2011
DOI: 10.1002/ps.2158
|View full text |Cite
|
Sign up to set email alerts
|

A review of the effect of different application rates on pesticide residue levels in supervised residue trials

Abstract: Residue trial data reported by the Joint FAO/WHO Meeting on Pesticide Residues (JMPR) have been reviewed to establish whether or not the resulting residues in harvested commodities are proportional to the pesticide application rate used on the crop. Numerous sets of trials were identified where the only parameter varied was application rate or spray concentration. Analysis of this database in terms of application rate, spray concentration, formulation type, preharvest interval, crop, pesticide, residue level a… Show more

Help me understand this report

Search citation statements

Order By: Relevance

Paper Sections

Select...
4
1

Citation Types

2
19
0

Year Published

2011
2011
2023
2023

Publication Types

Select...
9
1

Relationship

0
10

Authors

Journals

citations
Cited by 23 publications
(21 citation statements)
references
References 9 publications
2
19
0
Order By: Relevance
“…Likewise, formulation can affect efficacy of the application, generating a direct impact on the number of applications required to achieve adequate control [36,37]. Also, formulation type might impact on the proportionality of residues, especially when changes in rate (kg active ingredient ha −1 ) are accomplished by changing the spray concentration, because depending on the type of formulation, increasing spray rate will also increase surfactant and other adjuvant concentrations in the spray solution which can help the crop to retain for a longer period the residue [38]. About the influence on the efficacy, for example, a comparison performed between two formulations of imidacloprid and carbofuran found an increase in the control period of aphid and leafhopper in potato, when using encapsulated formulations of those insecticides compared with commercial formulations WP and G, respectively, but not in the dissipation of its residues [39].…”
Section: Introductionmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…Likewise, formulation can affect efficacy of the application, generating a direct impact on the number of applications required to achieve adequate control [36,37]. Also, formulation type might impact on the proportionality of residues, especially when changes in rate (kg active ingredient ha −1 ) are accomplished by changing the spray concentration, because depending on the type of formulation, increasing spray rate will also increase surfactant and other adjuvant concentrations in the spray solution which can help the crop to retain for a longer period the residue [38]. About the influence on the efficacy, for example, a comparison performed between two formulations of imidacloprid and carbofuran found an increase in the control period of aphid and leafhopper in potato, when using encapsulated formulations of those insecticides compared with commercial formulations WP and G, respectively, but not in the dissipation of its residues [39].…”
Section: Introductionmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…This was the first analysis using statistical means to compare residue data from different pesticides, crops, and regions and provided proof of evidence for the hypothesis that there is a direct relationship between application rates and magnitude of residues. Based on this statistical procedure, more data was validated and published by the Food and Agriculture Organization/World Health Organization (FAO/WHO) Joint Meeting on Pesticide Residues (JMPR) to conclude that a proportional relationship between pesticide application rate and the resulting residues in harvested commodities exists within the range of 0.3–4 times the maximum labeled application rate. , …”
Section: Introductionmentioning
confidence: 74%
“…19) In addition, the adjuvants in formulation, which was not used in the previous study, 6) likely operated as a synergetic factor for assisted penetration of 1 and the photolysis suppression. [20][21][22] With respect to the metabolic reactions, the ester hydrolysis of 1 proceeded almost simultaneously with oxidation at the benzyl carbon of the phenoxyphenyl ring to produce 6 and 7 as major phase I modifications. In general, an ester bond is labile in living organisms, for example, majority of pyrethroids [23][24][25][26] as well as organophosphates, carbamates, 25,26) and proherbicidal esters 27) are known to receive cleavage as an initial major reaction typically mediated by esterase, [25][26][27][28] i.e., a biotic reaction, and also by hydrolysis, i.e., abiotic reaction.…”
Section: Discussionmentioning
confidence: 99%