Advertisement

Environmental Monitoring and Assessment

, Volume 186, Issue 7, pp 4499–4506 | Cite as

Dissipation kinetics and effect of different decontamination techniques on the residues of emamectin benzoate and spinosad in cowpea pods

  • V. Vijayasree
  • Hebsy Bai
  • Thomas Biju Mathew
  • Thomas George
  • George Xavier
  • N. Pratheesh Kumar
  • S. Visalkumar
Article

Abstract

Dissipation and decontamination of the semisynthetic macrolide emamectin benzoate and the natural insecticide spinosad on cowpea pods were studied following field application at single and double doses of 11.0 and 22 and 73 and 146 g ai ha−1, respectively. Residues of these naturalytes were estimated using LC-MS/MS. The initial deposit of 0.073 and 0.153 mg kg−1 of emamectin benzoate dissipated below quantitation level on the fifth and seventh day at single and double dosage, respectively. For spinosad, the initial deposits of 0.94 and 1.90 mg kg−1 reached below quantitation level on the 7th day and 15th day at single and double dosage, respectively. The half-life of emamectin benzoate and spinosad was 1.13–1.49 and 1.05–1.39 days with the calculated safe waiting period of 2.99–6.12 and 1.09–3.25 days, respectively, for single and double dosage. Processing of the harvestable pods with different decontamination techniques resulted in 33.82 to 100 % removal 2 h after the application of emamectin benzoate and 100 % removal 3 days after spraying, while the removal was 42.05 to 87.46 % 2 h after the application of spinosad and 38.05 to 68.08 % 3 days after application.

Keywords

Cowpea Spinosad Emamectin benzoate Dissipation Decontamination 

Notes

Acknowledgments

The authors wish to express their gratitude to the Kerala Agricultural University for providing field and analytical research facilities for the conduct of the study.

References

  1. Aktar, M. W., Sengupta, D., Purkait, S., & Chowdhury, A. (2010). Risk assessment and decontamination of quinalphos under different culinary processes in/on cabbage. Environmental Monitoring Assessment, 163, 369–377.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. Anastassiades, M., Lehotay, S. J., Stajnbaher, D., & Schenck, F. J. (2003). Fast and easy multiresidue method employing acetonitrile extraction/partitioning and “dispersive solid-phase extraction” for the determination of pesticide residues in produce. Journal of AOAC International, 86(2), 412–431.Google Scholar
  3. Byrne, S. L., & Pinkerton, S. L. (2004). The effect of cooking on chlorpyrifos and 3,5,6-trichloro-2-pyridinol levels in chlorpyriphos fortified produce for use in refining dietary exposure. Journal of Agricultural Food Chemistry, 52, 7567–7573.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. DG-SANCO (2009) European Commission Document No. SANCO/10684/2009Google Scholar
  5. Europe Commission (2013) EU pesticides database. http://ec.europa.eu/sanco_pesticides/public/index.cfm. Accessed 29 Aug 2013
  6. Feleke, Y. R. S., Pasquet, F., & Gepts, P. (2006). Development of PCR based chloroplast DNA markers that characterize domesticated cowpea (Vigna unguiculata spp unguiculata var. unguiculata) and highlight: its crop-weed complex. Plant Systematics and Evolution, 263, 75–87.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. Hoskin, W. M. (1961). Mathematical treatment of the rate of loss of pesticide residues. FAO Plant Protection Bulletin, 9, 163–168.Google Scholar
  8. Kar, A., Mandal, K., & Singh, B. (2012). Decontamination of chlorantraniliprole residues on cabbage and cauliflower through household processing methods. Bulletin of Environmental Contamination and Toxicology. doi: 10.1007/s00128-012-0534-x.Google Scholar
  9. Li, M., Chen, W., Li, M., & Han, L. (2011). Dissipation and residues of emamectin benzoate study in paddy under field conditions. Bulletin of Environmental Contamination and Toxicology, 87, 699–702.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. Mandal, K., Jyot, G., & Singh, B. (2009). Dissipation kinetics of spinosad on cauliflower (Brassica oleracea var. botrytis. L.) under subtropical conditions of Punjab, India. Bulletin of Environmental Contamination and Toxicology, 83, 808–811.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. Sharma, H. C. (1998). Bionomics, host plant resistance, and management of the legume pod borer, Maruca vitrata—a review. Crop Protection, 17(5), 373–386.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. Singh, S., & Battu, R. S. (2012). Dissipation kinetics of spinosad in cabbage (Brassica oleracea L. var. capitata). Toxicological & Environmental Chemistry, 94(2), 319–326.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. Thompson, G. D., Dutton, R., & Spark, T. C. (2000). Spinosad—a case study: an example from a natural products discovery programme. Pest Management Science, 56, 696–702.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer International Publishing Switzerland 2014

Authors and Affiliations

  • V. Vijayasree
    • 1
  • Hebsy Bai
    • 1
  • Thomas Biju Mathew
    • 2
  • Thomas George
    • 2
  • George Xavier
    • 2
  • N. Pratheesh Kumar
    • 2
  • S. Visalkumar
    • 2
  1. 1.Department of Agricultural Entomology, College of AgricultureKerala Agricultural UniversityKeralaIndia
  2. 2.AINP on Pesticide Residues, College of AgricultureKerala Agricultural UniversityKeralaIndia

Personalised recommendations