DOCSLIB.ORG

2000. Report Of

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text
2000. Report Of i CONTENTS List of participants ...................................................................................................................... iii Abbreviations ......................................................................................................................... vii Use of JMPR Reports and evaluations by registration authorities .................................................... xi Report of the 2000 JMPR FAO/WHO Meeting of Experts............................................................. 1 ...................................................................................................................................................... 1. Introduction .......................................................................................................................... 1 2. General Considerations ............................................................................................................ 3 2.1. Progress on estimation of acute dietary intake: International estimates of short-term dietary intake.................................................................................. 3 2.2 Relevance of food processing questionnaires for JMPR evaluations................................ 3 2.3. Measures to be taken when estimated dietary intake exceeds the ADI ........................... 4 2.4 Feasibility of establishing maximum residue limits for genetically modified crops and for residue of metabolites................................................. 6 2.5 Minimum data required for establishing maximum residue limits, including import tolerances ......................................................................................... 6 2.6 Periodic review of data on residues of compounds currently being re-registered nationally ............................................................................................... 7 2.7 Maintaining the independence of the JMPR decision-making process ............................ 7 2.8 Information required for Good Agricultural Practice ..................................................... 9 2.9 Harmonisation between JECFA and JMPR................................................................. 10 2.10 Establishment of acute reference doses....................................................................... 10 2.11 Summaries of critical end-points ................................................................................ 11 3. Dietary risk assessment for pesticide residues in food ................................................................ 14 4. Evaluation of data for establishing values for the acute dietary intake of humans, maximum residue levels, supervised trials median residue levels and daily intakes .................... 18 4.1 Abamactin (R)......................................................................................................... 18 4.2 Captan (R,D) ** ....................................................................................................... 19 4.3 Carbaryl (T) ............................................................................................................. 31 4.4 Chlormequat (R,D) .................................................................................................. 31 4.5 Chlorpropham (T)* .................................................................................................. 40 4.6 Chlorpyrifos (R,D) ** .............................................................................................. 45 4.7 DDT (T, R, D)......................................................................................................... 59 4.8 Deltamethrin (T,D) **............................................................................................... 64 4.9 Dinocap (T,D) .......................................................................................................... 67 4.10 Dodine (T,D) ** ....................................................................................................... 68 ___________________________ * New compound ** Evaluated within the periodic review programme of the Codex Committee on Pesticide Residues 1T, Toxicological evaluation; R, residue and analytical aspects; D, dietary risk assessment ii 4.11 Fenitrothion (T, D) ** ............................................................................................... 72 4.12 Fenthion (R,D).......................................................................................................... 77 4.13 Fipronil (T)............................................................................................................... 78 4.14 Imazalil (T,D) ** ...................................................................................................... 82 4.15 Malathion (R,D)....................................................................................................... 86 4.16 Mevinphos (R).......................................................................................................... 87 4.17 Parathion (R,D) ** .................................................................................................... 88 4.18 Parathion-methyl (R,D) **......................................................................................... 97 4.19 Pyrethrins (R,D) **..................................................................................................107 4.20 Pyriproxyfen (R,D) ..................................................................................................116 4.21 Thiabendazole (R,D)................................................................................................117 4.22 Thiodicarb (T,D)..................................................................................................... 123 5. Recommendations ..................................................................................................................151 6. Future work .....................................................................................................................152 Annexes ........................................................................................................................... 133 Annex 1. Acute dietary intakes, acute reference doses, recommended maximum residue limits, and supervised trials median residue levels recorded by the 2000 Meeting..................................................................................154 Annex 2. Index of reports and evaluations of pesticides by the Joint Meeting Meeting on Pesticide Residues..............................................................164 Annex 3. Dietary intakes of pesticides in relation to acute daily intakes..................173 Annex 4. Estimates of acute dietary intake............................................................189 Annex 5. Proposed test guidelines for studies with single oral doses (for use in establishing acute reference doses for chemical residues in food and drinking-water .....................................................................................207 Annex 6. Reports and other documents resulting from previous Joint Meetings of the FAO Panel of Experts on Pesticide Residues and the environment and WHO Expert Groups on Pesticide Residues ................216 Annex 7. Corrections to the report of the 1999 Meeting .......................................221 iii List of participants 2000 Joint FAO/WHO Meeting on Pesticide Residues Geneva, 20–29 September 2000 WHO Members Professor A.R. Boobis, Section on Clinical Pharmacology, Division of Medicine, Imperial College School of Medicine, Hammersmith Campus, Ducane Road, London W12 0NN, United Kingdom Professor J.F. Borzelleca, Department of Pharmacology, Toxicology, Medical College of Virginia, Virginia Commonwealth University, (H) 8718 September Drive, Richmond, VA 23229-7319, USA Dr P. Fenner-Crisp, Senior Science Advisor to the Director, Office of Pesticide Programs (7501C), US Environmental Protection Agency, 401 M Street SW, 20460 Washington DC, USA Dr H. Hakansson, Institute of Environmental Medicine, Karolinska Institutet, Division of Risk Assessment and Organohalogen Pollutants, Box 210, 171 77 Stockholm, Sweden Professor J. Hajslova, Institute of Chemical Technology, Department of Food Chemistry and Analysis, Technickà 3, 166 28 Prague 6, Czech Republic Dr A. Moretto, Department of Environmental Medicine and Public Health, Università di Padova, via Giustiniani 2, 35128 Padova, Italy (Chairman) Professor S.A. Soliman, Department of Pesticide Chemistry, Faculty of Agriculture, Alexandria University, El-Shatby, Alexandria 21545, Egypt Dr B.G. Priestly, Scientific Director, Chemicals & Non-Prescription Medicines Branch, Therapeutic Goods Administration, Commonwealth Department of Health and Aged Care, PO Box 100, Woden, ACT 2606, Australia (Rapporteur) FAO Members Dr Ursula Banasiak, Federal Biological Research Centre for Agriculture and Forestry, Stahnsdorfer Damm 81, 14532 Kleinmachnow, Germany Dr Susan May F. Calumpang, National Crop Protection Center, University of the Philippines, Los Baños, Laguna, Philippines Dr Eloisa Dutra Caldas, University of Brasilia, College of Health Sciences, Pharmaceutical Sciences Department, Campus Universitàrio Darci Ribeiro, 70919-970 Brasília/DF, Brazil (Rapporteur) Dr Stephen Funk, Health Effects Division (7509C), US Environmental Protection Agency, 1200 Pennsylvania Ave NW, Washington DC 20460, USA Mr D.J. Hamilton, Principal Scientific Officer, Animal & Plant Health Service, Floor 3PIB, Department of Primary Industries, PO Box 46,
Load more

Recommended publications
  • Pesticide Residues in Food 2007 – Report, 2007 (E)
    FAO Pesticide residues PLANT PRODUCTION in food 2007 AND PROTECTION PAPER Joint FAO/WHO Meeting on Pesticide Residues 191 Report of the Joint Meeting of the FAO Panel of Experts on Pesticide Residues in Food and the Environment and the WHO Core Assessment Group on Pesticide Residues Geneva, Switzerland, 18–27 September 2007 WORLD HEALTH ORGANIZATION FOOD AND AGRICULTURE ORGANIZATION OF THE UNITED NATIONS Rome, 2007 The designations employed and the presentation of material in this information product do not imply the expression of any opinion whatsoever on the part of the Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations (FAO) concerning the legal or development status of any country, territory, city or area or of its authorities, or concerning the delimitation of its frontiers or boundaries. The mention of specific companies or products of manufacturers, whether or not these have been patented, does not imply that these have been endorsed or recommended by FAO in preference to others of a similar nature that are not mentioned. ISBN 978-92-5-105918-0 All rights reserved. Reproduction and dissemination of material in this information product for educational or other non-commercial purposes are authorized without any prior written permission from the copyright holders provided the source is fully acknowledged. Reproduction of material in this information product for resale or other commercial purposes is prohibited without written permission of the copyright holders. Applications for such permission should be addressed to: Chief Electronic
    [Show full text]
  • Historical Perspectives on Apple Production: Fruit Tree Pest Management, Regulation and New Insecticidal Chemistries
    Historical Perspectives on Apple Production: Fruit Tree Pest Management, Regulation and New Insecticidal Chemistries. Peter Jentsch Extension Associate Department of Entomology Cornell University's Hudson Valley Lab 3357 Rt. 9W; PO box 727 Highland, NY 12528 email: [email protected] Phone 845-691-7151 Mobile: 845-417-7465 http://www.nysaes.cornell.edu/ent/faculty/jentsch/ 2 Historical Perspectives on Fruit Production: Fruit Tree Pest Management, Regulation and New Chemistries. by Peter Jentsch I. Historical Use of Pesticides in Apple Production Overview of Apple Production and Pest Management Prior to 1940 Synthetic Pesticide Development and Use II. Influences Changing the Pest Management Profile in Apple Production Chemical Residues in Early Insect Management Historical Chemical Regulation Recent Regulation Developments Changing Pest Management Food Quality Protection Act of 1996 The Science Behind The Methodology Pesticide Revisions – Requirements For New Registrations III. Resistance of Insect Pests to Insecticides Resistance Pest Management Strategies IV. Reduced Risk Chemistries: New Modes of Action and the Insecticide Treadmill Fermentation Microbial Products Bt’s, Abamectins, Spinosads Juvenile Hormone Analogs Formamidines, Juvenile Hormone Analogs And Mimics Insect Growth Regulators Azadirachtin, Thiadiazine Neonicotinyls Major Reduced Risk Materials: Carboxamides, Carboxylic Acid Esters, Granulosis Viruses, Diphenyloxazolines, Insecticidal Soaps, Benzoyl Urea Growth Regulators, Tetronic Acids, Oxadiazenes , Particle Films, Phenoxypyrazoles, Pyridazinones, Spinosads, Tetrazines , Organotins, Quinolines. 3 I Historical Use of Pesticides in Apple Production Overview of Apple Production and Pest Management Prior to 1940 The apple has a rather ominous origin. Its inception is framed in the biblical text regarding the genesis of mankind. The backdrop appears to be the turbulent setting of what many scholars believe to be present day Iraq.
    [Show full text]
  • Genetically Modified Baculoviruses for Pest
    INSECT CONTROL BIOLOGICAL AND SYNTHETIC AGENTS This page intentionally left blank INSECT CONTROL BIOLOGICAL AND SYNTHETIC AGENTS EDITED BY LAWRENCE I. GILBERT SARJEET S. GILL Amsterdam • Boston • Heidelberg • London • New York • Oxford Paris • San Diego • San Francisco • Singapore • Sydney • Tokyo Academic Press is an imprint of Elsevier Academic Press, 32 Jamestown Road, London, NW1 7BU, UK 30 Corporate Drive, Suite 400, Burlington, MA 01803, USA 525 B Street, Suite 1800, San Diego, CA 92101-4495, USA ª 2010 Elsevier B.V. All rights reserved The chapters first appeared in Comprehensive Molecular Insect Science, edited by Lawrence I. Gilbert, Kostas Iatrou, and Sarjeet S. Gill (Elsevier, B.V. 2005). All rights reserved. No part of this publication may be reproduced or transmitted in any form or by any means, electronic or mechanical, including photocopy, recording, or any information storage and retrieval system, without permission in writing from the publishers. Permissions may be sought directly from Elsevier’s Rights Department in Oxford, UK: phone (þ44) 1865 843830, fax (þ44) 1865 853333, e-mail [email protected]. Requests may also be completed on-line via the homepage (http://www.elsevier.com/locate/permissions). Library of Congress Cataloging-in-Publication Data Insect control : biological and synthetic agents / editors-in-chief: Lawrence I. Gilbert, Sarjeet S. Gill. – 1st ed. p. cm. Includes bibliographical references and index. ISBN 978-0-12-381449-4 (alk. paper) 1. Insect pests–Control. 2. Insecticides. I. Gilbert, Lawrence I. (Lawrence Irwin), 1929- II. Gill, Sarjeet S. SB931.I42 2010 632’.7–dc22 2010010547 A catalogue record for this book is available from the British Library ISBN 978-0-12-381449-4 Cover Images: (Top Left) Important pest insect targeted by neonicotinoid insecticides: Sweet-potato whitefly, Bemisia tabaci; (Top Right) Control (bottom) and tebufenozide intoxicated by ingestion (top) larvae of the white tussock moth, from Chapter 4; (Bottom) Mode of action of Cry1A toxins, from Addendum A7.
    [Show full text]
  • (12) United States Patent (10) Patent No.: US 8,852,618 B2 Clough (45) Date of Patent: Oct
    USOO8852618B2 (12) United States Patent (10) Patent No.: US 8,852,618 B2 Clough (45) Date of Patent: Oct. 7, 2014 (54) INSECTICIDAL MIXTURE CONTAINING CA 2429218 A1 6, 2002 GAMMA-CYHALOTHRN CH 689326 A5 4f1995 EP O237227 A1 9, 1987 EP 0771526 A2 5, 1997 (75) Inventor: Martin Stephen Clough, Bracknell EP O988788 A1 3f2000 (GB) FR 272O230 A1 12/1995 JP 63. 126805 A2 5, 1988 (73) Assignee: Syngenta Limited, Guildford (GB) JP 63126805 A2 5, 1988 JP 63126805 5, 1998 c - r WO WO 86 O7525 A1 12, 1986 (*) Notice: Subject to any disclaimer, the term of this WO WO 93 03618 A2 3, 1993 patent is extended or adjusted under 35 WO WO95 229O2 A1 8/1995 U.S.C. 154(b) by 824 days. WO WO9533380 A1 12, 1995 WO WO 96 16543 A2 6, 1996 (21) Appl. No.: 12/633,063 WO WO97 06687 A1 2/1997 WO WO974O692 A1 11, 1997 (22) Filed: Dec.a V88, 2009 WO WOOOO2453 A1 1, 2000 OTHER PUBLICATIONS (65) Prior Publication Data US 201O/OO81714 A1 Apr. 1, 2010 Canadian Office Action (Applin. No. 2,452,515 filed: Jul. 10, 2002) mailing date Oct. 1, 2010 (pp. 1-2). Related U.S. Application Data Allen et al. Transgenic & Conventional Insect & Weed Control Sys tems; Proceedings of the Beltwide Cotton Conference, vol. 2, 1065 (62) Division of application No. 10/484.745, filed as 1068 (1999), USA. application No. PCT/GB02/03181 on Jul. 10, 2002, Anonymous; Pesticide Mixtures for Control of Insect and Acarid now Pat. No.
    [Show full text]
  • Onion Production, Maggot Control, and Cyromazine
    Onion Production, Maggot Control, and Cyromazine Cyromazine (Trigard®) is currently undergoing re-evaluation at EPA/OPP. The Preliminary Risk Assessment conducted by the Environmental Fate & Effects Division of OPP indicates a high risk to birds from onion seed treatment with cyromazine. BEAD needs assistance to better characterize the use of cyromazine in commercial bulb onion production. From the Old Crop Profiles: cyromazine is used on onion seed to control onion maggots and/or seed corn maggots. Is this still correct? Cyromazine is not widely used as a seed treatment for onion seed planted in the western US. 1. Since this is a seed treatment, what percentage of commercial onion growers (or how many acres) is planting seed? How many growers (or acres) plant seedlings? At least 90% of US dry bulb storage onion acreage is seeded. In Washington State in 2013, 20,500 acres were seeded and only approximately 500 acres transplanted. In California, nearly all dehydrator onions are seeded. 2. Are there data to indicate how many acres are using cyromazine seed treatment and how many acres are using the alternative treatments each year? The California Pesticide Use Report for 2011 contains 12 records (see attached) of onion seed treatment with cyromazine (Trigard OMC) for a total of 474.3 lbs active ingredient. It is not known if the seed treated in California was planted in California or the western states. In addition, if seed planted in California were treated out-of-state it would not appear in the database. Regarding cyromazine seed treatment on onions, David Belles from Syngenta Crop Protection stated, “It is treated on onion for export to Canada because we don’t have Regard labeled in Canada.
    [Show full text]
  • Cyromazine) During Woolscouring and Its Effects on the Aquatic Environment the Fate of Vetrazin® (Cyromazine) During
    Lincoln University Digital Thesis Copyright Statement The digital copy of this thesis is protected by the Copyright Act 1994 (New Zealand). This thesis may be consulted by you, provided you comply with the provisions of the Act and the following conditions of use: you will use the copy only for the purposes of research or private study you will recognise the author's right to be identified as the author of the thesis and due acknowledgement will be made to the author where appropriate you will obtain the author's permission before publishing any material from the thesis. THE FATE OF VETRAZIN@ (CYROMAZINE) DURING WOOLSCOURING AND ITS EFFECTS ON THE AQUATIC ENVIRONMENT THE FATE OF VETRAZIN® (CYROMAZINE) DURING WOOLSCOURING AND ITS EFFECTS ON THE AQUATIC ENVIRONMENT A thesis submitted in fulfilment of the requirements for the degree of DOCTOR OF PHILOSOPHY in AQUATIC TOXICOLOGY at LINCOLN UNIVERSITY P.W. Robinson 1995 " ; " i Abstract of a thesis submitted in partial fulfllment of the requirement for the Degree of Doctor of Philosophy THE FATE OF VETRAZIN® (CYROMAZINE) DURING WOOLSCOURING AND ITS EFFECTS ON THE AQUATIC ENVIRONMENT by P.W. Robinson A number of ectoparasiticides are used on sheep to protect the animals from ill health associated with infestations of lice and the effects of fly-strike. Most of the compounds currently in use are organophosphate- or pyrethroid-based and have been used for 15-20 years, or more. In more recent times, as with other pest control strategies, there has been a tendency to introduce 'newer' pesticides, principally in the form of insect growth regulators (IGRs).
    [Show full text]
  • Multi-Residue Analysis of 210 Pesticides in Food Samples by Triple Quadrupole UHPLC-MS/MS
    Multi-Residue Analysis of 210 Pesticides in Food Samples by Triple Quadrupole UHPLC-MS/MS David R. Baker1, Chris Titman1, Alan J. Barnes1, Neil J. Loftus1, Alexander Mastoroudes2, Simon Hird3 1Shimadzu Corporation, Manchester, UK 2Kings College London, London, UK 3Food and Environment Research Agency, York, UK Abstract Pesticides and their metabolites are of great concern to society as they are harmful to human health, pollute natural resources and disturb the equilibrium of the ecosystem. Consequently, stricter food safety regulations are being enforced around the world, placing pesticide analysis laboratories under increasing pressure to expand the list of targeted pesticides, detect analytes at lower levels and with greater precision, reduce analysis turnaround times, and all the while maintaining or reducing costs. In this study a method was successfully developed for the quantitation of 210 commonly analysed pesticides in food samples using the Nexera UHPLC and LCMS-8040. Initial validation was performed to demonstrate instrument capabilities. Limits of detection (LOD) for 90 % of compounds were less than 0.001 mg kg-1 (1 ppb) and all compounds were less than 0.01 mg kg-1 (10 ppb) for both the quantifying and qualifying transitions using only a 2 µL injection. Repeatability at the 0.01 mg kg-1 reporting level was typically less than 5 %RSD for compounds and correlation coefficients were typically greater than 0.997 in a variety of studied food extracts. Consequently, the LCMS-8040 is ideally suited for routine monitoring of pesticides below the 0.01 mg kg-1 default level set by EU and Japanese legislation. Keywords: Pesticides; Multi-residue analysis; LCMS-8040; Food safety; Fruit; Vegetables 1.
    [Show full text]
  • Insecticide and Growth Regulator Effects on the Leafminer, Liriomyza Trifolii (Diptera: Agromyzidae), in Celery and Observations on Parasitism
    The Great Lakes Entomologist Volume 21 Number 2 - Summer 1988 Number 2 - Summer Article 1 1988 June 1988 Insecticide and Growth Regulator Effects on the Leafminer, Liriomyza Trifolii (Diptera: Agromyzidae), in Celery and Observations on Parasitism E. Grafius Michigan State University J. Hayden Michigan State University Follow this and additional works at: https://scholar.valpo.edu/tgle Part of the Entomology Commons Recommended Citation Grafius, E. and Hayden, J. 1988. "Insecticide and Growth Regulator Effects on the Leafminer, Liriomyza Trifolii (Diptera: Agromyzidae), in Celery and Observations on Parasitism," The Great Lakes Entomologist, vol 21 (2) Available at: https://scholar.valpo.edu/tgle/vol21/iss2/1 This Peer-Review Article is brought to you for free and open access by the Department of Biology at ValpoScholar. It has been accepted for inclusion in The Great Lakes Entomologist by an authorized administrator of ValpoScholar. For more information, please contact a ValpoScholar staff member at [email protected]. Grafius and Hayden: Insecticide and Growth Regulator Effects on the Leafminer, <i>Lir 1988 THE GREAT LAKES ENTOMOLOGIST 49 INSECTICIDE AND GROWTH REGULATOR EFFECTS ON THE LEAFMINER, LIRIOMYZA TRIFOLII (DIPTERA: AGROMYZIDAE), IN CELERY AND OBSERVATIONS ON PARASITISM E. Grafius and 1. Haydenl ABSTRACT The effects of different insecticides were compared on survival and development of the leafminer, L. trifolii, in celery in Michigan and parasitism was assessed in this non­ resident population. Avermectin, thiocyclam, and cyromazine effectively controlled L. trifolii larvae or prevented successful emergence as adults. Moderate to high levels of resistance to permethrin and chlorpyrifos were present. Avermectin caused high mortality of all larval stages and no adults successfully emerged.
    [Show full text]
  • (12) United States Patent (10) Patent No.: US 6,528,079 B2 Podszun Et Al
    US006528079B2 (12) United States Patent (10) Patent No.: US 6,528,079 B2 PodsZun et al. (45) Date of Patent: *Mar. 4, 2003 (54) SHAPED BODIES WHICH RELEASE 4,845,106 A 7/1989 Shiokawa et al. .......... 514/342 AGROCHEMICALACTIVE SUBSTANCES 4,849,432 A 7/1989 Shiokawa et al. .......... 514/341 4.882,344 A 11/1989 Shiokawa et al. .......... 514/342 (75) Inventors: Wolfgang Podszun, Köln (DE); Uwe 4.914,113 A 4/1990 Shiokawa et al. .......... 514/333 Priesnitz, Solingen (DE); Jirgen 4,918,086 A 4/1990 Gsell .......................... 514/351 4,918,088 A 4/1990 Gsell .......................... 514/357 Hölters, Leverkusen (DE); Bodo 4.948.798.2- Y - A 8/1990 Gsell .......................... 514/275 Rehbold, Köln (DE); Rafel Israels, 4,963,572 A 10/1990 Gsell .......................... 514/357 Monheim (DE) 4,963,574. A 10/1990 Bachmann et al. ......... 514/357 4,988,712 A 1/1991 Shiokawa et al. .......... 514/340 (73) Assignee: Bayer Aktiengesellschaft, Leverkusen 5,001,138 A 3/1991 Shiokawa et al. .......... 514/342 (DE) 5,034.404 A 7/1991. Uneme et al. .............. 514/365 5,034,524 A 7/1991 Shiokawa et al. .......... 544/124 (*) Notice: This patent issued on a continued pros- 5,039,686 A 8/1991 Davies et al. ............... 514/341 ecution application filed under 37 CFR 5,049,571. A 9/1991 Gsell .......................... 514/345 1.53(d), and is subject to the twenty year SE A :1: S. - - - - - - - -tal.5 E.s pass" provisions of 35 U.S.C. 5,166,1642Y- - - 2 A 11/1992 NanjoOKaWa et al.
    [Show full text]
  • Determination of Butocarboxim Residue in Agricultural Products by HPLC with Post-Column Derivatization System
    Journal of Food and Drug Analysis 1999. 7(4) : 269-277 Determination of Butocarboxim Residue in Agricultural Products by HPLC with Post-Column Derivatization System SU-HSIANG TSENG*, PI-CHIOU CHANG AND SHIN-SHOU CHOU A method using high performance liquid chromatography (HPLC) for the determination of butocarboxim in agricultural products was developed. Butocarboxim was extracted from samples with acetone and the extract solution was concentrated. The residue was dissolved in sodium chloride solution and partitioned with n-hexane. The aqueous phase was collected fol- lowed by extracted with dichloromethane, which was then evaporated to a volume of 2 mL prior to passing through an aminopropyl cartridge for sample clean-up. Determination of butocarboxim residue in crops was carried out by HPLC equipped with a post-column deriva- tization system and a fluorescence detector. HPLC separation was performed on a Lichrospher 60 RP-Select B column eluted with a mobile phase of acetonitrile-water (25:75, v/v). Butocarboxim was hydrolyzed at 90°C under alkaline conditions and subsequently react- ed with o-phthaldialdehyde (OPA) / 2-mercaptoethanol reagent via a post-column reactor to generate a fluorophore, which was then detected with a fluorescence detector at Ex 340 nm and Em 455 nm. Average recoveries from radishes and bamboo sprouts, which were spiked with 0.1~0.3 and 0.2 ppm butocarboxim, respectively, were in the range of 81.9~82.6%. The detection limit was 0.05 ppm. No butocarboxim residue was detected in 10 commercial prod- ucts including radishes, carrots, and bamboo sprouts. Key words: agricultural products, butocarboxim, aminopropyl cartridge, high performance liquid chromatography (HPLC), post-column derivatization system, fluorescence detection.
    [Show full text]
  • Pesticide Resistance in Bed Bugs Everywhere!!!!!
    2/24/2018 Pesticide Resistance in Bed bugs were virtually eradicated from the U.S. in Bed Bugs the post WWII era due to DDT and other powerful Shujuan (Lucy) Li insecticides. University of Arizona Alvaro Romero New Mexico State University 2 By the 1960s, bed bugs had developed resistance Public housing Apartments to DDT, methoxychlor and analogues, BHC, Schools dieldrin and analogues , and pyrethrins ( Busvine 1958, Hospitals Nursing homes Cwilich & Mer 1957, Mallis and Miller 1964 ) . Homes Transportation Child care Medical facilities Hotels & motels Health care facilities Airports Movie theaters Department stores Products, vendors, or commercial services mentioned or pictured in this seminar are for Everywhere!!!!! illustrative purposes only and are not meant to be endorsements. 3 4 University of Arizona; Arizona Pest Management Center 1 2/24/2018 Possible reasons for treatment failure? Missed some Clutter Reintroduction Have you seen these after treatments? 5 6 Dose - response assays for field - collected strains Bed bugs survived direct insecticide sprays 99 deltamethrin 90 Ft. Dix F1 50 ) e l a c 10 s t CIN1 i b o 1.0 r p ( y t i l a t r 99 - cyhalothrin o m e 90 g a t n Resistance ratio (RR) at least 6,000 !!! e c Ft. Dix r 50 e P 10 CIN1 Suspend® ( Deltamethrin ) 1.0 10 -7 10 -6 10 -5 10 -4 10 -3 10 -2 10 -1 10 0 10 1 10 2 10 3 10 4 Treatment (mg active ingredient/cm 2 ) Products, vendors, or commercial services mentioned or pictured in this seminar are for illustrative purposes only and are not meant Romero et al.
    [Show full text]
  • Recommended Classification of Pesticides by Hazard and Guidelines to Classification 2019 Theinternational Programme on Chemical Safety (IPCS) Was Established in 1980
    The WHO Recommended Classi cation of Pesticides by Hazard and Guidelines to Classi cation 2019 cation Hazard of Pesticides by and Guidelines to Classi The WHO Recommended Classi The WHO Recommended Classi cation of Pesticides by Hazard and Guidelines to Classi cation 2019 The WHO Recommended Classification of Pesticides by Hazard and Guidelines to Classification 2019 TheInternational Programme on Chemical Safety (IPCS) was established in 1980. The overall objectives of the IPCS are to establish the scientific basis for assessment of the risk to human health and the environment from exposure to chemicals, through international peer review processes, as a prerequisite for the promotion of chemical safety, and to provide technical assistance in strengthening national capacities for the sound management of chemicals. This publication was developed in the IOMC context. The contents do not necessarily reflect the views or stated policies of individual IOMC Participating Organizations. The Inter-Organization Programme for the Sound Management of Chemicals (IOMC) was established in 1995 following recommendations made by the 1992 UN Conference on Environment and Development to strengthen cooperation and increase international coordination in the field of chemical safety. The Participating Organizations are: FAO, ILO, UNDP, UNEP, UNIDO, UNITAR, WHO, World Bank and OECD. The purpose of the IOMC is to promote coordination of the policies and activities pursued by the Participating Organizations, jointly or separately, to achieve the sound management of chemicals in relation to human health and the environment. WHO recommended classification of pesticides by hazard and guidelines to classification, 2019 edition ISBN 978-92-4-000566-2 (electronic version) ISBN 978-92-4-000567-9 (print version) ISSN 1684-1042 © World Health Organization 2020 Some rights reserved.
    [Show full text]