Uptake and distribution of fluopyram and tebuconazole residues in tomato and bell pepper plant tissues

  • Nagapooja Yogendraiah Matadha
  • Soudamini MohapatraEmail author
  • Lekha Siddamallaiah
  • Veena Rao Udupi
  • Shambulinga Gadigeppa
  • Danish Poothotathil Raja
Research Article


The present study describes the uptake and distribution of fungicides, fluopyram, and tebuconazole in tomato and bell pepper plant tissues from the soil drench application of their combination product fluopyram17.7% + tebuconazole 17.7%. For extraction and cleanup of fluopyram, its metabolite fluopyram benzamide, and tebuconazole samples, the QuEChERS method was used in conjunction with LC-MS/MS. The limit of detection (LOD) and limit of quantification (LOQ) of the method determined were 1.5 μg kg−1 and 0.005 mg kg−1, respectively, and recoveries of all analytes from sample matrices remained within the acceptable range of 70–120%. Rapid uptake of the fungicides by tomato and bell pepper plants was observed from the first day onwards. In the tomato plant, the major part of the fungicides accumulated in the roots, whereas in bell pepper plant, it accumulated both in the roots and in the leaves. Accumulation of fluopyram and tebuconazole residues was lowest in tomato and bell pepper fruits which were much below their respective maximum residue limits (MRLs). The highest residue concentration of fluopyram and tebuconazole in tomato fruits was 0.060 and 0.009 mg kg−1; the corresponding values in bell pepper fruits were 0.080 and 0.013 mg kg−1. In field soil, fluopyram residues were 3.18–3.570 mg kg−1 initially which dissipated at the half-life of 36 days. Tebuconazole concentration was 1.57–1.892 mg kg−1 initially, and it dissipated at the half-life of 44.5–49.5 days. The major metabolite of fluopyram, fluopyram benzamide, was detected in plant tissues as well as in soil, and remained within 12% of the parent compound. The results of the study indicated that fluopyram and tebuconazole are less likely of entry into food chain through intake of tomato and bell pepper fruits if these crops are grown on soil contaminated with these fungicides.


Bell pepper Fluopyram LC-MS/MS Tebuconazole Tomato Uptake 



  1. Australian Pesticides and Veterinary Medicines Authority (APMV) (2015) APVMA product number 63642. Evaluation of the new active fluopyram in the product Luna privilege fungicideGoogle Scholar
  2. Ben-Aziz A, Aharonson N (1974) Dynamics of uptake, translocation, and disappearance of thiabendazole and methyl-2-benzimidazolecarbamate in pepper and tomato plants. Pestic Biochem Physiol 4:120–126CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. Bhowmik D, Kumar S, Paswan S, Srivastava S (2012) Tomato—a natural medicine and its health benefits. J Pharma Phytochem 1:33–43Google Scholar
  4. Caldas ED (2010) Tebuconazole (189) first draft prepared by Eloisa Dutra Caldas University of Brasilia Brasilia, Brazil 1419Google Scholar
  5. Cohen Y, Gisi U (1993) Uptake, translocation and degradation of [14C] cymoxanil in tomato plants. Crop Protec 12:284–292CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. EFSA (European Food Safety Authority) (2016) Reasoned opinion on the modification of the existing maximum residue levels for fluopyram in various crops. EFSA J 14:4520Google Scholar
  7. EFSA (European Food Safety Authority) Scientific Report (2008) Conclusion on the peer review of tebuconazole 176: 1–109Google Scholar
  8. EFSA (European Food Safety Authority), Brancato A, Brocca D, De Lentdecker C, Erdos Z, Ferreira L, Greco L, Jarrah S, Kardassi D, Leuschner R, Lythgo C, MedinaP MI, Molnar T, Nougadere A, Pedersen R, Reich H, Sacchi A, Santos M, Stanek A, Sturma J, Tarazona J, Theobald A, Vagenende B, Verani A, Villamar-Bouza L (2017) Reasoned opinion on the modification of the existing maximum residue level for tebuconazole in beans with pods. EFSA J 15:4870Google Scholar
  9. Fan K, Wang J, Fu L, Li X, Zhang Y, Zhang X, Zhai H, Qu J (2016) Sensitivity of Botryosphaeria dothidea from apple to tebuconazole in China. Crop Protec 87:1–5CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. FSSAI (Food Safety and Standards Authority of India) Notification-F. No.01-SP (PAR)-Notification-Pesticides /Stds-FSSAI/2017. The Food Safety and Standards (Contaminants, Toxins and Residues) Regulations, 2011Google Scholar
  11. Gudmestad NC, Arabiat S, Miller JS, Pasche JS (2013) Prevalence and impact of SDHI fungicide resistance in Alternaria solani. Plant Dis 97:952–960CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. Hwang JI, Lee SE, Kim JE (2017) Comparison of theoretical and experimental values for plant uptake of pesticide from soil. PLoS One Available at 12:e0172254. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. Jeong-In H, Sung-Eun L, Jang-Eok K (2015) Plant uptake and distribution of endosulfan and its sulfate metabolite persisted in soil. PLoS One 12:e0172254. Available at. Google Scholar
  14. Justin MV, Clifford SS (2007) Efficacy of soil and foliar-applied azadirachtin in combination with and in comparison to soil-applied imidacloprid and foliar-applied carbaryl against Japanese beetles on roses. HortTechnology 17(3):316–321Google Scholar
  15. Labourdette G, Lachaise H, Rieck H, Steiger D (2010) Fluopyram: a new antifungal agent for the control of problematic plant diseases of many crops. Julius-Kuhn-Archiv 428:91Google Scholar
  16. Labourdette G, Lachaise H, Rieck H, Steiger D, Dehne HW, Deising HB, Gisi U, Kuck KH, Russell PE, Lyr H (2011) Fluopyram: efficacy and beyond on problematic diseases. In Modern fungicides and antifungal compounds VI. 16th International Reinhardsbrunn Symposium, Friedrichroda, Germany, April 25-29, 2010: 75–80Google Scholar
  17. Lavezzaro S, Morando A (2014) A new mixture effective against powdery mildew on grapes. Informatore Agrario 70:47Google Scholar
  18. Lunn D (2010) Fluopyram (243) The first draft was prepared by Mr David Lunn, New Zealand Food Safety Authority, Wellington, New Zealand, 1415Google Scholar
  19. Lyu T, Zhang L, Xu X, Arias CA, Brix H, Carvalho PN (2018) Removal of the pesticide tebuconazole in constructed wetlands: design comparison, influencing factors and modeling. Environ Pollut 233:71–80CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. Matheron ME, Porchas M (2000) Comparison of five fungicides on development of root, crown, and fruit rot of Chile pepper and recovery of Phytophthora capsici from soil. Plant Dis 84:1038–1043CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. McKay AH, Hagerty GC, Follas GB, Moore MS, Christie MS, Beresford RM (2011) Succinate dehydrogenase inhibitor (SDHI) fungicide resistance prevention strategy. New Zealand Plant Protec 64:119–124Google Scholar
  22. Meyer MD, Hausbeck MK (2013) Using Soil-applied fungicides to manage Phytophthora crown and root rot on summer squash. 97: 107–112Google Scholar
  23. Mosquera-Vivas CS, Martinez MJ, Garcia-Santos G, Guerrero-Dallos JA (2018) Adsorption-desorption and hysteresis phenomenon of tebuconazole in Colombian agricultural soils: experimental assays and mathematical approaches. Chemosphere 190:393–404CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. Mukherjee S, Surendra K, Srivastava A, Srivastava PC (2011) Uptake and distribution of 14C-labeled Fosthiazate in tomato (Lycopersicon esculentum L.). Ag. Sciences 2:308–312Google Scholar
  25. Napier BA, Fellows RJ, Minc LD (2014) Transfer factors for contaminant uptake by fruit and nut trees. United States Nuclear Regulatory Commission. NUREG/CR-7174, PNNL-22975Google Scholar
  26. Nasir UM, Hussain S, Jabbar S (2015) Tomato processing, lycopene and health benefits: A Review. Sci Lett 3:1–5Google Scholar
  27. Patel BV, Chawla S, Gor H, Upadhyay P, Parmar KD, Patel AR, Shah PG (2016) Residue decline and risk assessment of fluopyram + tebuconazole (400SC) in/on onion (Allium cepa). Environ Sci Pollut Res Int 23:20871–20881CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. Petersen LS, Larsen EH, Larsen PB, Bruun P (2002) Uptake of trace elements and PAHs by fruit and vegetables from contaminated soils. Environ Sci Technol 36:3057–3063CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. Piechowicz B, Wos I, Podbielska M, Grodzicki P (2018) The transfer of active ingredients of insecticides and fungicides from an orchard to beehives. J Environ Sci Health B 53:18–24CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. Podbielska M, Szpyrka E, Piechowicz B, Zwolak A, Sadło S (2017) Behavior of fluopyram and tebuconazole and some selected pesticides in ripe apples and consumer exposure assessment in the applied crop protection framework. Environ Monit Assess 189:350CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  31. Saha S, Sharma BK, Kumar A, Rai AB (2012) On field efficacy of Fluopyram200-Tebuconazole 200-400 SC against powdery mildew of chilli. Ann Plant Protec Sci 20:511Google Scholar
  32. SANTE (2017) Guidance document on analytical quality control and method validation procedures for pesticide residues and analysis in food and feed. SANTE/11813/2017Google Scholar
  33. Singh A, Mohan C, Singh H, Amrate PK, Kumar P (2012) Promising activity of fluopyram 200 + tebuconazole 200-400 SC against anthracnose and powdery mildew of grapevine plant. Dis Res (Ludhiana) 27:229–231Google Scholar
  34. Wei P, Liu Y, Li W, Qian Y, Nie Y, Kim D, Wang M (2016) Metabolic and dynamic profiling for risk assessment of fluopyram, a typical phenylamide fungicide widely applied in vegetable ecosystem. Sci Rep 6:33898CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer-Verlag GmbH Germany, part of Springer Nature 2019

Authors and Affiliations

  • Nagapooja Yogendraiah Matadha
    • 1
    • 2
  • Soudamini Mohapatra
    • 1
    Email author return OK on get
  • Lekha Siddamallaiah
    • 1
  • Veena Rao Udupi
    • 1
  • Shambulinga Gadigeppa
    • 1
  • Danish Poothotathil Raja
    • 1
  1. 1.Pesticide Residue LaboratoryICAR-Indian Institute of Horticultural ResearchBangaloreIndia
  2. 2.Department of chemistry, Center for Nano and Material ScienceJain UniversityBangaloreIndia

Personalised recommendations