Pesticide residues in Chinese apricots and dietary risk
What it found
Four of 11 pesticides were found in apricot samples from China, and the authors calculated that the amounts eaten by different age and gender groups were below levels they considered acceptable.
What they found
Studies in people
Dietary risk estimate
The risk quotients for the four pesticides ranged from 0.003% to 1.184% across age and gender groups. The authors say values below 100% indicate acceptable risk.
Age and gender differences
Children aged 2–4 had the highest estimated dietary exposure, and women had slightly higher exposure than men. Exposure went down as age went up.
Highest risk pesticide
Bifenthrin had the highest risk quotient, followed by acetamiprid, fenpropathrin, and imidacloprid.
Other findings
Pesticides detected
Four pesticides were found in the apricots: acetamiprid, bifenthrin, fenpropathrin, and imidacloprid. All were below China's maximum residue limits.
Detection rate
Only 41 out of 210 samples contained any pesticide residue, a detection rate of 19.5%.
What the authors conclude
“Thus, the dietary intake of 11 pesticide residues does not pose a potential health risk to apricot consumers in China.”
Also in their conclusions
- They conclude that the dietary intake of the 11 pesticide residues does not pose a potential health risk to apricot consumers in China.
- They advise that regulatory departments should strengthen monitoring, supervision, and regulation of bifenthrin to prevent harmful dietary health events.
- They note that their assessment did not include factors such as pesticide toxicity, residue limits, and dietary structure of residents in different economic regions, so final results may differ from the actual situation.
How it was done
Pesticides are often used on apricots, and residues could affect food safety. The authors wanted to measure how much of 11 common pesticides remained on apricots and what that meant for people who eat them.
They collected 210 apricot samples from seven provinces or cities in China in 2020 and tested them for 11 pesticides using a new lab method. They then combined the residue levels with average daily apricot intake and body weight for six groups of Chinese people (males and females aged 2–4, 18–30, and 60–70 years) to estimate dietary exposure.
What it can’t tell you
- This study measured pesticide levels in apricots and estimated dietary exposure. It cannot show whether eating these apricots would cause any specific health effect.
- The risk assessment used average daily intake and body weight for groups, not actual individual diets, so it cannot predict risk for any one person.
- The authors did not include all possible factors like pesticide toxicity or regional dietary differences, so the risk estimates may not match real life exactly.
Who paid
- Funding
- Funded by Jiangsu Agriculture Science and Technology Innovation Foundation; China Agriculture Research System; Shandong Provincial Natural Science Foundation; National Natural Science Foundation of China (from the PubMed record).
- Conflicts
- The authors declare no competing interests.
- Authors work at
- Jiangsu Product Quality Testing & Inspection Institute, People's Republic of China; Jiangsu Key Laboratory for Food Quality and Safety/Institute of Food Safety and Nutrition, People's Republic of China; Shandong Institute of Pomology, People's Republic of China
The paper
- Title
- Residual levels and dietary intake risk assessment of 11 pesticides in apricots from different ecological planting regions in China
- Type
- Study
- Evidence
- Studies in people
- Summarised from
- Full text
- Licence
- CC BY. Words in quotation marks are the authors’; the rest is our summary.
- Cite
- Yang S, Xing Y, Liu Q, et al (2022). Residual levels and dietary intake risk assessment of 11 pesticides in apricots from different ecological planting regions in China. Scientific reports. doi:10.1038/s41598-022-23564-4Free full textPubMed 36335168DOI
Summary written 30 Sep 2026. Check it against the paper before it changes what you eat. How we summarise papers · Report an error