IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/gam/jijerp/v13y2016i10p943-d78752.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Pesticide Residues on Three Cut Flower Species and Potential Exposure of Florists in Belgium

Author

Listed:
  • Khaoula Toumi

    (Gembloux Agro-Bio Tech/ULg—Laboratoire de Phytopharmacie, Passage des Déportés 2, Gembloux 5030, Belgium)

  • Christiane Vleminckx

    (Institut Scientifique de Santé Publique, OD Food, Medecines and Consumer Safety, Rue Juliette Wytsman 14, Brussels 1050, Belgium)

  • Joris Van Loco

    (Institut Scientifique de Santé Publique, OD Food, Medecines and Consumer Safety, Rue Juliette Wytsman 14, Brussels 1050, Belgium)

  • Bruno Schiffers

    (Gembloux Agro-Bio Tech/ULg—Laboratoire de Phytopharmacie, Passage des Déportés 2, Gembloux 5030, Belgium)

Abstract

In order to assess the prevalence of pesticide contamination and the risk of florists’ exposure when handling cut flowers, sampling and analysis of 90 bouquets of the most commonly sold cut flowers in Belgium (50 bouquets of roses; 20 of gerberas, and 20 of chrysanthemums) were carried out. The bouquets were collected from 50 florists located in the seven largest cities of Belgium (Antwerp, Brussels, Charleroi, Ghent, Leuven, Liege, and Namur) and from five supermarkets located in the different regions. To have a better understanding of the route of exposure and professional practices a questionnaire was also addressed to a group of 25 florists who volunteered to take part in the survey. All florists were interviewed individually when collecting the questionnaire. The residual pesticide deposit values on cut flowers were determined in an accredited laboratory using a multi-residue (QuEChERS Quick Easy Cheap Effective Rugged Safe) method and a combination of gas chromatography (GC) and liquid chormatograhphy (LC) analysis. A total of 107 active substances were detected from all samples; i.e., an average of about 10 active substances per bouquet. The most severely contaminated bouquet accumulated a total concentration of residues up to 97 mg/kg. Results show that roses are the most contaminated cut flowers; with an average of 14 substances detected per sample and a total concentration per rose sample of 26 mg/kg. Some active substances present an acute toxicity (acephate, methiocarb, monocrotophos, methomyl, deltamethrin, etc.) and exposure can generate a direct effect on the nervous system of florists. Nevertheless, fungicides (dodemorph, propamocarb, and procymidone) were the most frequently detected in samples and had the highest maximum concentrations out of all the active substances analysed. Dodemorph was the most frequently detected substance with the highest maximum concentration (41.9 mg/kg) measured in the rose samples. It appears from the survey that, despite being exposed to high deposits of residues, florists usually do not protect themselves from contact with residues even if they spend several hours handling cut flowers and preparing bouquets (from 2 to 6 h/day, depending on the time of year and/or selling periods) daily. Bad habits (eating, drinking, or smoking at work) and absence of personal protective equipment of most florists also increase the risk of contact with pesticide residues.

Suggested Citation

  • Khaoula Toumi & Christiane Vleminckx & Joris Van Loco & Bruno Schiffers, 2016. "Pesticide Residues on Three Cut Flower Species and Potential Exposure of Florists in Belgium," IJERPH, MDPI, vol. 13(10), pages 1-14, September.
  • Handle: RePEc:gam:jijerp:v:13:y:2016:i:10:p:943-:d:78752
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://www.mdpi.com/1660-4601/13/10/943/pdf
    Download Restriction: no

    File URL: https://www.mdpi.com/1660-4601/13/10/943/
    Download Restriction: no
    ---><---

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Palma, Marco A. & Ward, Ronald W., 2010. "Measuring Demand Factors Influencing Market Penetration and Buying Frequency for Flowers in the U.S," International Food and Agribusiness Management Review, International Food and Agribusiness Management Association, vol. 13(1), pages 1-18, February.
    2. Morse, D.L. & Baker, E.L. & Landrigan, P.J., 1979. "Cut flowers: A potential pesticide hazard," American Journal of Public Health, American Public Health Association, vol. 69(1), pages 53-56.
    Full references (including those not matched with items on IDEAS)

    Citations

    Citations are extracted by the CitEc Project, subscribe to its RSS feed for this item.
    as


    Cited by:

    1. Khaoula Toumi & Laure Joly & Christiane Vleminckx & Bruno Schiffers, 2017. "Risk Assessment of Florists Exposed to Pesticide Residues through Handling of Flowers and Preparing Bouquets," IJERPH, MDPI, vol. 14(5), pages 1-19, May.

    Most related items

    These are the items that most often cite the same works as this one and are cited by the same works as this one.
    1. Rombach, Meike & Widmar, Nicole Olynk & Byrd, Elizabeth & Bitsch, Vera, 2018. "Do all roses smell equally sweet? Willingness to pay for flower attributes in specialized retail settings by German consumers," Journal of Retailing and Consumer Services, Elsevier, vol. 40(C), pages 91-99.
    2. Rodriguez, J. & Hernandez, J. & Quevedo, D., 2015. "Generation X and Generation Y. An approach of consumption values toward roses in the South of the State of Mexico," 2015 Conference, August 9-14, 2015, Milan, Italy 210968, International Association of Agricultural Economists.
    3. Collart, Alba J. & Palma, Marco A. & Carpio, Carlos E., 2013. "Consumer Response to Point of Purchase Advertising for Local Brands," Journal of Agricultural and Applied Economics, Cambridge University Press, vol. 45(2), pages 229-242, May.
    4. Palma, Marco A. & Hall, Charles R. & Collart, Alba J., 2011. "Repeat Buying Behavior for Ornamental Plants: A Consumer Profile," Journal of Food Distribution Research, Food Distribution Research Society, vol. 42(2), pages 1-11, July.
    5. Steen, Marie, 2014. "Measuring Price–Quantity Relationships in the Dutch Flower Market," Journal of Agricultural and Applied Economics, Southern Agricultural Economics Association, vol. 46(2), pages 1-10, May.
    6. Yan Heng & Ronald W. Ward & Lisa A. House & Marisa Zansler, 2019. "Assessing key factors influencing orange juice demand in the current US market," Agribusiness, John Wiley & Sons, Ltd., vol. 35(4), pages 501-515, October.
    7. Khaoula Toumi & Laure Joly & Christiane Vleminckx & Bruno Schiffers, 2017. "Risk Assessment of Florists Exposed to Pesticide Residues through Handling of Flowers and Preparing Bouquets," IJERPH, MDPI, vol. 14(5), pages 1-19, May.

    Corrections

    All material on this site has been provided by the respective publishers and authors. You can help correct errors and omissions. When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:gam:jijerp:v:13:y:2016:i:10:p:943-:d:78752. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.

    If you have authored this item and are not yet registered with RePEc, we encourage you to do it here. This allows to link your profile to this item. It also allows you to accept potential citations to this item that we are uncertain about.

    If CitEc recognized a bibliographic reference but did not link an item in RePEc to it, you can help with this form .

    If you know of missing items citing this one, you can help us creating those links by adding the relevant references in the same way as above, for each refering item. If you are a registered author of this item, you may also want to check the "citations" tab in your RePEc Author Service profile, as there may be some citations waiting for confirmation.

    For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: MDPI Indexing Manager (email available below). General contact details of provider: https://www.mdpi.com .

    Please note that corrections may take a couple of weeks to filter through the various RePEc services.

    IDEAS is a RePEc service. RePEc uses bibliographic data supplied by the respective publishers.