Natural levels of ethyl formate in stored grains determined using an improved method of analysis

Vu, Le Trang; Ren, Y.

doi:10.1016/s0022-474x(02)00079-6

Cited by 12 publications

(11 citation statements)

References 9 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…The National Registration Authority (NRA) does not specify an EF MRL for other stored commodities, as it considers the residues should be identical to those commonly found in untreated food and hence of no toxicological significance 24 . These results are consistent with the residue results on wheat and barley from the laboratory and field trials 21,[24][25][26][27]33 .…”

Section: Fumigant Residues In Barley Malt Wort and Beersupporting

confidence: 89%

“…The CSIRO Stored Grain Research Laboratory performed the analyses for this component of the study. Residues of EF in barley, wort and beer were analysed following the procedure of Vu and Ren 33 . A wort or beer sample of 50 mL plus 30 g of ammonium nitrate was placed in a sealed 250 mL bottle for 2 h, with shaking.…”

Section: Analysis Of Fumigant Residues In Barley Malt Wort and Beermentioning

confidence: 99%

“…Ethyl formate and CS 2 have been evaluated as alternative fumigants 9,10,15,19,[21][22][23]26,34,35 . Carbonyl sulphide, EF and CS 2 are present naturally in plants, grain and food 9,20,23,26,33 . The natural levels of COS in grains and oilseeds were found to be 0.02-0.07 mg/kg 9,20,23,26 .…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

See 2 more Smart Citations

Effect of Carbonyl Sulphide (COS), Ethyl Formate (EF) and Carbon Disulphide (CS2) on the Malting Quality of Barley and the Flavour Profile of Beer

Ren

Demarchelier

Healy

2011

Journal of the Institute of Brewing

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

New fumigants are needed to control grain insects because methyl bromide is being phased out as an ozone-depleting substance under the Montreal Protocol and because resistance to phosphine is increasing. Alternative fumigants also provide one strategy to manage resistance. To assess the effect of candidate fumigants on barley quality, malting and brewing trials were conducted with malting barley (Schooner), 9.4% moisture content, fumigated with carbonyl sulphide (COS), ethyl formate (EF) and carbon disulphide (CS 2 ) at concentrations of 20, 90 and 36 mg/L respectively for 7 days at 20°C in riveted steel silos containing 33 t of barley. The appropriate industry body, the Malting and Brewing Industry Barley Technical Committee (MBIBTC) set the quality parameters to be evaluated and allocated work to the appropriate quality laboratories. Germination of fumigated barley was not affected by the fumigants. Residues of COS, EF and CS 2 in outloading barley samples were 0.085 ± 0.0052, 0.4 ± 0.1 and 2.22 ± 0.07 mg/kg respectively, which were below the experimental permits of maximum residue levels (MRL). Residues of COS, EF and CS 2 in malt, wort and beer were indistinguishable from those in unfumigated (or non-fumigated) barley. Ethyl formate and CS 2 affected wort in increasing the apparent attenuation limit (AAL) and CS 2 affected barley colour. Sulphur volatiles in the trial beer made from EF and CS 2 (unlike COS) fumigated barley decreased significantly. Beer from COS, EF and CS 2 fumigated barley had a somewhat higher 24-hour chill haze level (0.62-0.84) than beer from the untreated barley (0.53). The total alcohols and isoamyl acetate increased in beer made from EF fumigated barley. Carbonyl sulphide, EF and CS 2 , however, had no effect on beer flavour or quality.

show abstract

Section: Fumigant Residues In Barley Malt Wort and Beersupporting

confidence: 89%

Section: Analysis Of Fumigant Residues In Barley Malt Wort and Beermentioning

confidence: 99%

See 1 more Smart Citation

Effect of Carbonyl Sulphide (COS), Ethyl Formate (EF) and Carbon Disulphide (CS2) on the Malting Quality of Barley and the Flavour Profile of Beer

Ren

Demarchelier

Healy

2011

Journal of the Institute of Brewing

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…Residues of EF in wheat, barley, oats, peas and canola were analysed following the procedure described by Vu and Ren 21. A grain sample of 50 g and 50 mL of 70% (w/w) ammonium nitrate were placed in a sealed 100 mL flask, and the levels of the residue were determined by sampling the headspace of the flask (at 4 h after placement in the flask).…”

Section: Methodsmentioning

confidence: 99%

Ethyl formate plus methyl isothiocyanate—a potential liquid fumigant for stored grains

Ren

Lee

Padovan

et al. 2011

Pest Management Science

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…The EF is also known as a solvent and is used as a flavoring agents in the food industry. It is naturally present in certains fruits, wine and honey and range of raw and processed food from 0.05-1 mg kgG 1 (Vu and Ren, 2004). In India, laboratory tests on the effect of EF as fumigants against insects' pest of food commodities and field trials on bagged cereals, spices, pulses, dry fruits and oilcakes have been successfully done (Muthu et al, 1984).…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Application of Ethyl Formate as a Postharvest Fumigant for Dry Cocoa Beans under a Semi Commercial Trial

Asimah¹,

Albert²,

Idris³

2015

J. of Entomology

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Fumigant toxicity of Ethyl Formate (EF) against four major cocoa storage pests was carried out on a semi commercial trial of two metric ton of cocoa beans under sheet without forced air circulation. The EF with concentration from 76-380 g LG 1 were studied against pupae, larvae and adult of Cocyra cephalonica and Ephestia cautella (moth) and Tribolium castaneum and Lasioderma serricorne (beetles). These stored pests were inserted into a wire mesh tubes 6×1.5 centimeters (cm) and then arranged in a 25×2.5 cm polyethylene tubes and then inserted inside gunny sacks and exposed to the EF gas for 40 h with surrounding temperature and relative humidity (R.H.) recorded throughout the trial of 26±0.3-34±0.4°C and 65±0.4-91±0.2%, respectively. While, the temperature inside the tarpaulin was between 24±0.3-30±0.2°C and the R.H. as minimum of 42±0.4% and maximum of 63±0.3%. The result indicated that complete mortality for all stages of insects was detected at minimum concentration of EF (190 g LG 1 ). Different stages and insect species gave difference response to the toxicity level of EF. However, the LC 99 value for larvae and pupae of all stages of four insects tested showed no significant different among species except for adults of T. castaneum and L. serricorne. For LC 50 value for larvae of L. serricorne, E. cautella and L. serricorne pupae are relatively more susceptible to EF than other two species. The estimated probit regressions were well fitted to the response as the chi-square values for larvae, pupae of four pest and two adults pests tested were not significant at 5% level of confident. The residue of EF was not found in whole beans, nibs and cocoa beans. As such the EF was successfully developed as a fumigant for treatment of pests control for dry cocoa beans.

show abstract

Natural levels of ethyl formate in stored grains determined using an improved method of analysis

Cited by 12 publications

References 9 publications

Effect of Carbonyl Sulphide (COS), Ethyl Formate (EF) and Carbon Disulphide (CS2) on the Malting Quality of Barley and the Flavour Profile of Beer

Effect of Carbonyl Sulphide (COS), Ethyl Formate (EF) and Carbon Disulphide (CS2) on the Malting Quality of Barley and the Flavour Profile of Beer

Ethyl formate plus methyl isothiocyanate—a potential liquid fumigant for stored grains

Application of Ethyl Formate as a Postharvest Fumigant for Dry Cocoa Beans under a Semi Commercial Trial

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About