scholarly journals Tank mixtures of pesticides for plant protection

2019 ◽  
Vol 5 (3) ◽  
pp. 163-167
Author(s):  
M. Makarov

Today, chemical plant protection methods are based on the safe use of pesticides. Environmental and toxicological effects are taken into account. To expand the possibilities of pest control, diseases and weeds, in the cultivation of crops, use tank mixtures that contain two or three active substances. In the preparation of mixtures take into account the processes of interaction of components and timing of application of drugs. In addition, this technique is one of the elements of the strategy to overcome the resistance of pests to insecticides, pathogens — to systemic fungicides, weeds — to herbicides.

2021 ◽  
Vol 350 ◽  
pp. S237
Author(s):  
M. Karaca ◽  
B. Fischer ◽  
C.T. Willenbockel ◽  
P. Marx-Stoelting ◽  
D. Bloch

2021 ◽  
pp. 1-20
Author(s):  
Diane C. Robin ◽  
Patrice A. Marchand

Abstract Signed in 2009, the plant protection Commission Regulation EC No 1107/2009 created a new category of active substances, the low-risk substances, with specific status defined in Article 22. The initial and specific criteria, not suitable for microorganisms and natural substances, were modified in 2018, and the first low-risk substance, allocating Part D of Regulation EC No 540/2011, was granted in the same year. Since then, thirty-three low-risk substances have been granted with this specific status through approvals and renewals, while a larger list of potential low-risk substances from already-approved active substances was published. This list is only exploited during renewals, and this process would take another five years to complete. After four years of the implementation of this status, the number of such substances is still low, but is intended to increase slowly. Two more low-risk substances are already pending in 2021, which will bring the number of low-risk substances to thirty-five, while the initial list of potential low-risk substances (only renewals) included fifty-seven substances.


2021 ◽  
Vol 3 ◽  
Author(s):  
Rositsa Serafimova ◽  
Tamara Coja ◽  
George E. N. Kass

The safety assessment of chemicals added or found in food has traditionally made use of data from in vivo studies performed on experimental animals. The nature and amount of data required to carry out a risk assessment is generally stipulated either in the different food legislations or in sectoral guidance documents. However, there are still cases where no or only limited experimental data are available or not specified by law, for example for contaminants or for some minor metabolites from active substances in plant protection products. For such cases, the Threshold of Toxicological Concern (TTC) can be applied. This review explores the use of the TTC approach in food safety in the European Union, in relation to the different food sectors, legal requirements and future opportunities.


Author(s):  
Torsten Källqvist ◽  
Merete Grung ◽  
Katrine Borgå ◽  
Hubert Dirven ◽  
Ole Martin Eklo ◽  
...  

The plant protection product Malakite (BAS 669 01 F), containing the active substances dithianon and pyrimethanil, is a fungicide against scab in pome fruits. Products containing these active plant protection substances are approved in Norway, but not with both substances in the same product. The Swedish Chemicals Agency (KemI) has as zonal Rapporteur Member State (zRMS) of the Northern Zone evaluated the product Malakite and decided on non-approval due to the observation of unacceptable effects in exposed birds, aquatic organisms, non-target arthropods and earthworms. On request from The Norwegian Food Safety Authority, the VKM Panel on Plant Protection Products has discussed the available data and the report prepared by KemI, and has concluded as follows on the questions raised: On the refinement of DT50 in long term risk assessment for birds: It is the view of the VKM panel that the refinement is not acceptable because the analysis using first order kinetics seems not in line with a realistic and sufficiently conservative approach for the data provided. Furthermore, field studies from more sites are required. On the long term cumulative effects of the active substances on birds: VKM shares the view of KemI, that the combined sub-lethal and reproduction effects should be assessed because the mode of action of the two ingredients has only been shown in fungi, and since the mechanisms in birds could be different. On the reduction of assessment factor for fish: VKM opposes to the reduction of assessment factor for dithianon in fish because the data from acute toxicity tests cannot be extrapolated to chronic toxicity, and because the factor should reflect not only the variation in interspecies sensitivity, but also the uncertainty involved in extrapolation from laboratory tests to the field situation. On the choice of end point in risk assessment for fish: The VKM panel considers the NOEC of dithianon for fish determined from the study at pH 7.9 not to be adequate for the more acidic Norwegian surface waters, and recommends using the data from the test performed at pH 6.5. On the formulation studies for aquatic organisms: It is the opinion of the VKM panel that the formulation studies may be used together with corresponding studies with the active ingredients as long as the studies compared are performed and evaluated according to the same principles. However, VKM notes that the formulation tests as well as the tests of the active ingredients have been performed at high pH values, which are not representative to most Norwegian surface waters. Thus, the toxic effect of dithianon shown in these tests are likely to be lower than expected under typical conditions in Norway. On the assessment factors for concentration addition in fish: It is the opinion of the VKM panel that a reduction in assessment factor for one component in a mixture cannot be used for a formulation containing components for which a similar reduction has not been accepted. On effect studies of active substances and formulations on non-target arthropods: The VKM panel shares the view of KemI that the risk assessment should be based on all available information, including the studies presented for the active substances. On the endpoint in earthworm risk assessment: VKM supports the view of KemI that the observed effects of pyrimethanil on reproduction of earthworms should be considered in the risk assessment of Malakite.


Author(s):  
Lynette Morgan

Abstract This chapter describes (i) major greenhouse pests (including insects, mites and nematodes) and pest control options focusing on integrated pest management (which involves the use of 'ofter' control options such as biological and microbial control combined with physical exclusion, pest trapping, resistant crops and other methods); (ii) selected diseases of hydroponic crops, including those caused by fungi, bacteria and viruses; and (iii) physiological disorders caused by non-living or non-infectious factors such as temperature, light, irrigation water quality and salinity, chemical injury (phytotoxicity), and cultural practices.


Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document