Environmental Science and Pollution Research

, Volume 24, Issue 30, pp 23559–23570 | Cite as

Dissipation of spiromesifen and spiromesifen-enol on tomato fruit, tomato leaf, and soil under field and controlled environmental conditions

  • Lekha Siddamallaiah
  • Soudamini Mohapatra
  • Radhika Buddidathi
  • Shibara Shankara Hebbar
Research Article
  • 112 Downloads

Abstract

Dissipation of spiromesifen and its metabolite, spiromesifen-enol, on tomato fruit, tomato leaf, and soil was studied in the open field and controlled environmental conditions. Sample preparation was carried out by QuEChERS method and analysis using LC-MS/MS. Method validation for analysis of the compounds was carried out as per “single laboratory method validation guidelines.” Method validation studies gave satisfactory recoveries for spiromesifen and spiromesifen-enol (71.59–105.3%) with relative standard deviation (RSD) < 20%. LOD and LOQ of the method were 0.0015 μg mL−1 and 0.005 mg kg−1, respectively. Spiromesifen residues on tomato fruits were 0.855 and 1.545 mg kg−1 in open field and 0.976 and 1.670 mg kg−1 under polyhouse condition, from treatments at the standard and double doses of 125 and 250 g a.i. ha−1, respectively. On tomato leaves, the residues were 5.64 and 8.226 mg kg−1 in open field and 6.874 and 10.187 mg kg−1 in the polyhouse. In soil, the residues were 0.532 and 1.032 mg kg−1 and 0.486 and 0.925 mg kg−1 under open field and polyhouse conditions, respectively. The half-life of degradation of spiromesifen on tomato fruit was 6–6.5 days in the open field and 8.1–9.3 days in the polyhouse. On tomato leaves, it was 7–7.6 and 17.6–18.4 days and in soil 5.6–7.4 and 8.4–9.5 days, respectively. Metabolite, spiromesifen-enol, was not detected in any of the sample throughout the study period. Photodegradation could be the major route for dissipation of spiromesifen in the tomato leaves, whereas in the fruits, it may be the combination of photodegradation and dilution due to fruit growth. The results of the study can be utilized for application of spiromesifen in plant protection of tomato crop under protected environmental conditions.

Keywords

Half-life Limit of detection (LOD) Limit of quantification (LOQ) Method validation QuEChERS method Spiromesifen 

Notes

Acknowledgements

The author thanks the Director, ICAR-IIHR, Bangalore and Indian Council of Agricultural Research (ICAR), New Delhi for sponsoring the study.

References

  1. Ahmed S, Rasul MG, Brown R, Hashib MA (2011) Influence of parameters on the heterogeneous photocatalytic degradation of pesticides and phenolic contaminants in wastewater: a short review. J Environ Manag 92:311–330CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. Akemn MC, Kyamanywa S, Luther G, Ssekyewa C, Erbaugh JM, Warren H (2000) Developing IPM systems for tomato in central and eastern Uganda. IPMCRSP sixth Annual Report 6:117–121 (http://203.64.245.61/fulltext_pdf/EAM/1991-2000/eam0106)Google Scholar
  3. Alam SF, Patra B, Chatterjee M, Dey PK, Somchoudhury AK (2014) Bioefficacy of spiromesifen 240 SC (w/v) against white fly and red spider mites Tetranychus spp. infesting tomato. J Entomol Res 38:105–109Google Scholar
  4. Allen G, Halsall CJ, Ukpebor J, Paul ND, Ridall G, Wargent JJ (2015) Increased occurrence of pesticide residues on crops grown in protected environments compared to crops grown in open field conditions. Chemosphere 119:1428–1435CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. Anastacia O, Masinde A, Thomas K, Kwambai WNH (2011) Evaluation of tomato (Lycopersicon esculentum L.) variety tolerance to foliar diseases at Kenya Agricultural Research Institute Centre-Kitale in North West Kenya. African J Plant Sci 5:676–681Google Scholar
  6. Beecher GR (1998) Nutrient content of tomatoes and tomato products. Proc Soc Exp Biol Med 218:98–100CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. Buddidathi R, Mohapatra S, Siddamallaiah L, Manikrao G, Hebbar SS (2015) Dissipation pattern of flubendiamide residues on capsicum fruit (Capsicum annuum L.) under field and controlled environmental conditions. J Environ Sci Health Part B 51:44–51CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. Chai LK, Norhayati M, Hansen HCB (2009) Dissipation of acephate, chlorpyrifos, cypermethrin and their metabolites in a humid-tropical vegetable production system. Pest Manag Sci 65:189–196CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. Chakraborty P, Zhang G, Jun L, Sivakumar A, Jones KC (2015) Occurrence and sources of selected organochlorine pesticides in the soil of seven major Indian cities: assessment of air-soil exchange. Environ Pollut 204:74–80CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. Chen FY, Zhao MQ, You FF, Sun CH, Li H, Xu YQ, Jin HS, Jin JH, Li TP (2016) Residues level and degradation dynamics of different formulations of acetamiprid in tobacco and soil under open fields and green house conditions. Southwest China J Agric Sci 29:1612–1616Google Scholar
  11. Daniel TM, Tosh CR, Gatehouse AMR, George D, Robson M, Brogan B (2016) Novel resistance mechanisms of a wild tomato against the glasshouse whitefly. Agron Sustain Dev 36:14CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. Delcour I, Spanoghe P, Uyttendaele M (2015) Literature review: impact of climate change on pesticide use. Food Res Int 68:7–15CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. Dhandare KM, Singh KK, Singh PK, Singh MP, Bayissa G (2008) Variation of climatological parameters under environmental controlled and naturally ventilated polyhouses. Pantnagar J Res 6:142–147Google Scholar
  14. European Food Safety Authority (2012) Reasoned opinion on the modification of the existing MRL for spiromesifen in tea. EFSA J 10:3050. doi:https://doi.org/10.2903/j.efsa.2012.3050. Available online www.efsa.europa.eu/efsajournal
  15. Fang H, Yu YL, Wang X, Shan M, Wu XM, Yu JQ (2006) Dissipation of chlorpyriphos in pakchoi-vegetated soil in a greenhouse. Environ Sci 18:760–764Google Scholar
  16. Fantke P, Arnot JA, Doucette WJ (2016) Improving plant bioaccumulation science through consistent reporting of experimental data. J Environ Manag 181:374–384CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. Fantke P, Juraske R (2013) Variability of pesticide dissipation half-lives in plants. Environ Sci Technol 47(8):3548–3562CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. Fantke P, Wieland P, Wannaz C, Friedrich R, Jolliet O (2013) Dynamics of pesticide uptake into plants: from system functioning to parsimonious modeling. Environ Model Softw 40:316–332CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. Friedman M (2013) Anticarcinogenic, cardioprotective, and other health benefits of tomato compounds lycopene, α-tomatine, and tomatidine in pure form and in fresh and processed tomatoes. J Agric Food Chem 61:9534–9550CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. Ganesan M (2002a) Comparative evaluation of low cost poly-greenhouse and its effect on the yield and quality of two varieties of tomato (Lycopersicon esculentum Mill). Indian Agric 46:161–168Google Scholar
  21. Ganesan M (2002b) Effect of poly-greenhouse models on plant growth and yield of tomato (Lycopersicon esculentum). Indian J Agric Sci 72:586–588Google Scholar
  22. Ganesan M (2002c) Effect of poly-greenhouse on plant micro climate and fruit yield of tomato. Karnataka J Agric Sci 15:750–752Google Scholar
  23. Ghosh RK, Singh N (2009) Sorption and degradation of azoxystrobin in soil. J Agric Food Chem 57:632–636CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. Holland J, Sinclair P (2004) Environmental fate of pesticides and the consequences for residues in food and drinking water. Pesticide residues in food and drinking water human exposure and risks. John Wiley, England 27-62.Google Scholar
  25. Hoskins WM (1961) Mathematical treatment of the loss of pesticide residues. Plant Prot Bull (FAO) 9:163–168Google Scholar
  26. Hwang J, Lee SE, Kim JE (2017) Comparison of theoretical and experimental values for plant uptake of pesticide from soil. PLoS ONE 12:e0172254CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. Jacobsen RE, Fantke P, Trapp S (2015) Analysing half-lives for pesticide dissipation in plants. SAR QSAR Environ Res 26:325–342CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. Juraske R, Anton A, Castells F (2008) Estimating half-lives of pesticides in/on vegetation for use in multimedia fate and exposure models. Chemosphere 70:1748–1755CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. Kanthaswamy V, Narendra S, Veeraragavathatham D, Srinivasan K, Thiruvudainambi S (2000) Studies on growth and yield of cucumber and sprouting broccoli under polyhouse condition. South Indian Hort 48:47–52Google Scholar
  30. Katagi T (2004) Photodegradation of pesticides on plant and soil surfaces. Rev Environ Contam Toxicol 182:1–189Google Scholar
  31. Kiss A, Virag D (2009) Photostability and photodegradation pathways of distinctive pesticides. J Environ Qual 38:157–163CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  32. Klopffer W (1992) Photochemical degradation of pesticides and other chemicals in environment: a critical assessment of the state of the art. Sci Total Environ 123:145–159CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  33. Kontsedalov S, Gottlieb Y, Ishaaya I, Nauen R, Horowitz R, Ghanima M (2008) Toxicity of spiromesifen to the developmental stages of Bemisia tabaci biotype B. Wiley Interscience 65:5–13Google Scholar
  34. Lekshmi SL, Celine VA (2015) Evaluation of tomato hybrids for fruit, yield and quality traits under polyhouse conditions. Int J Appl Pure Sci Agric 1:58–64Google Scholar
  35. Lester Y, Sabach S, Zivan O, Dubowski Y (2017) Key environmental processes affecting the fate of the insecticide chloropyrifos applied to leaves. Chemosphere 171:74–80CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  36. Mate CJ, Mukherjee I, Das SK (2015) Persistence of spiromesifen in soil: influence of moisture, light, pH and organic amendment. Environ Monit Assess 187:7CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  37. Nauen R, Bretschneider T, Bruc, E, Elbert A, Reckmann U, Wachendorff U, Tiemann R (2002) BSN 2060: a novel compound for whitefly and spider mite control. The BCPC conference: pests and diseases, vols 1 and 2. Proceedings of the international conference, Brighton, UK, 18–21 November, 2002. British Crop Protection Council, Farnham, UK, pp 39–44Google Scholar
  38. Nauen R, Konanz S (2005) Spiromesifen as a new chemical option for resistance management in whiteflies and spider mites. Pflanzenschutz-Nachrichten Bayer 58:485–502Google Scholar
  39. Nuyttens D, Mde S, Steurbaut W, Baetens K, Verboven P, Nicolai B, Ramon H, Sonck B (2006) Experimental study of factors influencing the risk of drift from field sprayers, part 1: meteorological conditions. Aspects Appl Biol 77:321–329Google Scholar
  40. OECD guidelines (2016) Guidance document for conducting pesticide terrestrial field dissipation studies. OECD Environment Health and Safety Publications 82Google Scholar
  41. Olaniyi JO, Akanbi WB, Adejumo TA, Akande OG (2010) Growth, fruit yield and nutritional quality of tomato varieties. African J Food Sci 4:398–402Google Scholar
  42. Parvej MR, Khan MAH, Awal MA (2010) Phenological development and production potentials of tomato under polyhouse climate. J Agric Sci (Sri Lanka) 5:19–31Google Scholar
  43. Phong TK, Nhung DTT, Motobayashi T, Thuyet DQ, Watanabe H (2009a) Fate and transport of nursery-box-applied tricyclazole and imidacloprid in paddy fields. Water Air Soil Pollut 202:3–12CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  44. Phong TK, Nhung DTT, Yamazaki K, Takagi K, Watanabe H (2009b) Behavior of sprayed tricyclazole in rice paddy lysimeters. Chemosphere 74:1085–1089CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  45. Prabhaker N, Toscano NC (2008) Spiromesifen: a new pest management tool for whitefly management. Fourth International Bemisia Workshop. International Whitefly Genomics Workshop, Florida, USA, Dec 3–8, 2006. J Insect Sci 8:39–40Google Scholar
  46. Rao AV, Waseem Z, Agarwal S (1998) Lycopene content of tomatoes and tomato products and their contribution to dietary lycopene. Food Res Int 31:737–741CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  47. Rao PSC, Mansell RS, Baldwin LB, Laurent MF (1983) Pesticides and their behavior in soil and water. Institute of Food and Agricultural Sciences University of Florida, Florida Cooperative Extension Service Available at http://psep.cce.cornell.edu/facts-slides-self/facts/gen-pubre-soil-water.aspx Google Scholar
  48. Remucal CK (2014) The role of indirect photochemical degradation in the environmental fate of pesticides: a review. Environ Sci Proc Imp 16:628–653CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  49. Roffeni S, Arcangeli G, Gollo M, Gualco A, Meyer J, Cantoni A (2008) Spiromesifen (Oberon®): a novel insecticide to control some pests of vegetable crops. Giornate Fitopatologiche, Cervia (RA), 12-14 Marzo 1:29–34Google Scholar
  50. SANTE/11945/2015, Guidance document on analytical quality control and validation procedures for pesticide residues analysis in food and feedGoogle Scholar
  51. Shahgholi H, Ahangar AG (2014) Factors controlling degradation of pesticides in the soil environment. Agric Sci Dev 3:273–278Google Scholar
  52. Sharma D, Hebbar SS, Divakara JV, Mohapatra S (2012) Residues of pesticides acephate and methamidophos in capsicum grown in greenhouse and open field. Qual Assur Safety Crop Foods 4:33–37CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  53. Sharma KK, Dubey JK, Kumar A, Gupta P, Singh B, Sharma ID, Nath A (2005) Persistence and safety evaluation of spiromesifen on apple (Malus domestica L.) in India: a multilocation study. Pestic Res J 17:77–81Google Scholar
  54. Sharma KK, Mukherjee I, Singh B, Mandal K, Sahoo SK, Banerjee H, Banerjee T, Roy S, Shah PG, Patel HK, Patel AR, Beevi N, George T, Mathew TB, Singh G, Noniwal R, Devi S (2014) Persistence and risk assessment of spiromesifen on tomato in India: a multilocational study. Environ Monit Assess 186:8453–8461CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  55. Sharma KK, Rao CS, Dubey JK, Patyal SK, Parihar NS, Battu RS, Sharma V, Gupta P, Kumar A, Kalpana JM, Singh B, Sharma ID, Nath A, Gour TB (2007) Persistence and dissipation kinetics of spiromesifen in chilli and cotton. Environ Monit Assess 132:25–31CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  56. Shi J, Maguer ML (2000) Lycopene in tomatoes: chemical and physical properties affected by food processing. Crit Rev Food Sci Nutr 40:1–42CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  57. Siddamallaiah L, Mohapatra S (2016) Residue level and dissipation pattern of spiromesifen on cabbage and soil from two-year field study. Environ Monit Assess 188:155CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  58. Sies H, Stahl W, Sundquist AR (1992) Antioxidant function of vitamins. Vitamins E and C, β-carotene, and other carotenoids. Annals NY Academic Sci 669:7–20CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  59. Singh AK, Singh B, Sindhu SS, Singh JP, Savir N (2012) Study of protected v/s open field conditions on insect-pest incidence to minimize insecticide application for quality production of high value horticultural crops. Int J Plant Prot 5:75–80Google Scholar
  60. Srivastava P, Srivastava BK, Singh MP (2002) Effect of date of planting and growing environment on the plant survival, growth and yield of early cauliflower in rainy season. Veg Sci 29:157–160Google Scholar
  61. Ssekyewa C (2006) Incidence, distribution and characteristics of major tomato leaf curl and mosaic virus diseases in Uganda. Dissertation, Ghent University, Ghent, Belgium pp. 233.Google Scholar
  62. Tekam DS, Ganguli J, Ganguli RN, Shrivastava SK (2013) Testing of bio-efficacy of a new molecule, Oberon 240 EC (Spiromesifen 240SC) against broad mites, Euseius sp. (family: Phytoseiidae) in Jatropha curcas. Indian J Tropic Biodiversity 21:113–116Google Scholar
  63. Tumwine J (1999) Towards the development of integrated cultural control of tomato late blight (Phytophthora infestans) in Uganda. Dissertation, Wageningen Agricultural University, Wageningen. The Netherlands 152.Google Scholar
  64. van den BF, Bedos C, Leistra M (2008) Volatilisation of pesticides computed with the PEARL model for different initial distributions within the crop canopy. International Advances in Pesticide Application, Robinson College, Cambridge, pp 131–138Google Scholar
  65. Wang M, Rautmann D (2008) A simple probabilistic estimation of spray drift - factors determining spray drift and development of a model. Environ Toxicol Chem 27:2617–2626CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  66. Xia HL, Wang YG, Wan HB, Ma HQ, Chen ZM (1992) Growth dilution by tea plants during the degradation of pesticides in tea plants. J Tea Sci 12:1–6Google Scholar
  67. Yadav RK, Kalia P, Choudhary H, BrihamaDev ZK (2014) Low-cost polyhouse technologies for higher income and nutritional security. Int J Agric Food Sci Tech 2249-3050(5):191–196Google Scholar
  68. Weber E (2005) Behaviour of spiromesifen (Oberon®) in plants and animals. Pflanzenschutz-Nachrichten Bayer 58:391–416Google Scholar
  69. Wolters A, Kromer T, Linnemann V, Schäffer A, Vereecken H, Krogh PH, Henriksen K, Jacobsen CS (2003) A new tool for laboratory studies on volatilization: extension of applicability of the photovolatility chamber. Environ Toxicol Chem 22:791–797CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  70. Zongmao C, Haibin W (1988) Factors affecting residues of pesticides in tea. Pestic Sci 23:109–118CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer-Verlag GmbH Germany 2017

Authors and Affiliations

  • Lekha Siddamallaiah
    • 1
    • 2
  • Soudamini Mohapatra
    • 1
  • Radhika Buddidathi
    • 1
  • Shibara Shankara Hebbar
    • 3
  1. 1.Pesticide Residue LaboratoryICAR-Indian Institute of Horticultural ResearchBangaloreIndia
  2. 2.Center for Postgraduate Studies (Jain University)BangaloreIndia
  3. 3.Division of Vegetable CropsIndian Institute of Horticultural ResearchBangaloreIndia

Personalised recommendations