Your browser does not support the NLM PubReader view.

Go to this page to see a list of supporting browsers.

Exploring eco-engineering methods to mitigate glyphosate residue risks in agricultural systems

Article information

Environmental Engineering Research. 2025;30(6)
Publication date (electronic) : 2025 April 8
doi : https://doi.org/10.4491/eer.2024.712
Mohammad Mehdizadeh1,2,orcid_icon, Duraid K. A. Al-Taey3, Anahita Omidi4, Marwa Fadhil Alsaffar5, Atun Roy Choudhury6, Muhammad Akram7
1Department of Agronomy and Plant Breeding, Faculty of Agriculture and Natural Resources, University of Mohaghegh Ardabili, Ardabil, Iran
2Ilam Science and Technology Park, Iran, Ilam
3Department of Anesthesia, College of Health and Medical Technology, Al-Ayen Iraqi University, An Nasiriyah, Iraq
4Department of GIS and Remote Sensing, Faculty of Geography, University of Tehran, Tehran, Iran
5Medical Laboratories Techniques Department, Al-Mustaqbal University, 51001 Hillah, Babil, Iraq
6Cube Bio Energy Pvt. Ltd., 501, KK Plaza, 100 Feet Rd, Ayyappa Society, Madhapur, Telangana, 500081, India
7Department of Eastern Medicine, Government College University Faisalabad, Pakistan
†Corresponding author E-mail: mehdizade.mohammad@gmail.com Tel: +989183442931, Fax: +989183442931, ORCID: 0000-0001-8702-781X
Received 2024 December 24; Revised 2025 February 22; Accepted 2025 April 7.

Abstract

Ongoing scientific and regulatory evaluations scrutinize glyphosate’s health and environmental risks, despite its economic benefits in weed control, requiring evidence-based approaches to address persistent controversy. This systematic review synthesizes 42 studies (2000–2024) from Scopus, Web of Science, PubMed, and Google Scholar, adhering to PRISMA guidelines, to evaluate glyphosate residue risks and mitigation strategies in agricultural systems. Glyphosate, a cost-effective herbicide, shows global residue contamination, with concentrations ranging from 0.003 mg kg−1 in Italian vegetables to 5.06 mg kg−1 in Thai soybeans. Liquid chromatography-tandem mass spectrometry (LC-MS/MS) achieved detection limits as low as 0.002 mg kg-1, yet adjuvant synergism (e.g., polyethoxylated tallow amine-induced DNA damage in A549 cells) was understudied. Eco-engineering methods, including adsorption (92% removal via graphene oxide) and microbial degradation (85.8% efficiency by Pseudomonas aeruginosa), showed promise but lacked scalability. Critical regulatory gaps persist, such as inconsistent monitoring of persistent metabolites like AMPA and inadequate assessment of chronic low-dose exposure risks. This study advances a holistic framework integrating precise detection, adjuvant toxicity evaluation, and scalable bio-remediation, emphasizing harmonized global standards and reduced glyphosate reliance. By bridging agricultural productivity with environmental stewardship, it offers novel insights into reconciling weed management efficacy with planetary health imperatives.

Abstract

Graphical Abstract

Keywords: Bioremediation; Carcinogenicity; Food contamination; Glyphosate; Residual determination

1. Introduction

The importance of access to healthy food and nutrition as one of the basic necessities of human life is undeniable. Agricultural crops and food must be free of chemical contaminants to achieve this purpose [1]. In general, chemical pesticide residues, particularly herbicides, are recognized as critical sources of contamination in agricultural products and food chains [2,3]. With advancements in analytical techniques and the development of reliable methods for detecting chemical residues, global concerns about herbicide persistence have stimulated extensive research to evaluate the safety of agrochemicals in ecosystems.

Herbicides, depending on their class and formulation, act either in the soil (pre-plant and pre-emergence applications) or on target plants (post-emergence applications) [4]. While their primary objective is to control weeds and safeguard crop yields, a significant proportion of applied herbicides fails to reach target sites due to microbial degradation, leaching, runoff, photodecomposition, or adsorption to soil organic matter [5–8]. These pathways contribute to environmental contamination, affecting non-target organisms and ecosystems. Residues accumulate in crops, fruits, vegetables, and animal products, ultimately endangering human health through contaminated food, seafood, and dairy [9].

Glyphosate, a broad-spectrum herbicide, dominates global agricultural and non-agricultural applications due to its efficacy and cost-effectiveness [10–12]. However, its ubiquity has raised concerns about environmental persistence and human health risks. Recent studies highlight glyphosate’s potential to disrupt soil microbiomes, reduce biodiversity, and bioaccumulate in aquatic systems [13,14]. For instance, Madani and Carpenter [15] synthesized evidence linking glyphosate exposure to endocrine disruption in mammals, while Battisti et al. [16] demonstrated its sublethal effects on pollinator species, underscoring broader ecological ramifications. Various studies have detected glyphosate residues in 59% of U.S. honey samples [17], and even human urine [18], underscoring its pervasive infiltration into ecosystems and human biomatrices. Advances in analytical methodologies, particularly liquid chromatography-tandem mass spectrometry (LC-MS/MS), have enabled detection limits as low as 0.002 mg kg−1 [19]. Also, advanced techniques such as high-resolution mass spectrometry and immunoassay-based biosensors, have revealed trace residues in processed foods and drinking water, challenging previous assumptions about its rapid degradation [20,21].

Despite growing evidence, a critical gap remains in synthesizing mitigation strategies that align with sustainable agricultural practices. Existing reviews predominantly focus on glyphosate’s toxicological profiles or regulatory policies [22–24], with limited integration of eco-engineering approaches to reduce residue accumulation. For example, Nguyen et al. [25] presented Rhodococcus soli G41 as a solution for glyphosate bioremediation, though their study primarily emphasizes its performance under controlled laboratory conditions. Mitigation strategies have similarly advanced, with adsorption techniques like graphene oxide composites achieving 92% glyphosate removal [26] and microbial consortia such as Pseudomonas aeruginosa degrading 85.8% of soil-bound residues [27]. However, challenges such as scalability issues, the accumulation of metabolites like AMPA, and ecological trade-offs remain significant obstacles.

This study addresses these gaps by providing a systematic review of the risk associated with glyphosate residues contamination and residual determination in crops and food as well as the eco-engineering strategies to mitigate glyphosate residue risks. By integrating ecological science with engineering principles, this manuscript offers a holistic framework to reduce glyphosate persistence without compromising agricultural productivity. Our findings aim to inform policymakers, agronomists, and environmental engineers seeking scalable solutions for sustainable glyphosate management.

1.1. An Overview of Glyphosate

As a commonly used non-selective systemic herbicide, glyphosate is an economical tool and very efficient to weed management in various crops [28]. As a non-selective herbicide, glyphosate is used primarily on agricultural fields where glyphosate-resistant or tolerant crop varieties are grown, such as roundup ready corn and soybean varieties. Monsanto formulated this herbicide in the 1970s [29]. Glyphosate has been known as a widely used herbicide since its inception in the agrochemical market; however, in the mid-1990s, with the introduction of glyphosate-tolerant genetically modified crops, the application of this herbicide was significantly increased and has become the most widely used herbicide worldwide [30]. This herbicide has dramatically minimized the usage of other herbicide classes. On the other hand, the high efficiency of glyphosate leads to the development of reduced tillage systems. These systems improve soil-related factors, reduce herbicide leaching and, soil erosion compared to conventional tillage systems [31,32].

Although there have been claims that glyphosate is low toxicity for the environment, mammals, and water resources pollution, there have been numerous violations in various countries and conditions. In this regard, there has been concern that the enormous use of glyphosate may have unintentional and unwanted adverse effects. These considerations include glyphosate residues in drinking water, plants, food cycles, and human bodies [33]. Other concerns associated with the widespread application of this herbicide are interactions with plant nutrition, the impacts on soil microbial population, and the emergence of superweeds and resistant weeds. Geng et al. [34] detected the residues of glyphosate and its metabolites in surface and groundwater samples in china with concentration ranges of 2.09 to 32.49 μg L−1. Soil contamination due to glyphosate residues is associated with its absorption by soil organic matter and clay particles. Accordingly, DT90 value of more than 1000 days was estimated for this herbicide in the soil environment [35]. Poudyal et al. [36] detected the residues of glyphosate in human urine samples in United States. Also, significant residue levels of glyphosate were found in the liver, kidney, muscles, and intestine of slaughtered cows in Germany [37]. Despite the high effectiveness of glyphosate for weed control, the continuous application of this herbicide has led to the development of superweeds, which tolerate different dosages of glyphosate [38].

Isopropylamine salt is the typical glyphosate formulation form. Glyphosate inhibits 5-enolpyruvylshikimate-3-phosphate (EPSP), which synthesizes phenylalanine, tyrosine, and tryptophan in the shikimate pathway and disrupts protein synthesis and ultimately destroying the sensitive plants (Fig. 1). This enzyme is expressed by plants and some microorganisms but not by animals. Aromatic amino acids cannot be synthesized by animals [39]. Consequently, animals and other organisms without this pathway are less toxic to glyphosate. Protein synthesis requires these three essential amino acids. These amino acids are also necessary for photosynthesis and carotenoid synthesis, which depend on indole acetic-3-acid and plastoquinone [40]. There might, however, be indirect phyto-toxic effects of glyphosate and its metabolites in processes involving the destruction of sensitive plant species [41]. Glyphosate’s additional mode of action may be related to its impacts on soil micro-organisms and subsequently plants. Moreover, glyphosate decreases chlorophyll content excessively, which can negatively impact photosynthesis [42–43]. The growth of bacterial and fungal organisms is generally inhibited by glyphosate only at concentrations far above the levels that occur in the environment [8].

Fig. 1

Glyphosate mode of action.

1.2. Health Concerns Associated with Glyphosate

A public debate has been sparked over glyphosate residues in crops and their potential health risks. Although regulatory agencies generally deem glyphosate safe when used according to approved guidelines, some studies and concerns have raised potential risks. The toxicity status of glyphosate for humans and animals is shown in table 1. There have been several health risks associated with this herbicide:

Toxicity status of glyphosate for human and animals.

1.2.1. Carcinogenic potential

Despite being the most widely used herbicide in the world, the long-term health effects of glyphosate remain unknown. Air, water, and soil have been polluted by its widespread use, and human and animal health problems have been linked to it. The case of glyphosate illustrates the difficulty involved in evaluating, testing, assessing, and regulating chemicals. The implementation of human studies is challenging; subsequent studies on safety and risk assessment are lacking; environmental impacts are not well understood; industry participation in assessment and approval systems is extensive; and these evaluations have significant legal implications. In addition, there are also ethical issues such as informed consent, confidentiality, and protection of vulnerable populations. Furthermore, there are also concerns about potential conflicts of interest that may arise from industry involvement in these evaluations. All of these factors make it difficult to accurately assess the risks of such pesticides and take appropriate action to mitigate them prior to their widespread use. Without proper regulation, these products can have devastating consequences. It is essential to create and enforce regulations that limit the use of high risk pesticides and ensure the safety of the public and the environment. Governments should also invest in research to better understand the potential risks of these chemicals and develop better strategies for managing them in the future. Although EPSP does not exist in humans, glyphosate has relatively low acute toxicity. Adjuvants are used in pesticides to make the active ingredients more effective. However, they can also increase the toxicity of the pesticide, making it more likely to cause negative health effects. A similar scenario could occur with glyphosate [44].

Glyphosate’s carcinogenic effect has been investigated several times since its introduction for weed control in different crops. In the last few decades, various agencies have reported different results regarding glyphosate’s carcinogenicity. Some have found that glyphosate is a probable human carcinogen, while others conclude that it is non-carcinogenic. The International Agency for Research on Cancer (IARC) classified glyphosate as probably carcinogenic in 2014 [29]. This classification has caused wide-spread concern among farmers and environmental groups. As a result, some countries have imposed restrictions on the use of glyphosate in agriculture. Fig. 2 illustrates the critical results of these agencies regarding glyphosate’s carcinogenicity.

Fig. 2

Glyphosate’s carcinogenic status reported by different international agencies. EPA: Environmental Protection Agency; CPRC: Carcinogenicity Peer Review Committee; CARC: Cancer Assessment Review Committee; IARC: International Agency for Research on Cancer; EFSA: European Food Safety Authority; JMPR: Joint FAOWHO Meeting on Pesticide Residues; ATSDR: Agency for Toxic Substances and Disease Registry.

1.2.2. Endocrine disruption

Glyphosate may interfere with hormones because of its endocrine-disrupting effects, according to several studies [45]. These effects could potentially impact reproductive health, development, and other physiological processes. However, the evidence on glyphosate’s endocrine-disrupting potential is inconclusive, and further research is needed to establish a clear link. An overview of some studies suggests that glyphosate is capable of disrupting the endocrine system. Thongprakaisang et al. [46] performed in vitro experiments using human breast cancer cells and found that glyphosate and its commercial formulations could accelerate the growth of hormone-dependent breast cancer cells. Their hypothesis was that glyphosate might disrupt normal hormonal signals because of its estrogenic properties. Gasnier et al. [47] investigated the effects of glyphosate-based herbicides on human placental cells. In their study, herbicides triggered estrogenic responses, suggesting potential endocrine disruption. In this study, herbicides were used at very high concentrations, which may not reflect real-world exposures. Paganelli et al. [48] assessed the influence of glyphosate on amphibian larvae’s endocrine system. The researchers observed that glyphosate exposure led to developmental abnormalities and disruption of the hormonal system in amphibians. Further research is needed to determine whether these findings are relevant to human health. Clair et al. [49] evaluated glyphosate’s effects on reproductive health in rats. Reproductive parameters, hormonal profiles, and gene expression related to the reproductive system were altered. There was evidence that these effects could cause endocrine disruption, however, the study’s design and methodology were criticized. It’s critical to note that while these studies suggest potential endocrine-disrupting effects of glyphosate, other studies have not found similar results, and regulatory agencies have not universally accepted these findings. Regulatory agencies such as the EPA (Environmental Protection Agency) and EFSA (European Food Safety Authority) have concluded that glyphosate is unlikely to have any endocrine-disrupting effects when used as directed.

1.2.3. Toxicity and organ damage

In animal studies, high doses of glyphosate have been associated with acute toxicity and organ damage. These effects are primarily triggered by exposures far higher than those typically found in the environment or in food. Despite this, long-term health effects associated with chronic low-dose exposure to glyphosate residues are still being researched and debated. Glyphosate formulations were found to induce cell death and cause oxidative stress in liver, kidney, and placental cells, according to Mesnage et al. [50]. Their study suggests that commercial glyphosate formulations’ adjuvants and other ingredients might contribute to the observed results. Despite this, it should be noted that the study used concentrations higher than those commonly found in the environment or dietary sources. In Koller et al.’s [51] study, rats were exposed to glyphosate and its effects were studied. Oxidative stress and changes in liver and kidney function were found to be caused by glyphosate. This research, however, used higher doses than normal for human exposure, similar to other studies. As reported by Cattani et al. [52], rats exposed to glyphosate during development had altered neurobehavioral parameters, oxidative stress, and neuropathological changes.

1.2.4. Microbiome disruption

It has been suggested that glyphosate could disrupt the gut microbiome, which is crucial to human health. Several studies have shown that glyphosate exposure alters microbial composition and function. Nevertheless, more research is needed to fully understand how these changes will impact human health. The effect of glyphosate on the gut microbiota of poultry was investigated by Shehata et al. [53]. They discovered that glyphosate exposure decreased the amount of beneficial bacteria and increased the amount of potentially harmful bacteria in the gut microbiome. There was a potential disruption of gut microbial balance as a result of these changes. According to Motta et al. [54], glyphosate altered the diversity and composition of honey bee gut microbiota. It was found that these changes led to increased susceptibility to opportunistic pathogens and an impaired immune system. Despite these studies suggesting glyphosate may disrupt microbiomes, further research is necessary to fully comprehend the extent and significance of these effects. There are many factors that can affect glyphosate’s impact on the gut microbiome, such as dose, exposure duration, and particular microbial communities. Several studies report conflicting findings regarding glyphosate’s effects on gut microbiota, with some observing no significant effects. Further investigation is needed to determine the significance of the observed changes in the microbiome for human health.

1.3. Metabolism in Tolerant Plants

In agriculture and other applications, glyphosate is widely used as a weed killer. Genetic modification of some plants has allowed them to survive glyphosate application while surrounding weeds or non-target plants are destroyed. It involves several enzymatic reactions for a plant to become tolerant to glyphosate. Different transporters in the cell membrane allow glyphosate to enter plant cells [71]. Glyphosate is initially converted inside plant cells into a more reactive form called AMPA by an enzyme called glyphosate oxidoreductase (GOX) [72]. Neither glyphosate-tolerant nor non-tolerant plants undergo this step. Further metabolization of AMPA into harmless compounds occurs in tolerant plants. Different plant species have different pathways for detoxifying AMPA. Nonetheless, it mainly relies on enzymes such as glyphosate N-acetyltransferase (GAT), glyphosate N-acetyltransferase-like protein (GATL), and glyphosate oxidoreductase (GXR) [73]. Aminomethylphosphonic acid methyltransferase (AMMT) and glyoxylate are non-toxic metabolites that are formed as a result of these enzymes. Besides metabolic detoxification, tolerant plants can also sequester glyphosate and its metabolites in vacuoles [74]. By preventing glyphosate from reaching sensitive sites within the plant, sequestration further enhances tolerance. Mao et al. [75] investigated how lilyturf species tolerate glyphosate. According to their results, the unique EPSPS structure, multiple copies of EPSPS, and high expression level of EPSPS contribute to the species’ natural tolerance of glyphosate.

2. Methodology

The methodology employed in this systematic review was meticulously structured to ensure transparency, reproducibility, and academic rigor throughout the study selection and data extraction processes. A predetermined review protocol was established with specific objectives, clear inclusion and exclusion criteria, and standardized procedures for data extraction. This procedure was described thoroughly to ensure consistency and accuracy in synthesizing findings, aiming to reduce bias and improve the review’s reliability.

2.1. Search strategy, Eligibility Criteria, Inclusion and Exclusion Guidelines, and Quality Evaluation

The search strategy involved a systematic search across major scientific databases to identify relevant studies published between 2000 and 2024, using well-established databases including Scopus, Web of Science, PubMed, and Google Scholar. A combination of carefully selected keywords related to glyphosate residue including “Glyphosate residue in food and crops,”AND “Glyphosate residue determination,” AND “Risks associated with glyphosate residue,” AND “Glyphosate residue management” was utilized to maintain consistency, with a focus on peer-reviewed articles in English. The study selection followed the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews (PRISMA) guidelines, excluding studies that did not meet inclusion criteria or were duplicates [76]. Conference abstracts, chapters, and thesis were not considered, and the selection process involved two independent reviewers screening titles, abstracts, and full texts of studies. Inclusion criteria were designed to select studies directly relevant to the research objectives, resulting in 42 records for further analysis. The data extraction process was conducted independently by two reviewers to ensure accuracy and consistency, with discrepancies resolved through discussion and consensus [77]. An additional reviewer intervened when disagreements persisted, enhancing data integrity and review reliability, thereby reducing bias and improving the review’s overall quality. Fig. 3 depicts the study identification, screening, and selection process, offering a visual representation of the systematic methodology employed in this review.

Fig. 3

Flowchart based on the PRISMA guidelines demonstrating the process of selecting studies for inclusion in the systematic review.

3. Results and Discussion

The systematic review of 42 studies published between 2000 and 2024 reveals critical insights into the prevalence of glyphosate residues in agricultural and food systems, methodologies for residue detection, and the efficacy of eco-engineering strategies for mitigating contamination risks.

3.1. Glyphosate Residues in Food and Agricultural Crops

Table 2 compiles data from studies reporting glyphosate residues in diverse range of food matrices, including cereals, honey, animal products, and processed foods across different countries. While glyphosate residues were detected globally, their concentrations varied significantly by food type, geographical region, and regulatory context. In this regards Lebanese bread samples contributed only 0.000117% of the Acceptable Daily Intake (ADI) set by Codex Alimentarius [78]. Processed foods, such as breakfast cereals in France, showed residues ranging from 6 to 34 μg kg−1, underscoring the pervasive nature of glyphosate in post-harvest and food processing chains [79]. Notably, glyphosate was detected in organic milk, conventional milk, beef, and fish in the United States at concentrations of 0.442, 0.533, 0.553, and 1.495 μg L−1, respectively, indicating its infiltration into both plant- and animal-derived products [80]. According to the United Kingdom Food Standard Agency, 27 out of 109 bread samples tested for glyphosate residues contained 0.2 mg kg−1 of this herbicide residue [81]. This is below the safety limit of 0.5 mg kg−1 of glyphosate. However, the Food Standards Agency recommends that people reduce the amount of glyphosate they consume by limiting their intake of bread and other foods that contain glyphosate residues.

Glyphosate residues in different foods and crops.

3.1.1. Geographical disparities

Geographical disparities in residue levels further complicate global risk management. U.S. honey samples exhibiting 59% exceedance rates above 15 ppb, compared to European honey samples, where 21% exceeded the 50 μg kg−1 maximum residue limit (MRL) [17,82]. These variations reflect differences in agricultural practices, regulatory stringency, and environmental persistence, particularly in regions with high soil organic matter content that enhances glyphosate adsorption [34]. In Canada, glyphosate concentrations in mushrooms and juice concentrates ranged from 0.0052 to 0.21 ppm and 0.0042 to 0.038 ppm, respectively, well below national MRLs [83]. In contrast, Uruguayan honey samples exceeded the European MRL of 50 μg kg−1 in 50% of cases, reflecting lax regulatory enforcement and intensive glyphosate use in soybean cultivation [84]. These findings emphasize the need for harmonized global monitoring programs, particularly in low- and middle-income countries where regulatory infrastructure is underdeveloped.

3.1.2. Limitations

Variability in limits of detection (LOD) and quantification (LOQ) complicates cross-study comparisons. Adams et al. [85] used ion chromatography-mass spectrometry (IC-MS) with an LOD of 0.01 mg kg−1, whereas Xu et al. [86] achieved 0.03 mg kg−1 via HPLC-MS/MS. Such differences may underestimate or overestimate residue prevalence. Studies like Kolakowski et al. [83] analysed Canadian retail foods (2015–2017) but lacked longitudinal data to assess temporal trends. Similarly, Pareja et al. [84] focused on Uruguayan honey without considering seasonal application patterns.

While glyphosate itself is often deemed low-risk, commercial formulations (e.g., Roundup) contain adjuvants like polyethoxylated tallow amine (POEA), which amplify toxicity. Hao et al. [56] attributed DNA damage in A549 cells to POEA, yet regulatory assessments frequently overlook adjuvant synergism. The ubiquity of glyphosate residues underscores the need for harmonized global monitoring programs. Regulatory frameworks must integrate adjuvant toxicity and chronic exposure risks, particularly for vulnerable populations (e.g., infants consuming cereal-based formulas).

3.2. Residual Determination in Crops and Food

Table 3 evaluates studies utilizing chromatographic techniques to quantify glyphosate residues. While these methods are critical for residue monitoring, their efficacy varies by matrix complexity and analytical rigor.

Chromatographic determinations of glyphosate residues in various crops and foods.

3.2.1 Dominance of LC-MS/MS

Chromatographic techniques dominated residue determination, with liquid chromatography-tandem mass spectrometry (LC-MS/MS) emerging as the most sensitive and reliable method. Santilio et al. [19] achieved a limit of detection (LOD) of 0.002 mg kg−1 for glyphosate in rice using LC-MS/MS, while Goscinny et al. [95] reported a limit of quantification (LOQ) of 0.02 mg kg−1 for cereals in Belgium via ultraperformance liquid chromatography-tandem mass spectrometry (UPLC-MS/MS).

Pesticide residues consumed in quantity and type must be considered when assessing possible adverse effects of pesticide residue intake, along with pesticide acceptable daily intake (ADI) Xu et al. [96]. The ADI is the maximum level of a pesticide that can be considered safe for human consumption. It is important to consider the type of pesticide, the type of food, and the quantity consumed when assessing the possible effects of pesticide residue intake. To assess glyphosate residue levels in soy-based infant formulas from the Brazilian market, de Souza et al. [97] used HPLC with fluorescence detection. Infant formula samples detected glyphosate concentrations ranging from none to 1.08 mg kg−1. According to this study, participants’ exposure to glyphosate is not significant when compared to the acceptable daily intake (ADI) recommended by the appropriate authorities. Therefore, it can be concluded that soy-based infant formulas in Brazil are safe for consumption. The presence of glyphosate residues in yam was assessed by LC-MS/MS with a detection limit of 0.04 mg kg−1, and a quantification limit of 0.12 mg kg−1 Wumbei et al. [98]. Twenty-one percent of field experiments and market samples contained glyphosate, although at levels below the quantification limit. The study found that glyphosate residues are present at very low levels in yam, where they may not pose a health risk. The authors concluded that glyphosate residues are not a significant health concern for consumers of yam. However, they recommended that further research be conducted to determine the long-term effects of glyphosate residues on yam. Swiss market foods were evaluated using LC/MS/MS chromatographic technique for glyphosate residues by Zoller et al. [99]. Glyphosate has been detected in pasta, wine, fruit juice and honey samples at low concentrations by quantification limits 0.0005 to 0.0025 mg kg−1. Despite this, the highest residue concentration did not approach the Acceptable Daily Intake (ADI). Therefore, glyphosate residues are not a major health issue in Switzerland’s foodstuffs.

Generally, the high solubility in water, ionic nature, low mass, high polarity, complex evaporation, low solubility in organic solvents, and low volatility are the most challenging factors in glyphosate residue analysis using simple analytical techniques Valle et al. [100]. Common chromatographic techniques, including high-performance liquid chromatography (HPLC) and gas chromatography (GC) using a wide range of detectors, are primary methods for determining glyphosate in food and the environment Ulrich and Ferguson, [101]. GC and HPLC could be connected with mass spectrometry (MS) to isolate complex compounds, quantify analytes, determinate unfamiliar peaks and detect trace contamination residues in different matrices Almeida [102]. In other words, mass spectrometry could play a vital role in improving the efficiency and accuracy of residue detection. In every residue determination method, the critical factors such as detection efficiency, recovery percentage, the limits of detection and quantification depend on extraction and purification techniques and the origin of the sample used for residue analysis Kapsi et al. [103].

The losses caused by consuming food contaminated with herbicide residues are much more significant than the cost of measures in the residue determination process Sharma et al. [104]. Analysis and identification of glyphosate residues are costly and time-consuming; therefore, the simple simultaneously analyzing methods cannot detect this herbicide and its metabolites in different matrices Kim et al. [105]. On the other hand, as the most used pesticide globally, glyphosate is not continuously monitored. Accordingly, no systematic data is associated with glyphosate and its metabolites residues in the environment, crops, and food. A basic chromatographic determination of glyphosate residues in crops and food can be seen in Fig. 4.

Fig. 4

Chromatographic determination of glyphosate residues in crops and food.

3.2.2. Discrepancies and limitations

Despite advancements, methodological heterogeneity posed challenges. For example, Adams et al. [85] utilized ion chromatography-mass spectrometry (IC-MS) with an LOD of 0.01 mg kg−1 for cereal-based infant foods, whereas Xu et al. [86] employed HPLC-MS/MS for Wuyi Rock tea, achieving an LOD of 0.03 mg kg−1. Such discrepancies complicate cross-study comparisons, particularly when analyzing complex matrices like soy protein isolate or bovine muscle, where glyphosate binds to proteins or lipids, necessitating matrix-specific adaptations [106,107].

Validation gaps is another challenge regarding this subject. Few studies validated their methods against international guidelines (e.g., SANTE/11813/2017). Ehling and Reddy [106] demonstrated robust validation for soy protein isolate but excluded milk, raising concerns about extrapolation to other matrices. Disparities in extraction and derivatization methods (e.g., dansyl chloride vs. FMOC-Cl) hinder data comparability. For example, Khrolenko and Wieczorek [108] reported 0.025 mg L−1 in juices using p-toluenesulphonyl chloride, whereas Rubio et al. [17] used alkaline hydrolysis for honey, yielding higher variability.

The exclusion of co-formulants in analytical protocols further limited risk assessments. Woźniak et al. [62] demonstrated that Roundup 360 PLUS, a commercial formulation containing poly-ethoxylated tallow amine (POEA), induced greater DNA damage in human peripheral blood mononuclear cells than glyphosate alone, yet analytical studies rarely quantified adjuvant residues. This oversight underscores the need for harmonized protocols that integrate multi-residue analysis of glyphosate, its primary metabolite aminomethylphosphonic acid (AMPA), and adjuvant compounds to reflect real-world exposure scenarios.

3.3. Environmental Removal of Glyphosate Residues

Table 4 synthesizes studies on adsorption, bioremediation, and phytoremediation strategies. While these methods show promise, their real-world applicability remains constrained by technical and ecological factors and faced scalability challenges.

Environmental removal of glyphosate residues.

3.3.1. Adsorption dominance

Carbon-based adsorbents (e.g., woody biochar, graphene oxide) achieved >90% removal efficiency in aqueous systems [26,117]. Mayakaduwa et al. [117] reported a maximum adsorption capacity of 44 mg g−1 for woody biochar at pH 5–6, attributed to hydrogen bonding and electrostatic interactions, while Santos et al. [26] achieved a 92% removal rate using graphene oxide modified with iron oxide nanoparticles. However, field applications were hindered by soil matrix interference and production costs, particularly for energy-intensive biochar pyrolysis.

The process of adsorption is one of the most commonly used methods for removing chemicals from water solutions. It involves the use of adsorbents, which are materials with a higher affinity for the pollutants than the water. The adsorbents bind to the pollutants and are then removed, leaving the water free from contaminants Tian et al. [118]. Adsorption is a cost-effective and environmentally friendly method of water treatment, as it requires minimal energy input. Furthermore, it is safe to use for both humans and animals. It has been demonstrated in several laboratory studies that an adsorption approach is effective for the removal of pesticide residues from aquatic environments Odoemelam et al. [119]. A hierarchically porous metal-organic framework was reported to be an effective adsorbent for glyphosate removal from water Naghdi et al. [120]. According to Diel et al. [121] glyphosate was removed from an aqueous matrix using carbon nanotubes with multiple walls modified with metal nanoparticles. Various removal levels have been achieved, ranging from 40.33% to 68.38%. According to Sen et al. [122], forest soil shows 87.8 percent removal efficacy for glyphosate from aqueous solutions at pH 12. This suggests that forest soil could be a promising low-cost adsorbent for the removal of glyphosate from aqueous solutions. The pH of the forest soil was found to be optimal for glyphosate adsorption, which suggests that the forest soil contains compounds that can enhance glyphosate adsorption. Furthermore, the low-cost adsorbent nature of the forest soil could make it an attractive option for industrial and agricultural applications. In aqueous solutions, Eucalyptus camaldulensis bark activated char was tested as an adsorbent and 98 percent glyphosate removal was achieved at pH 10 Sen et al. [123]. As a result of the bark activated char binding with glyphosate molecules in the aqueous solution, less glyphosate is released into the environment.

3.3.2. Bioremediation potential

Bioremediation strategies utilizing microbial and plant-based systems demonstrated variable efficacy. Burkholderia spp. and Pseudomonas aeruginosa degraded 76–85% of soil-bound glyphosate by cleaving the C–P bond via the glyA gene pathway [27,124], while Phytoremediation with Festuca arundinacea [125] and Salvinia biloba [126] achieved 87–100% efficiency, utilizing plant-microbe synergies. Adsorption and microbial activity are pH-sensitive. Hottes et al. [127] reported 90% glyphosate removal by Mg2Al-layered double oxides at pH 10, whereas acidic conditions favored biochar efficacy. Such variability complicates field applications.

Herbicides reach the soil environment at high concentrations following application for weed control in agroecosystems. This is because herbicides are sprayed in large amounts onto crops and can be washed away by rain into the soil where they can spread and accumulate Mehdizadeh et al. [128]. This can have a detrimental effect on the ecosystem, as the herbicides can damage beneficial organisms like earthworms and other soil invertebrates. This can cause changes in the structure of the soil, leading to a decrease in soil fertility and a decrease in the growth of plants Ruuskanen et al. [129]. Additionally, herbicides can also have a negative effect on the water supply as they can leach into groundwater. There are a number of factors that affect herbicide fate in the environment, including soil physiochemical properties, soil microorganism populations, and climate conditions Hassaan et al. [130]. A rainfall rate of 1 mm/min for 1 hour carried 14% of sprayed glyphosate by runoff and suspended load from clay loam soil. This indicates that the amount of glyphosate removed from the soil surface was directly proportional to the rain intensity. Higher rain intensity resulted in more glyphosate being transported away from the soil surface Yang et al. [131]. Soil acts as a filter for herbicides, and its properties can affect the rate at which they are absorbed or degraded. Soil microorganisms can also break down herbicides, while climate conditions can influence how quickly they evaporate, runoff or leach into groundwater. Soil pH and organic matter content can positively influence the fate of herbicides, as well as the presence of other chemicals such as metal ions, which can bind the herbicide and reduce its availability for degradation van Hall et al. [132].

Microorganisms play a significant role in the degradation of pesticide compounds, since they are able to degrade the pesticide into simple or relatively non-harmful compounds. This process is known as bioremediation. Bioremediation is an effective and environmentally friendly way to remove pollutants from the environment and can be used to reduce pesticide residues in the environment Pande et al. [133]. There is no doubt that bacteria have the best detoxifying abilities among microbes. Bioremediation is also cost-effective and can be implemented with minimal disruption to the environment. Bacteria and other microbes are able to break down pollutants into smaller, more harmless molecules, which are then easily removed by natural processes such as evaporation and sedimentation Bala et al. [134]. The bioremediation of contaminated sites could be classified into two main categories, phytoremediation and microbial remediation. Phytoremediation uses plants to absorb and degrade pollutants, while microbial remediation relies on bacteria and other microbes to break down pollutants. Both methods have proven to be effective in reducing environmental contamination. Phytoremediation is usually used for heavy metals, while microbial remediation is recommended for organic pollutants. Both methods have advantages and disadvantages, and the most appropriate choice depends on the type of contamination and the resources available Shehata et al. [135].

Glyphosate can be degraded by native soil microbial communities that contain glyphosate-degrading microorganisms once it enters the soil environment. These microorganisms can rapidly degrade glyphosate, reducing the risk of environmental contamination and pollution. Therefore, management of soil pH and organic matter content can reduce herbicide contamination risk and promote glyphosate degradation Muskus et al. [136]. Nguyen et al. [25] investigated bacteria capable of degrading glyphosate and improved their degradation requirements for bioremediation. Using the strain Rhodococcus soli G41, it was found to have a high glyphosate degradation rate. It degraded 42.7% and 47.1% of glyphosate after 7 and 14 days, respectively. This can be attributed to the strain’s ability to produce enzymes that are capable of breaking down glyphosate into smaller substances that can then be further degraded into less toxic forms by bacteria. This suggests that the G41 strain is an efficient bacterium for bioremediation of glyphosate-contaminated soil.

3.3.3. Discrepancies and limitations

Nevertheless, metabolite accumulation, particularly AMPA, remained a concern. Carranza et al. (2019) [137] documented 57% glyphosate degradation by Aspergillus oryzae in contaminated soil but did not quantify AMPA, a persistent byproduct with comparable toxicity. Additionally, Bioremediation often generates AMPA, a persistent metabolite. Carranza et al. [137] reported 57% glyphosate degradation by Aspergillus oryzae but did not quantify AMPA, risking secondary contamination. Similarly, urinary biomonitoring studies by Soukup et al. [138] detected glyphosate and AMPA in 99.6% of participants, with concentrations correlating positively with processed food consumption, yet regulatory thresholds do not account for cumulative dietary exposure.

However, field trials were notably scarce, with most studies confined to controlled laboratory conditions, raising questions about ecological trade-offs. For example, López-Chávez et al. [139] reported 87% glyphosate remediation using Panicum maximum, an invasive grass species that risks displacing native flora.

The review also highlighted significant discrepancies in glyphosate’s toxicological profile. While regulatory agencies such as the European Food Safety Authority (EFSA) and the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) deemed glyphosate unlikely to pose carcinogenic risks at recommended doses, the International Agency for Research on Cancer (IARC) classified it as “probably carcinogenic” based on in vitro and animal studies [35, 69]. Epidemiological data further muddied the waters, Acquavella et al. [65] found no association between glyphosate and non-Hodgkin’s lymphoma in pooled cohort analyses. Endocrine disruption studies yielded similarly conflicting results. Gasnier et al. [47] observed estrogenic activity in human placental cells exposed to glyphosate-based herbicides. These inconsistencies underscore the influence of study design, exposure metrics, and adjuvant inclusion in toxicological assessments.

4. Practical Strategies for Avoiding Glyphosate Residues

There are various simple strategies to minimize the exposure to glyphosate residues in food and crops. One such strategy is to choose organic foods and buy food from local farmers. Organic farming prohibits the use of synthetic pesticides, including glyphosate. Additionally, consuming a diverse range of foods could reduce reliance on specific crops with high glyphosate usage. This can help minimize potential exposure to residues from any source. Practical strategies are provided below.

4.1. Support Transparent Labeling

Labeling genetically modified organisms (GMOs) and glyphosate can be included on food product labels. Consumers can make informed choices and select products that match their preferences and concerns by reading clear labels Kaczorowska et al. [143]. Without clear labeling, consumers are at a disadvantage since they do not know what is in their food. In order to make knowledgeable decisions regarding their health and the environment, consumers should be able to find out what is in their food and how it was produced. In this regard, companies should be held responsible for accurately labeling their products. Furthermore, the government should enact regulations that require companies to provide clear, accurate labels on their products.

4.2. Consider Glyphosate-Free Brands

In order to avoid glyphosate residues in food and crops, brands that explicitly state their commitment to avoiding glyphosate use might be considered. It would be possible for companies to voluntarily test their products for glyphosate residues and guarantee their absence. Choosing products free of glyphosate supports companies that are reducing their environmental impact and protecting consumers’ health.

4.3. Investment in Sustainable Agriculture

Organic farming practices minimize synthetic chemicals, including glyphosate, by using sustainable farming practices. Supporting sustainable agriculture methods reduces the overall use of glyphosate Krimsky et al. [11]. These systems benefit from increased biodiversity, reduced pesticide application and soil degradation, and improved water quality. The result is the reduction of contamination of food and water sources, the protection of pollinators from pesticide use, and the reduction of human exposure to these chemicals.

4.4. Developing Integrated Weed Management (IWM)

In IWM, preventative measures and biological controls are used to control weeds Karlsson Green et al. [144]. Through a holistic and environmentally friendly approach to crop protection, IWM reduces the need for herbicides, including glyphosate. In addition to reducing the amount of toxic chemicals used, this approach also helps to maintain a balanced ecosystem. Additionally, it minimizes the risk of weeds becoming resistant to herbicides and the impact of weeds on crop yields Deguine et al. [145]. Transitioning from glyphosate reliance to IWM-combining crop rotation, cover cropping, and mechanical weeding-could reduce residue accumulation. Beckie et al. [28] demonstrated that IWM systems maintained yield parity in glyphosate-resistant canola while cutting herbicide use by 30%. Policymakers should subsidize farmer training and incentivize agroecological practices through carbon credits or premium pricing for residue-free produce.

4.5. Advocating for Stricter Regulations

This could support stricter regulations on glyphosate use by staying informed of regulatory developments and advocating for more rigorous testing, monitoring, and limits on glyphosate residues in food and water. This could include engaging with government and non-government organizations to ensure that the most up-to-date scientific evidence is used in decision-making around glyphosate use. It could also involve raising public awareness and empowering communities to demand better, safer food and water. Public health would be protected by strict regulations preventing glyphosate from being misused or used in ways that might cause contamination such as spraying it on crops around water sources Bacon et al. [146]. In this regard, reports on acceptable residue levels in food may be released periodically by national food safety agencies. Regular monitoring by food safety agencies would also help to ensure that acceptable residue levels are not exceeded in food products.

4.6. Promoting Research and Innovation

Developing alternatives to herbicides such as glyphosate should be the focus of research efforts. This may include encouraging the use of cover crops, crop rotation, mechanical weed control, and other eco-friendly farming practices. These alternatives could reduce the use of herbicides and their associated environmental impacts, as well as the risk of glyphosate resistance in weeds. Moreover, advancing technologies can improve and more efficiently farm methods, resulting in higher crop yields and less land and resource use for food production. In the long run, this can result in more resilient and food-secure agriculture that is more adaptable to climate change. Additionally, precision agriculture techniques, such as soil mapping and variable-rate application, allow farmers to get the most out of their resources while managing pests and weeds. This can reduce input costs and increase production while minimizing agriculture’s environmental impacts.

5. Future Perspectives

Emerging technologies and interdisciplinary approaches will shape the next frontier in glyphosate risk mitigation. Advances in nanotechnology, CRISPR-based microbial engineering, and AI-driven precision agriculture hold promise for developing targeted bioremediation systems and non-chemical weed control alternatives. Future research must prioritize longitudinal studies to unravel chronic exposure impacts on human health and ecosystem resilience, particularly for understudied metabolites like AMPA. Climate change adaptation strategies will require re-evaluating glyphosate’s environmental fate under shifting precipitation and temperature regimes. The integration of multi-omics approaches (metagenomics, metabolomics) could decode microbial consortia’s role in glyphosate degradation while optimizing plant-microbe synergies for phytoremediation. Policy frameworks must evolve to embrace planetary health metrics, linking glyphosate reduction targets to Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs) for soil conservation and biodiversity preservation. Citizen science initiatives and blockchain-enabled supply chain transparency could democratize residue monitoring, bridging data gaps in low-income regions. Ultimately, transforming agricultural paradigms toward agroecological systems supported by green chemistry innovations and circular economy principles will be critical to breaking glyphosate dependency while ensuring food security in a chemically constrained world.

6. Conclusions

The synthesis of 42 studies underscores the pervasive presence of glyphosate residues across global agricultural and food systems, driven by its extensive use and environmental persistence. While regulatory thresholds are often unmet, the ubiquity of residues—detected in crops, animal products, and processed foods—signals a latent risk requiring proactive mitigation. The variability in residue levels across regions highlights the influence of agricultural practices, regulatory rigor, and environmental factors, such as soil composition and climate, necessitating context-specific interventions. Crucially, the review reveals that current risk assessments often overlook adjuvant synergism and chronic low-dose exposure, particularly for vulnerable populations, underscoring gaps in regulatory frameworks.

The broader implications of these findings extend to global food security and ecological integrity. Glyphosate’s infiltration into food chains and ecosystems threatens biodiversity, soil microbial health, and water quality, while its potential endocrine-disrupting and microbiome-altering effects raise public health concerns. Transitioning from glyphosate-dependent systems is not merely a regulatory challenge but a prerequisite for sustainable agriculture. Eco-engineering strategies, such as bioremediation and adsorption, demonstrate promise but require scaling to address contamination at source points, emphasizing the need for innovations that balance agricultural productivity with environmental stewardship.

Actionable recommendations stem from the urgency to harmonize detection protocols, integrate adjuvant toxicity into risk assessments, and prioritize eco-friendly alternatives. Policymakers should enforce stricter residue limits, subsidize farmer training in Integrated Weed Management (IWM), and incentivize organic practices through carbon credits or premium pricing. Investment in precision agriculture and bioherbicide development can reduce reliance on synthetic herbicides, while public awareness campaigns on glyphosate-free labeling and dietary diversification can empower consumer choices. Collaborative research must address metabolite persistence, such as AMPA, and optimize scalable bioremediation techniques. Ultimately, a multi-stakeholder approach, bridging science, policy, and community engagement, is vital to mitigate glyphosate’s legacy and foster resilient agroecosystems.

Notes

Acknowledgments

In this review, we would like to express our gratitude to Zoleikha Mehdizadeh (Department of Biology, Payame Noor University, Iran) for the valuable insights she shared with us.

Funding

This review received no specific grant from any funding agency in the public, commercial, or not-for-profit sectors.

Conflict-of-Interest Statement

The authors declare that they have no conflict of interest.

Author Contribution Statement

M.M. (Researcher): Conceptualized and designed the study, conducted experiments, validated results, created visualizations, drafted and edited the manuscript, and managed, supervised, and provided resources for the project. D.K.A.A.T. (Professor): wrote and revised the manuscript. A.O. (PhD student): Contributed to methodology development, validated results, drafted the manuscript, and participated in review and editing. M.F.A. (Assistant Professor): wrote and revised the manuscript. A.R.C. (Researcher): wrote and revised the manuscript. M.A. (Professor): wrote and revised the manuscript.

Nomenclature

ADI

acceptable daily intake

AMMT

Aminomethylphosphonic acid methyltransferase

AMPA

aminomethylphosphonic acid

EFSA

European Food Safety Authority

EPA

Environmental Protection Agency

EPSP

5-enolpyruvylshikimate-3-phosphate

GAT

glyphosate N-acetyltransferase

GATL

glyphosate N-acetyltransferase-like protein

GC

gas chromatography

GC-PFPD

gas chromatography equipped with a pulsed flame photometric detector.

GMOs

genetically modified organisms

GOX

glyphosate oxidoreductase

GXR

glyphosate oxidoreductase

HPLC

High Performance Liquid Chromatography

IARC

International Agency for Research on Cancer

IC-HRMS

ion-chromatography-high resolution mass spectrometry.

IPM

Integrated Pest Management

LC/ESI-MS/MS

liquid chromatography coupled with electrospray ionization tandem mass spectrometry.

LC/LC-FD

coupled-column liquid chromatography system with fluorimetric detection.

LC-MS-MS

Liquid Chromatography with tandem mass spectrometry

MS

mass spectrometry

UPLC-MS/MS

ultraperformance liquid chromatography-tandem mass spectrometry.

References

1. Maranho L, André C, DelValls T, Gagné F, Martín-Díaz M. In situ evaluation of wastewater discharges and the bioavailability of contaminants to marine biota. Sci. Total Environ 2015;538:876–887. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.scitotenv.2015.08.135.
2. Galagarza OA, Ramirez-Hernandez A, Oliver HF, et al. Occurrence of Chemical Contaminants in Peruvian Produce: A Food-Safety Perspective. Foods 2021;10:1461. https://doi.org/10.3390/foods10071461.
3. Kalyabina VP, Esimbekova EN, Kopylova KV, Kratasyuk VA. Pesticides: formulants, distribution pathways and effects on human health-a review. Toxicol. Rep 2021;8:1179–1192. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.toxrep.2021.06.004.
4. Chen J, Yu Q, Patterson E, Sayer C, Powles S. Dinitroaniline Herbicide Resistance and Mechanisms in Weeds. Front Plant Sci 2021;:12. https://doi.org/10.3389/fpls.2021.634018.
5. Glaspie CF, Jones EAL, Penner D, Pawlak JA, Everman WJ. Effect of Clay, Soil Organic Matter, and Soil pH on Initial and Residual Weed Control with Flumioxazin. Agronomy 2021;11:1326. https://doi.org/10.3390/agronomy11071326.
6. Milan M, Vidotto F, Fogliatto S. Leaching of Glyphosate and AMPA from Field Lysimeters. Agronomy 2022;12:328. https://doi.org/10.3390/agronomy12020328.
7. Qi Y, Li J, Guan X, et al. Effects of herbicides on non-target plant species diversity and the community composition of fallow fields in northern China. Sci. Rep 2020;10:9967. https://doi.org/10.1038/s41598-020-67025-2.
8. Singh S, Kumar V, Gill J, et al. Herbicide Glyphosate: Toxicity and Microbial Degradation. Int. J. Environ. Res. Public Health 2020;17(20):7519. https://doi.org/10.3390/ijerph17207519.
9. Matozzo V, Fabrello J, Masiero L, et al. Ecotoxicological risk assessment for the herbicide glyphosate to non-target aquatic species: A case study with the mussel Mytilus galloprovincialis . Environ. Pollut 2018;233:623–632. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.envpol.2017.10.100.
10. Escorial M, Chueca M, Pérez-Fernández A, Loureiro I. Glyphosate sensitivity of selected weed species commonly found in maize fields. Weed Sci 2019;67(6):633–641. https://doi.org/10.1017/wsc.2019.54.
11. Krimsky S. Can Glyphosate-Based Herbicides Contribute to Sustainable Agriculture? Sustainability 2021;13:2337. https://doi.org/10.3390/su13042337.
12. Werner M, Christian Berndt C, Mansfield B. The Glyphosate Assemblage: Herbicides, Uneven Development, and Chemical Geographies of Ubiquity. Ann. Am. Assoc. Geogr 2022;112(1):19–35. https://doi.org/10.1080/24694452.2021.1898322.
13. Sang Y, Mejuto JC, Xiao J, Simal-Gandara J. Assessment of Glyphosate Impact on the Agrofood Ecosystem. Plants 2021;10(2):405. https://doi.org/10.3390/plants10020405.
14. Van Bruggen AH, Finckh MR, He M, et al. Indirect effects of the herbicide glyphosate on plant, animal and human health through its effects on microbial communities. Front. Environ. Sci 2021;9:763917. https://doi.org/10.3389/fenvs.2021.763917.
15. Madani NA, Carpenter DO. Effects of glyphosate and glyphosate-based herbicides like RoundupTM on the mammalian nervous system: A review. Environ. Res 2022;214:113933. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.envres.2022.113933.
16. Battisti L, Potrich M, Lozano ER, dos Reis Martinez CB, Sofia SH. Review on the sublethal effects of pure and formulated glyphosate on bees: Emphasis on social bees. J. Appl. Entomol 2023;147(1):1–18. https://doi.org/10.1111/jen.13089.
17. Rubio F, Guo E, Kamp L. Survey of Glyphosate Residues in Honey, Corn and Soy Products. J. Environ. Anal. Toxicol 2014;5:1. https://doi.org/10.4172/2161-0525.1000249.
18. Faniband MH, Norén E, Littorin M, Lindh CH. Human experimental exposure to glyphosate and biomonitoring of young Swedish adults. Int. J. Hygiene Environ. Health 2021;231:113657. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijheh.2020.113657.
19. Santilio A, Pompili C, Giambenedetti A. Determination of glyphosate residue in maize and rice using a fast and easy method involving liquid chromatography–mass spectrometry (LC/MS/MS). J. Environ. Sci. Health 2019;54(3):205–210. https://doi.org/10.1080/03601234.2018.1550306.
20. de Morais Valentim JMB, Coradi C, Viana NP, et al. Glyphosate as a Food Contaminant: Main Sources, Detection Levels, and Implications for Human and Public Health. Foods 2024;13(11):1697. https://doi.org/10.3390/foods13111697.
21. Masci M, Caproni R, Nevigato T. Chromatographic Methods for the Determination of Glyphosate in Cereals Together with a Discussion of Its Occurrence, Accumulation, Fate, Degradation, and Regulatory Status. Methods Protoc 2024;7(3):38. https://doi.org/10.3390/mps7030038.
22. Costas-Ferreira C, Durán R, Faro LRF. Toxic Effects of Glyphosate on the Nervous System: A Systematic Review. Int. J. Mol. Sci 2022;23(9):4605. https://doi.org/10.3390/ijms23094605.
23. Rivas-Garcia T, Espinosa-Calderón A, Hernández-Vázquez B, Schwentesius-Rindermann R. Overview of Environmental and Health Effects Related to Glyphosate Usage. Sustainability 2022;14(11):6868. https://doi.org/10.3390/su14116868.
24. Evalen PS, Barnhardt EN, Ryu J, Stahlschmidt ZR. Toxicity of glyphosate to animals: A meta-analytical approach. Environ. Pollut 2024;347:123669. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.envpol.2024.123669.
25. Nguyen NT, Vo VT, Nguyen THP, Kiefer R. Isolation and optimization of a glyphosate-degrading Rhodococcus soli G41 for bioremediation. Arch. Microbiol 2022;204:252. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00203-022-02875-0.
26. Santos TRT, Andrade MB, Silva MF, Bergamasco R, Hamoudi S. Development of α- and γ-Fe2O3 decorated graphene oxides for glyphosate removal from water. Environ. Technol 2019;40(9):1118–1137. https://doi.org/10.1080/09593330.2017.1411397.
27. Ezaka E, Akintokun AK, Akintokun PO, et al. Glyphosate degradation by two plant growth promoting bacteria (PGPB) isolated from rhizosphere of maize. Microbiol. Res. J. Int 2019;26(6):1–11. https://doi.org/10.9734/mrji/2018/v26i630081.
28. Beckie HJ, Flower KC, Ashworth MB. Farming without Glyphosate? Plants 2020;9:96. https://doi.org/10.3390/plants9010096.
29. McClellan RO. Evaluating the potential carcinogenic hazard of glyphosate. Crit. Rev. Toxicol 2016;46:1–2. https://doi.org/10.1080/10408444.2016.1234117.
30. Antier C, Kudsk P, Reboud X, Ulber L, Baret PV, Messéan A. Glyphosate Use in the European Agricultural Sector and a Framework for Its Further Monitoring. Sustainability 2020;12:5682. https://doi.org/10.3390/su12145682.
31. Chen J, Zhu R, Zhang Q, Kong X, Sun D. Reduced-tillage management enhances soil properties and crop yields in a alfalfa-corn rotation: Case study of the Songnen Plain, China. Sci. Rep 2019;9:17064. https://doi.org/10.1038/s41598-019-53602-7.
32. Messelhäuser MH, Saile M, Sievernich B, Gerhards R. Exploring the Effects of Different Stubble Tillage Practices and Glyphosate Application Combined with the New Soil Residual Herbicide Cinmethylin against Alopecurus myosuroides Huds. in Winter Wheat. Agronomy 2022;12:167. https://doi.org/10.3390/agronomy12010167.
33. Gendron AD, Lacaze É, Taranu ZE, et al. The Comet assay, a sensitive biomarker of water quality improvement following adoption of beneficial agricultural practices? Environ. Toxicol. Chem 2023;42:2201–2214. https://doi.org/10.1002/etc.5711.
34. Geng Y, Jiang L, Zhang D, et al. Glyphosate, amino-methylphosphonic acid, and glufosinate ammonium in agricultural groundwater and surface water in China from 2017 to 2018: Occurrence, main drivers, and environmental risk assessment. Sci. Total Environ 2021;769:144396. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.scitotenv.2020.144396.
35. EFSA (European Food Safety Authority). Conclusion on the peer review of the pesticide risk assessment of the active substance glyphosate. EFSA. J 2015;13(11):4302. https://doi.org/10.2903/j.efsa.2015.4302.
36. Poudyal DC, Dhamu VN, Samson M, Muthukumar S, Prasad S. Portable pesticide electrochem-sensor: a label-free detection of glyphosate in human urine. Langmuir 2022;38(5):1781–1790. https://doi.org/10.1021/acs.langmuir.1c02877.
37. Krüger M, Schledorn P, Schrödl W, Hoppe HW, Lutz W, Shehata AA. Detection of glyphosate residues in animals and humans. J. Environ. Anal. Toxicol 2014;4:2. https://doi.org/10.4172/2161-0525.1000210.
38. Scarrow R. Glyphosate resistance: Of superweeds and survivors. Nat. Plants 2017;3:17078. https://doi.org/10.1038/nplants.2017.78.
39. Torres JP, Schmidt EW. The biosynthetic diversity of the animal world. J. Biol. Chem 2019;294(46):17684–17692. https://doi.org/10.1074/jbc.REV119.006130.
40. Zulet-González A, Barco-Antoñanzas M, Gil-Monreal M, Royuela M, Zabalza A. Increased Glyphosate-Induced Gene Expression in the Shikimate Pathway Is Abolished in the Presence of Aromatic Amino Acids and Mimicked by Shikimate. Front Plant Sci 2020;:11. https://doi.org/10.3389/fpls.2020.00459.
41. Gomes MP, Smedbol E, Chalifour A, et al. Alteration of plant physiology by glyphosate and its by-product aminomethylphosphonic acid: an overview. J. Exp. Bot 2014;65(17):4691–4703. https://doi.org/10.1093/jxb/eru269.
42. Gomes MP, Le Manac’h SG, Hénault-Ethier L, Labrecque M, Lucotte M, Juneau P. Glyphosate-Dependent Inhibition of Photosynthesis in Willow. Front. Plant Sci 2017;8:207. https://doi.org/10.3389/fpls.2017.00207.
43. Timms KP, Wood LJ. Sub-lethal glyphosate disrupts photo-synthetic efficiency and leaf morphology in fruit-producing plants, red raspberry (Rubus idaeus) and highbush cranberry (Viburnum edule). Glob. Ecol. Conserv 2020;24:e01319. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.gecco.2020.e01319.
44. Bradberry SM, Proudfoot AT, Vale JA. Glyphosate poisoning. Toxicol. Rev 2004;23(3):159–167. https://doi.org/10.2165/00139709-200423030-00003.
45. Muñoz JP, Bleak TC, Calaf GM. Glyphosate and the key characteristics of an endocrine disruptor: A review. Chemosphere 2021;270:128619. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.chemosphere.2020.128619.
46. Thongprakaisang S, Thiantanawat A, Rangkadilok N, Suriyo T, Satayavivad J. Glyphosate induces human breast cancer cells growth via estrogen receptors. Food Chem. Toxicol 2013;59:129–136. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.fct.2013.05.057.
47. Gasnier C, Dumont C, Benachour N, Clair E, Chagnon MC, Séralini GE. Glyphosate-based herbicides are toxic and endocrine disruptors in human cell lines. Toxicology 2009;262(3):184–191. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.tox.2009.06.006.
48. Paganelli A, Gnazzo V, Acosta H, López SL, Carrasco AE. Glyphosate-based herbicides produce teratogenic effects on vertebrates by impairing retinoic acid signaling. Chem. Res. Toxicol 2010;23(10):1586–1595. https://doi.org/10.1021/tx1001749.
49. Clair E, Mesnage R, Travert C, Séralini GÉ. A glyphosate-based herbicide induces necrosis and apoptosis in mature rat testicular cells in vitro, and testosterone decrease at lower levels. Toxicol. in vitro 2012;26(2):269–279. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.tiv.2011.12.009.
50. Mesnage R, Defarge N, Spiroux de Vendômois J, Séralini GE. Potential toxic effects of glyphosate and its commercial formulations below regulatory limits. Food Chem. Toxicol 2015;84:133–153. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.fct.2015.08.012.
51. Koller VJ, Fürhacker M, Nersesyan A, Mišík M, Eisenbauer M, Knasmueller S. Cytotoxic and DNA-damaging properties of glyphosate and Roundup in human-derived buccal epithelial cells. Arc. Toxicol 2012;86(5):805–813. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00204-012-0804-8.
52. Cattani D, de Liz Oliveira Cavalli VL, Heinz Rieg CE, et al. Mechanisms underlying the neurotoxicity induced by glyphosate- based herbicide in immature rat hippocampus: involvement of glutamate excitotoxicity. Toxicology 2014;320:34–45. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.tox.2014.03.001.
53. Shehata AA, Schrödl W, Aldin AA, Hafez HM, Krüger M. The effect of glyphosate on potential pathogens and beneficial members of poultry microbiota in vitro. Curr. Microbiol 2013;66(4):350–358. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00284-012-0277-2.
54. Motta EVS, Raymann K, Moran NA. Glyphosate perturbs the gut microbiota of honey bees. Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. USA 2018;115(41):10305–10310. https://doi.org/10.1073/pnas.1803880115.
55. Yadav SS, Giri S, Singha U, Boro F, Giri A. Toxic and genotoxic effects of Roundup on tadpoles of the Indian skittering frog (Euflictis cyanophlyctis) in the presence and absence of predator stress. Aquat Toxicol 2013;132–133:1–8. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.aquatox.2013.01.016.
56. Hao Y, Zhang Y, Cheng J, Xu W, Xu Z, Gao J, Tao L. Adjuvant contributes Roundup’s unexpected effects on A549 cells. Environ. Res 2020;184:109306. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.envres.2020.109306.
57. Larsen K, Christensen TB, Højberg O, Sørensen MT. Exposure of pigs to glyphosate affects gene-specific DNA methylation and gene expression. Toxicol. Rep 2022;9:298–310. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.toxrep.2022.02.007.
58. Oláh M, Farkas E, Székács I, Horvath R, Székács A. Cytotoxic effects of Roundup Classic and its components on NE-4C and MC3T3-E1 cell lines determined by biochemical and flow cytometric assays. Toxicol. Rep 2022;9:914–926. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.toxrep.2022.04.014.
59. Hao Y, Chen H, Xu W, et al. Roundup® confers cytotoxicity through DNA damage and Mitochondria-Associated apoptosis induction. Environ. Pollut 2019;252:917–923. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.envpol.2019.05.128.
60. Franke AA, Li X, Shvetsov YB, Lai JF. Pilot study on the urinary excretion of the glyphosate metabolite aminomethylphosphonic acid and breast cancer risk: The Multiethnic Cohort study. Environ. Pollut 2021;277:116848. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.envpol.2021.116848.
61. Townsend M, Peck C, Meng W, Heaton M, Robison R, O’Neill K. Evaluation of various glyphosate concentrations on DNA damage in human Raji cells and its impact on cytotoxicity. Regul. Toxicol. Pharmacol 2017;85:79–85. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.yrtph.2017.02.002.
62. Woźniak E, Sicińska P, Michałowicz J, et al. The mechanism of DNA damage induced by Roundup 360 PLUS, glyphosate and AMPA in human peripheral blood mononuclear cells-genotoxic risk assessment. Food Chem. Toxicol 2018;120:510–522. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.fct.2018.07.035.
63. Chłopecka M, Mendel M, Dziekan N, Karlik W. The effect of glyphosate-based herbicide Roundup and its co-formulant, POEA, on the motoric activity of rat intestine – In vitro study. Environ. Toxicol. Pharmacol 2017;49:156–162. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.etap.2016.12.010.
64. Petit AN, Debenest T, Gagné F. Dendrimers increase glyphosate formulation toxicity to Chlamydomonas reinhardtii . Fresenius Environ. Bull 2012;21(7):1967–1971.
65. Acquavella J, Garabrant D, Marsh G, Sorahan T, Weed DL. 2016;Glyphosate epidemiology expert panel review: a weight of evidence systematic review of the relationship between glyphosate exposure and non-Hodgkin’s lymphoma or multiple myeloma. Crit. Rev. Toxicol 2016;46:28–43. https://doi.org/10.1080/10408444.2016.1214681.
66. Brusick D, Aardema M, Kier L, Kirkland D, Williams G. Genotoxicity Expert Panel review: weight of evidence evaluation of the genotoxicity of glyphosate, glyphosate-based formulations, and aminomethylphosphonic acid. Crit. Rev. Toxicol 2016;46:56–74. https://doi.org/10.1080/10408444.2016.1214680.
67. Greim H, Saltmiras D, Mostert V, Strupp C. Evaluation of carcinogenic potential of the herbicide glyphosate, drawing on tumor incidence data from fourteen chronic/carcinogenicity rodent studies. Crit. Rev. Toxicol 2015;45(3):185–208. https://doi.org/10.3109/10408444.2014.1003423.
68. Kier LD. Review of genotoxicity biomonitoring studies of glyph-osate-based formulations. Crit. Rev. Toxicol 2015;45(3):209–218. https://doi.org/10.3109/10408444.2015.1010194.
69. Williams GM, Aardema M, Acquavella J, et al. A review of the carcinogenic potential of glyphosate by four independent expert panels and comparison to the IARC assessment. Crit. Rev. Toxicol 2016;46:3–20. https://doi.org/10.1080/10408444.2016.1214677.
70. Matozzo V, Fabrello J, Marin MG. The effects of glyphosate and its commercial formulations to marine invertebrates: a review. J. Marine Sci. Eng 2020;8(6):399. https://doi.org/10.3390/jmse8060399.
71. Pan L, Yu Q, Wang J, et al. An ABCC-type transporter endowing glyphosate resistance in plants. Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. USA 2021;118(16):e2100136118. https://doi.org/10.1073/pnas.2100136118.
72. Kanissery R, Gairhe B, Kadyampakeni D, Batuman O, Alferez F. Glyphosate: Its Environmental Persistence and Impact on Crop Health and Nutrition. Plants 2019;8(11):499. https://doi.org/10.3390/plants8110499.
73. Pollegioni L, Schonbrunn E, Siehl D. Molecular basis of glyphosate resistance-different approaches through protein engineering. FEBS J 2011;278(16):2753–2766. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1742-4658.2011.08214.x.
74. Ge X, d’Avignon DA, Ackerman JJ, Sammons RD. Rapid vacuolar sequestration: the horseweed glyphosate resistance mechanism. Pest Manag. Sci 2010;66(4):345–348. https://doi.org/10.1002/ps.1911.
75. Mao C, Xie H, Chen S, Valverde BE, Qiang S. Multiple mechanism confers natural tolerance of three lilyturf species to glyphosate. Planta 2016;243(2):321–335. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00425-015-2408-z.
76. Page MJ, McKenzie JE, Bossuyt PM, et al. The PRISMA 2020 statement: an updated guideline for reporting systematic reviews. BMJ 2021;372:n71. https://doi.org/10.1136/bmj.n71.
77. Haby MM, Barreto JOM, Kim JYH, et al. What are the best methods for rapid reviews of the research evidence? A systematic review of reviews and primary studies. Res. Synth. Methods 2024;15(1):2–20. https://doi.org/10.1002/jrsm.1664.
78. Bou-Mitri C, Mekanna AN, Dagher S, Moukarzel S, Farhat A. Occurrence and exposure to glyphosate present in bread and flour products in Lebanon. Food Control 2022;136:108894. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.foodcont.2022.108894.
79. Liao Y, Berthion JM, Colet I, Merlo M, Nougadere A, Hu R. Validation and application of analytical method for glyphosate and glufosinate in foods by liquid chromatography-tandem mass spectrometry. J. Chromatogr. A 2018;1549:31–38. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.chroma.2018.03.036.
80. John J, Liu H. Glyphosate monitoring in water, foods, and urine reveals an association between urinary glyphosate and tea drinking: A pilot study. Int. J. Environ. Health Engin 2018;7(1):2. https://doi.org/10.4103/ijehe.ijehe_5_17.
81. Myers JP, Antoniou MN, Blumberg B, et al. Concerns over use of glyphosate based herbicides and risks associated with exposures: a consensus statement. Environ. Health 2016;15(1):19. https://doi.org/10.1186/s12940-016-0117-0.
82. Karise R, Raimets R, Bartkevics V, et al. Are pesticide residues in honey related to oilseed rape treatments? Chemosphere 2017;188:389–396. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.chemosphere.2017.09.013.
83. Kolakowski BM, Miller L, Murray A, Leclair A, Bietlot H, van de Riet JM. Analysis of Glyphosate Residues in Foods from the Canadian Retail Markets between 2015 and 2017. J. Agric. Food Chem 2020;68(18):5201–5211. https://doi.org/10.1021/acs.jafc.9b07819.
84. Pareja L, Jesús F, Heinzen H, Hernando MD, Rajski Ł, Fernández-Alba AR. Evaluation of glyphosate and AMPA in honey by water extraction followed by ion chromatography mass spectrometry. A pilot monitoring study. Anal. Methods 2019;11:2123–2128. https://doi.org/10.1039/C9AY00543A.
85. Adams S, Guest J, Dickinson M, Fussell RJ, Beck J, Schoutsen F. Development and Validation of Ion Chromatography-Tandem Mass Spectrometry-Based Method for the Multiresidue Determination of Polar Ionic Pesticides in Food. J. Agric. Food Chem 2017;65(34):7294–7304. https://doi.org/10.1021/acs.jafc.7b00476.
86. Xu ZY, Wu YQ, Zhong XW, Cai PM. Quantification of glyphosate and its metabolite, Aminomethyl phosphonic acid, in Wuyi Rock tea using high-performance liquid chromatography- tandem mass spectrometry. Appl. Ecol. Environ. Res 2023;21(1):73–83. https://doi.org/10.15666/aeer/2101_073083.
87. Tong M, Gao W, Jiao W, et al. Uptake, Translocation, Metabolism, and Distribution of Glyphosate in Nontarget Tea Plant (Camellia sinensis L.). J. Agric. Food Chem 2017;65(35):7638–7646. https://doi.org/10.1021/acs.jafc.7b02474.
88. Helander M, Pauna A, Saikkonen K, Saloniemi I. Glyphosate residues in soil affect crop plant germination and growth. Sci. Rep 2019;9:19653. https://doi.org/10.1038/s41598-019-56195-3.
89. Santilio A, Girolimetti S, Picardo V. Rapid, sensitive and selective detection of glyphosate in wheat and rice flour using a polar stationary phase by LC–MS/MS. J. Environ. Sci. Health, Part B 2022;57(3):184–191. https://doi.org/10.1080/03601234.2022.2042153.
90. Savini S, Bandini M, Sannino A. An Improved, Rapid, and Sensitive Ultra-High-Performance Liquid Chromatography-High-Resolution Orbitrap Mass Spectrometry Analysis for the Determination of Highly Polar Pesticides and Contaminants in Processed Fruits and Vegetables. J. Agric. Food Chem 2019;67(9):2716–2722. https://doi.org/10.1021/acs.jafc.8b06483.
91. Ayoola RT, Olujimi OO, Bada BS, Dedeke GA. Seasonal variations in the levels of glyphosate in soil, water and crops from three farm settlements in Oyo state, Nigeria. Heliyon 2023;9(9):e20324. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.heliyon.2023.e20324.
92. Bøhn T, Cuhra M, Traavik T, Sanden M, Fagan J, Primicerio R. Compositional differences in soybeans on the market: glyphosate accumulates in Roundup Ready GM soybeans. Food Chem 2014;153:207–215. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.foodchem.2013.12.054.
93. Rampazzo G, Gazzotti T, Pagliuca G, et al. Determination of glyphosate, glufosinate, and metabolites in honey based on different detection approaches supporting food safety and official controls. LWT 2024;200:116159. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.lwt.2024.116159.
94. Jansons M, Pugajeva I, Bartkevics V, Karkee HB. LC-MS/MS characterisation and determination of dansyl chloride derivatised glyphosate, aminomethylphosphonic acid (AMPA), and glufosinate in foods of plant and animal origin. J. Chromatogr. B 2021;1177:122779. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jchromb.2021.122779.
95. Goscinny S, Unterluggauer H, Aldrian J, Hanot V, Masselter S. Determination of Glyphosate and Its Metabolite AMPA (Aminomethylphosphonic Acid) in Cereals After Derivatization by Isotope Dilution and UPLC-MS/MS. Food Anal. Methods 2012;5:1177–1185. https://doi.org/10.1007/s12161-011-9361-7.
96. Xu J, Smith S, Smith G, Wang W, Li Y. Glyphosate contamination in grains and foods: An overview. Food Control 2019;106:106710. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.foodcont.2019.106710.
97. de Souza APF, Ferreira GS, Pagliarini FS, Rodrigues NR. Exposure assessment of glyphosate residues in soy-based infant formulas from the Brazilian market. J. Consum. Prot. Food Saf 2021;16:45–50. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00003-021-01320-6.
98. Wumbei A, Goeteyn L, Lopez E, Houbraken M, Spanoghe P. Glyphosate in yam from Ghana. Food Addit. Contam. Part B 2019;12(4):231–235. https://doi.org/10.1080/19393210.2019.1609098.
99. Zoller O, Rhyn P, Rupp H, Zarn JA, Geiser C. Glyphosate residues in Swiss market foods: monitoring and risk evaluation. Food Addit. Contam. Part B Surveill 2018;11(2):83–91. https://doi.org/10.1080/19393210.2017.1419509.
100. Valle AL, Mello FCC, Alves-Balvedi RP, Rodrigues LP, Goulartet LR. Glyphosate detection: methods, needs and challenges. Environ. Chem. Lett 2019;17:291–317. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10311-018-0789-5.
101. Ulrich JC, Ferguson PL. Development of a sensitive direct injection LC-MS/MS method for the detection of glyphosate and aminomethylphosphonic acid (AMPA) in hard waters. Anal. Bioanal. Chem 2021;413(14):3763–3774. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00216-021-03324-5.
102. Almeida CMM. Overview of Sample Preparation and Chromatographic Methods to Analysis Pharmaceutical Active Compounds in Waters Matrices. Separations 2021;8(2):16. https://doi.org/10.3390/separations8020016.
103. Kapsi M, Tsoutsi C, Albanis T. Simple analytical methodology based on solid phase extraction for monitoring pesticide residues in natural waters. MethodsX 2020;7:101011. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.mex.2020.101011.
104. Sharma A, Kumar V, Shahzad B, et al. Worldwide pesticide usage and its impacts on ecosystem. SN Appl. Sci 2019;1:1446. https://doi.org/10.1007/s42452-019-1485-1.
105. Kim L, Baek S, Son K, et al. Effective and rugged analysis of glyphosate, glufosinate, and metabolites in Tenebrio molitor larva (mealworms) using liquid chromatography tandem mass spectrometry. Sci. Rep 2021;11:17597. https://doi.org/10.1038/s41598-021-96529-8.
106. Ehling S, Reddy TM. Analysis of Glyphosate and Aminomethylphosphonic Acid in Nutritional Ingredients and Milk by Derivatization with Fluorenylmethyloxycarbonyl Chloride and Liquid Chromatography-Mass Spectrometry. J. Agric. Food Chem 2015;63(48):10562–10568. https://doi.org/10.1021/acs.jafc.5b04453.
107. Chiesa LM, Nobile M, Panseri S, Arioli F. Detection of glyphosate and its metabolites in food of animal origin based on ion-chromatography-high resolution mass spectrometry (IC-HRMS). Food Addit. Contam. Part A 2019;36(4):592–600. https://doi.org/10.1080/19440049.2019.1583380.
108. Khrolenko MV, Wieczorek PP. Determination of glyphosate and its metabolite aminomethylphosphonic acid in fruit juices using supported-liquid membrane preconcentration method with high-performance liquid chromatography and UV detection after derivatization with p-toluenesulphonyl chloride. J. Chromatogr. A 2005;1093(1–2):111–117. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.chroma.2005.07.062.
109. Wang Q, Wang M, Jia M, et al. Development of a specific and sensitive method for the detection of glyphosate pesticide and its metabolite in tea using dummy molecularly imprinted solid-phase extraction coupled with liquid chromatography-tandem quadrupole mass spectrometry. J. Chromatogr. A 2023;1705:464209. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.chroma.2023.464209.
110. Hernández F, Hidalgo C, Sancho JV. Determination of glyphosate residues in plants by precolumn derivatization and coupled-column liquid chromatography with fluorescence detection. J. AOAC Int 2000;83(3):728–734. https://doi.org/10.1093/jaoac/83.3.728.
111. G˛bura K, Wieczorek PP, Poliwoda A. Determination of Glyphosate and AMPA in Food Samples Using Membrane Extraction Technique for Analytes Preconcentration. Membranes 2022;12:20. https://doi.org/10.3390/membranes12010020.
112. Kaczyński P, Łozowicka B. Liquid chromatographic determination of glyphosate and aminomethylphosphonic acid residues in rapeseed with MS/MS detection or derivatization/fluorescence detection. Open Chem 2015;13(1):1011–1019. https://doi.org/10.1515/chem-2015-0107.
113. Sharma OP, Pholphana N, Rangkadilok N, Parkpian P, Satayavivad J. Development of simple and sensitive HPLC method for determination of glyphosate residues in soybean. Nepal. J. Environ. Sci 2015;3:21–26. https://doi.org/10.3126/njes.v3i0.22731.
114. Martins-Júnior HA, Lebre DT, Wang AY, Pires MA, Bustillos OV. An alternative and fast method for determination of glyphosate and aminomethylphosphonic acid (AMPA) residues in soybean using liquid chromatography coupled with tandem mass spectrometry. Rapid Commun. Mass Spectrom 2009;23(7):1029–1034. https://doi.org/10.1002/rcm.3960.
115. Tseng SH, Lo YW, Chang PC, Chou SS, Chang HM. Simultaneous quantification of glyphosate, glufosinate, and their major metabolites in rice and soybean sprouts by gas chromatography with pulsed flame photometric detector. J. Agric. Food Chem 2004;52(13):4057–4063. https://doi.org/10.1021/jf049973z.
116. Sasano R, Sekizawa J, Saito I, et al. Simultaneous determination of glyphosate, glufosinate and their metabolites in soybeans using solid-phase analytical derivatization and LCMS/MS determination. Food Chem. X 2024;24:101806. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.fochx.2024.101806.
117. Mayakaduwa SS, Kumarathilaka P, Herath I, et al. Equilibrium and kinetic mechanisms of woody biochar on aqueous glyphosate removal. Chemosphere 2016;144:2516–2521. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.chemosphere.2015.07.080.
118. Tian B, Hua S, Tian Y, Liu J. Cyclodextrin-based adsorbents for the removal of pollutants from wastewater: a review. Environ. Sci. Pollut. Rese 2021;28:1317–1340. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11356-020-11168-2.
119. Odoemelam SA, Emeh UN, Eddy NO. Experimental and computational chemistry studies on the removal of methylene blue and malachite green dyes from aqueous solution by neem (Azadirachta indica) leaves. J. Taibah. Univ. Sci 2018;12(3):255–265. https://doi.org/10.1080/16583655.2018.1465725.
120. Naghdi S, Brown E, Zendehbad M, et al. Glyphosate adsorption from water using hierarchically porous metal–organic frameworks. Adv Func Mater 2023:2213862. https://doi.org/10.1002/adfm.202213862.
121. Diel JC, Franco DSP, Nunes IS, et al. Carbon nanotubes impregnated with metallic nanoparticles and their application as an adsorbent for the glyphosate removal in an aqueous matrix. J. Environ. Chem. Eng 2021;9(2):105178. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jece.2021.105178.
122. Sen K, Mondal NK, Chattoraj S, Datta JK. Statistical optimization study of adsorption parameters for the removal of glyphosate on forest soil using the response surface methodology. Environ. Earth. Sci 2017;76:22. https://doi.org/10.1007/s12665-016-6333-7.
123. Sen K, Datta JK, Mondal NK. Glyphosate adsorption by Eucalyptus camaldulensis barkmediated char and optimization through response surface modeling. Appl. Water Sci 2019;9:162. https://doi.org/10.1007/s13201-019-1036-3.
124. Manogaran M, Ahmad SA, Yasid NA, Yakasai HM, Shukor MY. Characterisation of the simultaneous molybdenum reduction and glyphosate degradation by Burkholderia vietnamiensis AQ5-12 and Burkholderia sp. AQ5-13. 3 Biotech 2018;8(2):117. https://doi.org/10.1007/s13205-018-1141-2.
125. Giaccio GCM, Saez JM, Estévez MC, et al. Developing a glyphosate-bioremediation strategy using plants and actinobacteria: Potential improvement of a riparian environment. J. Hazard. Mater 2023;446:130675. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jhazmat.2022.130675.
126. da Silva Santos J, da Silva Pontes M, Grillo R, Fiorucci AR, José de Arruda G, Santiago EF. Physiological mechanisms and phytoremediation potential of the macrophyte Salvinia biloba towards a commercial formulation and an analytical standard of glyphosate. Chemosphere 2020;259:127417. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.chemosphere.2020.127417.
127. Hottes E, da Silva CO, Bauerfeldt GF, et al. Efficient removal of glyphosate from aqueous solutions by adsorption on Mg–Al-layered double oxides: thermodynamic, kinetic, and mechanistic investigation. Environ. Sci. Pollut. Res 2022;29:83698–83710. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11356-022-21703-y.
128. Mehdizadeh M, Mushtaq W, Siddiqui SA, et al. Herbicide residues in agroecosystems: Fate, detection, and effect on non-target plants. Rev. Agric. Sci 2021;9:157–167. https://doi.org/10.7831/ras.9.0_157.
129. Ruuskanen S, Fuchs B, Nissinen R, et al. Ecosystem consequences of herbicides: the role of microbiome. Trends Ecol. Evol 2023;38(1):35–43. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.tree.2022.09.009.
130. Hassaan MA, El Nemr A. Pesticides pollution: Classifications, human health impact, extraction and treatment techniques. Egypt. J. Aquat. Res 2020;46(3):207–220. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ejar.2020.08.007.
131. Yang X, Wang F, Bento CPM, et al. Decay characteristics and erosion-related transport of glyphosate in Chinese loess soil under field conditions. Sci Total Environ 2015;530–531:87–95. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.scitotenv.2015.05.082.
132. van Hall BG, Sweeney C, Bottoms M, Gestel CAM. Influence of soil organic matter content on the toxicity of pesticides to soil invertebrates: A review. Integr Environ Assess Manag 2023;https://doi.org/10.1002/ieam.4770.
133. Pande V, Pandey SC, Sati D, Pande V, Samant M. Bioremediation: an emerging effective approach towards environment restoration. Environ. Sustain 2020;3:91–103. https://doi.org/10.1007/s42398-020-00099-w.
134. Bala S, Garg D, Thirumalesh BV, et al. Recent Strategies for Bioremediation of Emerging Pollutants: A Review for a Green and Sustainable Environment. Toxics 2022;10(8):484. https://doi.org/10.3390/toxics10080484.
135. Shehata SM, Badawy RK, Aboulsoud YIE. Phytoremediation of some heavy metals in contaminated soil. Bull. Natl. Res. Cent 2019;43:189. https://doi.org/10.1186/s42269-019-0214-7.
136. Muskus AM, Krauss M, Miltner A, Hamer U, Nowak KM. Degradation of glyphosate in a Colombian soil is influenced by temperature, total organic carbon content and pH. Environ. Pollut 2020;259:113767. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.envpol.2019.113767.
137. Carranza CS, Regñicoli JP, Aluf ME, et al. Glyphosate in vitro removal and tolerance by Aspergillus oryzae in soil microcosms. Int. J. Environ. Sci. Technol 2019;16:7673–7682. https://doi.org/10.1007/s13762-019-02347-x.
138. Soukup ST, Merz B, Bub A, et al. Glyphosate and AMPA levels in human urine samples and their correlation with food consumption: results of the cross-sectional KarMeN study in Germany. Arch. Toxicol 2020;94:1575–1584. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00204-020-02704-7.
139. López-Chávez MY, Alvarez-Legorreta T, Infante-Mata D, Dunn MF, Guillén-Navarro K. Glyphosate-remediation potential of selected plant species in artificial wetlands. Sci. Total. Environ 2021;781:146812. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.scitotenv.2021.146812.
140. Herath GAD, Poh LS, Ng WJ. Statistical optimization of glyphosate adsorption by biochar and activated carbon with response surface methodology. Chemosphere 2019;227:533–540. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.chemosphere.2019.04.078.
141. Rossi F, Carles L, Donnadieu F, Batisson I, Artigas J. Glyphosate-degrading behavior of five bacterial strains isolated from stream biofilms. J. Hazard. Mater 2021;420:126651. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jhazmat.2021.126651.
142. Spinelli V, Ceci A, Dal Bosco C, Gentili A, Persiani AM. Glyphosate-eating fungi: Study on fungal saprotrophic strains’ ability to tolerate and utilise glyphosate as a nutritional source and on the ability of Purpureocillium lilacinum to degrade it. Microorganisms 2021;:9. https://doi.org/10.3390/microorganisms9112179.
143. Kaczorowska J, Rejman K, Halicka E, Szczebyło A, Górska-Warsewicz H. Impact of Food Sustainability Labels on the Perceived Product Value and Price Expectations of Urban Consumers. Sustainability 2019;11:7240. https://doi.org/10.3390/su11247240.
144. Karlsson Green K, Stenberg JA, Lankinen Å. Making sense of Integrated Pest Management (IPM) in the light of evolution. Evol. Appl 2020;13:1791–1805. https://doi.org/10.1111/eva.13067.
145. Deguine JP, Aubertot JN, Flor RJ, Lescourret F, Wyckhuys KAG, Ratnadass A. Integrated pest management: good intentions, hard realities. A review. Agron. Sustain. Dev 2021;41:38. https://doi.org/10.1007/s13593-021-00689-w.
146. Bacon MH, Vandelac L, Gagnon MA, Parent L. Poisoning Regulation, Research, Health, and the Environment: The Glyphosate-Based Herbicides Case in Canada. Toxics 2023;11(2):121. https://doi.org/10.3390/toxics11020121.

Article information Continued

© 2025 Korean Society of Environmental Engineers

This is an Open Access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution Non-Commercial License (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc/3.0/) which permits unrestricted non-commercial use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original work is properly cited.

Fig. 1

Fig. 1

Glyphosate mode of action.

Fig. 2

Fig. 2

Glyphosate’s carcinogenic status reported by different international agencies. EPA: Environmental Protection Agency; CPRC: Carcinogenicity Peer Review Committee; CARC: Cancer Assessment Review Committee; IARC: International Agency for Research on Cancer; EFSA: European Food Safety Authority; JMPR: Joint FAOWHO Meeting on Pesticide Residues; ATSDR: Agency for Toxic Substances and Disease Registry.

Fig. 3

Fig. 3

Flowchart based on the PRISMA guidelines demonstrating the process of selecting studies for inclusion in the systematic review.

Fig. 4

Fig. 4

Chromatographic determination of glyphosate residues in crops and food.

Table 1

Toxicity status of glyphosate for human and animals.

Reference status Human/Animal Country Results Reference
Research Indian skittering frog (Euflictis cyanophlyctis) India Roundup at environmentally relevant concentrations has lethal and genotoxic impact on E. cyanophlyctis. [55]
Human China A549 cells are affected by Roundup in terms of apoptosis and DNA damage. However, this damage was related to the presence of polyethoxylated tallow amine adjuvant in the formulation. [56]
Pigs Denmark In pig kidneys exposed to 200 ppm of glyphosate, TET3, an enzyme involved in demethylation, was significantly increased. [57]
Mouse Hungary Negative impacts of roundup classic and its components for inhibition of neuroectodermal NE-4C and osteoblastic MC3T3-E1 cells progression to the S phase. [58]
Human China Roundup induced concentration-dependent increases in DNA damages and proportion of apoptotic cells in A549 cells. [59]
Human USA Aminomethylphosphonic acid exposure may be associated with increased breast cancer risk. [60]
Human USA It was lethal to Raji cells when treated with glyphosate at concentrations above 10 mM, but does not cause cytotoxicity at concentrations below 100 μM. [61]
Human Thailand At 10-12 to 10-6 M in estrogen withdrawal conditions, glyphosate exhibited proliferative impacts in human hormone-dependent breast cancer and T47D cells, whereas it had no effect on hormone-independent breast cancer and MDA-MB231 cells. [46]
Human Poland glyphosate and its derivatives caused DNA damage at concentrations ranging from 1 to 1000 μM in the following order: aminomethylphosphonic acid, glyphosate and Roundup 360 PLUS. [62]
Rats Poland A significant impairment of spontaneous contractility and reactivity was observed in rats after incubation with Roundup solutions at the highest tested dose, which is equivalent to the concentration used in agriculture (1% corresponding to 1.7 g glyphosate/L). [63]
Algae Chlamydomonas reinhardtii Canada Glyphosate significantly decreased cell viability and photosystem efficiency of this algae. Glyphosate toxicity was increased in the presence of dendrimer, suggesting a synergistic effect between the two compounds. [64]
Review Human Denmark, USA, UK The systematic review did not uncover evidence in the epidemiologic literature supporting a causal link between glyphosate and two specific types of cancers, non-Hodgkin’s lymphoma (NHL) and multiple myeloma (MM). [65]
Human USA, UK The review determined that the evidence concerning the oxidative stress mechanism of glyphosate’s carcinogenicity was largely unconvincing. Additionally, the data profiles did not align with the typical characteristics of genotoxic carcinogens. [66]
Human Germany, USA, Switzerland Researchers found no evidence of glyphosate causing carcinogenic effects in humans, citing the absence of a plausible mechanism, inconclusive epidemiology studies, and a preponderance of evidence indicating no significant association between glyphosate and cancer. [67]
Human USA The biomonitoring studies align with previous findings from genotoxicity experiments, indicating that typical glyphosate-based formulations did not pose genotoxic risk under usual human and environmental exposure conditions. [68]
Human USA, Denmark, UK, Brazil, Germany, Canada The review found insufficient evidence to back IARC’s classification of glyphosate as a “probable human carcinogen” and affirmed that glyphosate is improbable to pose a carcinogenic risk to humans based on earlier regulatory evaluations. [69]
Marine invertebrates Italy Acute toxicity tests reveal that high concentrations of glyphosate and its commercial formulations can be lethal, although these levels are not typically found in the environment. However, prolonged exposure experiments have shown that even at lower concentrations, glyphosate can significantly impact the biological responses of marine invertebrates, suggesting potential long-term ecological consequences [70]

Table 2

Glyphosate residues in different foods and crops.

Food matrix Country Limit of Detection (LOD) Limit of Quantification (LOQ) Result Reference
Honey and soy sauce United States - 15 ppb The glyphosate concentrations in 59% of honey samples were above the method’s limit of quantification. Also, the concentration in Soy sauce samples ranged from 88 to 564 μg L−1. [17]
Tea Plant (Camellia sinensis L.) China - 0.1 mg kg−1 for in leaf and 0.05 mg kg−1 for stem and root. Accumulation of 2.76 and 0.53 mg kg−1 glyphosate in roots and stems respectively after 21 days. [87]
Wuyi Rock tea China - 0.03 mg kg−1 The glyphosate content of the sample was 0.16 mg kg-1 according to HPLC–MS/MS method. [86]
Bread Lebanon 7.5 ppb - The Lebanese population’s daily exposure to glyphosate through bread consumption were estimated to be 0.0702 μg kg-1 BW/day. This was only 0.000117% of the Acceptable Daily Intake (1 mg kg−1/day) listed by Codex. [78]
Cereal based infant food United Kingdom 0.01 mg kg−1 - using suppressed ion chromatography coupled to mass spectrometry validated only for glyphosate at 0.005 mg/kg [85]
Breakfast cereal samples France 10 μg kg−1 5 μg kg−1 The residues of glyphosate were detected in two samples ranging from 6 to 34 μg kg−1. [79]
Potato tubers Finland - - Glyphosate and AMPA residues were found at 0.02 and 0.07 mg kg−1, respectively. [88]
Wheat and rice flour Italy 0.005 mg kg−1 0.05 mg kg−1 Raptor Polar column and LC–MS/MS demonstrated excellent performance for determining glyphosate in wheat and rice flour. [89]
Processed Fruits and Vegetables Italy - 0.003 mg kg−1 Glyphosate was detected at a concentration ranging from 0.003 to 0.01 mg kg−1, which was below the MRL for all products. [90]
Mushrooms and juice concentrates Canada - 0.08 ppm Glyphosate concentrations ranged from 0.0052 to 0.21 ppm in mushrooms and 0.0042 to 0.038 ppm in Juice concentrates. [83]
Cassava and maize Nigeria - - Glyphosate residues were detected at levels of 0.3 ± 0.0 mg kg−1 in cassava and 0.07 ± 0.08 mg kg−1 in maize. [91]
Genetically modified soybean Norway 0.05 μg kg−1 - 3.26 mg kg−1 of glyphosate was found in the samples. [92]
Animal-based products United States 0.075 ppb - There was a detectable level of glyphosate in organic milk, conventional milk, beef, and fish at 0.442, 0.533, 0.553, and 1.495 μg L−1, respectively. [80]
Honey Italy - 5 ng/g Using LC-MS/MS, glyphosate residues were detected in 12% of the honey samples, with one exceeding the Maximum Residue Level (MRL). [93]
Honey Uruguay - 0.005 mg kg−1 Eighty-one percent of the tested samples had detectable glyphosate concentrations, with half of samples exceeding the European MRL of 50 μg kg−1. [84]
Foods of plant and animal origin Latvia - 10–25 μg kg−1 LC-MS/MS analysis identified detectable levels of glyphosate and its metabolites in honey, porridge formula, bovine liver, bovine kidney, and milk. [94]
Honey Estonia - 0.050 mg kg−1 Glyphosate was found in 21% of samples with concentrations twice above maximum residue levels. [82]

Table 3

Chromatographic determinations of glyphosate residues in various crops and foods.

Method Food Result Country Reference
LC/MS/MS Tea The method demonstrated high sensitivity and specificity, with glyphosate recoveries ranging from 98.69% to 106.26%. China [109]
LC/LC-FD Olives and tomato, 0.11 and 554 mg. kg−1 of glyphosate residue was detected in olive and tomato plant, respectively. Spain [110]
HPLC Walnuts, soybean, barley, buckwheat, lentils and rice flour 11, 7.8, 5.6, and 4.7 μg. kg−1 of glyphosate residue was detected in lentil, walnuts, barley and soybean, respectively. For buckwheat and rice flour, no residues were detected. Poland [111]
LC-MS/MS Rapeseed 0.38 mg. kg−1 of glyphosate residues was detected by this method. Poland [112]
HPLC Soybean grains glyphosate residues ranged from 0.23 to 5.06 mg. kg−1 was detected. Thailand and Nepal [113]
LC/MS/MS Maize and rice Achieved the limit of detection of 0.002 and 0.004 mg kg−1 for rice and maize, respectively. Italy [19]
LC/ESI-MS/MS Soybean Detected glyphosate residues in soybean with limits of quantification of 0.30 mg kg−1. Brazil [114]
IC-HRMS Honey, bass fish and bovine muscle Detected residues with limits of quantification in the range of 4.30–9.26 ng g−1 Italy [107]
UPLC-MS/MS Cereals Detected residues with limits of quantification of 0.02 mg kg−1 Belgium [95]
HPLC Fruit juices (orange, grapefruit, apple and blackcurrant) Detection of glyphosate and in fruit juices at concentrations as low as 0.025 mg l−1. Poland [108]
LC-MS Nutritional ingredients and milk Glyphosate was quantified at 0.105 μg g−1 (soy protein isolate), however the residue not detected in other ingredients and milk. United States [106]
GC-PFPD Rice and soybean Glyphosate detected in sample matrices by limits of detection of 0.02 and limits of quantification of 0.06 ppm. Taiwan [115]
LC-MS/MS Soybeans LC-MS/MS was effectively used to detect glyphosate in soybeans, achieving LOQ of 0.02 mg kg−1. Japan [116]

LC/LC-FD: coupled-column liquid chromatography system with fluorimetric detection.

LC/ESI-MS/MS: liquid chromatography coupled with electrospray ionization tandem mass spectrometry.

IC-HRMS: ion-chromatography-high resolution mass spectrometry.

UPLC-MS/MS: ultraperformance liquid chromatography-tandem mass spectrometry.

GC-PFPD: gas chromatography equipped with a pulsed flame photometric detector.

Table 4

Environmental removal of glyphosate residues.

Method Matrix Result Country Reference
Adsorption Aqueous solutions The maximum adsorption capacity of woody biochar for glyphosate removal at pH 5–6 was 44 mg g−1, which is an excellent result for glyphosate removal from aqueous solutions. Sri Lanka [117]
Aqueous solutions Mg2Al-layered double oxide effectively removed 90% of glyphosate residues at pH 10. Brazil [127]
Water environment Activated carbon and biochar had significant glyphosate removal efficacy values of 98.45 and 100%, respectively, at a pH of 8. Singapore [140]
Water There was a 92% removal rate of glyphosate from water by graphene oxide modified by iron oxide nanoparticles (α-γ-Fe2O3). Canada [26]
Bioremediation (microbial and phytoremediation) Soil Aspergillus oryzae strains removed 57% of the initial glyphosate concentration in contaminated soil. Argentina [137]
Soil Two strains of Burkholderia, AQ5–12 and AQ5–13, degraded glyphosate and used it as a source of phosphorus. Malaysia [124]
Soil Glyphosate in contaminated soil was degraded to 85.8% and 76.11%, respectively, by Bacillus cereus and Pseudomonas aeruginosa. Nigeria [27]
Biofilms Following 125–400 hours, Acidovorax sp., Agrobacterium tumefaciens, Novosphingobium sp. and Ochrobactrum pituitosum strains dissipated glyphosate completely. France [141]
Soil 80% of glyphosate is degraded by Purpureocillium lilacinum, which uses it as a source of phosphorous. Italy [142]
Soil Festuca arundinacea and Salix fragilis were able to phytoremediate glyphosate to an extent of 87–92%. Argentina [125]
Soil The Panicum maximum plant species remediated 87% of the residues of glyphosate. Mexico [139]
Water A 100% removal efficiency of glyphosate was achieved by Salvinia biloba. Brazil [126]