4.6 Article

Ethyl Formate as a Methyl Bromide Alternative for Phytosanitary Disinfestation of Imported Banana in Korea With Logistical Considerations

期刊

JOURNAL OF ECONOMIC ENTOMOLOGY
卷 113, 期 4, 页码 1711-1717

出版社

OXFORD UNIV PRESS INC
DOI: 10.1093/jee/toaa088

关键词

phytosanitary treatment; fumigation; ethyl formate; methyl bromide; citrus mealybug

资金

  1. Korean Animal and Plant Quarantine Agency (APQA)
  2. Rural Development Administration, Republic of Korea [PJ013356]

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Methyl bromide (MB) use for quarantine and phytosanitary purposes is being phased out. Several effective MB alternatives have been identified depending on the target system. Industry commitment for the shift to new technologies will depend not only on the efficacy of alternatives but also on their compatibility and integrability into existing operations. We compared the efficacy of MB and ethyl formate (EF) for disinfestation of Planococcus citri (Risso) (Hemiptera: Pseudococcidae) as a representative surface pest on banana and evaluated whether EF fumigation is compatible with the current packaging materials and loading ratio used by the South Korean banana import industry. Fumigation trials with P. citri adults and eggs showed that EF was at least as effective as MB at the EF and MB concentrations recommended under the current phytosanitary disinfestation guidelines. From a logistical standpoint, EF gas could not effectively penetrate plastic bagging typically used in banana cartons during commercial shipping. Also, EF sorption to bananas and packing materials (used as cushioning inside bagging) further lowered realized EF concentrations around bananas. These reductions in EF concentration translated into reduced mortality of P. citri eggs, indicating that despite similar efficacy of MB and EF for controlling P. citri, further consideration and optimization of other industry logistics such as packaging and loading ratio is necessary to enhance the adoption of this MB alternative.

作者

我是这篇论文的作者
点击您的名字以认领此论文并将其添加到您的个人资料中。

评论

主要评分

4.6
评分不足

次要评分

新颖性
-
重要性
-
科学严谨性
-
评价这篇论文

推荐

暂无数据
暂无数据