PMID- 21318916
OWN - NLM
STAT- MEDLINE
DCOM- 20110601
LR  - 20171116
IS  - 1944-0057 (Electronic)
IS  - 1944-0057 (Linking)
VI  - 28
IP  - 2
DP  - 2011 Feb
TI  - Fate of three insect growth regulators (IGR) insecticides (flufenoxuron, 
      lufenuron and tebufenozide) in grapes following field application and through the 
      wine-making process.
PG  - 189-97
LID - 10.1080/19440049.2010.542184 [doi]
AB  - The dissipation of three insecticide flufenoxuron, lufenuron and tebufenozide 
      residues in grapes after field treatments and during the wine-making process was 
      assessed. Residues were determined in grape, must, centrifuged must and wine 
      samples by HPLC-UV after cyclohexane extraction and clean-up on silica-phase 
      cartridges. Vines in vineyards with white and red grapes located in Central 
      Greece were sprayed once with commercial formulations of each insecticide at the 
      recommended doses in experiments carried out in 2004 and repeated in 2006. The 
      insecticide residues in grapes showed slow reduction for a period of 42 days 
      after application following first-order kinetics with dissipation rates ranged 
      from 0.011 to 0.018 mg kg(-)(1) day(-)(1). However, at the recommended pre-harvest 
      interval (PHI) residues did not exceed 0.27 +/- 0.03 mg kg(-)(1) for flufenoxuron and 
      lufenuron and 0.68 +/- 0.07 mg kg(-)(1) for tebufenozide, and they were clearly lower 
      than the maximum residue limits (MRLs) set by the European Union for grape (2 mg 
      kg(-)(1) for flufenoxuron, 1 mg kg(-)(1) for lufenuron and 3 mg kg(-)(1) for tebufenozide). 
      Grape processing into wine caused an almost complete reduction for flufenoxuron 
      and lufenuron as their residues in wine were below the method LOQs (<0.01 mg 
      l(-)(1)), but only a moderate reduction for tebufenozide with concentrations from 
      0.13 to 0.26 mg l(-)(1) measured in the produced wines. Mean transfer factors for 
      tebufenozide of 0.45 for white 'Roditis' and 0.34 for red 'Cabernet Sauvignon' 
      were found from grapes into wine for the wines processed without maceration. The 
      wine-making technique (with or without maceration) had the same influence on 
      tebufenozide residues in wine. Of the various clarifying agents studied, charcoal 
      was found to be the only one effective in removing tebufenozide residues from 
      wine.
FAU - Likas, D T
AU  - Likas DT
AD  - Analytical Chemistry and Pesticides Laboratory, Department of Agriculture, Crop 
      Protection and Rural Environment, University of Thessaly, GR-38446 Nea Ionia - 
      Volos, Greece.
FAU - Tsiropoulos, N G
AU  - Tsiropoulos NG
LA  - eng
PT  - Journal Article
PL  - England
TA  - Food Addit Contam Part A Chem Anal Control Expo Risk Assess
JT  - Food additives & contaminants. Part A, Chemistry, analysis, control, exposure & 
      risk assessment
JID - 101485040
RN  - 0 (Benzamides)
RN  - 0 (Hydrazines)
RN  - 0 (Industrial Waste)
RN  - 0 (Insecticides)
RN  - 0 (Juvenile Hormones)
RN  - 0 (Pesticide Residues)
RN  - 0 (Phenylurea Compounds)
RN  - 16291-96-6 (Charcoal)
RN  - 1R754M4918 (fluphenacur)
RN  - OD068OSS0N (flufenoxuron)
RN  - TNN5MI5EKF (tebufenozide)
SB  - IM
MH  - Agriculture/methods
MH  - Benzamides/analysis
MH  - Charcoal
MH  - Chromatography, High Pressure Liquid
MH  - European Union
MH  - *Food Contamination/prevention & control
MH  - Food Handling/methods
MH  - Fruit/*chemistry
MH  - Greece
MH  - Hydrazines/analysis
MH  - Industrial Waste/analysis
MH  - Insecticides/*analysis
MH  - Juvenile Hormones/*analysis
MH  - Kinetics
MH  - Limit of Detection
MH  - Pesticide Residues/*analysis/standards
MH  - Phenylurea Compounds/analysis
MH  - Solid Phase Extraction
MH  - Vitis/*chemistry
MH  - Wine/*analysis
EDAT- 2011/02/15 06:00
MHDA- 2011/06/02 06:00
CRDT- 2011/02/15 06:00
PHST- 2011/02/15 06:00 [entrez]
PHST- 2011/02/15 06:00 [pubmed]
PHST- 2011/06/02 06:00 [medline]
AID - 933314014 [pii]
AID - 10.1080/19440049.2010.542184 [doi]
PST - ppublish
SO  - Food Addit Contam Part A Chem Anal Control Expo Risk Assess. 2011 
      Feb;28(2):189-97. doi: 10.1080/19440049.2010.542184.