Skip to content
Frontiers
Search

Mini Review

Frontiers in Environmental Health ·

Volume 5 - 2026 | https://doi.org/10.3389/fenvh.2026.1768399

Reducing pesticide residues on produce: a scoping review of household produce washing methods

  • Dayna de Montagnac1*corresponding author
  • Varun Subramaniam1
  • Olga V. Naidenko1
  • Alexis M. Temkin1
  1. Environmental Working Group, Washington, DC, United States
Article metrics0 viewsView details
PDFCiteMetrics

Abstract

Diet, particularly fruits and vegetables, contributes to pesticide exposure in the general population due to the presence of numerous pesticide residues on commonly consumed produce. Research on the effectiveness of produce washing for reducing pesticide levels can inform interventions to decrease overall pesticide exposure. We analyzed data from 47 peer-reviewed studies on produce washing, encompassing 23 produce items and 79 pesticides. Individual reduction-efficacy data points were collected for four methods: rinsing with tap water (n = 187), soaking in tap water (n = 440), soaking in a baking soda solution (n = 282), and soaking in vinegar/acetic acid (n = 191). Across the dataset, reductions ranged from 0.0% to >94.0% for rinsing (median=30.2%), 0.6% to >99% for water soaking (median=33.7%), 0.2% to >99.0% for baking soda soaking (median=50.9%), and 8.6% to >99.0% for vinegar/acetic acid soaking (median=54.2%). While plain water washing was effective in multiple studies, baking soda or vinegar/acetic acid soaking showed more than a 15.0% greater median average reduction across studies. However, the high solution concentrations commonly studied may limit generalizability to typical household use. Pesticide physico-chemical properties, washing method, and produce characteristics were the most frequently reported factors impacting pesticide reduction. Household washing is likely to reduce dietary pesticide exposure. We recommend future research that reflects real-world consumer exposure, expanded biomonitoring for pesticides in people, and regulatory testing that prioritizes pesticides persistent on specific produce after washing.

Keywords

1 Introduction

Eating fruits and vegetables is the foundation of healthy nutrition, as documented by numerous studies demonstrating health benefits associated with fruit- and vegetable-rich diets (1, 2). At the same time, fruit and vegetable consumption contributes to synthetic pesticide exposure for the general population given widespread presence of pesticides in fresh produce (3). Multiple studies have quantified the risk of pesticide exposure based on diet and have shown that diets with produce that has higher pesticide concentrations are associated with higher levels of urinary pesticide biomarkers (4–6), which is a public health concern given documented toxicity of pesticide products to human health and the environment. Although the benefits of fruits and vegetable consumption are well known, one study found certain pesticides like dithiocarbamates and imazalil can contribute to cancer and non-cancer risk (7). Epidemiological studies have observed associations between lower pesticide exposure from diet and decreased risks of various chronic diseases (8–10) and suggested an association between prenatal exposure to certain pesticides through multiple routes and harm to the nervous system, including neurodevelopmental difficulties and weaker cognitive function (11, 12).

Recent studies have also suggested that a diet of produce with high pesticide concentrations can negatively affect fertility outcomes (13, 14). Pesticides on produce often appear as mixtures, with multiple pesticides detected on one commodity (4, 5). In animal studies, pesticide mixtures have been reported to show adverse health effects at doses lower than those that cause harm when exposed individually (15, 16). Thorough washing of produce before consumption is recommended to reduce the risk of food-borne illness from microorganisms and also serves as a tool to reduce pesticide residue consumption (17, 18).

The high number of studies of the effectiveness of washing for pesticide removal published globally point to significant interest by consumers, researchers, and government agencies in comparing efficacy of household produce washing methods for reducing the concentrations of different pesticides (19–21). Published articles typically refer to the use of tap water as a primary washing approach (22), as well as household cleaning agents such as baking soda and vinegar. Washing practices may vary by demographic and be affected by foodborne illness outbreaks shifting public attention to certain produce items (23). A study of families in the U.S. state of Texas found certain demographic differences such as education level factored into how produce is washed, although almost all participants washed produce in some way (24). Since consumption of produce contaminated with pesticide residues contributes to pesticide exposure, understanding the effectiveness of these household solutions in reducing residues from produce is particularly important. Although commercial produce washes are widely sold, these products vary in their ingredients and are also not recommended for use by the U.S. Food and Drug Administration as the safety of the residues of these washes is not known and their effectiveness has not been tested (25). A study published in 2025 highlighted safety concerns with produce wash products containing surfactants and decyl glucoside and lauryl glucoside, which are not approved on food (26). The likelihood of consumers washing produce, as well as the efficacy of methods in reducing pesticide levels, have broad implications for dietary pesticide exposure and potential adverse health effects. This scoping review examines studies that use household methods to reduce synthetic pesticide residues on fruits and vegetables (produce) to quantify their effectiveness by using comparative study designs with methods that would be accessible to consumers at home. The studies are contextualized in relation to U.S. government testing of pesticide residues on produce through the United States Department of Agriculture Pesticide Data Program (USDA PDP) and human biomonitoring through the National Health and Nutrition Examination Survey (NHANES). Based on our analysis, we recommend improvements to current efforts of monitoring pesticides and future research. We also emphasize household washing as a practical step consumers should take to reduce pesticide exposure.

2 Methods

Here we conduct a review evaluating the relative efficacy of common household washing methods on pesticide reduction for produce items. A literature search, yielding 1,004 results, was conducted on July 15, 2025, using PubMed to identify studies that assessed the impact of household washing methods on pesticide reduction in produce (Figure 1A). Studies were included for further analysis based on the following criteria: (1) the study design was experimental; (2) the matrix assessed was fresh produce (fruits or vegetables); (3) the intervention involved rinsing under running water for up to 2 min, soaking in tap water, or soaking in solutions of vinegar (acetic acid) or baking soda (sodium bicarbonate) for up to one hour; and (4) the publication reported quantitative data including starting or ending concentration and percent reduction or processing factor (described in Figure 1A). After screening, the dataset included 39 studies from the original group of search results. Additional papers were collected through searching from references within the reviewed studies for a total of 47 studies included. Data extracted from these studies includes information about the study (year, experimental design, country), washing methods [solution used, solution concentration, time of treatment, pre-harvest interval (the time between last spraying and harvest)], analytes and analytical methods (pesticide name, CAS number, fruit or vegetable, limit of detection), and outcome (starting/control concentration, ending concentration, percent reduction). Pairs of pesticides and produce items tested in each study were compared to those with detections within the PDP test results for 2015–2023. Residue reduction was compared across produce items, washing solutions, and pesticides (Figures 1B,C).

Review process and study results. **(1A)** Approach to identifying and selecting included articles. PRISMA diagram showing how studies were selected for review. Search String: (“pesticide residue” OR “pesticide residues” OR “pesticide levels” OR “pesticide contamination” OR “pesticide removal” OR “herbicide residue” OR “herbicide residues” OR “herbicide levels” OR “herbicide contamination” OR “herbicide removal” OR “insecticide residue” OR “insecticide residues” OR “insecticide levels” OR “insecticide contamination” OR “insecticide removal” OR “fungicide residue” OR “fungicide residues” OR “fungicide levels” OR “fungicide contamination” OR “fungicide removal” OR “chemical residue” OR “chemical residues” OR “chemical levels” OR “chemical contamination” OR “chemical removal”) and (produce OR vegetable* OR fruit*OR greens OR food) and (wash* OR clean* soak* OR rins* OR remov*) and (“effect*” OR remov* OR “impact” OR “reduc*”). **(1B)** Reductions in concentrations of specific pesticides across washing methods. Icons under each box plot represent the set of fruits and vegetables analyzed for the corresponding pair of pesticide and washing methods. The *y*-axis represents %reduction. 10 pesticides shown in the figure were (a) detected by United States Department of Agriculture Pesticide Data Program monitoring for years 2015-2023 in at least 25% of one type of fruit or vegetable and (b) had at least 10 samples in our dataset of peer-reviewed publications. **(1C)** Arithmetic means of pesticide concentration reduction by washing method. Data points for percent reduction across pesticides were obtained from each study and averaged across each fruit or vegetable, represented by the corresponding produce icon. The horizontal lines across each panel show the median reduction across all fruits and vegetables and pesticides. Figure 1 Panel labels: Vinegar: studies where produce samples were washed with diluted household vinegar in concentrations of 0.15%–10%. Baking soda: studies where produce samples were washed with dissolved sodium bicarbonate in concentrations of 1.25%–10%; Soaking: Studies where produce samples were soaked in tap water for the time period between one and 60 min; Rinsing: studies where produce samples were rinsed in tap water for the time period between 15 s and 2 min. Boxes under panel labels show the number of pesticide reduction data points reported across all studies for the corresponding method.
Figure 1. Review process and study results. (1A) Approach to identifying and selecting included articles. PRISMA diagram showing how studies were selected for review. Search String: (“pesticide residue” OR “pesticide residues” OR “pesticide levels” OR “pesticide contamination” OR “pesticide removal” OR “herbicide residue” OR “herbicide residues” OR “herbicide levels” OR “herbicide contamination” OR “herbicide removal” OR “insecticide residue” OR “insecticide residues” OR “insecticide levels” OR “insecticide contamination” OR “insecticide removal” OR “fungicide residue” OR “fungicide residues” OR “fungicide levels” OR “fungicide contamination” OR “fungicide removal” OR “chemical residue” OR “chemical residues” OR “chemical levels” OR “chemical contamination” OR “chemical removal”) and (produce OR vegetable* OR fruitOR greens OR food) and (wash OR clean* soak* OR rins* OR remov) and (“effect” OR remov* OR “impact” OR “reduc*”). (1B) Reductions in concentrations of specific pesticides across washing methods. Icons under each box plot represent the set of fruits and vegetables analyzed for the corresponding pair of pesticide and washing methods. The y-axis represents %reduction. 10 pesticides shown in the figure were (a) detected by United States Department of Agriculture Pesticide Data Program monitoring for years 2015-2023 in at least 25% of one type of fruit or vegetable and (b) had at least 10 samples in our dataset of peer-reviewed publications. (1C) Arithmetic means of pesticide concentration reduction by washing method. Data points for percent reduction across pesticides were obtained from each study and averaged across each fruit or vegetable, represented by the corresponding produce icon. The horizontal lines across each panel show the median reduction across all fruits and vegetables and pesticides. Figure 1 Panel labels: Vinegar: studies where produce samples were washed with diluted household vinegar in concentrations of 0.15%–10%. Baking soda: studies where produce samples were washed with dissolved sodium bicarbonate in concentrations of 1.25%–10%; Soaking: Studies where produce samples were soaked in tap water for the time period between one and 60 min; Rinsing: studies where produce samples were rinsed in tap water for the time period between 15 s and 2 min. Boxes under panel labels show the number of pesticide reduction data points reported across all studies for the corresponding method.

3 Results

3.1 Description of studies

The 47 reviewed studies covered 23 different produce types and 79 pesticides or metabolites (Table 1). More than half of the pesticides were insecticides, followed by fungicides and miticides. The most common pesticides tested between studies were chlorpyrifos and acetamiprid, both tested in 9 studies, and imidacloprid and azoxystrobin, both tested in 7 studies. Soaking produce in water was the most common method, measured in 30 studies, followed by rinsing in water (18 studies), soaking in baking soda solution (13 studies), and soaking in acetic acid or vinegar solutions (12 studies). Seven studies compared soaking in water, baking soda, and vinegar. A total of 1,100 data points were recorded across all studies. Soaking times ranged from one to 60 min (weighted average: 11 min); rinsing ranged from 15 s to 2 min (weighted average: 41 s). Concentrations of acetic acid/vinegar, represented as percentage of acetic acid in solution, ranged from 0.15% to 10%, and baking soda in water 1.25% to 10%, with two studies not reporting their concentrations. Analytical methods used in the 47 studies included liquid and gas chromatography with mass spectrometry, with one study using solid-liquid extraction with low temperature partition. Ten studies applied pesticides to fruit and vegetable samples in a lab setting while the remainder used field conditions to apply pesticides. Starting concentrations ranged from 0.002 to 42.97 mg/kg, and reductions from no change (2 data points) to below the limit of detection were observed. We did not include five data points (0.5% of all data points across the study data) that showed an increase in pesticide residues following washing since this may point to an issue of experimental error, sampling variability, or pesticide contamination of washing water. Across all studies, 234 produce and pesticide combinations were studied. About 65% were tested in the U.S. Department of Agriculture Pesticide Data Program (PDP), within the last ten years (Supplementary Table 1). Six produce types tested in studies, ssamchoo, perilla leaves, crown daisy, kumquat, okra, and black currants, have not been tested by the PDP and make up 198 data points.

Table 1. Studies used in review of literature.

AuthorCountryF/VPesticidesMethodsStudy Design
Vijay A et al. (57)IndiaCauliflower CurdsProfenofos, Lufenuron, Cypermethrin, ThiodicarbWater, Baking Soda SoakField
Wen A et al. (58)ChinaGrapesMancozebWater, Baking Soda SoakSpiked
Park M et al. (34)South KoreaSpinachCyantraniliproleWater soakField
Alhewairini SS et al. (42)EgyptGrapesBifenthrinWater Soak, Water RinseField
Subasekaran R et al. (59)IndiaBell PepperImidacloprid, FlonicamidWater RinseField
Dudwal R et al. (27)IndiaChili PeppersFipronil, Fipronil Desulfinyl, Fipronil Sulfone, Fipronil SulfideWater, Vinegar, Baking Soda SoakField
Omeroglu PY et al. (47)TurkeyOrangesAbamectin, Buprofezin, Etoxazole, Imazalil, Thiophanate MethylWater RinseField
Yang SJ et al. (31)KoreaPerilla Leaves, Spinach, Crown Daisy, SsamchooAzoxystrobin, Chlorantraniliprole, Chlorfenapyr, Diniconazole, Fludioxonil, Imidacloprid, Indoxacarb, Lufenuron, Pyraclostrobin, ThiamethoxamWater, Vinegar, Baking Soda SoakSpiked
Özen T et al. (60)TurkeyGreen PeppersAcetamiprid, Emamectin Benzoate, MalathionWater SoakField
Słowik-Borowiec M & Szpyrka E. (48)PolandApplesCyprodinil, Difenoconazole, Fludioxonil, Fluopyram, TebuconazoleWater RinseField
Kaushik E et al. (61)IndiaTomatoesTetraniliproleWater Rinse, Water SoakField
Jiang W et al. (44)ChinaApplesCyprodinil, Fludioxonil, Kresoxim Methyl, PyrimethanilWater, Vinegar SoakSpiked
Wu Y et al. (29)ChinaKumquatAcetamiprid, Beta Cypermethrin, Bifenthrin, Chlorpyrifos, Difenoconazole, Esfenvalerate, Imidacloprid, Lambda Cyhalothrin, Myclobutanil, TebuconazoleWater, Baking Soda SoakSpiked
Atuhaire A et al. (62)UgandaTomatoesMancozebWater SoakField
Skovgaard M et al. (63)BoliviaLettuceCypermethrin, Chlorpyrifos, Difenoconazole, Lambda-Cyhalothrin, ChlorpyrifosWater SoakField
Liu N et al. (64)ChinaTomatoesCyflumetofenWater SoakField
Lozowicka B et al. (65)PolandStrawberriesCyflumetofen, Acetamiprid, Alpha Cypermethrin, Boscalid, Bupirimate, Chlorpyrifos, Deltamethrin, Fludioxinil, Fenhexamid, Folpet, Iprodione, Lambda Cyhalothrin, Pirimicarb, Pyraclostrobin, Tetraconazole, TrifloxystrobinWater SoakField
Abdullah et al. (45)PakistanSpinachImidacloprid, AcetamipridWater, Baking Soda SoakField
Saeedi Saravi & Shokrzadeh M (46)IranCucumberCarbaryl, MancozebWater SoakField
Xia E et al, (66)ChinaMushroomsCarbendazimWater SoakSpiked
Jankowska M et al. (67)PolandTomatoesAzoxystrobin, BoscalidWater RinseField
Abdullah et al.(68)PakistanCauliflowerBifenthrin, Cypermethrin, EndosulfanWater, Vinegar SoakField
Chauhan R et al. (28)IndiaTomatoesBifenthrinWater RinseField
Chauhan R et al. (69)IndiaTomatoesLambda CyhalothrinWater RinseField
Kaur P et al. (41)IndiaEggplantCypermethrin, DecamethrinWater RinseField
Samriti et al. (38)IndiaOkraChlorpyrifosWater RinseField
Duhan A et al. (43)IndiaOkraFenazquinWater RinseField
Radwan MA et al, (70)EgyptHot Peppers, Sweet Peppers, EggplantProfenofosWater, Vinegar SoakField
Andrade G et al. (40)BrazilTomatoesAcetamiprid, Azoxystrobin, Diflubenzuron, Dimethoate, Fipronil, Imidacloprid, Procymidone, ThiamethoxamWater, Vinegar, Baking Soda SoakSpiked
Jankowska M & Lozowicka B (71)PolandBlack Currants, Broccoli, TomatoesAlpha Cypermethrin, Azoxystrobin, Boscalid, Bupirimate, Chlorpyrifos, Cyprodinil, Deltamethrin, Iprodione, Lambda, Cyhalothrin, PyraclostrobinWater SoakField
Balkan T & Yilmaz O, (72)TurkeyLettuceBoscalid, Deltamethrin, Fluopicolide, Fluopyram, Pyraclostrobin, Pyrimethanil, SulfoxalorWater, Vinegar, Baking Soda SoakField
Hazarhun G et al. (50)TurkeyCherriesDimethoate, Acetamirpid, Lambda-Cyhalothrin, Omethoate, Tau Flavinate, MalathionWater, Vinegar, Baking Soda SoakField
Rasolonjatovo MA et al. (73)TurkeyTomatoesMethomyl, AcetamipridWater, Baking Soda SoakSpiked
Patil P.R. & Waghulde P.N. (74)IndiaApples, PapayaChlorpyrifos, Cypermethrin, Endosulfan, QuinalphosWater SoakSpiked
Mahmoud H.A. & Eissa F.I. (75)EgyptCucumbers, Sweet PeppersDiniconazoleWater RinseField
Randhawa M. et al, (76)PakistanCauliflower, Spinach, Okra, Potatoes, EggplantEndosulfanWater RinseField
Randhawa M. et al, (77)PakistanTomatoes, Cauliflower, Potatoes, Eggplant, Okra, SpinachDeltamethrinWater RinseField
Rodrigues AAZ et al. (32)BrazilBell PeppersAzoxystrobin, Chlorothalonil, DifenoconazoleVinegar, Baking Soda SoakField
Tiryaki O. & Polat B, (19)TurkeyCapia PeppersAcetamiprid, Chlorpyrifos, Formetanate HydrochlorideWater, Vinegar SoakField
Rani M et al. (78)IndiaTomatoesChlorpyrifosWater RinseField
Walia S et al. (35)IndiaEggplantCypermethrinWater RinseField
Christensen HB et al. (36)DenmarkStrawberriesFenhexamidWater RinseField
Liang Y et al. (79)ChinaCucumbersDichlorvos, Chlorpyriphos, Dimethoate, Fenitrothion, TrichlorfonWater, Vinegar, Baking Soda SoakSpiked
Bonnechère A et al. (51)BelgiumSpinachIprodione, Boscalid, Propamocarb, Mancozeb, Deltamethrin, 3,5-DichloroanilineWater SoakField
Reddy BKK et al, (80)IndiaGrapesImidacloprid, Dimethoate, Emamectin BenzoateWater RinseField
Rodrigues AAZ et al, (33)BrazilTomatoesAzoxystrobin, Chlorothalonil, DifenoconazoleWater, Vinegar, Baking Soda SoakSpiked
Liu C et al. (39)ChinaGrapesDinotefuran, Imidacloprid, Acetamiprid, Triadimenol, Azoxystrobin, Fluxapyroxad, Tebuconazole, Pydiflumetofen, Pyraclostrobin, DifenoconazoleWater SoakField

3.2 Pesticide reduction efficiency

Across all studies, covering a diverse range of produce and pesticides, household washing methods led to a reduction in pesticide residue concentration (Figures 1B,C), though there was a high degree of variability and coverage for pesticides and produce. To assess the reduction efficacy for a given pesticide across methods in relation to US produce, we identified 10 pesticides that were detected in at least 25 percent of samples for a produce type by the USDA Pesticide Data Program (Figure 1B). For pyraclostrobin and pyrimethanil and to some degree imidacloprid and acetamiprid, reduction followed a similar pattern, with soaking in vinegar being the most effective followed by soaking in baking soda, soaking in water, and rinsing with water. Conversely, little to no differences in reduction by method for chlorantraniliprole, difenoconazole or fludioxonil were observed. To compare reduction efficiency by method and produce type, data points across studies for the same produce item were averaged. Rinsing in water and soaking in either water, baking soda, or vinegar led to reductions ranging from 0.0 to 94.0%, 0.6% to >99.0%, 0.20% to >99.0%, and 8.6% to >99.0% respectively. The median average percent reduction for each method for all pesticides and produce items was 30.2%, 33.7%, 50.9%, and 54.2% respectively. Fifteen data points from 8 different studies showed a reduction of ≤10%. All of these reductions came from data points using soaking or rinsing with water. Sixty-seven data points from 6 different studies showed reductions ≥90%. These reductions came from data points using any of the four methods. Complete removal is unlikely although some studies showed reduction to concentrations below detection limits (27, 28). Method sensitivity and limit of detection were highly variable, and are key to assessing reduction efficiency. Figure 1C indicates about a 15% difference in the median average percent reduction across data points extracted from all studies between using water and adding baking soda or acetic acid/vinegar. This is likely because some pesticides degrade in alkaline or acidic environments (29, 30). The most common factors in reduction of pesticide residues specified by authors were physico-chemical characteristics of the pesticide (30 studies), the solution used (15 studies), and the type of fruit or vegetable (10 studies). Generally, studies reported the addition of baking soda or acetic acid or vinegar led to a higher reduction compared to water alone, with the exception of one study, which found higher reduction of multiple pesticides on leafy greens was achieved with rinsing in water for 5 min (31).

The way a pesticide distributes on or within a plant is a major determinant of pesticide reduction. Systemic pesticides, like azoxystrobin, tetraconazole, and acetamiprid, may absorb into the plant, where a portion can become unreachable by washing, while contact or non-systemic pesticides, like chlorothalonil, chlorpyrifos, and malathion generally remain on the surface (31, 32). Pesticides with both systemic and contact movement are shown to have significant reduction from washing though, likely because most residues remain on the surface (22). Pesticides on produce with added or naturally occurring wax are likely to become incorporated into the surface waxes over time and may be harder to remove by washing (33). This is especially true for those with high liposolubility or octanol-water partition coefficient (Kow/LogP) (33–35). Lambda-cyhalothrin has the highest Kow among pesticides in Figure 1B, and has the lowest reduction from soaking. Produce such as strawberries, with thin or soft skin and more water, can potentially absorb highly soluble pesticides into their flesh (36). Figure 1C shows mean reduction of pesticides on strawberries at or below the median for rinsing and soaking.

4 Discussion

The adverse health impacts of pesticide exposure from multiple sources remains a public health concern worldwide, particularly for children, who are more vulnerable (37). Since eating fruits and vegetables is the foundation of a balanced diet, the efficacy of various methods in reducing pesticide levels have implications for dietary pesticide exposure and potential adverse health effects. As summarized in our work, robust data exist in peer-reviewed literature assessing the reduction in concentrations of pesticide residues on various produce items by different washing methods. These studies report a range of efficacy using these methods, and identify numerous factors related to the efficacy in reduction of residues. Understanding these factors can inform decisions on how to reduce exposure to pesticides through washing produce and improve monitoring. Further, the results of this analysis can assist in guiding research priorities in both regulatory and academic settings.

4.1 Study characteristics

Our search yielded a variety of studies when searching for relevant literature. While PubMed covers the majority of relevant peer-reviewed literature in this domain, it is possible that some journals were not captured, though we do not believe this alters the overall trends or conclusions presented. There were multiple considerations in the reviewed literature on what defines household pesticide reduction practices. Soaking times in the studies we analyzed ranged from a few seconds to an hour and some studies used a salad spinner or paper towels while others air dried produce. Several studies used concentrations of acetic acid or vinegar or baking soda that may be unrealistically high for consumers and could alter the taste or quality of produce (32, 33). Of note, perceptions of produce washing approaches and food preparations, as well as produce types and pesticides may vary with different cultures and regions. The studies analyzed were conducted in Belgium, Bolivia, Brazil, China, Denmark, Egypt, India, Iran, Korea, Pakistan, Poland, Turkey, and Uganda. However, the majority of combinations of produce and pesticides from studies are covered by the PDP, indicating high relevance for pesticide exposure for the general population in the United States.

Ten of the 47 studies were conducted in controlled lab settings, where samples were immersed into a pesticide solution to ’spike’ them rather than applying pesticides in an agricultural setting. Methods of spiking the samples for testing and the pre-harvest interval, which may affect pesticide deposition (38, 39), may differ from the more realistic exposure scenarios utilized by the PDP where samples are collected at point of purchase. A study that used lab spiked samples had the highest starting and ending concentrations, at 42.97 and 22.07 mg/kg respectively (31). Additionally, the starting/control concentration of a pesticide has an effect on the percent reduction reported (36, 40, 41). A higher starting or control concentration can result in inflated reduction estimates, since there is more baseline residue to remove. Additional factors related to reduction in residues include time spent washing (29, 42), pre-harvest interval (38, 39, 43) and temperature of the washing solution (44–46).

While the variability in methodologies, crop matrices, and specific pesticides across the reviewed literature may preclude direct comparison, the overall reductions observed remain consistent with established conclusions regarding washing efficacy. These findings provide a foundation for exploratory research and offer the necessary detail to inform future evidence-based guidance for reducing pesticide residues at home.

4.2 Monitoring pesticides on produce

Programs monitoring for pesticides in produce and biomonitoring for pesticides in people remain essential for a detailed characterization of the risks of pesticide exposure and the development of mitigation measures to reduce such risks. The USDA Pesticide Data Program provides a comprehensive analysis of pesticide residues on U.S. produce. Importantly, produce is rinsed under cold running water for 15–20 s before analysis and the data are used in refined dietary risk assessments performed by the U.S. EPA during pesticide registration review. Of note, information on how the produce the PDP tests are processed before reaching the distribution centers they are procured from is unavailable. Residues are still found on most non-organic produce samples after USDA processing and testing according to most recent reports (5).

Based on this work, dietary exposure to pesticides would be higher, and underestimated by the PDP data, for individuals who do not wash produce before consumption. For example, the fungicide pyrimethanil is highly soluble in water, and is more likely to integrate into the soft flesh of strawberries, leading to a lower reduction (36). Through rinsing strawberries for 15–20 s, Christensen et al. (36) found an average reduction of 37% for tolylfluanid, 34% for fenhexamid, and 19% for pyrimethanil. Pyrimethanil was also detected on 24% of PDP strawberry samples in 2016, which is when they were last sampled, suggesting that not washing could increase the detection frequency and average concentration of these pesticides on strawberries. Apples contain waxes on their surface that may sequester pesticides in their cuticle, lowering effective reduction of residues with just cold water as done with PDP testing. Diphenylamine, an apple scald inhibitor, was detected on 57.6% of PDP apple samples in 2023 and has a moderately high Kow (3.82), therefore it is more likely to integrate into the waxed layers of the fruit (33, 47, 48). One study found pesticides fluopyram and tebuconazole with a logP below 4 showed a higher reduction (56% and 57%, respectively) compared to pesticides fludioxonil, difenoconazole, and cyprodinil with a logP above 4 (35%, 38% and 34%, respectively) when rinsing apple samples for one minute (48). These examples strengthen the case for prioritizing annual testing of pesticides with properties that make them difficult to remove from produce.

4.3 Biomonitoring for pesticides

The U.S. National Health and Nutrition Examination Survey (NHANES) tests for environmental contaminants in a nationally representative sample of participants in the United States. Pesticides targeted for biomonitoring are those with data documenting exposure in the U.S. population, available and affordable analytical methods, known or possible health effects, and a need to assess public health actions to reduce exposure (49). However, NHANES only monitors a portion of pesticides and metabolites detected in food. Of these pesticides and metabolites, less than a third are systemic, which is a significant factor in their persistence in food (32, 50, 51). Fungicides are frequently detected in produce at high concentrations (5), but none of the fungicides highly detected by the PDP in produce, like cyprodinil, boscalid, difenoconazole, fludioxonil, pyraclostrobin, and pyrimethanil, are biomonitored by NHANES. Fungicides are sprayed after harvesting to prevent fungal diseases (52, 53), and therefore can be expected to be detectable upon reaching consumers. Multiple biomonitoring studies point to fungicides detected in the human population and available methods of quantification for these fungicides and their metabolites (54, 55). Public and government agencies have the opportunity to recommend specific pesticides of interest to be monitored by NHANES and support these recommendations with literature on their high detection and persistence on commonly eaten foods. Special consideration should be made for pesticides with evidence of toxicity through dietary exposure. Additionally, the dietary questionnaire, a component of NHANES, should survey participants on their produce preparation behavior to understand the extent to which people may be exposed to pesticides and their metabolites with or without washing. These data can help researchers determine what degree of household produce washing leads to significantly less pesticide exposure in people and if this leads to a change in health outcomes.

4.4 Research advances

Future research on the reduction of pesticides and metabolites detected on produce will improve our understanding of tools that can be recommended for mitigating dietary pesticide exposure. Our review of the literature shows the interactions between different produce items and pesticides are complex and varied. Therefore, studies measuring the reduction of residues of highly detected pesticides on the most common produce items is imperative. Pesticides with the highest detections in PDP on singular commodities are mostly systemic pesticides (Supplementary Table 2). Research should explore how much residue is internalized in these specific produce items and to what extent this affects their reduction efficacy. To create a realistic and comparative study design within new studies, samples would be rinsed with cold water for just 15–20 s as a baseline, with further experiments showing how the addition of solutions like baking soda or acetic acid or vinegar, with incrementally increasing concentrations and washing times, can compare to the baseline method. Collecting produce samples from stores can also aid in more realistic assessments of pesticide residues.

Additional research can identify common metabolites that form from use of household cleaning agents and food preparation on produce and their toxicity. A study of washing treatments observed the formation of oxygen analogs from organophosphorus pesticides with reaction to high levels of oxidative reagents found in disinfecting agents (56). Another study, when testing iprodione and 3,5-Dichloroaniline, a more toxic metabolite, on spinach found an increase in 3,5-Dichloroaniline after using methods involving heat (51). These studies emphasize the importance of comprehensive assessments, which go beyond just pesticide reductions and also consider how different washing methods can affect metabolite formation.

5 Conclusion

Due to pesticide residue presence on freshly harvested conventional produce, washing produce is an accessible intervention that can reduce dietary pesticide exposure. Our review compares the effectiveness of pesticide concentration reduction following common household washing methods, with soaking in solutions of baking soda or acetic acid or vinegar showing greater efficacy compared to plain rinsing or tap water soaking, though high concentrations may limit generalizability to household use. More research is necessary for a comprehensive characterization of dietary pesticide intake and generation of data on pesticide concentrations on unwashed produce. We recommend government monitoring that reflects realistic pesticide exposures, prioritizing pesticides that remain on produce even after washing, and comparative studies that investigate the dynamics of pesticide residues on food.

Author's note

Environmental Working Group (EWG) is a nonprofit research and advocacy organization. Within the scope of their employment, the authors have prepared and provided written and oral comments on behalf of the Environmental Working Group to the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency regarding pesticide risk assessment and pesticide regulations. As an organization, EWG publishes a consumer guide ranking fruits and vegetables based on pesticide residue occurrence data, available at ewg.org/foodnews.

Generative AI statement

The author(s) declared that generative AI was not used in the creation of this manuscript.

Any alternative text (alt text) provided alongside figures in this article has been generated by Frontiers with the support of artificial intelligence and reasonable efforts have been made to ensure accuracy, including review by the authors wherever possible. If you identify any issues, please contact us.

Publisher's note

All claims expressed in this article are solely those of the authors and do not necessarily represent those of their affiliated organizations, or those of the publisher, the editors and the reviewers. Any product that may be evaluated in this article, or claim that may be made by its manufacturer, is not guaranteed or endorsed by the publisher.

Supplementary material

The Supplementary Material for this article can be found online at: https://www.frontiersin.org/articles/10.3389/fenvh.2026.1768399/full#supplementary-material

Supplementary material Supplementary material at the source

Supplementary material Supplementary material at the source

Supplementary material Supplementary material at the source

Footnotes

Edited by: Pam Factor-Litvak, Columbia University, United States

Reviewed by: Nasreen MohiAlddin Abdulrahman, University of Sulaymaniyah, Iraq

Priscilla Moura Rolim, Federal University of Rio Grande do Norte, Brazil

Statements

Conflict of interest

The author(s) declared that this work was conducted in the absence of any commercial or financial relationships that could be construed as a potential conflict of interest.

Funding

The author(s) declared that financial support was not received for this work and/or its publication.

Author contributions

DM: Conceptualization, Data curation, Investigation, Methodology, Project administration, Writing – original draft, Writing – review & editing, Formal analysis. VS: Data curation, Formal analysis, Investigation, Methodology, Visualization, Writing – original draft, Writing – review & editing. ON: Investigation, Methodology, Project administration, Supervision, Writing – original draft, Writing – review & editing. AT: Conceptualization, Investigation, Methodology, Project administration, Supervision, Writing – original draft, Writing – review & editing, Data curation.

References

  1. 1. Botnaru AA, Lupu A, Morariu PC, Pop OL, Nedelcu AH, Morariu BA Balancing health and sustainability: assessing the benefits of plant-based diets and the risk of pesticide residues. Nutrients. (2025) 17 (4): 727. doi:10.3390/nu17040727
  2. 2. Angelino D, Godos J, Ghelfi F, Tieri M, Titta L, Lafranconi A Fruit and vegetable consumption and health outcomes: an umbrella review of observational studies. Int J Food Sci Nutr. (2019) 70 (6): 652 – 67. doi:10.1080/09637486.2019.1571021
  3. 3. Pappas C, Foos B. Pesticide data program: 30 years of food residue data and trends. J Expo Sci Environ Epidemiol. (2023) 33 (5): 805 – 12. doi:10.1038/s41370-022-00482-1
  4. 4. Da Silva TM, Seabra LMJ, Colares LGT, De Araújo BLPC, Da Costa Pires VC, Rolim PM. Risk assessment of pesticide residues ingestion in food offered by institutional restaurant menus. PLoS One. (2024) 19 (12): e0313836. doi:10.1371/journal.pone.0313836
  5. 5. Temkin AM, Subramaniam V, Friedman A, Fleury E, de Montagnac D, Campbell C A cumulative dietary pesticide exposure score based on produce consumption is associated with urinary pesticide biomarkers in a U. S. Biomonitoring cohort. Int J Hyg Environ Health. (2025) 270: 114654. doi:10.1016/j.ijheh.2025.114654
  6. 6. Hu Y, Chiu YH, Hauser R, Chavarro J, Sun Q. Overall and class-specific scores of pesticide residues from fruits and vegetables as a tool to rank intake of pesticide residues in United States: a validation study. Environ Int. (2016) 92–93: 294 – 300. doi:10.1016/j.envint.2016.04.028
  7. 7. Valcke M, Bourgault MH, Rochette L, Normandin L, Samuel O, Belleville D Human health risk assessment on the consumption of fruits and vegetables containing residual pesticides: a cancer and non-cancer risk/benefit perspective. Environ Int. (2017) 108: 63 – 74. doi:10.1016/j.envint.2017.07.023
  8. 8. Poulia KA, Bakaloudi DR, Alevizou M, Papakonstantinou E, Zampelas A, Chourdakis M. Impact of organic foods on chronic diseases and health perception: a systematic review of the evidence. Eur J Clin Nutr. (2025) 79 (2): 90 – 103. doi:10.1038/s41430-024-01505-w
  9. 9. Kesse-Guyot E, Lairon D, Allès B, Seconda L, Rebouillat P, Brunin J Key findings of the French BioNutriNet project on organic food–based diets: description, determinants, and relationships to health and the environment. Adv Nutr. (2022) 13 (1): 208 – 24. doi:10.1093/advances/nmab105
  10. 10. Chiu YH, Sandoval-Insausti H, Ley SH, Bhupathiraju SN, Hauser R, Rimm EB Association between intake of fruits and vegetables by pesticide residue status and coronary heart disease risk. Environ Int. (2019) 132: 105113. doi:10.1016/j.envint.2019.105113
  11. 11. Andersen HR, David A, Freire C, Fernández MF, D’Cruz SC, Reina-Pérez I Pyrethroids and developmental neurotoxicity - A critical review of epidemiological studies and supporting mechanistic evidence. Environ Res. (2022) 214: 113935. doi:10.1016/j.envres.2022.113935
  12. 12. Rowe C, Gunier R, Bradman A, Harley KG, Kogut K, Parra K Residential proximity to organophosphate and carbamate pesticide use during pregnancy, poverty during childhood, and cognitive functioning in 10-year-old children. Environ Res. (2016) 150: 128 – 37. doi:10.1016/j.envres.2016.05.048
  13. 13. Kazemi M, Salas-Huetos A, Mitsunami M, Chiu YH, Hauser R, Souter I Male partner pesticide residue exposure from fruit and vegetable intake in relation to outcomes of infertility treatment: a prospective cohort study. Am J Clin Nutr. (2025) 122 (6): 1701 – 12. doi:10.1016/j.ajcnut.2025.09.016
  14. 14. Chiu YH, Afeiche MC, Gaskins AJ, Williams PL, Petrozza JC, Tanrikut C Fruit and vegetable intake and their pesticide residues in relation to semen quality among men from a fertility clinic. Hum Reprod. (2015) 30 (6): 1342 – 51. doi:10.1093/humrep/dev064
  15. 15. Lukowicz C, Ellero-Simatos S, Régnier M, Polizzi A, Lasserre F, Montagner A Metabolic effects of a chronic dietary exposure to a low-dose pesticide cocktail in mice: sexual dimorphism and role of the constitutive androstane receptor. Environ Health Perspect. (2018) 126 (6): 067007. doi:10.1289/EHP2877
  16. 16. Conley JM, Lambright CS, Evans N, Cardon M, Medlock-Kakaley E, Wilson VS A mixture of 15 phthalates and pesticides below individual chemical no observed adverse effect levels (NOAELs) produces reproductive tract malformations in the male rat. Environ Int. (2021) 156: 106615. doi:10.1016/j.envint.2021.106615
  17. 17. Munir S, Azeem A, Sikandar Zaman M. Zia ul haq M. From field to table: ensuring food safety by reducing pesticide residues in food. Sci Total Environ. (2024) 922: 171382. doi:10.1016/j.scitotenv.2024.171382
  18. 18. Kilonzo-Nthenge A, Chen FC, Godwin SL. Efficacy of home washing methods in controlling surface microbial contamination on fresh produce. J Food Prot. (2006) 69 (2): 330 – 4. doi:10.4315/0362-028X-69.2.330
  19. 19. Tiryaki O, Polat B. Effects of washing treatments on pesticide residues in agricultural products. Gıda Ve Yem Bilimi Teknol Derg. (2023) 29: 1 – 11.
  20. 20. Bhilwadikar T, Pounraj S, Manivannan S, Rastogi NK, Negi PS. Decontamination of microorganisms and pesticides from fresh fruits and vegetables: a comprehensive review from common household processes to modern techniques. Compr Rev Food Sci Food Saf. (2019) 18 (4): 1003 – 38. doi:10.1111/1541-4337.12453
  21. 21. Chung SW. How effective are common household preparations on removing pesticide residues from fruit and vegetables? A review. J Sci Food Agric. (2018) 98 (8): 2857 – 70. doi:10.1002/jsfa.8821
  22. 22. Krol WJ, Arsenault TL, Pylypiw Harry M, Incorvia Mattina MJ. Reduction of pesticide residues on produce by rinsing. J Agric Food Chem. (2000) 48 (10): 4666 – 70. doi:10.1021/jf0002894
  23. 23. Verrill L, Lando AM, O’Connell KM. Consumer vegetable and fruit washing practices in the United States, 2006 and 2010. Food Prot Trends. (2012) 32: 164 – 72.
  24. 24. Carstens CK, Salazar JK, Sharma SV, Chan W, Darkoh C. Food safety attitudes, behaviors, and hygiene measures among predominantly low-income parents in Houston, Texas. J Food Prot. (2022) 85 (12): 1745 – 55. doi:10.4315/JFP-22-179
  25. 25. U.S. Food and Drug Administration. Selecting and serving produce safely. Silver Spring (MD): FDA; 2024 March 5. Available online at: (Accessed March 10, 2026).
  26. 26. Du X, Ho L, Li S, Doherty J, Lee J, Clark JM Efficacy of household and commercial washing agents in removing the pesticide thiabendazole residues from fruits. Foods. (2025) 14 (2): 318. doi:10.3390/foods14020318
  27. 27. Dudwal R, Jakhar BL, Pathan ARK, Kataria A, Jan I, Kakralya BL The effect of different decontamination processes on the residues of fipronil and its metabolites in chili fruits (Capsicum annuum L.). Biomed Chromatogr. (2023) 37 (9): e5695. doi:10.1002/bmc.5695
  28. 28. Chauhan R, Monga S, Kumari B. Effect of processing on reduction of Λ -cyhalothrin residues in tomato fruits. Bull Environ Contam Toxicol. (2012) 88 (3): 352 – 7. doi:10.1007/s00128-011-0483-9
  29. 29. Wu Y, An Q, Li D, Wu J, Pan C. Comparison of different home/commercial washing strategies for ten typical pesticide residue removal effects in kumquat, spinach and cucumber. Int J Environ Res Public Health. (2019) 16 (3): 472. doi:10.3390/ijerph16030472
  30. 30. Amir RM, Randhawa MA, Nadeem M, Ahmed A, Ahmad A, Khan MR Assessing and reporting household chemicals as a novel tool to mitigate pesticide residues in spinach (Spinacia oleracea). Sci Rep. (2019) 9: 1125. doi:10.1038/s41598-018-37936-2
  31. 31. Yang SJ, Mun S, Kim HJ, Han SJ, Kim DW, Cho BS Effectiveness of different washing strategies on pesticide residue removal: the first comparative study on leafy vegetables. Foods. (2022) 11 (18): 2916. doi:10.3390/foods11182916
  32. 32. Rodrigues AAZ, de Queiroz MELR, Faroni LRD, Prates LHF, Neves AA, de Oliveira AF The efficacy of washing strategies in the elimination of fungicide residues and the alterations on the quality of bell peppers. Food Res Int. (2021) 147: 110579. doi:10.1016/j.foodres.2021.110579
  33. 33. Rodrigues AAZ, Queiroz de MELR, Neves AA, Oliveira de AF, Prates LHF, Freitas de JF Use of ozone and detergent for removal of pesticides and improving storage quality of tomato. Food Res Int. (2019) 125: 108626. doi:10.1016/j.foodres.2019.108626
  34. 34. Park M, Kim H, Kim M, Im MH. Reduction in residual cyantraniliprole levels in spinach after various washing and blanching methods. Front Nutr. (2022) 9: 948671. doi:10.3389/fnut.2022.948671
  35. 35. Walia S, Boora P, Kumari B. Effect of processing on dislodging of cypermethrin residues on brinjal. Bull Environ Contam Toxicol. (2010) 84 (4): 465 – 8. doi:10.1007/s00128-010-9952-9
  36. 36. Christensen HB, Granby K, Rabølle M. Processing factors and variability of pyrimethanil, fenhexamid and tolylfluanid in strawberries. Food Addit Contam. (2003) 20 (8): 728 – 41. doi:10.1080/0265203031000138286
  37. 37. Institute of Medicine (US) Committee on Food Chemicals Codex. Food chemicals codex: First supplement to the seventh edition. Washington (DC): National Academies Press (US). (2011). Available online at: (Accessed March 10, 2026).
  38. 38. Samriti, Chauhan R, Kumari B. Persistence and effect of processing on reduction of chlorpyriphos residues in okra fruits. Bull Environ Contam Toxicol. (2011) 87 (2): 198 – 201. doi:10.1007/s00128-011-0306-z
  39. 39. Liu C, Chen R, Liu F, Gao Z, Li X, Wang Y Distribution pattern, removal effect, transfer behavior of ten pesticides and one metabolite during the processing of grapes. Food Res Int. (2023) 164: 112398. doi:10.1016/j.foodres.2022.112398
  40. 40. Andrade GCRM, Monteiro SH, Francisco JG, Figueiredo LA, Rocha AA, Tornisielo VL. Effects of types of washing and peeling in relation to pesticide residues in tomatoes. J Braz Chem Soc. (2015) 26: 1994 – 2002. doi:10.5935/0103-5053.20150179
  41. 41. Kaur P, Yadav GS, Chauhan R, Kumari B. Persistence of cypermethrin and decamethrin residues in/on brinjal fruits. Bull Environ Contam Toxicol. (2011) 87 (6): 693 – 8. doi:10.1007/s00128-011-0395-8
  42. 42. Alhewairini SS, Abd El-Hamid RM, Ahmed NS, Abdel Ghani SB, Abdallah OI. Bifenthrin residues in table grapevine: method optimization, dissipation and removal of residues in grapes and grape leaves. Plants. (2024) 13 (12): 1695. doi:10.3390/plants13121695
  43. 43. Duhan A, Kumari B, Gulati R. Effect of household processing on fenazaquin residues in okra fruits. Bull Environ Contam Toxicol. (2010) 84 (2): 217 – 20. doi:10.1007/s00128-009-9863-9
  44. 44. Jiang W, Chen X, Liu F, Pan C. Residue distribution, dissipation behavior, and removal of four fungicide residues on harvested apple after waxing treatment. J Agric Food Chem. (2019) 67 (8): 2307 – 12. doi:10.1021/acs.jafc.8b06254
  45. 45. Abdullah, Randhawa MA, Asghar A, Pasha I, Usman R, Shamoon M Evaluation of various soaking agents as a novel tool for pesticide residues mitigation from cauliflower (Brassica oleracea var. botrytis). J Food Sci Technol. (2015) 53 (8): 3312 – 9. doi:10.1007/s13197-016-2307-8
  46. 46. Saeedi Saravi SS, Shokrzadeh M. Effects of washing, peeling, storage, and fermentation on residue contents of carbaryl and mancozeb in cucumbers grown in greenhouses. Toxicol Ind Health. (2016) 32 (6): 1135 – 42. doi:10.1177/0748233714552295
  47. 47. Omeroglu PY, Acoglu Celik B, Koc Alibasoglu E. The effect of household food processing on pesticide residues in oranges (Citrus sinensis). Foods Basel Switz. (2022) 11 (23): 3918. doi:10.3390/foods11233918
  48. 48. Słowik-Borowiec M, Szpyrka E. Selected food processing techniques as a factor for pesticide residue removal in apple fruit. Environ Sci Pollut Res. (2020) 27 (2): 2361 – 73. doi:10.1007/s11356-019-06943-9
  49. 49. CDC. National Report on Human Exposure to Environmental Chemicals. About the Chemicals (2025). Available online at: (Accessed November 30, 2025).
  50. 50. Hazarhun G, Kumral NA, Gümül B, Kolcu A, Özkan S. Effect of washing method on the reduction of insecticide residues and quality characteristics of sweet cherry fruits. Turk J Entomol. (2024) 48 (1): 89 – 101. doi:10.16970/entoted.1411875
  51. 51. Bonnechère A, Hanot V, Jolie R, Hendrickx M, Bragard C, Bedoret T Effect of household and industrial processing on levels of five pesticide residues and two degradation products in spinach. Food Control. (2012) 25 (1): 397 – 406. doi:10.1016/j.foodcont.2011.11.010
  52. 52. Thurman EM, Ferrer I, Zweigenbaum JA, García-Reyes JF, Woodman M, Fernández-Alba AR. Discovering metabolites of post-harvest fungicides in citrus with liquid chromatography/time-of-flight mass spectrometry and ion trap tandem mass spectrometry. J Chromatogr A. (2005) 1082 (1): 71 – 80. doi:10.1016/j.chroma.2005.03.042
  53. 53. Altieri G, Di Renzo GC, Genovese F, Calandra M, Strano MC. A new method for the postharvest application of imazalil fungicide to citrus fruit. Biosyst Eng. (2013) 115 (4): 434 – 43. doi:10.1016/j.biosystemseng.2013.04.008
  54. 54. Hu W, Liu CW, Jiménez JA, McCoy ES, Hsiao YC, Lin W Detection of azoxystrobin fungicide and metabolite azoxystrobin-acid in pregnant women and children, estimation of daily intake, and evaluation of placental and lactational transfer in mice. Environ Health Perspect. (2022) 130 (2): 027013. doi:10.1289/EHP9808
  55. 55. Bossou YM, Côté J, Mahrouche L, Mantha M, El Majidi N, Furtos A Excretion time courses of lambda-cyhalothrin metabolites in the urine of strawberry farmworkers and effect of coexposure with captan. Arch Toxicol. (2022) 96 (9): 2465 – 86. doi:10.1007/s00204-022-03310-5
  56. 56. Pugliese P, Moltó JC, Damiani P, Marín R, Cossignani L, Mañes J. Gas chromatographic evaluation of pesticide residue contents in nectarines after non-toxic washing treatments. J Chromatogr A. (2004) 1050 (2): 185 – 91. doi:10.1016/j.chroma.2004.08.032
  57. 57. Vijay A, Kalasariya RL, Rathod PH, Chawla S, Acharya RR. Dissipation and evaluation of different treatments on the residues of different insecticides in/on cauliflower curd. Food Addit Contam Part A. (2024) 41 (4): 385 – 99. doi:10.1080/19440049.2024.2317905
  58. 58. Wen A, Gao F, Guo B, Wang L, Yuan S, Yu H Electrolyzed water combined with ozone treatment for efficient removal of mancozeb residues from grapes. J Food Sci. (2024) 89 (11): 7521 – 33. doi:10.1111/1750-3841.17374
  59. 59. Subasekaran R, Kaithamalai B, Angappan S, Thiruvenkatasamy S, Narayanan M. Dissipation kinetics, decontamination, consumer risk assessment and monitoring of flonicamid and imidacloprid residues in capsicum under open field and polyhouse condition. Environ Sci Pollut Res. (2023) 30 (54): 116039 – 51. doi:10.1007/s11356-023-30522-8
  60. 60. Özen T, Koyuncu MA, Erbaş D. Effect of ozone treatments on the removal of pesticide residues and postharvest quality in green pepper. J Food Sci Technol. (2021) 58 (6): 2186 – 96. doi:10.1007/s13197-020-04729-3
  61. 61. Kaushik E, Dubey JK, Patyal SK, Katna S, Chauhan A, Devi N. Persistence of tetraniliprole and reduction in its residues by various culinary practices in tomato in India. Environ Sci Pollut Res. (2019) 26 (22): 22464 – 71. doi:10.1007/s11356-019-04738-6
  62. 62. Atuhaire A, Kaye E, Mutambuze IL, Matthews G, Friedrich T, Jørs E. Assessment of dithiocarbamate residues on tomatoes conventionally grown in Uganda and the effect of simple washing to reduce exposure risk to consumers. Environ Health Insights. (2017) 11: 1178630217712218. doi:10.1177/1178630217712218
  63. 63. Skovgaard M, Renjel Encinas S, Jensen OC, Andersen JH, Condarco G, Jørs E. Pesticide residues in commercial lettuce, onion, and potato samples from Bolivia—a threat to public health? Environ Health Insights. (2017) 11: 1178630217704194. doi:10.1177/1178630217704194
  64. 64. Liu N, Dong F, Chen Z, Xu J, Liu X, Duan L Distribution behaviour of acaricide cyflumetofen in tomato during home canning. Food Addit Contam: Part A. (2016) 33 (5): 824 – 30. doi:10.1080/19440049.2016.1171913
  65. 65. Lozowicka B, Jankowska M, Hrynko I, Kaczynski P. Removal of 16 pesticide residues from strawberries by washing with tap and ozone water, ultrasonic cleaning and boiling. Environ Monit Assess. (2016) 188 (1): 51. doi:10.1007/s10661-015-4850-6
  66. 66. Xia E, Tao W, Yao X, Wang J, Tang F. Effects of processing on carbendazim residue in pleurotus ostreatus. Food Sci Nutr. (2016) 4 (4): 645 – 50. doi:10.1002/fsn3.328
  67. 67. Jankowska M, Kaczynski P, Hrynko I, Lozowicka B. Dissipation of six fungicides in greenhouse-grown tomatoes with processing and health risk. Environ Sci Pollut Res Int. (2016) 23: 11885 – 900. doi:10.1007/s11356-016-6260-x
  68. 68. Abdullah, Randhawa MA, Akhtar S, Mansoor-ul-Hassan, Asghar A, Sohaib M Assessment of different washing treatments to mitigate imidacloprid and acetamaprid residues in spinach. J Sci Food Agric. (2016) 96 (11): 3749 – 54. doi:10.1002/jsfa.7563
  69. 69. Chauhan R, Monga S, Kumari B. Dissipation and decontamination of bifenthrin residues in tomato (Lycopersicon esculentum mill). Bull Environ Contam Toxicol. (2012) 89 (1): 181 – 6. doi:10.1007/s00128-012-0629-4
  70. 70. Radwan MA, Abu-Elamayem MM, Shiboob MH, Abdel-Aal A. Residual behaviour of profenofos on some field-grown vegetables and its removal using various washing solutions and household processing. Food Chem Toxicol. (2005) 43 (4): 553 – 7. doi:10.1016/j.fct.2004.12.009
  71. 71. Łozowicka B, Jankowska M. Comparison of the effects of water and thermal processing on pesticide removal in selected fruit and vegetables. J Elem. (2016) 21 (1): 99 – 111. doi:10.5601/jelem.2015.20.2.917
  72. 72. Balkan T, Yılmaz Ö. Efficacy of some washing solutions for removal of pesticide residues in lettuce. Beni-Suef Univ J Basic Appl Sci. (2022) 11 (1): 143. doi:10.1186/s43088-022-00324-x
  73. 73. Rasolonjatovo MA, Cemek M, Cengiz MF, Ortaç D, Konuk HB, Karaman E Reduction of methomyl and acetamiprid residues from tomatoes after various household washing solutions. Int J Food Prop. (2017) 20 (11): 2748 – 59. doi:10.1080/10942912.2016.1250099
  74. 74. Patil PR. Pesticidal contamination Status and decontamination of Various pesticide residues in fruits by household preparations. Int J Environ Sci Tech. (2009) 6 (4): 617 – 26.
  75. 75. Mahmoud HA, Eissa FI. Diniconazole residues in field-sprayed and household processed cucumber and pepper fruits. Annals agric. Sci., ain shams univ. Cairo. (2007) 52 (1): 253 – 60.
  76. 76. Randhawa MA, Anjum FM, Asi MR, Ahmed A, Nawaz H. Field incurred endosulfan residues in fresh and processed vegetables and dietary intake assessment. Int J Food Prop. (2014) 17 (5): 1109 – 15. doi:10.1080/10942912.2012.694091
  77. 77. Randhawa MA, Anjum FM, Randhawa MS, Ahmed A, Farooq U, Abrar M Dissipation of deltamethrin on supervised vegetables and removal of its residue by household processing. J Chem Soc Pak. (2008) 30 (2): 227 – 31.
  78. 78. Rani M, Saini S, Kumari B. Persistence and effect of processing on chlorpyriphos residues in tomato (Lycopersicon esculantum mill.). Ecotoxicol Environ Saf. (2013) 95: 247 – 52. doi:10.1016/j.ecoenv.2013.04.028
  79. 79. Liang Y, Wang W, Shen Y, Liu Y, Liu XJ. Effects of home preparation on organophosphorus pesticide residues in raw cucumber. Food Chem. (2012) 133 (3): 636 – 40. doi:10.1016/j.foodchem.2012.01.016
  80. 80. Reddy BKK, Bhuvaneswari K, Geetha P, Thamilarasi N, Suganthi A, Paramasivam M. Effect of decontamination and processing on insecticide residues in grape (Muscat Hamburg). Environ Sci Pollut Res. (2022) 29 (50): 75790 – 804. doi:10.1007/s11356-022-21165-2

Citation

Montagnac, D. d., et al. (2026). Reducing pesticide residues on produce: a scoping review of household produce washing methods. Frontiers in Environmental Health, Volume 5. https://doi.org/
Received
Accepted
Published
Volume
5 - 2026

Copyright

© 2026 de Montagnac, Subramaniam, Naidenko and Temkin.

License: https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/

*Correspondence: Dayna de Montagnac

Article metrics

Views
0
Downloads
0
Citations
0
Shares
0

Related articles

Original ResearchThe association of extreme heat and PM 2.5 with preterm birth and low birthweight in Florida, United StatesJessica A. Broach, Emily W. Harville, Jihoon Jung, David Hsu, Xiuling Zhao, Yoonjung Ahn, Daniel Tong, Siqi Ma, Christopher K. UejioBrief Research ReportAssociations between serum persistent organic pollutants and type 2 diabetes in a multipollutant analysis using repeated measurements in the Tromsø StudyMia Mathisen Nilsen, Andrea Bellavia, Charlotta Rylander, Dolley Charles, Sandra Huber, Therese Haugdahl Nøst, Tom Wilsgaard, Torkjel M. Sandanger, Tamarra James-Todd, Vivian BergCorrectionCorrection: Housing and health inequalities: why is housing on the periphery of health and welfare policy?Andrew Harding, Natasha Harding, Luigi Sedda, Sarah Blagden