Korean Journal of Environmental Biology (환경생물)

Korean Society of Environmental Biology (한국환경생물학회)
권호 표지
DOI QR코드

DOI QR Code

Reciprocal effect of ethyl formate and phosphine gas on two quarantine pests, Tetranychus urticae(Acari: Tetranychidae) and Myzus persicae(Hemiptera: Aphididae)

  • Kim, Bong-Su (Animal and Plant Quarantine Agency(APQA)) ;
  • Yang, Jeong-Oh (Yeongnam Regional Office, Animal and Plant Quarantine Agency) ;
  • Roh, Gwang Hyun (USDA-ARS, US Pacific Basin Agricultural Research Center) ;
  • Ren, Yonglin (School of Veterinary and Life Science, Murdoch University) ;
  • Lee, Byung-Ho (Institute of Life Science, Gyeongsang National University) ;
  • Lee, Sung-Eun (Department of Applied Biosciences, Kyungpook National University)
  • Received : 2021.08.25
  • Accepted : 2021.09.10
  • Published : 2021.09.30
Download PDF
⟨ Previous Next ⟩

Abstract

Fumigation of fruits and vegetables during quarantine and pre-shipment(QPS) treatment should be effective with a shorter fumigation time to minimize phytotoxicity. In this research study, a shorter fumigation time, 2 hours exposure which is shorter than that of the current commercial fumigation procedures using a lower dose of ethyl formate (EF) mixed with phosphine (PH3) on strawberry was investigated. The reciprocal effect between EF and PH3 against nymphs and adult Myzus persicae (Sulzer) and Tetranychus urticae (Koch) was evaluated. In addition, L(Ct)50 and L(Ct)99 of EF only and EF mixed with PH3 were analyzed at 5℃ and 20℃. The synergistic ratio (SR) of L(Ct)50 and L(Ct)99 for the nymph and adult stages of M. persicae were >1.0, which indicated a synergistic effect between EF and PH3. However, the SR values of L(Ct)50 and L(Ct)99 of the nymph and adult stages of T. urticae were ≤1.0 indicating that there was no synergistic effect between the two fumigants against T. urticae. Our results showed that the reciprocal effect between EF and PH3 has different effects on M. persicae and T. urticae. This could be attributed to the biological and physical differences between the class Arachnida and Insecta. The synergistic effect between EF and PH3 against M. persicae within a shorter exposure period and without phytotoxicity on fruits and vegetables will significantly benefit the horticultural industry.

Keywords

Acknowledgement

This study was supported by grant from the Animal and Plant Quarantine Agency of the Ministry of Agriculture, Food, and Rural Affairs of the Republic of Korea (Z-1543086-2017-19-01).

References

  1. Aharoni Y, JK Stewart, PL Hartsell and DK Young. 1979. Acetaldehyde - a potential fumigant for control of the green peach aphid on harvested head lettuce. J. Econ. Entomol. 72:493-495. https://doi.org/10.1093/jee/72.4.493
  2. Don-Pedro KN. 1989. Mode of action of fixed oils against eggs of Callosobruchus maculatus (F.). Pestic. Sci. 26:107-115. https://doi.org/10.1002/ps.2780260202
  3. Gareau BJ. 2015. Lessons from the Montreal Protocol delay in phasing out methyl bromide. J. Environ. Stud. Sci. 5:163-168. https://doi.org/10.1007/s13412-014-0212-x
  4. Hammond DG, S Rangel and I Kubo. 2000. Volatile aldehydes are promising broad-spectrum postharvest insecticides. J. Agric. Food Chem. 48:4410-4417. https://doi.org/10.1021/jf000233+
  5. Hewlett PS and RL Placket. 1959. A unified theory for quantal responses to mixtures of drugs: Non-interactive action. Biometrics 15:591-610. https://doi.org/10.2307/2527657
  6. Karunaratne C, GA Moore, R Jones and R Ryan. 1997. Phosphine and its effect on some common insects in cut flowers. Postharvest Biol. Technol. 10:255-262. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0925-5214(97)01406-3
  7. Kim K, C Kim, J Park, HJ Jeon, YJ Park, YH Kim, JO Yang and SE Lee. 2021. Transcriptomic evaluation on methyl bromide-induced phytotoxicity in Arabidopsis thaliana and its mode of phytotoxic action via the occurrence of reactive oxygen species and uneven distribution of auxin hormones. J. Hazard. Mater. 419:126419. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jhazmat.2021.126419
  8. Kim K, YH Lee, G Kim, BH Lee, JO Yang and SE Lee. 2019. Ethyl formate and phosphine fumigations on the two-spotted spider mite, Tetranychus urticae and their biochemical responses. Appl. Biol. Chem. 62:50. https://doi.org/10.1186/s13765-019-0458-9
  9. Lee BH, BS Kim, J Tumambing and YM Moon. 2012. ECO-2FUME as a quarantine fumigant for export paprika, cherry tomato, and strawberry. pp. 305-309. In: Proceedings of 9th International Conference on Controlled Atmosphere and Fumigation in Stored Products. Antalya, Turkey.
  10. Lee BH, BS Kim, SA Jung and EJ Myung. 2013. Enhansive effect of two fumigants, ethyl formate and phosphine gas, to both control cotton aphid and two-spotted spider mite in applying export strawberries. p. 106. In: Proceedings of the Korean Society of Applied Entomology Conference. Apr. 2013. Muju, Korea.
  11. Lee BH, HM Kim, BS Kim, JO Yang, YM Moon and Y Ren. 2016. Evaluation of the synergistic effect between ethyl formate and phosphine for control of Aphis gossypii (Homoptera: Aphididae). J. Econ. Entomol. 109:143-147. https://doi.org/10.1093/jee/tov289
  12. Lester PJ, PR Dentener, KV Bennett and PG Connolly. 1997. Postharvest disinfestation of diapausing and non-diapausing twospotted spider mite (Tetranychus urticae) on persimmons: hot water immersion and coolstorage. Entomol. Exp. Appl. 83:189-193. https://doi.org/10.1046/j.1570-7458.1997.00171.x
  13. Li L, T Liu, B Li, F Zhang, S Dong and Y Wang. 2014. Toxicity of phosphine fumigation against Bactrocera tau at low temperature. J. Econ. Entomol. 107:601-605. https://doi.org/10.1603/EC13354
  14. Lim E, BH Lee and CG Park. 2012. Fumigant activity of essential oils and their components from Eucalyptus codonocarpa and E. dives against Tetranychus urticae (Acari: Tetranychidae) at three temperatures. J. Appl. Entomol. 136:698-703. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1439-0418.2011.01700.x
  15. Liu YB. 2008. Low temperature phosphine fumigation for postharvest control of western flower thrips (Thysanoptera: Thripidae) on lettuce, broccoli, asparagus, and strawberry. J. Econ. Entomol. 101:1786-1791. https://doi.org/10.1603/0022-0493-101.6.1786
  16. Mellouki A, RK Talukdar, AM Schmoltner, T Gierczak, MJ Mills, S Solomon and AJ Grl Ravishankara. 1992. Atmospheric lifetimes and ozone depletion potentials of methyl bromide (CH3Br) and dibromomethane (CH2Br2). Geophys. Res. Lett. 19:2059-2062. https://doi.org/10.1029/92GL01612
  17. Ren Y, BH Lee and B Padovan. 2011. Penetration of methyl bromide, sulfuryl fluoride, ethanedinitrile and phosphine into timber blocks and the sorption rate of the fumigants. J. Stored Prod. Res. 47:63-68. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jspr.2010.04.006
  18. Ren Y and D Mahon. 2006. Fumigation trials on the application of ethyl formate to wheat, split faba beans and sorghum in small metal bins. J. Stored Prod. Res. 42:277-289. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jspr.2005.04.002
  19. Ren Y, D Mahon, J Graver and M Head. 2008. Fumigation trial on direct application of liquid carbonyl sulphide to wheat in a 2500 t concrete silo. J. Stored Prod. Res. 44:115-125. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jspr.2007.08.001
  20. Simpson T, V Bikoba and EJ Mitcham. 2004. Effects of ethyl for-mate on fruit quality and target pest mortality for harvested strawberries. Postharvest Biol. Technol. 34:313-319. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.postharvbio.2004.05.015
  21. Soma Y, N Ogawa, N Tanigawa and F Kawakami. 2007. Quality tolerance of fresh fruits and vegetables to methyl iodide and phosphine fumigation. Res. Bull. Plant Prot. Serv. (Jpn) 43:1-7.
  22. Stewart JK and TR Mon. 1984. Commercial-scale vacuum fumigation with ethyl formate for postharvest control of the green peach aphid (Homoptera: Aphididae) on film-wrapped lettuce. J. Econ. Entomol. 77:569-573. https://doi.org/10.1093/jee/77.3.569
  23. Waggoner M, HD Ohr, C Adams, JJ Sims and D Gonzalez. 2000. Methyl iodide: an alternative to methyl bromide for insectary fumigation. J. Appl. Entomol. 124:113-117. https://doi.org/10.1046/j.1439-0418.2000.00437.x
  24. Weller GL and J Graver. 1998. Cut flower disinfestation: Assessment of replacement fumigants for methyl bromide. Postharvest Biol. Technol. 14:325-333. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0925-5214(98)00054-4