1. Introduction
In a rapidly growing population, various pesticides are used to increase overall agricultural production [1]. Because pesticides tend to remain in harvested crops and these residues can harm humans, many countries use a variety of methods to detect pesticide residues [2]. Lists of pesticides that require testing in accordance with the pharmacopoeia of each country and the national food safety standards have been established [3,4]. Moreover, there has been a growing interest in analyzing more pesticides and developing new pretreatment methods [5,6].
Herbal medicines are grown as agricultural products before being washed, cut, dried, and packaged in facilities with good manufacturing practices; therefore, they are exposed to various pesticides [7]. In Korea, Monograph Part 2 of the Korean Pharmacopoeia presents individual standard specifications for herbal medicines and preparations [8]. Standards for pesticide residues, including α-BHC, β-BHC, δ-BHC, γ-BHC, aldrin, dieldrin, endrin, P.P′-DDD, P.P′-DDE, O.P′-DDT, and P.P′-DDT, ranging from 11 to 31, are set and presented depending on the product. The test method involves using gas chromatography equipped with an electron capture detector, nitrogen-phosphorus detector, etc., or high-performance liquid chromatography (HPLC) after pretreatment.
However, the number of pesticides registered every year for the cultivation of agricultural products is increasing [9] because herbal medicines are imported from various countries, and it is becoming difficult to secure the safety of herbal medicines using only the herbal medicine test method No. 30 and the standards in the Korean Pharmacopoeia. In particular, in the case of herbal decoctions, since patients take them within approximately 24 h after dispensing, test results should be obtained as quickly as possible [10]. However, various types of herbal medicines are used according to the prescriptions, and the procedure to analyze pesticide residues in the Korean Pharmacopoeia is so complicated that it takes approximately 2–7 days to determine the results [11]. Therefore, developing an effective analysis method that can shorten the test time and increase the accuracy is necessary.
In Korea, the QuEChERS sampling method has been applied to the preprocessing stage in the food sector for a long time, and many pesticide multicomponent analysis methods have been developed using HPLC, gas chromatography (GC), gas chromatography tandem mass spectrometry (GC-MS/MS), and liquid chromatography tandem mass spectrometry (LC-MS/MS) [12]. Representatively, there are multiclass pesticide multiresidue methods [13] in the Korea Food Code and methods of analyzing harmful substances, such as the agricultural products of the Agricultural Products Quality Management Service [14]. In this study, the pretreatment process was supplemented with a single test method to overcome the limitations of human resources and time, in accordance with the limitations of the analysis of pesticide components in the existing analysis methods (multiclass pesticide multiresidue methods), the limitations of the diversity of pretreatment methods, and instrumental analysis. The specificity, linearity, accuracy, detection limit, and quantification limit of the pesticide analysis methods LC-MS/MS and GC-MS/MS were verified, and the pesticide detection results of 40 prepared decoctions using the test methods are presented.
2. Results
2.1. Test Analysis Method Verification Result
2.1.1. Specificity
GC-MS/MS Target Pesticide
The specificity was confirmed under multiple reaction monitoring (MRM) conditions for 113 standard products for GC-MS/MS analysis to confirm the selectivity of the measured analytes without interference from other components (Figure 1).
LC-MS/MS Target Pesticide
To confirm the selectivity to measure analytes without interference from other components, specificity was confirmed under MRM conditions for 207 standard products for LC-MS/MS analysis (Figure 2).
2.1.2. Linearity
The linearity between instrument signals according to pesticide concentration was evaluated in the dilution range of 1−200 μg/kg of the calibration curve standard solution. As a result of examining the linearity of 113 diluted pesticide mixture standard solutions for GC-MS/MS analysis in 5 stages at concentrations of 5, 10, 20, 100, and 200 μg/kg, most showed good linearity with R2 ≥ 0.99. As a result of examining the linearity of the 207 diluted standard pesticide mixtures for LC-MS/MS analysis at concentrations of 1, 5, 10, 100, and 200 μg/kg in 5 stages, all showed good linearity with R2 ≥ 0.99 (Supplementary File S1, Figures S1 and S2).
2.1.3. Accuracy
Accuracy, the degree of agreement between the measurement result and the standard value, was measured by recovery. The accuracy of the simultaneous analysis of pesticide residues in the decoction was confirmed by adding a standard solution to Galgeun-tang. For the recovery rate test, standard solutions were added to Galgeun-tang at concentrations of 10, 50, and 100 μg/kg, extracted using the above pretreatment method, and the test solution was then analyzed using LC-MS/MS and GC-MS/MS. The recovery rate results are shown in Table S3 and S4 (See the Supplementary File S2). Galgeun-tang is the herbal decoction most commonly prescribed to patients in traditional Korean medicine (TKM) and was selected after expert consultation to measure accuracy [15]. Herbal medicines (Pueraria lobata Ohwi, Cinnamomum cassia Presl, Ephedra sinica Stapf, Paeonia lactiflora Pallas, Glycyrrhiza uralensis Fischer, Zingiber officinale Roscoe, and Zizyphus jujuba Miller) that make up Galgeun-tang are all manufactured in an hGMP manufacturing facility licensed by the Korea Ministry of Food and Drug Safety [16,17].
The recovery rates of the 207 pesticide components subjected to LC-MS/MS analysis were 65−161% in the case of low concentrations; 201 pesticides with standard deviations within 15% consisted of 201 species; and 201 components were qualitative. Six types of pesticides, cyazofamid, cyflufenamid, fenoxaprop-ethyl, gibberellic acid, propaquizafop, and pyroquilon, were outside the recovery rate of 70−125%. The recovery rates at high concentrations were 79−119%, and the standard deviation was within 15% for the 207 pesticides, all of which could be analyzed at high concentrations.
The recovery rates of the 113 pesticide components analyzed by GC-MS/MS were 90−1349% at low concentrations. There were 111 pesticides whose recovery rates were 70−125%, with standard deviations within 15%, and there were 111 types of ingredients that could be quantified. The recovery rate was higher than 125% for two types of pesticides (prochloraz and indanofan).
The recovery rates at high concentrations were 97−189%. The recovery rates of 112 pesticides were 70−125%; the standard deviation was within 15%, and 112 components were available for qualitative treatment. Indanofan had a recovery rate of 189%, and the standard deviation was 20%, making it qualitatively difficult.
2.1.4. Limit of Detection and Quantification
The detection and quantification limits were calculated using the Mass Hunter program (version 11.2; Agilent Technologies, Santa Clara, CA, USA) after repeated measurements of the lowest concentration seven times based on the calibration curve prepared to confirm linearity. It was calculated using the slope of the calibration curve and the deviation of repeated measurements. The limit of detection (LOD) of each pesticide was 0.05 to 5.0 μg/kg in the LC-MS/MS analysis and 0.2 to 7.0 μg/kg in the GC-MS/MS analysis. The limit of quantification was in the range of 0.15 to 15 μg/kg in the LC-MS/MS analysis and 0.6 to 20 μg/kg in the GC-MS/MS, and trace amounts of pesticide components could be detected at the level of 10 μg/kg contained in the sample.
2.2. Pesticide Residues in Analyzed Samples
As a result of the analysis of 40 herbal decoctions prepared in the outpatient bathroom, no pesticides other than carbendazim were detected. Carbendazim was detected in the range of 0.01 to 0.03 μg/g in 8 samples of 40 herbal decoctions.
3. Discussion
The existing method (QuEChERS sample pretreatment method) is a test method for solids such as food and agricultural products, and there is a difference in the detection concentration depending on the volume of solids and the type of sample. Therefore, most tests using the existing method are used only as monitoring test methods (detection checks), and the quantitative results at the time of detection are obtained by conducting individual experiments for each pesticide component. However, it was confirmed that this test method is a stable method with accuracy and precision that can be widely applied without large deviations for liquid samples with certain properties, such as the decoction obtained by first hot water extraction of the sample. This study presented an improved test method that can be applied to liquid types with similar properties to decoction samples and that is valuable in that accuracy and precision were verified through validation.
The possibility of simultaneous multicomponent analysis of 320 pesticides using LC-MS/MS and GC-MS/MS was investigated to analyze the pesticide residues in herbal decoctions. The validity of the test method was verified by applying a preprocessing method modified from the existing QuEChERS method.
In AOAC and Codex, the suitability of the analysis method used in a study is judged by a 70−125% recovery rate and a 15% relative standard deviation. The recovery rate of the analytical method using LC-MS/MS and GC-MS/MS was at least 70%, and the relative standard deviation was less than 15%, meeting international standards, while eight pesticides at 10 μg/kg concentration, four pesticides at 50 μg/kg concentration, and one pesticide at 100 μg/kg concentration were excluded.
Therefore, the analysis method applied in this study is considered applicable to the analysis of multicomponent pesticides remaining in herbal decoctions.
Among the 320 species to be analyzed, it is considered necessary to apply and develop additional test methods to improve the preprocessing methods and increase the efficiency of the analysis of indanofan components that cannot be quantified beyond the range of recovery rates [18].
The multicomponent analysis method for various pesticides using LC-MS/MS and GC-MS/MS reviewed in this study is expected to be applicable for monitoring herbal decoctions.
Currently, no distinct regulations exist for managing harmful substances, including residual pesticides, in the herbal decoctions utilized by TKM clinics. This is due to the fact that such decoctions are not classified as products approved by the MFDS but rather as traditional medicines prepared through herb decoction at TKM clinics. Nonetheless, the Herbal Medicine Test Method of the Korean Pharmacopoeia applies specific residue limits for various pesticides in herbal medicines and extracts, including total DDT (sum of p,p′-DDD, p,p′-DDE, o,p′-DDT, and p,p′-DDT) at 0.1 ppm or less, dieldrin at 0.01 ppm or less, total BHC (the sum of α, β, γ, and δ-BHC) at 0.2 ppm or less, aldrin at 0.01 ppm or less, and endrin at 0.01 ppm or less [8]. Furthermore, the Korean Pharmacopoeia applies an interim standard of 0.01 ppm or less for pesticides that lack established standards in the herbal medicine test method in processed foods [8]. Although this study’s validation of the test method demonstrated that all LODs were below 0.01 ppm, the LOQs for five pesticides, including bifenox, exceeded 0.01 ppm, which is higher than the residual pesticide limits set by the Korea MFDS for herbal extracts and processed foods.
Carbendazim is commonly used to control fungal diseases in vegetables and fruits [19,20]. It was used worldwide before toxicological evidence was detected, and the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency canceled the registration. Although it has carcinogenicity and reproductive toxicity and can damage organs, such as the liver, it is still used in agriculture in some countries. China is a representative country that uses carbendazim in agriculture. Since most of the herbal medicines imported to Korea are from China, decoctions made from herbal medicines may be contaminated with carbendazim [21,22].
According to the herbal medicine standard of Korea, carbendazim should be no more than 0.05 mg/kg in peony, 2.0 mg/kg in goji berry, 4.0 mg/kg in jujube, 10 mg/kg in Schisandra chinensis, 0.05 mg/kg in hemp, 2.0 mg/kg in raspberry, 0.5 mg/kg in ginseng, and 0.05 mg/kg in ginger. For agricultural products, the standard specifications are set for 123 items, e.g., eggplant, tangerine, potato, and mustard, and the permissible standard is set differently, from low to high concentration, depending on the item: less than 0.03 mg/kg of potato and less than 50 mg/kg of kale.
In this study, we detected 0.01 and 0.03 mg/kg in eight samples. According to a previous study, in the case of mushrooms, washing, drying, and heating can reduce carbendazim residues. In particular, there were no carbendazim residues after the boiling process [23]. Herbal medicines are also submitted to washing and drying processes, and herbal decoctions are the result of boiling herbal medicines; therefore, the carbendazim concentration should be detected at very low levels. We compared previous studies conducted in other countries because there are no pesticide residue standards for herbal decoctions in Korea.
Fan et al., analyzed 77 Fragaria and 74 Myrica rubra sold in Hangzhou, China. They detected prochloraz and carbendazim mostly with detection rates of 71.6% and 68.9% in Myrica rubra, and the mean concentration of carbendazim was 0.149 mg/kg (0.0110−1.02 mg/kg) [24]. In Zhang’s et al. [25] study, 99 Chuanxiong Rhizoma samples were analyzed. As a result, carbendazim and prometryn were the pesticides the most frequently detected, with a 100% detection rate. Carbendazim was found at 38.92 ± 83.68 μg/kg (0.38−343.55 μg/kg), which exceeded the Chinese Pharmacopoeia standard by 20 times [25]. In the study by Xiao, carbendazim was the most widely used pesticide (>85%) [26]. Since our study focused on herbal decoction and comparative studies targeted herbal medicine, which is the raw material for herbal decoction, it was not possible to individually compare the amount and the ratio of detection. However, it cannot be said that the level of pesticide residue contamination in herbal decoction is high.
This study has several limitations. The collection of 4 frequently used prescriptions in 10 external herbal dispensaries (EHD) was a valuable component of this study. However, the prescription names and composition of 40 samples could not be included in the thesis as the EHDs refused to disclose this information for business reasons. Consequently, it was not possible to provide them as a supplementary file. It is important to note that in Korea, national surveys are regularly conducted on the use of herbal medicines in TKM clinics, and these surveys suggest the frequently used prescriptions. Disclosure of the name and composition of the prescription may be possible in future studies if a standard prescription is selected and a dispensing request is made.
4. Materials and Methods
4.1. Sample Collection
From March to April 2020, the research team collected 40 herbal decoctions in a portable refrigerator from the 10 EHDs and used them for the experiment. Herbal decoction pouches were collected for 4 prescriptions used frequently in 10 EHDs. An EHD is a type of pharmacy that provides various types of herbal medicines to other TKM institutions in Korea [27].
4.2. Standards and Reagents
The pesticide standards used in the analysis were purchased from AccuStandard® (New Haven, CT, USA) at a concentration of 1000 mg/L. Each pesticide standard was mixed and used, and acetonitrile (Merk, Rahway, NJ, USA) was used as a dilution solvent for each concentration. QuEChERS kits (mixed with anhydrous magnesium sulfate 4 g, sodium chloride 1 g, sodium citrate 1 g, disodium hydrogen citrate sesquihydrate 0.5 g, anhydrous magnesium sulfate 150 mg, and primary secondary amine 25 mg) were used with BEKOlut® (Bruchmühlbach-Miesau, Germany) for pretreatment. The solvents used in the analysis were acetonitrile (hyper grade for LC-MS, Merk, Rahway, NJ, USA), formic acid (for LC-MS 98–100%, Merk, USA), and ammonium acetate (for mass spectrometry, Sigma-Aldrich, St. Louis, MI, USA).
A total of 113 pesticides subjected to GC-MS/MS analysis were prepared by mixing and diluting a standard product prepared at a concentration of 1000 mg/kg to a concentration of 5 mg/kg and then diluted to 5, 10, 20, 100, and 200 μg/kg using acetonitrile for analysis. A total of 207 pesticides subjected to LC-MS/MS analysis were prepared by mixing and diluting a standard product prepared at a concentration of 1000 mg/kg to a concentration of 2 mg/kg and then diluted to 1, 5, 10, 100, and 200 μg/kg using acetonitrile for analysis. Because the standard solution for analysis shows a matrix-induced chromate graphic response enhancement effect, in which the response value of the standard solution of pesticides increases as a result of the matrix, the extract of the nonpesticide decoction was mixed 1:1 with the standard solution for analysis.
4.3. Pretreatment of Samples
The pretreatment method for analyzing residual pesticides in decoction was as follows:
(1). Precisely add 10 mL of decoction to a 50 mL centrifuge tube along with 10 mL of acetonitrile containing the internal standard (0.1 mg/kg triphenylphosphate), shake it, and extract it for 1 to 2 min.
(2). Add 4 g of MgSO4, 1 g of NaCl, 1 g of trisodium citrate dihydrate, and 0.5 g of disodium hydrogen citrate sesquihydrate to the centrifuge tube of (1) and shake it for 1 min. After centrifugation (3000 rpm/min, 5 min) to separate the acetonitrile layer and the water layer, mix the acetonitrile layer with the buffer solution, filter it through a PTFE filter (0.2 μm), and analyze it by LC-MS/MS.
(3). In the case of GC-MS/MS, add 1 mL of acetonitrile extract from (2) to a powdered solid phase extraction tube containing 150 mg of MgSO4 and 25 mg of PSA, shake it for 1 min, and centrifuge it (10,000 rpm/min, 2 min). Then, analyze it by GC-MS/MS.
In this study, the possibility of a multicomponent simultaneous analysis method using LC-MS/MS and GC-MS/MS for pesticide residue analysis in a decoction was confirmed by applying a modified pretreatment method of the QuEChERS sample pretreatment method (Figure 3).
Analysis of Instrument and Instrument Conditions
A total of 320 pesticide residue analysis methods of decoction were extracted and purified using salt-containing acetonitrile/powder phase solid phase extraction (QuEChERS); 207 species were analyzed by LC-MS/MS, and 113 species were analyzed by GC-MS/MS.
The MRM conditions for the 207 pesticides subjected to LC-MS/MS analysis and the 113 pesticides subjected to GC-MS/MS analysis are provided in Supplementary File S2 (Tables S1 and S2). The slope and correlation (R2) of the analytical pesticide standard solution calibration curve of LC-MS/MS and GC-MS/MS are presented in Supplementary File S2 (Tables S1 and S2).
4.4. Validation of the Test Method
The validity of the analysis method was verified using specificity, linearity, accuracy, precision, detection limit, and quantification limit.
Accuracy was confirmed by a recovery experiment for the standard solution, and the standard treatment concentrations were 10, 50, and 100 μg/kg, including the quantification limit for each pesticide component. the results were confirmed after three repetitions.
The detection and quantification limits were calculated using an analytical instrument program after 7 repeated measurements of 10 μg/kg concentration based on a calibration curve prepared at concentration levels of 1 to 200 μg/kg.
5. Conclusions
A total of 320 pesticide residues in 40 decoctions were analyzed using an improved LC-MS/MS and GC-MS/MS analysis. As a result of the monitoring, carbendazim was detected at 0.01 and 0.03 μg/g in eight samples, and no pesticide was detected in the other herbal decoctions. In addition, this study verified the specificity, linearity, accuracy, detection limit, and quantification limit of pesticides using improved LC-MS/MS and GC-MS/MS analysis methods compared with existing methods (multiclass pesticide multiresidue methods). Therefore, our results provide a framework for pesticide residue management in countries with traditional medicines.
Conceptualization, S.-M.K., H.-I.J. and S.-H.S.; methodology, H.-I.J., J.-H.K., K.-H.K. and S.-H.S.; software, S.-M.K. and J.-H.W.; validation, S.-M.K. and J.-H.W.; formal analysis, S.-M.K. and J.-H.W.; investigation, S.-M.K. and J.-H.W.; resources, S.-M.K. and J.-H.W.; data curation, S.-M.K. and J.-H.W.; writing—original draft preparation, S.-M.K., H.-I.J., J.-E.H. and S.-H.S.; writing—review and editing, J.-H.K. and K.-H.K.; visualization, H.-I.J.; supervision, J.-H.W.; project administration, J.-H.W. and S.-H.S.; funding acquisition, S.-H.S. All authors have read and agreed to the published version of the manuscript.
Not applicable.
Not applicable.
The data will be made available upon reasonable request.
The authors thank traditional Korean medicine clinics for providing the herbal decoction samples.
The authors declare no conflict of interest.
AOAC: Association of Official Agricultural Chemists, EHD: external herbal dispensary, EPRW: European Pesticide Residue Workshop, GC: gas chromatography, HPLC: high-performance liquid chromatography, LC: liquid chromatography, LOD: limit of detection, LOQ: limit of quantification, MRM: multiple reaction monitoring, MS: mass spectrometry, QuEChERS: quick, easy, cheap, effective, rugged, and safe, TKM: traditional Korean medicine, U.S.: United States.
Footnotes
Disclaimer/Publisher’s Note: The statements, opinions and data contained in all publications are solely those of the individual author(s) and contributor(s) and not of MDPI and/or the editor(s). MDPI and/or the editor(s) disclaim responsibility for any injury to people or property resulting from any ideas, methods, instructions or products referred to in the content.
Enlarge this image.Figure 1. GC-MS/MS standard solution chromatogram. GC: gas chromatography; MS: mass spectrometry.
Enlarge this image.Figure 2. LC-MS/MS standard solution chromatogram. LC: liquid chromatography; MS: mass spectrometry.
Enlarge this image.Figure 3. Pretreatment method for analyzing residual pesticides of herbal decoctions. PTFE: polytetrafluoroethylene; GC: gas chromatography; LC: liquid chromatography; MS: mass spectrometry.
Supplementary Materials
The following supporting information can be downloaded at
References
1. Nicolopoulou-Stamati, P.; Maipas, S.; Kotampasi, C.; Stamatis, P.; Hens, L. Chemical Pesticides and Human Health: The Urgent Need for a New Concept in Agriculture. Front. Public Health; 2016; 4, 148. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.3389/fpubh.2016.00148] [PubMed: https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/27486573]
2. Ntzani, E.E.; Ntritsos, G.; Chondrogiorgi, M.; Evangelou, E.; Tzoulaki, I. Literature Review on Epidemiological Studies Linking Exposure to Pesticides and Health Effects. EFSA Support. Publ.; 2013; 10, 497E. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.2903/sp.efsa.2013.EN-497]
3. Wang, Y.; Han, J.; Zhang, J.; Li, X.; Bai, R.; Hu, F. A Monitoring Survey and Health Risk Assessment for Pesticide Residues on Codonopsis Radix in China. Sci. Rep.; 2022; 12, 8133. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1038/s41598-022-11428-w] [PubMed: https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/35581226]
4. Xu, X.; Xu, H.; Shang, Y.; Zhu, R.; Hong, X.; Song, Z.; Yang, Z. Development of the General Chapters of the Chinese Pharmacopoeia 2020 Edition: A Review. J. Pharm. Anal.; 2021; 11, pp. 398-404. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.jpha.2021.05.001]
5. Li, M.; Sun, W.; Zhou, R.; Huang, Y.; Meng, F.; Luo, L.; Yan, Z.; Shi, X.; Huang, F.; Fan, C. et al. Non-Pharmaceutical Treatments to Relieve Pain or Reduce Opioid Analgesic Intake and Improve Quality of Life after Total Hip Replacement: A Meta Analysis. Am. J. Transl. Res.; 2022; 14, pp. 6828-6845.
6. Li, S.; Yu, P.; Zhou, C.; Tong, L.; Li, D.; Yu, Z.; Zhao, Y. Analysis of Pesticide Residues in Commercially Available Chenpi Using a Modified QuEChERS Method and GC-MS/MS Determination. J. Pharm. Anal.; 2020; 10, pp. 60-69. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.jpha.2019.01.005]
7. Tudi, M.; Daniel Ruan, H.; Wang, L.; Lyu, J.; Sadler, R.; Connell, D.; Chu, C.; Phung, D.T. Agriculture Development, Pesticide Application and Its Impact on the Environment. Int. J. Environ. Res. Public Health; 2021; 18, 1112. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.3390/ijerph18031112] [PubMed: https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/33513796]
8. Ministry of Food and Drug Safety. The Korean Pharmacopoeia; Ministry of Food and Drug Safety: Seoul, Republic of Korea, 2022.
9. Carvalho, F.P. Pesticides, Environment, and Food Safety. Food Energy Secur.; 2017; 6, pp. 48-60. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1002/fes3.108]
10. Luo, H.; Li, Q.; Flower, A.; Lewith, G.; Liu, J. Comparison of Effectiveness and Safety between Granules and Decoction of Chinese Herbal Medicine: A Systematic Review of Randomized Clinical Trials. J. Ethnopharmacol.; 2012; 140, pp. 555-567. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.jep.2012.01.031]
11. Lu, X.-Y.; Ouyang, Y.-Q.; Zeng, W.-Y.; Lin, C.-Q.; Xiao, L.-H.; Luo, G.-H.; Zhan, R.-T.; Yan, P. Effect of Pretreatment on Detection of 37 Pesticide Residues in Chrysanthemum Indicum. J. Anal. Methods Chem.; 2021; 2021, 8854025. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1155/2021/8854025]
12. Zahler, M.; Filippova, N.A.; Morel, P.C.; Gothe, R.; Rinder, H. Relationships between Species of the Rhipicephalus Sanguineus Group: A Molecular Approach. J. Parasitol.; 1997; 83, pp. 302-306. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.2307/3284460]
13. Ministry of Food and Drug Safety. Food and Food Additives Codex. Available online: https://www.foodsafetykorea.go.kr/foodcode/01_03.jsp?idx=404 (accessed on 29 January 2023).
14. Hazardous Substance Analysis Method for Agricultural Products, Etc. Available online: https://www.law.go.kr/%ED%96%89%EC%A0%95%EA%B7%9C%EC%B9%99/%EB%86%8D%EC%82%B0%EB%AC%BC%EB%93%B1%EC%9D%98%EC%9C%A0%ED%95%B4%EB%AC%BC%EC%A7%88%EB%B6%84%EC%84%9D%EB%B2%95/(2021-27,20210325) (accessed on 29 January 2023).
15. Lee, J.; Kim, J.; Shin, H. Systematic Studies on Galgeun-Tang(Gegen-Tang, Kakkon-to) for Establishment of Evidence Based Medicine. Herb. Formula Sci.; 2011; 19, pp. 103-111.
16. Ministry of Health and Welfare. The 2017 Korean Medicine Utilization and Herbal Medicine Consumption Survey. Available online: https://nikom.or.kr/koms/index.do (accessed on 16 March 2023).
17. Ministry of Food and Drug Safety. Ministry of Food and Drug Safety White Paper 2015; Ministry of Food and Drug Safety: Seoul, Republic of Korea, 2016.
18. Indanofan|C20H17ClO3—PubChem. Available online: https://pubchem.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/compound/Indanofan (accessed on 29 January 2023).
19. Mazellier, P.; Leroy, É.; Legube, B. Photochemical Behavior of the Fungicide Carbendazim in Dilute Aqueous Solution. J. Photochem. Photobiol. A Chem.; 2002; 153, pp. 221-227. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1016/S1010-6030(02)00296-4]
20. McCarroll, N. A Survey of EPA/OPP and Open Literature on Selected Pesticide Chemicals III. Mutagenicity and Carcinogenicity of Benomyl and Carbendazim. Mutat. Res./Rev. Mutat. Res.; 2002; 512, pp. 1-35. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1016/S1383-5742(02)00026-1] [PubMed: https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/12220588]
21. Sharma, M.; Maheshwari, N.; Khan, F.H.; Mahmood, R. Carbendazim Toxicity in Different Cell Lines and Mammalian Tissues. J. Biochem. Mol. Toxicol.; 2022; 36, e23194. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1002/jbt.23194]
22. Zhang, X.; Huang, Y.; Harvey, P.R.; Li, H.; Ren, Y.; Li, J.; Wang, J.; Yang, H. Isolation and Characterization of Carbendazim-Degrading Rhodococcus Erythropolis Djl-11. PLoS ONE; 2013; 8, e74810. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0074810]
23. Xia, E.; Tao, W.; Yao, X.; Wang, J.; Tang, F. Effects of Processing on Carbendazim Residue in Pleurotus ostreatus. Food Sci. Nutr.; 2016; 4, pp. 645-650. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1002/fsn3.328]
24. Ji-Cai, F.; Hua-Li, H.; Shao-Ying, L.; Ren, R.; Shu-Ting, W. Investigation of Pesticide Residues in Fragaria and Myrica Rubra Sold in Hangzhou. J. Food Prot.; 2022; 85, pp. 534-538. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.4315/JFP-21-372]
25. Zhang, D.; Gou, Y.; Yu, X.; Wang, M.; Yu, W.; Zhou, J.; Liu, W.; Li, M. Detection and Risk Assessments of Multi-Pesticides in Traditional Chinese Medicine Chuanxiong Rhizoma by LC/MS-MS and GC/MS-MS. Molecules; 2022; 27, 622. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.3390/molecules27030622]
26. Xiao, J.; Xu, X.; Wang, F.; Ma, J.; Liao, M.; Shi, Y.; Fang, Q.; Cao, H. Analysis of Exposure to Pesticide Residues from Traditional Chinese Medicine. J. Hazard. Mater.; 2019; 365, pp. 857-867. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.jhazmat.2018.11.075]
27. Sung, S.H.; Han, J.E.; Ryu, J.Y.; Sung, A.D.M.; Park, J.Y.; Ha, I.H.; Kim, K.H.; Park, J.K.; Shin, B.C. Current Status and Future Perspective of External Herbal Dispensaries Preparing Traditional Herbal Medicine in South Korea: The First National-Wide Survey Results. BMC Complement. Med. Ther.; 2020; 20, 354. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1186/s12906-020-03094-0] [PubMed: https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/33225907]
© 2023 by the authors. Licensee MDPI, Basel, Switzerland. This article is an open access article distributed under the terms and conditions of the Creative Commons Attribution (CC BY) license (https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/). Notwithstanding the ProQuest Terms and Conditions, you may use this content in accordance with the terms of the License.
Details
; Jeong, Hye-In 5
; Soo-Hyun, Sung 2
1 Department of Public Infrastructure Operation, National Institute of Korean Medicine Development, Seoul 04554, Republic of Korea
2 Department of Policy Development, National Institute of Korean Medicine Development, Seoul 04554, Republic of Korea
3 Department of Medical Classics and History, College of Korean Medicine, Gachon University, Seongnam-si 13120, Republic of Korea
4 Department of Preventive Medicine, College of Korean Medicine, Woosuk University, Jeonju-si 54986, Republic of Korea
5 Department of Preventive Medicine, College of Korean Medicine, Kyung Hee University, Seoul 02447, Republic of Korea