The Removal Process of Organophosphorus Pesticide Residues on the Surface of Commercial Fruits by Alkaline Electrolyzed Water

doi:10.11924/j.issn.1000-6850.casb2021-0188

Abstract

Abstract:

The purpose of this study is to optimize the control scheme of alkaline electrolyzed water (BEW) on the removal of pesticide residues on the surface of harvested fruits and vegetables based on response surface methodology, in order to provide valuable reference for the cleaning and processing of postharvest fruits and vegetables. Commercial citrus was used to detect organophosphorus pesticide residues on the fruit surface by the enzyme inhibition rate method. The Box-Behnken experimental design and response surface method were used to optimize the process parameters for the removal of organophosphorus pesticide residue. The BEW dilution ratio, soaking time, and soaking volume were selected as independent variables, while the enzyme inhibition rate of citrus after soaking was the response value. Subsequently, the predictive model of the quadratic regression equation of the enzyme inhibition rate after treatment was established, and the influence of each independent variable and their interaction on the enzyme inhibition rate were studied. The results showed that the dilution ratio of BEW, soaking time and soaking volume all significantly affected the removal efficiency of organophosphorus pesticides on the surface of postharvest citrus. The optimized enzyme inhibition rate could achieve 40% when the following process parameters were used: dilution ratio of 1:8.49, soaking time of 1.26 min, and soaking volume of 388.45 mL. The experiment verified that the average enzyme inhibition rate was 40.59%, and the relative error was only 1.48%, indicating that the actual value and the model predicted value fitted well. In conclusion, our research results prove that the alkaline electrolyzed water has a good ability to remove organophosphorus pesticide residues on the surface of fruits and vegetables under the optimal processing condition.

Key words: alkaline electrolyzed water (BEW), organophosphorus pesticide residues, response surface methodology, enzyme inhibition rate method

CLC Number:

LIU Lilan, QIU Qinqin, FAN Wenrong, TANG Jiao, HU Xiaobing, XIAO Wei, CHEN Ke. The Removal Process of Organophosphorus Pesticide Residues on the Surface of Commercial Fruits by Alkaline Electrolyzed Water[J]. Chinese Agricultural Science Bulletin, 2022, 38(2): 133-140.

Figures/Tables 10

References 26

[1]	吴学进, 梁冬梅, 刘春华. 我国柑橘生产上应用的植物生长调节剂登记现况及其分析[J]. 中国果树, 2020, 204(4):128-133.
[2]	PUTNIK P, BARBA F J, LORENZO J M, et al. An integrated approach to mandarin processing:Food safety and nutritional quality,consumer preference, and nutrient bioaccessibility[J]. Comprehensive reviews in food science and food safety, 2017, 16(6):1345-1358. doi: 10.1111/crf3.2017.16.issue-6 URL
[3]	丁晓波, 张华, 刘世尧, 等. 柑橘果品营养学研究现状[J]. 园艺学报, 2012, 39(9):1687-1702.
[4]	赵青红. 崇左市柑橘生产中农残超标的原因及预防措施[J]. 农民致富之友, 2018, 586(17):41.
[5]	张金平. 输美柑橘罐头禁用多菌灵农药[J]. 农药市场信息, 2016, 31(26):17.
[6]	陈道茂. 重视破解柑橘农药使用中存在的食品安全隐患[J]. 浙江柑桔, 2009, 26(4):17-19.
[7]	夏清华. 柑橘果实中有机磷类农药残留监测及其受加工处理的影响研究[D]. 重庆:西南大学, 2020.
[8]	高红刚, 娄金培. 超声波农药降解机降解效果研究[J]. 食品与机械, 2017, 33(11):86-88,99.
[9]	MISRA N N, PANKAJ S K, WALSH T, et al. In-package nonthermal plasma degradation of pesticides on fresh produce[J]. Journal of hazardous materials, 2014, 271(8):33-40. doi: 10.1016/j.jhazmat.2014.02.005 URL
[10]	刘淑敏, 唐兰兰, 陈智玲, 等. 湛江四种市售蔬菜农药残留的监测分析及洗涤方法对农残的影响[J]. 现代食品科技, 2020, 36(1):275-280,215.
[11]	DE SOUZA L P, FARONI L R D, HELENO F F, et al. Ozone treatment for pesticide removal from carrots: Optimization by response surface methodology[J]. Food chemistry, 2018, 243(6):435-441. doi: 10.1016/j.foodchem.2017.09.134 URL
[12]	尹芳, 张无敌, 周肸, 等. 新型生物农药残留降解剂研发及其潜在前景展望[J]. 灾害学, 2016, 31(3):157-159,169.
[13]	KAUSHIK G, SATYA S, NAIK S N. Food processing a tool to pesticide residue dissipation - a review[J]. Food research international, 2009, 42(1):26-40. doi: 10.1016/j.foodres.2008.09.009 URL
[14]	RODRIGUES A A Z, DE QUEIROZ M, DE OLIVEIRA A F, et al. Pesticide residue removal in classic domestic processing of tomato and its effects on product quality[J]. Journal of environmental science and health part b-pesticides food contaminants and agricultural wastes, 2017, 52(12):850-857.
[15]	CENGIZ M F, BASLAR M, BASANCELEBI O, et al. Reduction of pesticide residues from tomatoes by low intensity electrical current and ultrasound applications[J]. Food chemistry, 2018, 267(30):60-66. doi: 10.1016/j.foodchem.2017.08.031 URL
[16]	郝建雄, 李里特. 电生功能水消除蔬菜残留农药的实验研究[J]. 食品工业科技, 2006, 27(5):164-166.
[17]	YANG J, SONG L, PAN C P, et al. Removal of ten pesticide residues on/in kumquat by washing with alkaline electrolysed water[J]. International journal of environmental analytical chemistry. 2020, 100(8):1-14
[18]	WU Y, AN Q, LI D, et al. Comparison of different home/commercial washing strategies for ten typical pesticide residue removal effects in kumquat, spinach and cucumber[J]. International journal of environmental research and public health, 2019, 16(3):1-20. doi: 10.3390/ijerph16010001 URL
[19]	SUNG J M, KWON K H, KIM J H, et al. Effect of washing treatments on pesticide residues and antioxidant compounds in Yuja (Citrus junos sieb ex tanaka)[J]. Food science and biotechnology, 2011, 20(3):767-773. doi: 10.1007/s10068-011-0107-5 URL
[20]	RAHMAN S M E, KHAN I, OH D H. Electrolyzed water as a novel sanitizer in the food industry: Current trends and future perspectives[J]. Comprehensive Reviews in food science and food safety, 2016, 15(3):471-490. doi: 10.1111/crf3.2016.15.issue-3 URL
[21]	ONOJI S E, IYUKE S E, IGBAFE A I, et al. Hevea brasiliensis (rubber seed) oil: Modeling and optimization of extraction process parameters using response surface methodology and artificial neural network techniques[J]. Biofuels-UK, 2019, 10(6):677-691.
[22]	IMRON M F, TITAH H S. Optimization of diesel biodegradation by Vibrio alginolyticus using Box-Behnken design[J]. Environmental engineering research, 2018, 23(4):374-382. doi: 10.4491/eer.2018.015 URL
[23]	CHEN G, CHEN J, SRINIVASAKANNAN C, et al. Application of response surface methodology for optimization of the synjournal of synthetic rutile from titania slag[J]. Applied surface science, 2012, 258(7):3068-3073. doi: 10.1016/j.apsusc.2011.11.039 URL
[24]	OLUSEGUN B P, TAYLOR S K, BYONG-HUN J, et al. Impact of redox-mediators in the degradation of olsalazine by marine-derived fungus, Aspergillus aculeatus strain bpo2: Response surface methodology, laccase stability and kinetics[J]. Ecotoxicology and environmental safety, 2021, 208(2):1-20.
[25]	DAS A, MISHRA S. Removal of textile dye reactive green-19 using bacterial consortium: Process optimization using response surface methodology and kinetics study[J]. Journal of environmental chemical engineering, 2017, 5(1):612-627. doi: 10.1016/j.jece.2016.10.005 URL
[26]	王凌霄, 李再兴, 李涛, 等. 响应曲面法优化污泥碱解上清液中氮磷回收[J]. 水处理技术, 2020, 46(11):62-67.

响应水平	稀释比(V/V)	处理时间/min	处理体积/mL
-1	1:1	1	200
0	1:5	2	300
1	1:9	3	400

响应水平	稀释比(V/V)	处理时间/min	处理体积/mL
-1	1:1	1	200
0	1:5	2	300
1	1:9	3	400

处理	BEW稀释比(V/V)	处理时间/(min)	处理体积/mL	酶抑制率/%
1	1:5	3	200	37.32±2.88
2	1:5	1	200	15.08±2.29
3	1:9	3	300	11.55±1.25
4	1:9	2	200	20.84±0.72
5	1:9	2	400	43.65±2.27
6	1:5	2	300	23.54±2.57
7	1:5	2	300	19.91±0.47
8	1:1	2	200	55.41±1.94
9	1:9	1	300	11.15±6.94
10	1:5	2	300	20.83±2.96
11	1:1	3	300	51.45±1.93
12	1:5	1	400	42.89±5.13
13	1:5	3	400	45.05±6.02
14	1:1	2	400	68.42±4.02
15	1:1	1	300	17.53±1.21
16	1:5	2	300	24.03±5.01
17	1:5	2	300	20.62±2.94

处理	BEW稀释比(V/V)	处理时间/(min)	处理体积/mL	酶抑制率/%
1	1:5	3	200	37.32±2.88
2	1:5	1	200	15.08±2.29
3	1:9	3	300	11.55±1.25
4	1:9	2	200	20.84±0.72
5	1:9	2	400	43.65±2.27
6	1:5	2	300	23.54±2.57
7	1:5	2	300	19.91±0.47
8	1:1	2	200	55.41±1.94
9	1:9	1	300	11.15±6.94
10	1:5	2	300	20.83±2.96
11	1:1	3	300	51.45±1.93
12	1:5	1	400	42.89±5.13
13	1:5	3	400	45.05±6.02
14	1:1	2	400	68.42±4.02
15	1:1	1	300	17.53±1.21
16	1:5	2	300	24.03±5.01
17	1:5	2	300	20.62±2.94

来源	方差和	自由度	均方	F值	P值	显著性
模型	4654.04	9	517.12	76.15	< 0.0001	***
A	1394.45	1	1394.45	205.34	< 0.0001	***
B	431.00	1	431.00	63.47	< 0.0001	***
C	636.53	1	636.53	93.73	< 0.0001	***
AB	280.90	1	280.90	41.36	0.0004	**
AC	24.01	1	24.01	3.54	0.1021	—
BC	100.80	1	100.80	14.84	0.0063	**
A²	181.44	1	181.44	26.72	0.0013	**
B²	124.17	1	124.17	18.28	0.0037	**
C²	1477.03	1	1477.03	217.50	< 0.0001	***
残差	47.54	7	6.79
失拟项	33.63	3	11.21	3.22	0.1438	—
误差	13.90	4	3.48
总拟差	4701.58	16
R²	0.9899
R_adj²	0.9769