 74. Yao L, Liu L, Song S, Kuang H, Xu C. Development of indirect competitive enzyme-linked immunosorbent and immunochromatographic strip assays for carbofuran detection in fruits and vegetables. Food and Agricultural Immunology. 2017;28(4):639-651. DOI: 10.1080/09540105.2017.1309359
  75. 75. Zhao Y, Tan G, Wang M, Lin H, He L, Li L, et al. Application of immunoassays for rapid monitor of carbofuran residue in vegetables. Journal of Food Science. 2019;84(11):3296-3302. DOI: 10.1111/1750-3841.14826
  76. 76. Baek S, Kang J, Hwang Y, Ok K, Kwak K, Chun H. Detection of methomyl, a carbamate insecticide, in food matrices using terahertz time-domain spectroscopy. Journal of Infrared, Millimeter, and Terahertz Waves. 2015;37(5):486-497. DOI: 10.1007/s10762-015-0234-9
  77. 77. Wanwimolruk S, Duangsuwan W, Phopin K, Boonpangrak S. Food safety in Thailand 5: The effect of washing pesticide residues found in cabbages and tomatoes. Journal of Consumer Protection and Food Safety. 2017;12(3):209-221. DOI: 10.1007/s00003-017-1116-y
  78. 78. Wang X, Feng T, Wang J, Hao L, Wang C, Wu Q, et al. Preparation of magnetic porous covalent triazine-based organic polymer for the extraction of carbamates prior to high performance liquid chromatography-mass spectrometric detection. Journal of Chromatography. A. 2019b;1602:178-187. DOI: 10.1016/j.chroma.2019.06.046
  79. 79. Da J, Wang G, Cao J, Zhang Q. Determination of 30 carbamate pesticide residues in vegetative foods by QuEChERS-liquid chromatography-tandem mass spectrometry. Chinese Journal of Chromatography. 2015;33(8):830. DOI: 10.3724/sp.j.1123.2015.04013
  80. 80. Hussain A, Pu H, Sun D. Cysteamine modified core-shell nanoparticles for rapid assessment of oxamyl and thiacloprid pesticides in milk using SERS. Journal of Food Measurement and Characterization. 2020;14(4):2021-2029. DOI: 10.1007/s11694-020-00448-7
  81. 81. Sánchez-Hernández L, Hernández-Domínguez D, Bernal J, Neusüß C, Martín MT, Bernal JL. Capillary electrophoresis–mass spectrometry as a new approach to analyze neonicotinoid insecticides. Journal of Chromatography. A. 2014;1359:317-324. DOI: 10.1016/j.chroma.2014.07.028
  82. 82. Attig JB, Latrous L, Zougagh M, Ríos Á. Ionic liquid and magnetic multiwalled carbon nanotubes for extraction of N-methylcarbamate pesticides from water samples prior their determination by capillary electrophoresis. Talanta. 2021;226:122106. DOI: 10.1016/j.talanta.2021.122106
  83. 83. Cheng X, Wang Q, Zhang S, Zhang W, He P, Fang Y. Determination of four kinds of carbamate pesticides by capillary zone electrophoresis with amperometric detection at a polyamide-modified carbon paste electrode. Talanta. 2007;71(3):1083-1087. DOI: 10.1016/j.talanta.2006.06.001
  84. 84. Zhang W, Yang F, Zhang Y, Zhou K. Simultaneous determination of seven carbamate pesticide residues in vegetable by capillary electrophoresis with solid phase microextraction. International Journal of Electrochemical Science. 2021;16:1-4. DOI: 10.20964/2021.06.06
  85. 85. Zhao H, Ji X, Wang B, Wang N, Li X, Ni R, et al. An ultra-sensitive acetylcholinesterase biosensor based on reduced graphene oxide-Au nanoparticles-β-cyclodextrin/Prussian blue-chitosan nanocomposites for organophosphorus pesticides detection. Biosensors & Bioelectronics. 2015;65:23-30. DOI: 10.1016/j.bios.2014.10.007
  86. 86. Hancu G, Simon B, Rusu A, Mircia E, Gyéresi Á. Principles of micellar electrokinetic capillary chromatography applied in pharmaceutical analysis. Advanced Pharmaceutical Bulletin. 2013;3(1):1. DOI: 10.5681/apb.2013.001
  87. 87. Hsu CH, Hu CC, Chiu TC. Analysis of carbofuran, carbosulfan, isoprocarb, 3-hydroxycarbofuran, and 3-ketocarbofuran by micellar electrokinetic chromatography. Journal of Separation Science. 2012;35(10-11):1359-1364. DOI: 10.1002/jssc.201101108
  88. 88. See HH, Hauser PC, Sanagi MM, Ibrahim WA. Dynamic supported liquid membrane tip extraction of glyphosate and aminomethylphosphonic acid followed by capillary electrophoresis with contactless conductivity detection. Journal of Chromatography. A. 2010;1217(37):5832-5838. DOI: 10.1016/j.chroma.2010.07.054
  89. 89. Sung IH, Lee YW, Chung DS. Liquid extraction surface analysis in-line coupled with capillary electrophoresis for direct analysis of a solid surface sample. Analytica Chimica Acta. 2014;838:45-50. DOI: 10.1016/j.aca.2014.05.013
  90. 90. Araujo L, Rojas C, Cubillan D, Villa N, Mercado J, Prieto A. Determination of trifloxystrobin, tebufenozide, and halofenozide in foods by micellar electrokinetic capillary chromatography. Analytical Letters. 2010;43(15):2340-2348. DOI: 10.1080/00032711003717372
  91. 91. Santalad A, Zhou L, Shang F, Fitzpatrick D, Burakham R, Srijaranai S, et al. Micellar electrokinetic chromatography with amperometric detection and off-line solid-phase extraction for analysis of carbamate insecticides. Journal of Chromatography. A. 2010;1217(32):5288-5297. DOI: 10.1016/j.chroma.2010.06.024
  92. 92. Chen Q, Fung Y. Capillary electrophoresis with immobilized quantum dot fluorescence detection for rapid determination of organophosphorus pesticides in vegetables. Electrophoresis. 2010;31(18):3107-3114. DOI: 10.1002/elps.201000260
  93. 93. Chang PL, Hsieh MM, Chiu TC. Recent advances in the determination of pesticides in environmental samples by capillary electrophoresis. International Journal of Environmental Research and Public Health. 2016;13(4):409. DOI: 10.3390/ijerph13040409
  94. 94. Zhang S, Yang X, Yin X, Wang C, Wang Z. Dispersive liquid–liquid microextraction combined with sweeping micellar electrokinetic chromatography for the determination of some neonicotinoid insecticides in cucumber samples. Food Chemistry. 2012;133(2):544-550. DOI: 10.1016/j.foodchem.2012.01.028
  95. 95. Watanabe E. The present state and perspective on simple and rapid immunochemical detection for pesticide residues in crops. Japan Agricultural Research Quarterly: JARQ. 2011;45(4):359-370. DOI: 10.6090/jarq.45.359
  96. 96. Bellemjid N, Iddar A, Moussaif A, Abbadi NE, Mesfioui A. Analysis of carbamates pesticides: Immunogical technique by local development of enzyme-linked immuno-sorbent assay. The Journal of Pharmacy and Pharmacology. 2018;6:395-402. DOI: 10.17265/2328-2150/2018.04.010
  97. 97. Zhang JR, Wang Y, Dong JX, Yang JY, Zhang YQ, Wang F, et al. Development of a simple pretreatment immunoassay based on an organic solvent-tolerant nanobody for the detection of carbofuran in vegetable and fruit samples. Biomolecules. 2019b;9(10):576. DOI: 10.3390/biom9100576
  98. 98. Sparkman OD, Penton Z, Kitson FG. Gas Chromatography and Mass Spectrometry: A Practical Guide. London, United Kingdom: Academic Press; 2011. DOI: 10.1016/C2009-0-17039-3
  99. 99. Zhang W, Si G, Ye M, Feng S, Cheng F, Li J, et al. An efficient assay for simultaneous quantification of ethyl carbamate and phthalate esters in Chinese liquor by gas chromatography-mass spectrometry. Food Analytical Methods. 2017;10(11):3487-3495. DOI: 10.1007/s12161-017-0906-2
  100. 100. Liu J, Xu Y, Zhao GA. Rapid determination of ethyl carbamate in Chinese rice wine using headspace solid-phase microextraction and gas chromatography–mass spectrometry. Journal of the Institute of Brewing. 2012;118(2):217-222. DOI: 10.1002/jib.33
  101. 101. Yao L, Maloley K, Broeckling C, Ensley S, Crain S, Coffey R. Quantitative analysis of ethyl carbamate in distillers grains co-products and bovine plasma by gas chromatography–mass spectrometry. Journal of Agricultural and Food Chemistry. 2020;68(39):10984-10991. DOI: 10.1021/acs.jafc.0c03535
  102. 102. Van Dyk JS, Pletschke B. Review on the use of enzymes for the detection of organochlorine, organophosphate and carbamate pesticides in the environment. Chemosphere. 2011;82(3):291-307. DOI: 10.1016/j.chemosphere.2010.10.033
  103. 103. Lowdon JW, Diliën H, Singla P, Peeters M, Cleij TJ, van Grinsven B, et al. MIPs for commercial application in low-cost sensors and assays—An overview of the current status quo. Sensors and Actuators B: Chemical. 2020;325:128973. DOI: 10.1016/j.snb.2020.128973
  104. 104. Verma N, Bhardwaj A. Biosensor technology for pesticides—A review. Applied Biochemistry and Biotechnology. 2015;175(6):3093-3119. DOI: 10.1007/s12010-015-1489-2
  105. 105. Li D, Qiao X, Lu J, Xu Z. Synthesis and evaluation of a magnetic molecularly imprinted polymer sorbent for determination of trace trichlorfon residue in vegetables by capillary electrophoresis. Advances in Polymer Technology. 2018;37(4):968-976. DOI: 10.1002/adv.21745
  106. 106. Wang FR, Lee GJ, Haridharan N, Wu JJ. Electrochemical sensor using molecular imprinting polymerization modified electrodes to detect methyl parathion in environmental media. Electrocatalysis. 2018;9(1):1-9. DOI: 10.1007/s12678-017-0411-9
  107. 107. Xie T, Zhang M, Chen P, Zhao H, Yang X, Yao L, et al. A facile molecularly imprinted electrochemical sensor based on graphene: Application to the selective determination of thiamethoxam in grain. RSC Advances. 2017;7(62):38884-38894. DOI: 10.1039/C7RA05167K
  108. 108. Li S, Luo Q, Liu Y, Zhang Z, Shen G, Wu H, et al. Surface molecularly imprinted polymer film with poly (p-aminothiophenol) outer layer coated on gold nanoparticles inner layer for highly sensitive and selective sensing paraoxon. Polymers. 2017;9(8):359. DOI: 10.3390/polym9080359
  109. 109. Yotova L, Medhat N. Optical biosensor with multienzyme system immobilized onto hybrid membrane for pesticides determination. International Journal Bioautomation. 2011;15(4):267
  110. 110. Xavier MP, Vallejo B, Marazuela MD, Moreno-Bondi MC, Baldini F, Falai A. Fiber optic monitoring of carbamate pesticides using porous glass with covalently bound chlorophenol red. Biosensors & Bioelectronics. 2000;14(12):895-905. DOI: 10.1016/S0956-5663(99)00066
  111. 111. Jain U, Saxena K, Hooda V, Balayan S, Singh AP, Tikadar M, et al. Emerging vistas on pesticides detection based on electrochemical biosensors—An update. Food Chemistry. 2021;371:131126. DOI: 10.1016/j.foodchem.2021.131126
  112. 112. Moon JM, Thapliyal N, Hussain KK, Goyal RN, Shim YB. Conducting polymer-based electrochemical biosensors for neurotransmitters: A review. Biosensors & Bioelectronics. 2018;102:540-552. DOI: 10.1016/j.bios.2017.11.069
  113. 113. Uniyal S, Sharma RK. Technological advancement in electrochemical biosensor based detection of organophosphate pesticide chlorpyrifos in the environment: A review of status and prospects. Biosensors & Bioelectronics. 2018;116:37-50. DOI: 10.1016/j.bios.2018.05.039
  114. 114. Chauhan N, Pundir CS. An amperometric biosensor based on acetylcholinesterase immobilized onto iron oxide nanoparticles/multi-walled carbon nanotubes modified gold electrode for measurement of organophosphorus insecticides. Analytica Chimica Acta. 2011;701(1):66-74. DOI: 10.1016/j.aca.2011.06.014
  115. 115. da Silva MK, Vanzela HC, Defavari LM, Cesarino I. Determination of carbamate pesticide in food using a biosensor based on reduced graphene oxide and acetylcholinesterase enzyme. Sensors and Actuators B: Chemical. 2018;277:555-561. DOI: 10.1016/j.snb.2018.09.051
  116. 116. Sun X, Gong Z, Cao Y, Wang X. Acetylcholinesterase biosensor based on poly (diallyldimethylammonium chloride)-multi-walled carbon nanotubes-graphene hybrid film. Nano-Micro Letters. 2013;5(1):47-56. DOI: 10.1007/BF03353731
  117. 117. Cesarino I, Moraes FC, Lanza MR, Machado SA. Electrochemical detection of carbamate pesticides in fruit and vegetables with a biosensor based on acetylcholinesterase immobilised on a composite of polyaniline–carbon nanotubes. Food Chemistry. 2012;135(3):873-879. DOI: 10.1016/j.foodchem.2012.04.147
  118. 118. Song Y, Chen J, Sun M, Gong C, Shen Y, Song Y, et al. A simple electrochemical biosensor based on AuNPs/MPS/Au electrode sensing layer for monitoring carbamate pesticides in real samples. Journal of Hazardous Materials. 2016;304:103-109. DOI:10.1016/j.jhazmat.2015.10.058

Written By

Nasir Md Nur ’Aqilah, Kana Husna Erna, Joseph Merillyn Vonnie and Kobun Rovina

Submitted: 21 December 2021 Reviewed: 22 December 2021 Published: 02 November 2022