Cover page for a submission of a phytosanitary treatment




Дата канвертавання18.04.2016
Памер40.74 Kb.

Cydia pomonella
Document: 2006-TPPT-123

Agenda: 10





COVER PAGE FOR A SUBMISSION OF A PHYTOSANITARY TREATMENT

Proposed name of treatment: Irradiation treatment for Cydia pomonella (codling

moth) in fruits and nuts


Indicate ISPM number if applicable: Draft ISPM (Phytosanitary treatments for regulated

pests) and ISPM No. 18


Name of NPPO or RPPO: USDA—APHIS—PPQ

Person responsible for treatment: Dr. Larry Zettler


Position and/or title: National Science Program Leader—AQI & PT

Center for Plant Health Science and Technology


Mailing address: USDA—APHIS—PPQ—CPHST

1730 Varsity Drive, Suite 400

Raleigh, NC 27606
Phone: 919-855-7424

Fax: 919-855-7480


Email: larry.zettler@aphis.usda.gov

Treatment description

Treatment name (provide enough detail to identify the treatment; for example, cold treatment of navel oranges for Mediterranean fruit fly):
Irradiation treatment for Cydia pomonella in any host commodity
Treatment type (for example, chemical, irradiation, heat, cold): Irradiation
Target commodity(ies)/regulated article(s): Various fruits and nuts
Target pest(s): Cydia pomonella (Lepidoptera: Tortricidae)
Schedule (include brief description such as active ingredient, dose, time and temperature): Minimum absorbed dose of 200 Gy


Efficacy (description of efficacy should be quantified e.g. probit analysis, mortality rate at a defined confidence level; or historical use in trade and degree of confidence in the detection of treatment failure over the historical period):
The efficacy of this treatment is primarily outlined by research conducted by Mansour (2003). In this study, a dose of 200 Gy completely prevented adult emergence in the >100,000 and >32,000 fifth-instars irradiated in artificial medium and within apples, respectively. An additional margin of security for the proposed treatment is provided by a smaller-scale study in which no adult female emergence was observed after irradiating non-diapausing larvae at a dose of 150 Gy (Mansour 2003). Finally, a dose of 153 Gy was shown by Burditt and Hungate (1989) to completely prevent adult emergence when applied to an estimated 79,540 immature larvae. However, this lower reported effective dose may reflect the fact that most of the insects treated in this study were in the third- and fourth-instar stages, which are more sensitive to irradiation than the older larvae used by Mansour (2003).
Since irradiation typically does not result in outright mortality, inspectors may encounter live pests during the inspection process. Therefore, it is imperative that properly completed documentation accompany all irradiated commodities. Systems for facility licensing and certification must be implemented.
Burditt, A. K. and F. P. Hungate. 1989. Gamma irradiation as a quarantine treatment for apples infested by codling moth (Lepidoptera: Tortricidae). Journal of Economic Entomology 82: 1386-1390.
Mansour. M. 2003. Gamma irradiation as a quarantine treatment for apples infested by codling moth (Lep., Tortricidae). Journal of Applied Entomology 127: 137-141.

Reason for submission (describe why the standard is needed; technical and commercial feasibility where a treatment is widely used, include the countries that approve it):
Irradiation provides a quick, effective method for controlling pests, and is feasible in countries such as the United States, Australia, China, etc. that have irradiation facilities. Apples and pears, which are demonstrated hosts for codling moth, have been shown to tolerate irradiation doses ranging from 300 – 900 Gy (Drake et al. 1999), which is above the proposed treatment dose. Furthermore, irradiation can impart benefits, such as extending commodity shelf-life through delays in ripening. This treatment has the capacity to replace fumigation with methyl bromide as a phytosanitary treatment for this pest species.
The proposed treatment is currently accepted by the United States, and is expected to become more widely used as U.S. trading partners sign the required framework equivalency agreements.
Drake, S. R., P. G. Sanderson, and L. G. Neven. 1999. Response of apple and winter pear fruit quality to irradiation as a quarantine treatment. Journal of Food Processing and Preservation 23: 203-216.

SUBMISSION OF A PHYTOSANITARY TREATMENT


    1. Summary information and contact details: Provided on cover page




    1. Description of the phytosanitary treatment

The submission should contain a description of the treatment, including the type of treatment, treatment schedule and conditions associated with the treatment (for example, duration, temperature, active ingredient and formulation, dose, delivery method and, where appropriate, pre/post handling conditions).
The proposed phytosanitary treatment is an irradiation treatment that would utilize a minimum absorbed dose of 200 Gy to control Cydia pomonella (codling moth) in any host commodity.



2.4 Treatment targets

The targets of the treatment should be stated, including:



- the identity of the target pest(s)

(taxonomic classification including

strains, biotypes and, where appropriate,

life stage(s))



Cydia pomonella (Lepidoptera: Tortricidae); all life stages that follow the pathway included

- the identity of the commodity or regulated article for which the treatment is proposed,

may include where appropriate:



◦ taxonomic classification

Not applicable

◦ description of commodity

Any commodity that is a host for Cydia pomonella

◦ state of preservation/processing or

maturity (e.g. fruit, plants for planting,

part of plant, wood)


Fresh fruits and nuts at any stage of maturity

◦ cultivar or variety

Any

◦ description of regulated article (e.g. ship,

container, soil, machinery, wood)



Not applicable




2.5.1 Efficacy data on the target pest(s) under laboratory or controlled experiments

The data should include detailed information on the following elements:

- identity of the pest to the level appropriate

(e.g. strain, biotype, physiological race

and life stage, laboratory or field strain),

including conditions under which they are

cultured/reared


Cydia pomonella; no strain, biotype information available
Mansour (2003). Stage irradiated—fifth instar; Insects were obtained from a colony that had been reared for over 30 generations on artificial media, but had originated from moths collected near Damascus. Non-diapausing larvae were reared at approximately 26oC, 40-60% relative humidity, and with a photoperiod of 16:8 (light:dark) hours. Diapausing larvae were reared at approximately 24oC, and with a photoperiod of 8:16 (light:dark) hours. After irradiation, the rearing environment was maintained at approximately 26oC.
Burditt and Hungate (1989). Stage irradiated—first through fifth instars; Larvae were obtained from a colony that had been reared for over 20 years. The rearing environment was maintained at approximately 25oC, 60% RH, and with a photoperiod of 16:8 (light:dark).

- biological traits of the pest relevant to the

treatment (e.g. viability, genetic

variability, weight, developmental time,

fecundity, freedom from disease or

parasites)


None of these are applicable to the proposed treatment.

- commodity type/cultivar (where varietal

differences impact on treatment efficacy,

data should be provided for all varieties

under consideration)



Some of the larvae used by Mansour (2003) were reared in larval rearing medium, whereas others were reared on ‘Golden Delicious’ apples. Burditt and Hungate (1989) reared all larvae on thinning apples.

- conditions of commodity, for example:

◦ whether the commodity was free from

disease or pesticide residue

◦ size, shape, weight, stage of maturity,

quality, etc.

◦ infested at a susceptible stage



The apples used by Mansour (2003) in the small-scale tests weighed approximately 200 g each, whereas those apples used in the confirmatory tests weighed approximately 100 g each. The thinning apples used by Burditt and Hungate (1989) were harvested in June each year and were subsequently stored at 0oC until the time of use. No additional commodity information was given.

- method of natural/artificial infestation

Mansour (2003). Fruit: Strips of waxy paper carrying codling moth eggs in the black head stage were placed among the apples for approximately 16-20 hours. Larval rearing medium: Sheets carrying codling moth eggs in the black head stage were placed on the rearing media for about 12-16 hours.
Burditt and Hungate (1989). Eggs that had been laid on polystyrene beads were placed on the apples.

- level of confidence provided by the

laboratory testing, method of statistical

analysis, and the data supporting that

calculation (e.g. number of subjects

treated, number of replicate tests,

controls)



Mansour (2003). Fisher’s multiple range test at the 0.05% level of probability and analysis of variance were used to analyze the data. Confirmatory tests utilized >100,000 larvae and >32,000 larvae irradiated in artificial rearing medium and apples, respectively. Small scale tests were replicated four times. The control consisted of non-irradiated insects.
Burditt and Hungate (1989). Duncan’s multiple range test at the 0.05% level of probability, analysis of variance, and probit analysis were used to interpret the data. A large-scale confirmatory test involved an estimated 79,540 larvae. Other studies utilized between approximately 200 and 350 insects. The controls were not irradiated.

- experimental design (e.g. randomized

complete block design)



Unknown

- experimental conditions (e.g. temperature,

relative humidity, diurnal cycle)



Mansour (2003). A 60Co source of gamma radiation with a dose rate of approximately 13.5 Gy/minute was used for the small scale tests, while a different 60Co source of gamma radiation that had a dose rate of approximately 71.0 Gy/minute was used for the confirmatory tests.
Burditt and Hungate (1989). The irradiation treatments were conducted with a Gammabeam-650 irradiator at the Pacific Northwest Laboratory, which uses a 60Co source of radiation. The boxes were rotated and turned during treatment to provide more uniform exposure.

- monitoring of critical parameters (e.g.

dose, temperature, relative humidity)



Mansour (2003) used an alcoholic chlorobenzene dosimeter, and Burditt and Hungate (1989) utilized TLD-700 LiF chips for dosimetry.

- how the effectiveness of the treatment

was determined (e.g. mortality, sterility)



Mansour (2003) analyzed pupation and adult emergence. Burditt and Hungate (1989) examined larval mortality, pupation, and adult emergence.

The data may also include detailed information where required on:

- determination of most tolerant species/

life stage



The fifth instar is more radiotolerant than earlier larval stages.

- determination of efficacy over a range of

critical parameters, such as exposure

time, dose, temperature, humidity, and

water content



The effects of irradiation were examined from 50 – 250 Gy (Mansour 2003) and up to 153 Gy (Burditt and Hungate 1989). No other parameters, such as temperature and humidity, were studied.


2.5.2 Efficacy data on the target pest(s) under practical conditions.

The same data requirements as listed in section 2.5.1 should also be provided for these tests. Other required data are listed below:

- Factors that affect the performance of the

treatment (packaging, packing method,

stacking, timing of treatments (pre/post

packaging or processing, in transit, on

arrival)). The circumstances of the

treatment should be stated, for example

the efficacy of a treatment may be

affected by packaging and data should be

provided to support all the circumstances

that are applicable.



Results obtained from dose mapping, which documents the actual irradiation dose absorbed by the commodity throughout the chamber, are used to determine stacking arrangement. Packaging conforms to that utilized during dose mapping. Finally, this treatment cannot be used for commodities stored under hypoxic conditions.

- monitoring of critical parameters (dose,

temperature, relative humidity). For

example:


Dosimeters are strategically placed throughout the irradiation chamber to adequately verify dose accuracy.

◦ the number and placement of gas

sampling lines (fumigation)



Not applicable

◦ the number and placement of

temperature/humidity sensors



Not applicable

In addition, any special procedures that

affect the success of the treatment (e.g. to maintain the quality of the commodity) should also be included.



Care must be taken to prevent commingling of treated and non-treated commodity, and generally prevent re-infestation.



2.6 Information on technical and commercial feasibility

Information should be provided to support the proposed phytosanitary treatment including such items as:

- feasibility of carrying out the proposed

phytosanitary treatment at a global level

(includes ease of use, risks to operators,

technical complexity)



Many countries currently do not have irradiators, and the expense of constructing these facilities will likely deter some countries from using this technology and treatment.

- extent of existing use by NPPOs

This treatment is accepted by the United States. Furthermore, numerous countries including China, South Africa, Australia, and the United States utilize irradiation treatments in general on food commodities, with the latter two countries also currently using irradiation for phytosanitary purposes.

- availability of expertise needed to apply

the proposed phytosanitary treatment

globally


Training of staff is a prerequisite to facility licensing and certification.

- versatility of the proposed phytosanitary

treatment (e.g. application to a wide

range of countries/pests/commodities)


The proposed treatment can be used on a wide range of commodities from any country. Furthermore, irradiation treatments can be applied after packaging.

- the degree to which the proposed

phytosanitary treatment complements

other treatments or procedures (e.g.

potential for the treatment to be used as

part of a systems approach for one pest or

to complement treatments for other pests)



This would primarily be a stand-alone treatment.

- feasibility of having the proposed

phytosanitary treatment accepted at a

global level


It is very feasible that this treatment would be accepted at a global level because irradiation treatments in general may cause less commodity damage than other treatments, and they can also be used on many pests and commodities. Moreover, this treatment could serve as a potential replacement for fumigation with methyl bromide.

- consideration of potential non-target

effects


The only potential non-target impact would involve commodity quality, and research has indicated minimal adverse effects at the prescribed dosage (Drake et al. 1999).




Page of


База данных защищена авторским правом ©shkola.of.by 2016
звярнуцца да адміністрацыі

    Галоўная старонка