Evidence map›Paper›PMID 30634980›Full record

ArticleEnvironmental health : a global access science source2019

Trends in neonicotinoid pesticide residues in food and water in the United States, 1999-2015.

Hillary A Craddock, Dina Huang, Paul C Turner, Lesliam Quirós-Alcalá, Devon C Payne-Sturges

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Environmental health : a global access science source, 2019. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 69 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
69citing papers in PubMed
–field-weighted citation impact
1 · What the graph read from it

What it found

Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.

The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.

2 · The registry

The trial behind it

Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.

Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

69 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Article
  2. Article
  3. Review
  4. Article
  5. Review
  6. Article
  7. Article
  8. Article
  9. Article
  10. Review
  11. Article
  12. Article
  13. Article
  14. The effects of imidacloprid exposure on the mouse ovary in vivo.Reproductive toxicology (Elmsford, N.Y.) · 2025
    Article
  15. Article
  16. Review
  17. Article
  18. Article
  19. Article
  20. Article

9 more citing papers are in PubMed but not listed here.

4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

5 authors.

Hillary A CraddockMaryland Institute for Applied Environmental Health, University of Maryland School of Public Health, 2234 L SPH, 255 Valley Drive, College Park, MD, 20742, USA.
Dina HuangDepartment of Epidemiology and Biostatistics, University of Maryland School of Public Health, 255 Valley Drive, College Park, MD, 20742, USA.
Paul C TurnerMaryland Institute for Applied Environmental Health, University of Maryland School of Public Health, 2234 L SPH, 255 Valley Drive, College Park, MD, 20742, USA.
Lesliam Quirós-AlcaláMaryland Institute for Applied Environmental Health, University of Maryland School of Public Health, 2234 L SPH, 255 Valley Drive, College Park, MD, 20742, USA.
Devon C Payne-SturgesMaryland Institute for Applied Environmental Health, University of Maryland School of Public Health, 2234 L SPH, 255 Valley Drive, College Park, MD, 20742, USA. dps1@umd.edu.ORCID 0000-0001-7343-2814

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundNeonicotinoids are a class of systemic insecticides widely used on food crops globally. These pesticides may be found in "off-target" food items and persist in the environment. Despite the potential for extensive human exposure, there are limited studies regarding the prevalence of neonicotinoid residues in foods sold and consumed in the United States.

methodsResidue data for seven neonicotinoid pesticides collected between 1999 and 2015 by the US Department of Agriculture's Pesticide Data Program (PDP) were collated and summarized by year across various food commodities, including fruit, vegetable, meat, dairy, grain, honey, and baby food, as well as water to qualitatively describe and examine trends in contamination frequency and residue concentrations.

resultsThe highest detection frequencies (DFs) for neonicotinoids by year on all commodities were generally below 20%. Average DFs over the entire study period, 1999-2015, for domestic and imported commodities were similar at 4.5%. For all the samples (both domestic and imported) imidacloprid was the neonicotinoid with the highest overall detection frequency at 12.0%. However, higher DFs were observed for specific food commodity-neonicotinoid combinations such as: cherries (45.9%), apples (29.5%), pears (24.1%) and strawberries (21.3%) for acetamiprid; and cauliflower (57.5%), celery (20.9%), cherries (26.3%), cilantro (30.6%), grapes (28.9%), collard greens (24.9%), kale (31.4%), lettuce (45.6%), potatoes (31.2%) and spinach (38.7%) for imidacloprid. Neonicotinoids were also detected in organic commodities, (DF < 6%). Individual commodities with at least 5% of samples testing positive for two or more neonicotinoids included apples, celery, and cherries. Generally, neonicotinoid residues on food commodities did not exceed US Environmental Protection Agency tolerance levels. Increases in detection trends for both finished and untreated water samples for imidacloprid were observed from 2004 to 2011.

conclusionsAnalysis of PDP data indicates that low levels of neonicotinoids are present in commonly-consumed fruits and vegetables sold in the US. Trends in detection frequencies suggest an increase in use of acetamiprid, clothianidin and thiamethoxam as replacements for imidacloprid. Given these findings, more extensive surveillance of the food and water supply is warranted, as well as biomonitoring studies and assessment of cumulative daily intake in high risk groups, including pregnant women and infants.

Indexed as

Environmental MonitoringEnvironmental PollutantsFood ContaminationFruitInsecticidesNeonicotinoidsPesticide ResiduesUnited StatesVegetablesWaterEnvironmental PollutantsInsecticidesNeonicotinoidsPesticide ResiduesWaterFoodInsecticidesNeonicotinoidsWater

Identifiers

PMID30634980
PMCPMC6330495

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.