Primary risk assessment of several fungicides to typical vineyard terrestrial organisms

doi:10.3969/j.issn.1004-1524.2022.11.20

Acta Agriculturae Zhejiangensis ›› 2022, Vol. 34 ›› Issue (11): 2512-2521.DOI: 10.3969/j.issn.1004-1524.2022.11.20

• Quality and Safety of Agricultural Products • Previous Articles Next Articles

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

Abstract

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

CLC Number:

S482.2

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.

Figures/Tables 10

References 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

Primary risk assessment of several fungicides to typical vineyard terrestrial organisms

RichHTML

PDF (PC)

Knowledge

Abstract

Cite this article

share this article

Figures/Tables 10

References 26

Related Articles 15

Recommended Articles

Metrics

Comments

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]	SHANG Jiayin, ZHANG Xinjian, LI Kai, ZHANG He, WANG Dan. Effects of different covering materials on root distribution and soil physical and chemical properties of protected cultivation of grape [J]. Acta Agriculturae Zhejiangensis, 2022, 34(10): 2240-2250.
[2]	WU Jiawei, YAO Zhangliang, HU Qiqi, ZHANG Jie, CHEN Yi, JIANG Jianrong, ZHOU Guoxin, WANG Xia. Fungicides and optimum time for control of pear rust in Tongxiang City, north Zhejiang, China [J]. Acta Agriculturae Zhejiangensis, 2021, 33(9): 1668-1675.
[3]	SUN Caixia, OUYANG Zhizhou, LIU Yuhong, YU Guoguang. Residue dynamic and risk assessment of three fungicides in broccoli [J]. Acta Agriculturae Zhejiangensis, 2021, 33(7): 1292-1299.
[4]	WU Jian, WANG Jiangong, CHU Weixiong. Effect of natamycin treatment on grape quality in e-commerce logistics process [J]. Acta Agriculturae Zhejiangensis, 2021, 33(5): 916-922.
[5]	WANG Guorong, FENG Xiaoxiao, WU Huiming, CAO Tingting, LI Qian, ZHENG Yongli. Identification of causal agent and dynamics survey of celery stalk basal rot and screening of fungicides [J]. Acta Agriculturae Zhejiangensis, 2021, 33(4): 661-669.
[6]	YANG Ying, SHI Yingchun, XING Jianrong, LIU Zhe, ZHENG Meiyu, LU Shengmin. Optimization of “terpenoids removing and aroma enhancing” process for grapefruit essential oil [J]. Acta Agriculturae Zhejiangensis, 2021, 33(11): 2128-2136.
[7]	SONG Wen, WANG Qiang, ZHANG Jia, LIU Caixiu, ZHANG Nan, CHEN Liping, NIE Dongxing, YAO Haili, CANG Tao. Effects of forchlorfenuron on growth and quality of Fujiminori grape under different fertilizer applications [J]. Acta Agriculturae Zhejiangensis, 2021, 33(10): 1879-1888.
[8]	CUI Pengfei, WEI Lingzhu, CHENG Jianhui, XIANG Jiang, LI Mingshan, WU Jiang2, . Effects of different rootstocks on growth and fruit quality of Tiangong Cuiyu grape [J]. Acta Agriculturae Zhejiangensis, 2021, 33(1): 52-61.
[9]	XU Xuefen, NI Chunhui, LI Huixia, LI Huanyu, LI Wenhao, CHEN Yuan, HU Fangdi. Pathogen identification and indoor toxicity tests on root rot of Codonopsis pilosula [J]. Acta Agriculturae Zhejiangensis, 2021, 33(1): 96-103.
[10]	GE Jintao, WANG Jiangying, ZHAO Wenjing, SHAO Xiaobin, ZHU Pengbo, TANG Xueyan, SUN Mingwei, LIU Xingman. Transcriptome analysis on development of aerial root in grape of Weike [J]. , 2020, 32(9): 1645-1655.
[11]	YANG Mingxia, LIAN Hongjuan, WANG Xiaofang, DU Yiyang, DONG Zhigang, JI Wei. Identification and expression analysis of grape MPT gene family [J]. Acta Agriculturae Zhejiangensis, 2020, 32(12): 2173-2185.
[12]	CAO Yuehua, WEI Lingzhu, SHEN Biwei, CHENG Jianhui, XIANG Jiang, WU Jiang. Effects of rootstocks on growth and fruit quality of Xinyu grape [J]. , 2019, 31(6): 908-914.
[13]	HAN Guomin, LIU Xi, TANG Meiling, DAI Lingmin. Effects of exogenous melatonin on physiological characteristics of 5BB grape leaves under NaCl stress [J]. , 2019, 31(4): 556-564.
[14]	CHEN Hongqiang, XIA Hui, WANG Jin, DENG Qunxian, LIANG Dong, LYU Xiulan, TANG Liping. Identification and expression analysis of STS gene family in grape [J]. , 2019, 31(3): 401-407.
[15]	ZHENG Ting, ZHANG Kekun, ZHU Xudong, GUAN Le, SHANGGUAN Lingfei, JIA Haifeng, FANG Jinggui. Rules of sap flow in grapevine during bleeding period [J]. , 2019, 31(2): 250-259.