几种杀菌剂对葡萄园典型陆生生物的初级风险评估

doi:10.3969/j.issn.1004-1524.2022.11.20

浙江农业学报 ›› 2022, Vol. 34 ›› Issue (11): 2512-2521.DOI: 10.3969/j.issn.1004-1524.2022.11.20

几种杀菌剂对葡萄园典型陆生生物的初级风险评估

吕露(), 吴声敢, 王强, 赵学平, 徐明飞()

浙江省农业科学院农产品质量安全与营养研究所,农产品质量安全危害因子与风险防控国家重点实验室,农业农村部农药残留检测重点实验室,浙江杭州 310021

收稿日期:2021-05-23 出版日期:2022-11-25 发布日期:2022-11-29
通讯作者: 徐明飞
作者简介:*徐明飞,E-mail: 280971884@qq.com
吕露(1987—),女,河北保定人,博士,主要研究方向为农药应用与环境安全性评价。E-mail: lyu_lu@126.com
基金资助:
现代农业产业技术体系建设专项资金(CARS-29);国家重点研发计划(2019YFC1605605)

Primary risk assessment of several fungicides to typical vineyard terrestrial organisms

LYU Lu(), WU Shenggan, WANG Qiang, ZHAO Xueping, XU Mingfei()

State Key Laboratory for Managing Biotic and Chemical Threats to the Quality and Safety of Agro-products, Key Laboratory for Pesticide Residue Detection of Ministry of Agriculture of Rural Affairs, Institute of Agro-Product Safety and Nutrition, Zhejiang Academy of Agricultural Sciences, Hangzhou 310021,China

Received:2021-05-23 Online:2022-11-25 Published:2022-11-29
Contact: XU Mingfei

摘要/Abstract

摘要：

葡萄在种植过程中,易感染真菌性病害。即使有大量已登记的杀菌剂产品,仍有未登记的杀菌剂被用于防治或被推荐用于防治葡萄真菌性病害。未登记杀菌剂的施用是否会对葡萄园环境生物造成危害,需引起足够的关注。本研究选取葡萄上未登记但有残留检出或被推荐使用的杀菌剂三唑酮、乙霉威、四氟醚唑、吡唑萘菌胺、乙烯菌核利,对葡萄园环境生物鸟类、蜜蜂、非靶标节肢动物及土壤生物进行了初级风险评估。结果显示,三唑酮及四氟醚唑对鸟类的长期暴露风险商值大于1,风险不可接受;乙霉威对捕食性非靶标节肢动物的危害商值大于5,初级风险不可接受。吡唑萘菌胺及乙烯菌核利对所评估的陆生生物风险均可接受。本研究为所选杀菌剂在葡萄上的科学施用及后续的农药登记提供参考。

关键词: 环境风险评估, 杀菌剂, 陆生生物, 葡萄

Abstract:

Grape is easy to be infected with fungal diseases in the process of planting. Even though there are large number of registered fungicide products, unregistered fungicides have still being used or recommended to control grape fungal diseases. And whether their application would cause harm to the vineyard environmental organisms should be paid enough attention. In this study, the fungicides, i.e., triadimefon, diethofencarb, tetraconazole, isopyrazam and vinclozolin, which have not registered but detected or proposed to use on grape, were selected to conduct primary risk assessment to environmental organisms including birds, bees, non-target arthropods and soil organisms. The results showed that the long-term risk quotient (RQ) values of triadimefon and tetraconazole for birds were both greater than 1, which meant the risks to birds were unacceptable. The RQ values of diethofencarb for predatory non-target arthropods were greater than 5, revealing the unacceptable risk of diethofencarb to predatory non-target arthropods. The risks of isopyrazam and vinclozolin to the several terrestrial organisms were both acceptable. This study could provide reference for the scientific application of the selected fungicides on grapes and the subsequent pesticide registration.

Key words: environmental risk assessment, fungicide, terrestrial organism, grape

中图分类号:

S482.2

吕露, 吴声敢, 王强, 赵学平, 徐明飞. 几种杀菌剂对葡萄园典型陆生生物的初级风险评估[J]. 浙江农业学报, 2022, 34(11): 2512-2521.

LYU Lu, WU Shenggan, WANG Qiang, ZHAO Xueping, XU Mingfei. Primary risk assessment of several fungicides to typical vineyard terrestrial organisms[J]. Acta Agriculturae Zhejiangensis, 2022, 34(11): 2512-2521.

图/表 10

参考文献 26

[1]	王忠跃. 中国葡萄病虫害与综合防控技术[M]. 北京: 中国农业出版社, 2009.
[2]	黄云霄, 李敏, 潘学军, 等. 几种杀菌剂对葡萄霜霉病的防治效果[J]. 农药, 2018, 57(11): 836-839.
	HUANG Y X, LI M, PAN X J, et al. Control effect of several fungicides on grape downy mildew[J]. Agrochemicals, 2018, 57(11): 836-839. (in Chinese with English abstract)
[3]	刘河疆, 康露, 华震宇, 等. 新疆鲜食葡萄产区农药残留风险评估[J]. 江西农业大学学报, 2018, 40(4): 714-724.
	LIU H J, KANG L, HUA Z Y, et al. Risk assessment of pesticide residues in Xinjiang table grape producing areas[J]. Acta Agriculturae Universitatis Jiangxiensis, 2018, 40(4): 714-724. (in Chinese with English abstract)
[4]	孙红艳, 贾琦, 于世锋, 等. 西安市葡萄和芹菜农药残留风险点分析[J]. 现代农业科技, 2019(3): 95-96, 100.
	SUN H Y, JIA Q, YU S F, et al. Analysis of pesticide residue risk points in grape and celery in Xi’an[J]. Modern Agricultural Science and Technology, 2019(3): 95-96, 100. (in Chinese)
[5]	单守明. 葡萄优质高效栽培[M]. 北京: 机械工业出版社, 2016.
[6]	王忠跃. 葡萄病虫草害防治技术问答[M]. 北京: 金盾出版社, 2012.
[7]	白明第, 陆晓英, 吴代东, 等. 云南“阳光玫瑰”葡萄关键栽培技术及发展建议[J]. 中国南方果树, 2019, 48(5): 116-121.
	BAI M D, LU X Y, WU D D, et al. Key cultivation techniques and development suggestions of Yunnan “Sunshine Rose” grape[J]. South China Fruits, 2019, 48(5): 116-121. (in Chinese)
[8]	昌云军, 管雪强. 葡萄[M]. 北京: 中国农业大学出版社, 2005.
[9]	马小河, 王敏, 周旭凌, 等. 葡萄主要病虫害规范化防控技术[J]. 山西果树, 2016(2): 56-58.
	MA X H, WANG M, ZHOU X L, et al. Standardized prevention and control technology of major diseases and pests of grape[J]. Shanxi Fruits, 2016(2): 56-58. (in Chinese)
[10]	夏宏义, 吴伟, 曾祥国, 等. 6种杀菌剂对草莓白粉病的田间防效[J]. 浙江农业科学, 2020, 61(7): 1402-1403.
	XIA H Y, WU W, ZENG X G, et al. Field control effect of six fungicides against strawberry powdery mildew[J]. Journal of Zhejiang Agricultural Sciences, 2020, 61(7): 1402-1403. (in Chinese)
[11]	凤舞剑, 杨俊杰, 陶佩琳, 等. 几种杀菌剂对高架草莓白粉病的药效试验[J]. 现代化农业, 2020(8): 5-7.
	FENG W J, YANG J J, TAO P L, et al. Effect of several fungicides on powdery mildew of elevated strawberry[J]. Modernizing Agriculture, 2020(8): 5-7. (in Chinese)
[12]	申瑞平, 宋莹莹, 王秋红, 等. 两种新型琥珀酸脱氢酶抑制剂的抑菌活性比较[J]. 农药科学与管理, 2014, 35(8): 52-57.
	SHEN R P, SONG Y Y, WANG Q H, et al. Compare of fungistasis of two new succinate dehydrogenase inhibitor[J]. Pesticide Science and Administration, 2014, 35(8): 52-57. (in Chinese with English abstract)
[13]	单正军, 陈祖义. 农药对陆生环境生物的污染影响及污染控制技术[J]. 农药科学与管理, 2007, 28(11): 18-26.
	SHAN Z J, CHEN Z Y. Pollution effects of pesticides on terrestrial environmental organisms and pollution control techniques[J]. Pesticide Science and Administration, 2007, 28(11): 18-26. (in Chinese)
[14]	吴志凤, 周艳明, 周欣欣. 农药登记环境风险评估的现状及展望[J]. 农药科学与管理, 2015, 36(1): 12-15.
	WU Z F, ZHOU Y M, ZHOU X X. Present situation and prospect of environment risk assessment(ERA) for pesticide registration[J]. Pesticide Science and Administration, 2015, 36(1): 12-15. (in Chinese with English abstract)
[15]	顾宝根, 程燕, 周军英, 等. 美国农药生态风险评价技术[J]. 农药学学报, 2009, 11(3): 283-290.
	GU B G, CHENG Y, ZHOU J Y, et al. Review on USA pesticide ecological risk assessment techniques[J]. Chinese Journal of Pesticide Science, 2009, 11(3): 283-290. (in Chinese with English abstract)
[16]	于彩虹, 李春燕, 林荣华, 等. 农药对陆生生物的生态毒性及风险评估[J]. 生态毒理学报, 2015, 10(6): 21-28.
	YU C H, LI C Y, LIN R H, et al. Eco-toxicity and risk assessment of pesticide on terrestrial organisms[J]. Asian Journal of Ecotoxicology, 2015, 10(6): 21-28. (in Chinese with English abstract)
[17]	WALTER H, TOBLER H, GRIBKOV D, et al. Sedaxane, isopyrazam and solatenol^TM: novel broad-spectrum fungicides inhibiting succinate dehydrogenase (SDH)-synthesis challenges and biological aspects[J]. Chimia, 2015, 69(7): 425-434. DOI URL
[18]	U S E P A. Reregistration eligibility decision (RED) for triadimefon and tolerance reassessment (TRED) for triadimenol[R]. Washington DC: United States Environmental Protection Agency, 2006.
[19]	University of Hertfordshire. The PPDB Pesticide Properties Database-triadimefon[EB/OL]. [2020-11-24]. http://sitem.herts.ac.uk/aeru/iupac/Reports/648.htm.
[20]	AUTHORITY E F S. Conclusion on the peer review of the pesticide risk assessment of the active substance isopyrazam[J]. EFSA Journal, 2012, 10(3): 2600. 1-110.
[21]	AUTHORITY E F S. Conclusion on the peer review of the pesticide risk assessment of the active substance diethofencarb[J]. EFSA Journal, 2010, 8(9): 1721. 1-55.
[22]	European Food Safety Authority. Conclusion regarding the peer review of the pesticide risk assessment of the active substance tetraconazole[J]. EFSA Journal, 2008, 6(10): RN-152, 1-86.
[23]	University of Hertfordshire. The PPDB Pesticide Properties Database-vinclozolin[EB/OL]. [2020-11-24]. http://sitem.herts.ac.uk/aeru/iupac/Reports/680.htm.
[24]	University of Hertfordshire. The PPDB Pesticide Properties Database-tetraconazole[EB/OL]. [2020-11-24]. http://sitem.herts.ac.uk/aeru/iupac/Reports/626.htm.
[25]	MEIER U. Growth stage of mono- and dicotyledonous plants:BBCH monograph[M]. 2nd ed. Berlin: Federal Biological Research Centre for Agriculture and Forestry, 2001.
[26]	于洋, 郑永权, 张楠, 等. 蔬菜常用农药在地下水中残留风险评估[J]. 生态毒理学报, 2017, 12(4): 183-192.
	YU Y, ZHENG Y Q, ZHANG N, et al. Groundwater risk assessment of pesticides commonly used on vegetables[J]. Asian Journal of Ecotoxicology, 2017, 12(4): 183-192. (in Chinese with English abstract)

杀菌剂 Fungicide	含量剂型 Formulation	登记作物 Crop	施药方法 Application method	制剂施药量 Application rate of preparation	有效成分施药量 Application rate of active ingredient/ (g·hm^-2)	施药次数 Number of applications	施药间隔 Time interval/d
三唑酮 Triadimefon	25%可湿性粉剂 25% Wettable powder	小麦 Wheat	喷雾 Spray	750~1 200 g·hm^-2	300	2	7
乙霉·多菌灵 Diethofencarb· carbendazim	50%可湿性粉剂(乙霉威25%,多菌灵25%) 50% Wettable powder (diethofencarb 25%, carbendazim 25%)	番茄 Tomato	喷雾 Spray	1 500~2 250 g·hm^-2	562.5(乙霉威 diethofencarb)	2	10
四氟醚唑 Tetraconazole	4%水乳剂 4% emulsion, oil in water	黄瓜/甜瓜 Cucumber/ muskmelon	喷雾 Spray	1 000~1 500 g·hm^-2	60	3	10
吡萘·嘧菌酯 Isopyrazam· azoxystrobin	29%悬浮剂(吡唑萘菌胺 11.2%,嘧菌酯17.8%) 29% Suspension concentrate (isopyrazam 11.2%, azoxystrobin 17.8%)	西瓜 Watermelon	喷雾 Spray	450~900 mL·hm^-2	100.8(吡唑萘菌胺 isopyrazam)	3	7
乙烯菌核利 Vinclozolin	50%干悬浮剂 50% Dry flowable	番茄 Tomato	喷雾 Spray	1 125~1 500 g·hm^-2	750	3	7

杀菌剂 Fungicide	含量剂型 Formulation	登记作物 Crop	施药方法 Application method	制剂施药量 Application rate of preparation	有效成分施药量 Application rate of active ingredient/ (g·hm^-2)	施药次数 Number of applications	施药间隔 Time interval/d
三唑酮 Triadimefon	25%可湿性粉剂 25% Wettable powder	小麦 Wheat	喷雾 Spray	750~1 200 g·hm^-2	300	2	7
乙霉·多菌灵 Diethofencarb· carbendazim	50%可湿性粉剂(乙霉威25%,多菌灵25%) 50% Wettable powder (diethofencarb 25%, carbendazim 25%)	番茄 Tomato	喷雾 Spray	1 500~2 250 g·hm^-2	562.5(乙霉威 diethofencarb)	2	10
四氟醚唑 Tetraconazole	4%水乳剂 4% emulsion, oil in water	黄瓜/甜瓜 Cucumber/ muskmelon	喷雾 Spray	1 000~1 500 g·hm^-2	60	3	10
吡萘·嘧菌酯 Isopyrazam· azoxystrobin	29%悬浮剂(吡唑萘菌胺 11.2%,嘧菌酯17.8%) 29% Suspension concentrate (isopyrazam 11.2%, azoxystrobin 17.8%)	西瓜 Watermelon	喷雾 Spray	450~900 mL·hm^-2	100.8(吡唑萘菌胺 isopyrazam)	3	7
乙烯菌核利 Vinclozolin	50%干悬浮剂 50% Dry flowable	番茄 Tomato	喷雾 Spray	1 125~1 500 g·hm^-2	750	3	7

杀菌剂 Fungicide	生物类别 Category	物种名称 Species	毒性终点 End point	毒性值 Toxicity	数据来源 Data source
三唑酮 Triadimefon	鸟类 Birds	北美鹌鹑 Bobwhite quail	急性经口毒性LD₅₀ Acute LD₅₀/(mg·kg^-1·d^-1)	>2 000	[18]
		北美鹌鹑 Bobwhite quail	短期饲喂毒性LC₅₀ Short-term LC₅₀/(mg·kg^-1·d^-1)	8 392
		北美鹌鹑 Bobwhite quail	繁殖毒性NOEL Long-term NOEL/(mg·kg^-1·d^-1)	20
	蜜蜂 Honeybees	意大利蜜蜂 Apis mellifera	急性接触毒性LD₅₀/(μg·蜂^-1) Acute contact toxicity LD₅₀/(μg·bee^-1)	>25
	土壤生物 Soil organisms	赤子爱胜蚓 Eisenia foetida	14 d急性LC₅₀ Acute LC₅₀ for 14 days/(mg·kg^-1)	>50	[19]
吡唑萘菌胺 Isopyrazam	鸟类 Birds	山齿鹑 Colinus virginianus	急性经口毒性LD₅₀ Acute LD₅₀/(mg·kg^-1·d^-1)	>2 000	[25]
		山齿鹑 Colinus virginianus	短期饲喂毒性LD₅₀ Short-term LD₅₀/(mg·kg^-1·d^-1)	1 310
		山齿鹑 Colinus virginianus	繁殖毒性NOEL Long-term NOEL/(mg·kg^-1·d^-1)	32.5
	蜜蜂 Honeybees	意大利蜜蜂 Apis mellifera	急性经口毒性LD₅₀/(μg·蜂^-1) Acute oral toxicity LD₅₀/(μg·bee^-1)	>95.5
			急性接触毒性LD₅₀/(μg·蜂^-1) Acute contact toxicity LD₅₀/(μg·bee^-1)	>100
	非靶标节肢动物Non-target arthropods	梨盲走螨 Typhlodromus pyri	急性毒性LR₅₀ Acute LR₅₀/(g·hm^-2)	174.75
		蚜茧蜂 Aphidius rhopalosiphi	急性毒性LR₅₀ Acute LR₅₀/(g·hm^-2)	41.2
杀菌剂 Fungicide	生物类别 Category	物种名称 Species	毒性终点 End point	毒性值 Toxicity	数据来源 Data source
	土壤生物 Soil organisms	赤子爱胜蚓 Eisenia foetida	14 d急性LC₅₀ Acute LC₅₀ for 14 days/(mg·kg^-1)	>500
		土壤微生物(氮转化) Soil micro-organisms (Nitrogen mineralisation)	28 d-NOEC	1.67 mg·kg^-1剂量下, 效应最大为14.8% Maximum effect was 14.8% at 1.67 mg·kg^-1
乙霉威 Diethofencarb	鸟类 Birds	绿头鸭 Anas platyrhynchos	急性经口毒性LD₅₀ Acute LD₅₀/(mg·kg^-1·d^-1)	>2 250	[21]
		山齿鹑 Colinus virginianus	急性经口毒性LD₅₀ Acute LD₅₀/(mg·kg^-1·d^-1)	>2 250
		绿头鸭 Anas platyrhynchos	短期饲喂毒性LD₅₀ Short-term LD₅₀/(mg·kg^-1·d^-1)	>1 629
		山齿鹑 Colinus virginianus	短期饲喂毒性LD₅₀ Short-term LD₅₀/(mg·kg^-1·d^-1)	>1 813
		山齿鹑 Colinus virginianus	繁殖毒性NOEL Long-term NOEL/(mg·kg^-1·d^-1)	78.7
	蜜蜂 Honeybees	意大利蜜蜂 Apis mellifera	急性经口毒性LD₅₀/(μg·蜂^-1) Acute oral toxicity LD₅₀/(μg·bee^-1)	>100
			急性接触毒性LD₅₀/(μg·蜂^-1) Acute contact toxicity LD₅₀/(μg·bee^-1)	>100
	非靶标节肢动物Non-target arthropods	蚜茧蜂 Aphidius rhopalosiphi	急性毒性LR₅₀ Acute LR₅₀/(g·hm^-2)	>1 500
		梨盲走螨 Typhlodromus pyri	急性毒性LR₅₀ Acute LR₅₀/(g·hm^-2)	7.2
	土壤生物 Soil organisms	赤子爱胜蚓 Eisenia foetida	14 d急性LC₅₀ Acute LC₅₀ for 14 days/(mg·kg^-1)	>500
		土壤微生物(氮转化) Soil micro-organisms (Nitrogen mineralisation)	28 d-NOEC	7 mg·kg^-1剂量下, 效应<25% Effect<25% at 7 mg·kg^-1
四氟醚唑 Tetraconazole	鸟类 Birds	北美鹌鹑 Bobwhite quail	急性经口毒性LD₅₀ Acute LD₅₀/(mg·kg^-1·d^-1)	132	[22]
		野鸭 Mallard duck	短期饲喂毒性LD₅₀ Short-term LD₅₀/(mg·kg^-1·d^-1)	55.2
		野鸭 Mallard duck	繁殖毒性NOEL Long-term NOEL/(mg·kg^-1·d^-1)	1.6
	蜜蜂 Honeybees	意大利蜜蜂 Apis mellifera	急性经口毒性LD₅₀/(μg·蜂^-1) Acute oral toxicity LD₅₀/(μg·bee^-1)	>130
			急性接触毒性LD₅₀/(μg·蜂^-1) Acute contact toxicity LD₅₀/(μg·bee^-1)	63
	非靶标节肢动物Non-target arthropods	蚜茧蜂 Aphidius rhopalosiphi	急性毒性LR₅₀ Acute LR₅₀/(g·hm^-2)	125
		草蛉Chrysoperla carnea	急性毒性LR₅₀ Acute LR₅₀/(g·hm^-2)	>250
	土壤生物 Soil organisms	赤子爱胜蚓 Eisenia foetida	14 d急性LC₅₀ Acute LC₅₀ for 14 days/(mg·kg^-1)	71
		土壤微生物(氮转化) Soil micro-organisms (Nitrogen mineralisation)	28 d-NOEC	0.502 mg·kg^-1剂量下, 效应<25% Effect<25% at 0.502 mg·kg^-1
杀菌剂 Fungicide	生物类别 Category	物种名称 Species	毒性终点 End point	毒性值 Toxicity	数据来源 Data source
乙烯菌核利 Vinclozolin	鸟类 Birds	绿头鸭 Anas platyrhynchos	急性经口毒性LD₅₀ Acute LD₅₀/(mg·kg^-1·d^-1)	>5 629	[23]
	蜜蜂 Honeybees	意大利蜜蜂 Apis mellifera	急性经口毒性LD₅₀/(μg·蜂^-1) Acute oral toxicity LD₅₀/(μg·bee^-1)	>100
	土壤生物 Soil organisms	赤子爱胜蚓 Eisenia foetida	14 d急性LC₅₀ Acute LC₅₀ for 14 days/(mg·kg^-1)	>1 000

杀菌剂 Fungicide	生物类别 Category	物种名称 Species	毒性终点 End point	毒性值 Toxicity	数据来源 Data source
三唑酮 Triadimefon	鸟类 Birds	北美鹌鹑 Bobwhite quail	急性经口毒性LD₅₀ Acute LD₅₀/(mg·kg^-1·d^-1)	>2 000	[18]
		北美鹌鹑 Bobwhite quail	短期饲喂毒性LC₅₀ Short-term LC₅₀/(mg·kg^-1·d^-1)	8 392
		北美鹌鹑 Bobwhite quail	繁殖毒性NOEL Long-term NOEL/(mg·kg^-1·d^-1)	20
	蜜蜂 Honeybees	意大利蜜蜂 Apis mellifera	急性接触毒性LD₅₀/(μg·蜂^-1) Acute contact toxicity LD₅₀/(μg·bee^-1)	>25
	土壤生物 Soil organisms	赤子爱胜蚓 Eisenia foetida	14 d急性LC₅₀ Acute LC₅₀ for 14 days/(mg·kg^-1)	>50	[19]
吡唑萘菌胺 Isopyrazam	鸟类 Birds	山齿鹑 Colinus virginianus	急性经口毒性LD₅₀ Acute LD₅₀/(mg·kg^-1·d^-1)	>2 000	[25]
		山齿鹑 Colinus virginianus	短期饲喂毒性LD₅₀ Short-term LD₅₀/(mg·kg^-1·d^-1)	1 310
		山齿鹑 Colinus virginianus	繁殖毒性NOEL Long-term NOEL/(mg·kg^-1·d^-1)	32.5
	蜜蜂 Honeybees	意大利蜜蜂 Apis mellifera	急性经口毒性LD₅₀/(μg·蜂^-1) Acute oral toxicity LD₅₀/(μg·bee^-1)	>95.5
			急性接触毒性LD₅₀/(μg·蜂^-1) Acute contact toxicity LD₅₀/(μg·bee^-1)	>100
	非靶标节肢动物Non-target arthropods	梨盲走螨 Typhlodromus pyri	急性毒性LR₅₀ Acute LR₅₀/(g·hm^-2)	174.75
		蚜茧蜂 Aphidius rhopalosiphi	急性毒性LR₅₀ Acute LR₅₀/(g·hm^-2)	41.2
杀菌剂 Fungicide	生物类别 Category	物种名称 Species	毒性终点 End point	毒性值 Toxicity	数据来源 Data source
	土壤生物 Soil organisms	赤子爱胜蚓 Eisenia foetida	14 d急性LC₅₀ Acute LC₅₀ for 14 days/(mg·kg^-1)	>500
		土壤微生物(氮转化) Soil micro-organisms (Nitrogen mineralisation)	28 d-NOEC	1.67 mg·kg^-1剂量下, 效应最大为14.8% Maximum effect was 14.8% at 1.67 mg·kg^-1
乙霉威 Diethofencarb	鸟类 Birds	绿头鸭 Anas platyrhynchos	急性经口毒性LD₅₀ Acute LD₅₀/(mg·kg^-1·d^-1)	>2 250	[21]
		山齿鹑 Colinus virginianus	急性经口毒性LD₅₀ Acute LD₅₀/(mg·kg^-1·d^-1)	>2 250
		绿头鸭 Anas platyrhynchos	短期饲喂毒性LD₅₀ Short-term LD₅₀/(mg·kg^-1·d^-1)	>1 629
		山齿鹑 Colinus virginianus	短期饲喂毒性LD₅₀ Short-term LD₅₀/(mg·kg^-1·d^-1)	>1 813
		山齿鹑 Colinus virginianus	繁殖毒性NOEL Long-term NOEL/(mg·kg^-1·d^-1)	78.7
	蜜蜂 Honeybees	意大利蜜蜂 Apis mellifera	急性经口毒性LD₅₀/(μg·蜂^-1) Acute oral toxicity LD₅₀/(μg·bee^-1)	>100
			急性接触毒性LD₅₀/(μg·蜂^-1) Acute contact toxicity LD₅₀/(μg·bee^-1)	>100
	非靶标节肢动物Non-target arthropods	蚜茧蜂 Aphidius rhopalosiphi	急性毒性LR₅₀ Acute LR₅₀/(g·hm^-2)	>1 500
		梨盲走螨 Typhlodromus pyri	急性毒性LR₅₀ Acute LR₅₀/(g·hm^-2)	7.2
	土壤生物 Soil organisms	赤子爱胜蚓 Eisenia foetida	14 d急性LC₅₀ Acute LC₅₀ for 14 days/(mg·kg^-1)	>500
		土壤微生物(氮转化) Soil micro-organisms (Nitrogen mineralisation)	28 d-NOEC	7 mg·kg^-1剂量下, 效应<25% Effect<25% at 7 mg·kg^-1
四氟醚唑 Tetraconazole	鸟类 Birds	北美鹌鹑 Bobwhite quail	急性经口毒性LD₅₀ Acute LD₅₀/(mg·kg^-1·d^-1)	132	[22]
		野鸭 Mallard duck	短期饲喂毒性LD₅₀ Short-term LD₅₀/(mg·kg^-1·d^-1)	55.2
		野鸭 Mallard duck	繁殖毒性NOEL Long-term NOEL/(mg·kg^-1·d^-1)	1.6
	蜜蜂 Honeybees	意大利蜜蜂 Apis mellifera	急性经口毒性LD₅₀/(μg·蜂^-1) Acute oral toxicity LD₅₀/(μg·bee^-1)	>130
			急性接触毒性LD₅₀/(μg·蜂^-1) Acute contact toxicity LD₅₀/(μg·bee^-1)	63
	非靶标节肢动物Non-target arthropods	蚜茧蜂 Aphidius rhopalosiphi	急性毒性LR₅₀ Acute LR₅₀/(g·hm^-2)	125
		草蛉Chrysoperla carnea	急性毒性LR₅₀ Acute LR₅₀/(g·hm^-2)	>250
	土壤生物 Soil organisms	赤子爱胜蚓 Eisenia foetida	14 d急性LC₅₀ Acute LC₅₀ for 14 days/(mg·kg^-1)	71
		土壤微生物(氮转化) Soil micro-organisms (Nitrogen mineralisation)	28 d-NOEC	0.502 mg·kg^-1剂量下, 效应<25% Effect<25% at 0.502 mg·kg^-1
杀菌剂 Fungicide	生物类别 Category	物种名称 Species	毒性终点 End point	毒性值 Toxicity	数据来源 Data source
乙烯菌核利 Vinclozolin	鸟类 Birds	绿头鸭 Anas platyrhynchos	急性经口毒性LD₅₀ Acute LD₅₀/(mg·kg^-1·d^-1)	>5 629	[23]
	蜜蜂 Honeybees	意大利蜜蜂 Apis mellifera	急性经口毒性LD₅₀/(μg·蜂^-1) Acute oral toxicity LD₅₀/(μg·bee^-1)	>100
	土壤生物 Soil organisms	赤子爱胜蚓 Eisenia foetida	14 d急性LC₅₀ Acute LC₅₀ for 14 days/(mg·kg^-1)	>1 000

参数 Parameters	输入值 Input values					备注 Notes
参数 Parameters	三唑酮 Triadimefon	乙霉威 Diethofencarb	四氟醚唑 Tetraconazole	吡唑萘菌胺 Isopyrazam	乙烯菌核利 Vinclozolin	备注 Notes
土壤降解半衰期 Half-life in soil/d	26	4.72	83.3	84	40.5	[19-21,23,24]
土壤容重 Soil density/(kg·m^-3)	1 500	1 500	1 500	1 500	1 500	默认值 Default values
土壤深度 Depth/m	0.05	0.05	0.05	0.05	0.05	喷施农药默认分布在0~0.05 m的土壤表层 By default, the spraying pesticide is distributed in the surface layer of soil at 0-0.05 m
作物名称 Name of crops	烟草 Tobacco	烟草 Tobacco	烟草 Tobacco	烟草 Tobacco	烟草 Tobacco	—
农药施用时期 Growth stage (BBCH)	0-09	0-09	0-09	0-09	0-09	模型以此计算作物截留系数 The crop interception coefficient was calculated based on BBCH
施用次数 Number of applications	2	2	3	3	3	—
施药量	300	562.5	60	100.8	750	—
Application rate/ (g·hm^-2)
施用间隔期 Time interval/d	7	10	10	7	7	多次施药的间隔时间 Interval time of multiple applications

几种杀菌剂对葡萄园典型陆生生物的初级风险评估

Primary risk assessment of several fungicides to typical vineyard terrestrial organisms

RichHTML

PDF (PC)

可视化

摘要/Abstract

引用本文

使用本文

图/表 10

参考文献 26

相关文章 15

编辑推荐

Metrics

本文评价

杀菌剂 Fungicides	AR/ (g·hm^-2)	PED_acute/ (mg·kg^-1·d^-1)	毒性终点 End point/(mg·kg^-1·d^-1)	PNED/ (mg·kg^-1·d^-1)	RQ
三唑酮Triadimefon	300.0	10.0	2 000	200.0	0.050 2
乙霉威Diethofencarb	562.5	17.5	2 250	225.0	0.077 7
四氟醚唑Tetraconazole	60.0	2.15	132	13.2	0.163 0
吡唑萘菌胺Isopyrazam	100.8	3.86	2 000	200.0	0.019 3
乙烯菌核利Vinclozolin	750.0	28.7	5 629	562.9	0.051 0

杀菌剂 Fungicides	AR/ (g·hm^-2)	PED_short-term/ (mg·kg^-1·d^-1)	毒性终点 End point/(mg·kg^-1·d^-1)	PNED/ (mg·kg^-1·d^-1)	RQ
三唑酮Triadimefon	300.0	5.24	839.2	83.90	0.062 5
乙霉威Diethofencarb	562.5	9.21	1 719.0	172.00	0.053 6
四氟醚唑Tetraconazole	60.0	1.18	55.5	5.55	0.212 0
吡唑萘菌胺Isopyrazam	100.8	2.20	1 310.0	131.00	0.016 8

杀菌剂 Fungicides	PED_long-term/ (mg·kg^-1·d^-1)	毒性终点 End point/(mg·kg^-1·d^-1)	PNED/ (mg·kg^-1·d^-1)	RQ
三唑酮Triadimefon	2.780	2.0	0.400	6.95
乙霉威Diethofencarb	4.880	78.7	15.700	0.31
四氟醚唑Tetraconazole	0.625	1.6	0.320	1.95
吡唑萘菌胺Isopyrazam	1.170	32.5	6.500	0.18

杀菌剂 Fungicides	AR/(g· hm^-2)	急性毒性LD₅₀/ (μg·蜂^-1) Acute toxicity LD₅₀/ (μg·bee^-1)	RQ_sp
三唑酮Triadimefon	300.0	25.0	0.240
乙霉威Diethofencarb	562.5	100.0	0.113
四氟醚唑Tetraconazole	60.0	63.0	0.019
吡唑萘菌胺Isopyrazam	100.8	95.5	0.211
乙烯菌核利Vinclozolin	750.0	100.0	0.150

杀菌剂 Fungicides	种类 Classification	AR/(g·hm^-2)	PER_in/(g·hm^-2)	LR₅₀/(g·hm^-2)	HQ_in
乙霉威Diethofencarb	寄生性Parasites	562.5	844	1 500	0.563
	捕食性Predator	562.5	844	7.2	117
四氟醚唑Tetraconazole	寄生性Parasites	60	105	125	0.840
	捕食性Predator	60	105	250	0.420
吡唑萘菌胺Isopyrazam	寄生性Parasites	100.8	201	41.2	4.88
	捕食性Predator	100.8	201	174.75	1.15

杀菌剂 Fungicides	种类 Classification	PEC_max/ (mg·kg^-1)	毒性终点 End point/(mg·kg^-1)	PNEC/ (mg·kg^-1)	RQ
三唑酮Triadimefon	蚯蚓Earthworms	0.731 9	50	5.00	0.146 00
乙霉威Diethofencarb	蚯蚓Earthworms	0.922 7	500	50.0	0.018 50
	土壤微生物Soil micro-organisms	0.922 7	7	7.00	0.132 00
四氟醚唑Tetraconazole	蚯蚓Earthworms	0.221 3	71	7.10	0.031 20
	土壤微生物Soil micro-organisms	0.221 3	0.502	0.502	0.441 00
吡唑萘菌胺Isopyrazam	蚯蚓Earthworms	0.381 0	500	50.0	0.007 62
	土壤微生物Soil micro-organisms	0.381 0	1.67	1.67	0.228 00
乙烯菌核利Vinclozolin	蚯蚓Earthworms	2.674 0	1000	100	0.026 70

[1]	郑美瑜, 王璐, 刘哲, 张文娟, 高浦, 陆胜民. 桑黄中抑制α-葡萄糖苷酶活性成分提取及其化学成分鉴定[J]. 浙江农业学报, 2022, 34(5): 949-958.
[2]	倪敏舒, 陈丽, 鲍熹, 徐悦, 庄腾寒, 冯磊. 内质网分子伴侣GRP94对伪狂犬病毒增殖的调节作用[J]. 浙江农业学报, 2022, 34(11): 2386-2394.
[3]	商佳胤, 张新建, 李凯, 张鹤, 王丹. 不同覆盖材料对设施葡萄根系分布及土壤理化特性的影响[J]. 浙江农业学报, 2022, 34(10): 2240-2250.
[4]	汤佳宁, 王永侠, 刘金松, 曾新福, 杨彩梅. 中链脂肪酸及其酯对致病菌的抑菌作用[J]. 浙江农业学报, 2021, 33(9): 1611-1616.
[5]	孙彩霞, 欧阳志周, 刘玉红, 于国光. 西兰花中3种杀菌剂的残留动态与风险评估[J]. 浙江农业学报, 2021, 33(7): 1292-1299.
[6]	田玉潭, 马露, 刘军, 李冬冬, 陶迎梅, 赵晓璐, 马亚男, 孙少忆, 刘敦华. 葡萄酒渣多酚-壳聚糖-CMC可食性复合膜在水煮羊肉贮藏中的应用[J]. 浙江农业学报, 2021, 33(6): 1095-1103.
[7]	吴剑, 王剑功, 褚伟雄. 纳他霉素处理对电商物流过程中葡萄品质的影响[J]. 浙江农业学报, 2021, 33(5): 916-922.
[8]	王国荣, 冯晓晓, 吴慧明, 曹婷婷, 李倩, 郑永利. 芹菜茎基腐病病原菌鉴定、消长动态调查与防治药剂筛选[J]. 浙江农业学报, 2021, 33(4): 661-669.
[9]	杨颖, 施迎春, 邢建荣, 刘哲, 郑美瑜, 陆胜民. 葡萄柚精油“除萜赋香”工艺的优化研究[J]. 浙江农业学报, 2021, 33(11): 2128-2136.
[10]	宋雯, 王强, 张佳, 柳采秀, 张楠, 陈丽萍, 聂东兴, 姚海利, 苍涛. 不同施肥方式下氯吡脲对藤稔葡萄生长和品质的影响[J]. 浙江农业学报, 2021, 33(10): 1879-1888.
[11]	练华山, 李欣欣, 林立金, 廖明安. 表油菜素内酯对夏黑葡萄幼苗生长的影响[J]. 浙江农业学报, 2021, 33(10): 1889-1896.
[12]	崔鹏飞, 魏灵珠, 程建徽, 向江, 李明山, 吴江, . 不同砧木对天工翠玉葡萄生长和果实品质的影响[J]. 浙江农业学报, 2021, 33(1): 52-61.
[13]	徐雪芬, 倪春辉, 李惠霞, 李焕宇, 李文豪, 陈垣, 胡芳弟. 党参根腐病病原菌鉴定及其室内毒力测定[J]. 浙江农业学报, 2021, 33(1): 96-103.
[14]	葛金涛, 王江英, 赵文静, 邵小斌, 朱朋波, 汤雪燕, 孙明伟, 刘兴满. 魏可葡萄气生根发育的转录组分析[J]. 浙江农业学报, 2020, 32(9): 1645-1655.
[15]	孟司奇, 丁高蓝, 肖兴宁, 肖英平, 杨华, 汪雯. 巴氏杀菌乳中金黄色葡萄球菌的生长预测模型构建[J]. 浙江农业学报, 2020, 32(7): 1281-1288.