Influence of Postharvest Handling on the Concentration of Pesticide
POSTHARVEST BIOLOGY & TECHNOLOGY HORTSCIENCE 37(3):554–558. 2002. from the early (‘Juneprince’), middle (‘Har- vester’), late (‘Flameprince’ and ‘O’Henry’) and very late (‘Parade’) harvest seasons, fairly Influence of Postharvest Handling on represent the full range of pesticide use pat- terns. Three different grower operations were the Concentration of Pesticide sampled based on the differences in field op- erations among those operations (Table 1). Residues in Peach Peel Farm A and C sprayed methyl parathion from every row middle at a lower rate than Farm B Kathryn C. Taylor1 where methyl parathion was sprayed in alter- nate row middles. Farm C was located in an Horticulture Department, University of Georgia, 21 Dunbar Road, Byron, area with slightly different insect and disease GA 31008 pressures, resulting in somewhat reduced ap- plication rates and frequencies. Parshall B. Bush 1998 Trial. ‘Flameprince’ and ‘O’Henry’ Agricultural Services Laboratory, University of Georgia, 2300 College peel samples, taken before and after packing Station Road, Athens, GA 32602 house process, were analyzed for methyl par- athion, fenbuconazole, propiconazole, cap- Additional index words. captan, carbaryl, methyl parathion, packing line, phosmet, tan and carbaryl. Farm records indicated that propiconazole, Prunus persica the following spray rates were applied by an airblast sprayer at 935 L·ha–1: 1.17 L L·ha–1 Abstract. To discern how the packing process influences pesticide residue loads on peach methyl parathion (Penncap M®; Elf Atochem, (Prunus persica L. Batsch) fruit; postharvest, post hydrocooled, and post brushed fruit Philadelphia) on 8 Apr. 1998, 15 May 1998, were assessed for levels of several pesticides.
[Show full text]