Victorian Produce Monitoring Program 2008/09
A summary of residue data from Victorian-grown produce
Executive summary
The Victorian Department of Primary Industries (DPI) is committed to ensuring the safe and effective use of agricultural chemicals in horticulture. One method of assessing whether agricultural chemicals have been used correctly is to monitor fresh produce for pesticide residues.
In 2008-09, DPI obtained pesticide residue data for 378 samples from FreshTest, a chemical residue testing program run by the Australian Chamber of Fruit and Vegetable Industries. Samples comprised 197 fruits, 160 vegetables, 13 nuts and 8 herbs that were grown in Victoria.
The data collected is used to identify any trends or areas that appear to indicate an elevated risk of pesticide residues. High risk commodities are then included in DPI’s targeted monitoring and auditing programs.
The results showed that 95 per cent of samples complied with domestic maximum residue limits (MRLs) set by Food Standards Australia New Zealand (FSANZ). Although five per cent of the samples had unacceptable residue, this is a reflection of growers failing to adhere to good agricultural practice (GAP) rather than the residues being a food safety issue. The results indicate that, overall, Victorian producers are growing food that is of a high quality and using agricultural chemicals according to GAP.
The DPI will continue to monitor FreshTest and other industry data in addition to conducting its own monitoring initiatives to confirm that agricultural chemicals are being used safely and responsibly on Victorian farms.
Acronyms
APVMA Australian Pesticides and Veterinary Medicines Authority
DPI Department of Primary Industries
FSANZ Food Standards Australia New Zealand
LOR Limit of Reporting
MRL Maximum Residue Limit
TMRL Temporary Maximum Residue Limit
ERL Extraneous Residue Limit
GAP Good Agricultural Practice
Definitions
Residue
The amount of a chemical, or its breakdown products, that can remain in or on produce. This can include elements (such as heavy metals) or pesticides which may be present through agricultural or industrial activities or natural circumstances.Maximum residue limit (MRL)
The maximum concentration of a chemical residue that is legally permitted in or on food. Expressed in milligrams of the chemical per kilogram of food (mg/kg), this limit represents the maximum residue that should appear if good agricultural practice (GAP) is followed. MRLs are set by both the Australian Pesticides and Veterinary Medicines Authority (APVMA) and Food Standards Australia New Zealand (FSANZ).Temporary maximum residue limit (TMRL)
The maximum residue limit established for a specified, limited period. This is expressed in milligrams of the chemical per kilograms of the food (mg/kg).Extraneous residue limit (ERL)
The maximum permitted concentration of a pesticide residue arising from environmental sources (rather than the use of a pesticide directly or indirectly on the food) expressed in milligrams of the chemical per kilograms of the food (mg/kg). Some agricultural chemicals are no longer registered for use, but persist in the environment from previous use and can be detected as residues in produce (e.g. dieldrin and DDT).Withholding period (WHP)
The minimum length of time that must elapse between the last application of an agricultural chemical to a crop and the harvest, sale or use of the agricultural produce to which the chemical was applied.Unacceptable chemical residue
A residue of a chemical or contaminant is considered unacceptable if it exceeds the relevant MRL, TMRL or ERL. If there is no MRL, TMRL or ERL for an agricultural chemical or contaminant in a particular food, there must be no detectable residues of that chemical in that food (i.e. any detectable residue is unacceptable). An unacceptable residue in this instance does not equate to being unsafe, as it is unlikely to present a risk to human health at the low concentrations normally detected.Traceback
An investigation conducted after an unacceptable residue is detected in a sample of fresh produce. Following notification by the laboratory of the detection of an unacceptable residue or contaminant, a DPI Chemical Standards Officer visits the grower to identify the source and cause of the residue. Tracebacks are conducted according to defined procedures to ensure the grower or packer concerned will assess and control identified chemical use risks.Limit of reporting (LOR)
The minimum concentration of a residue present in a sample that can be confidently detected and positively identified by a specific laboratory method.Good agricultural practice (GAP)
The nationally recommended, authorised or approved use pattern of a chemical that is necessary for safe, effective and reliable pest control under actual conditions at any stage of production, storage, transport, distribution and processing of food commodities and animal feed.
If agricultural chemicals are used according to GAP, the targeted pest should be effectively controlled and the produce derived from the crop should have either no detectable residues or residues that are below the maximum residue limit. If used according to good agricultural practice, the chemical should not have a negative impact on the environment or the user’s health and safety.
1 Introduction
Agricultural chemicals are commonly used in the production of horticultural produce to control weeds, pests and diseases, to maintain crop quality and increase yields.
Before an agricultural chemical is registered for a specific use by the Agricultural Pesticide and Veterinary Medicines Authority (APVMA), it is assessed against efficacy, human health and environmental safety and trade (residues). Part of this process includes setting maximum residue limits (MRLs).
MRLs are established by the Agricultural Pesticide and Veterinary Medicines Authority (APVMA) and then adopted by Food Standards Australia New Zealand (FSANZ) in the Food Standards Code, typically within 12 months. Victorian legislation recognises both APVMA and FSANZ MRLs.
MRLs are set based on good agricultural practice (GAP) and relate to the maximum residue that should occur if a chemical is used correctly. At the time MRLs are set, a dietary exposure evaluation is undertaken to ensure any resulting residues from using the chemical does not cause any undue hazard to human health. As MRLs are set with very large safety margins, the detection of unacceptable residues on fresh produce does not necessarily mean that it is unsafe for consumption.
Agricultural chemical residue testing is a method used to verify whether agricultural chemicals are being used according to GAP. If agricultural chemicals are used correctly, any residues detected in produce sampled should be under the MRL.
In Australia, the Commonwealth, State and Territory governments undertake a range of testing programs to monitor the use of agricultural chemicals and ensure they are being used in the manner for which they were registered. These programs are complemented by various industry-run programs, such as FreshTest.
The Department of Primary Industries (DPI) obtained data from FreshTest relating to fresh horticultural produce grown in Victoria. FreshTest is run by the Australian Chamber of Fruit and Vegetable Industries. It facilitates sampling, chemical residue and microbial testing to wholesalers and their growers in Australia’s central markets. FreshTest contracts laboratories to carry out the analyses on the fresh produce samples. All laboratories performing the analyses are accredited with the National Association of Testing Authorities (NATA). Test results are compared to the FSANZ Food Standards Code, Standard 1.4.2 and sent directly to the grower or wholesaler.
While the results DPI obtained from FreshTest did not include the growers’ details, they did identify the locality of the sample’s origin, allowing DPI to monitor for regional and commodity trends. This report summarises the results for agricultural chemical residues detected in all Victorian samples analysed by FreshTest in the 2008-09 financial year. FreshTest compares results to MRLs set by FSANZ. These results have been used to measure the chemical residue status of Victorian-grown produce and monitor trends in chemical use.
This information assists DPI in targeting areas for more detailed monitoring and enforcement of agricultural chemical use legislation.
2 Overview of FreshTest data
From 1 July 2008 to 30 June 2009, FreshTest analysed a total of 378 Victorian produce samples for agricultural chemical residues.
These samples comprised:
- 160 vegetable samples
- 197 fruit samples
- 13 nut samples
- 8 herb samples.
2.1 Sample collection
FreshTest sourced Victorian grown samples from central wholesale markets around Australia. The majority (271) of the samples were sourced from the Sydney Markets, with the remainder of samples being collected at Melbourne (51), Brisbane (35), Adelaide (19) and Northern Territory (2) markets.2.2 Sample analysis
The samples were sent to NATA accredited laboratories, where they were screened for multiple residues. The analytical screen of chemicals sometimes varied within a given produce group. The grower or wholesaler submitting the sample nominated the screen to be used for analysis. A total of 34,134 tests were conducted on the 378 samples. Appendix A details the multi-residue screens and the analytes included in them. Most (83 per cent) of the samples were analysed for the multi-residue screen C3. The remainder were analysed against the multi-residue screens C6 (13 per cent) and C4 (three per cent). The results were then sent back to FreshTest, who provide them to the wholesalers and growers.3 Results
3.1 Overall
The results show that 95 per cent of the Victorian-grown samples analysed complied with the FSANZ MRLs. Only 19 (five per cent) of the 378 samples contained residues above the MRL. The specific results will be further discussed in terms of the broad commodity types: vegetables, fruits, nuts and herbs.3.1.1 Vegetables
Table 1 summarises the results of the 160 vegetable samples covering 34 different commodity types.| Produce group | Commodity | Number of samples | |||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Analysed | <LOR | <50% MRL |
50-100% MRL |
>MRL | No MRL | ||
| Stalk and stem | Artichokes | 7 | 6 | 0 | 0 | 1 | 0 |
| Asparagus | 2 | 2 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | |
| Celery | 5 | 4 | 1 | 0 | 0 | 0 | |
| Legume veg | Beans | 5 | 5 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 |
| Peas | 9 | 8 | 1 | 0 | 0 | 0 | |
| Brassica veg | Broccoli | 11 | 10 | 1 | 0 | 0 | 0 |
| Broccolini | 1 | 1 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | |
| Brussels sprouts | 2 | 2 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | |
| Cabbage | 8 | 7 | 0 | 1 | 0 | 0 | |
| Cauliflower | 15 | 10 | 5 | 0 | 0 | 0 | |
| Fruiting veg other than cucurbits | Capsicum | 1 | 1 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 |
| Chilli | 2 | 2 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | |
| Eggplant | 3 | 3 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | |
| Mushrooms | 1 | 1 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | |
| Sweet corn | 2 | 2 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | |
| Tomatoes | 24 | 22 | 1 | 0 | 0 | 1 | |
| Fruiting veg, cucurbits | Cucumber | 3 | 2 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 1 |
| Pumpkin | 2 | 2 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | |
| Squash | 3 | 2 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 1 | |
| Zucchini | 7 | 4 | 3 | 0 | 0 | 0 | |
| Leafy veg | Bok choy | 1 | 1 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 |
| Lettuce | 6 | 6 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | |
| Salad mix | 1 | 1 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | |
| Leafy veg (incl. brassica leafy veg) | Silverbeet | 1 | 1 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 |
| Spinach | 1 | 0 | 1 | 0 | 0 | 0 | |
| Produce group | Commodity | Number of samples | |||||
| Analysed | <LOR | <50% MRL |
50-100% MRL | >MRL | No MRL | ||
| Bulb veg | Garlic | 1 | 1 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 |
| Onions | 6 | 6 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | |
| Fennel | 4 | 4 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | |
| Fennel leaves | 1 | 1 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | |
| Root and tuber | Beetroot | 1 | 1 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 |
| Carrots | 8 | 4 | 0 | 0 | 4 | 0 | |
| Celeriac | 2 | 1 | 1 | 0 | 0 | 0 | |
| Horseradish | 1 | 0 | 1 | 0 | 0 | 0 | |
| Parsnips | 3 | 1 | 0 | 0 | 2 | 0 | |
| Potatoes | 10 | 10 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | |
| Total | 160 | 134 | 15 | 1 | 7 | 3 | |
Table 1. Summary of vegetable samples analysed and results
Tests found the majority of vegetable samples had either no detectable residue or residues that were well below the MRL for the various chemical/commodity combination.
As summarised in Table 2, ten (6.3 per cent) vegetable samples contained unacceptable residues. There were no MRLs for three of the unacceptable residues detected. Where there was no FSANZ MRL, there was also no APVMA MRL.
| Category | Commodity | Chemical detected | Concentration (mg/kg) | FSANZ MRL (mg/kg) |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Vegetable | Carrot | Linuron | 0.17 | 0.05 |
| Carrot | Linuron | 0.11 | 0.05 | |
| Carrot | Chlorpyrifos | 0.02 | 0.01 | |
| Carrot | Linuron | 0.07 | 0.05 | |
| Squash | Iprodione | 0.05 | No MRL | |
| Cucumber | Iprodione | 0.16 | No MRL | |
| Tomato | Thiabendazole | 0.04 | No MRL | |
| Artichoke | Chlorpyrifos | 0.32 | 0.01 | |
| Parsnip | Chlorpyrifos | 0.06 | 0.01 | |
| Parsnip | Chlorpyrifos | 0.02 | 0.01 |
Table 2. Summary of unacceptable agricultural chemicals detected in randomly selected Victoria-grown fresh vegetables
One cabbage sample had a chlorpyrifos residue within 50-100 per cent of the MRL. The remaining vegetable samples complied with MRLs.
3.1.2 Fruit
Table 3 summarises the results of 197 fruit samples representing 24 different commodity types.
| Produce group | Commodity | Number of samples | |||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Analysed | <LOR | <50% MRL | 50-100% MRL | >MRL | No MRL | ||
| Pome fruit | Apples | 20 | 5 | 14 | 1 | 0 | 0 |
| Pears | 13 | 1 | 11 | 0 | 1 | 0 | |
| Stone fruit | Apricots | 11 | 3 | 8 | 0 | 0 | 0 |
| Nectarines | 14 | 2 | 11 | 0 | 0 | 1 | |
| Peaches | 15 | 5 | 10 | 0 | 0 | 0 | |
| Plums | 8 | 5 | 3 | 0 | 0 | 0 | |
| Pluots | 1 | 1 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | |
| Berries | Blackberries | 2 | 1 | 1 | 0 | 0 | 0 |
| Blueberries | 1 | 1 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | |
| Boysenberries | 1 | 0 | 1 | 0 | 0 | 0 | |
| Grapes | 32 | 12 | 19 | 0 | 0 | 1 | |
| Raspberries | 2 | 1 | 1 | 0 | 0 | 0 | |
| Strawberries | 15 | 4 | 11 | 0 | 0 | 0 | |
| Citrus | Grapefruit | 11 | 8 | 3 | 0 | 0 | 0 |
| Lemons | 12 | 7 | 4 | 0 | 0 | 2 | |
| Mandarin | 2 | 0 | 2 | 0 | 0 | 0 | |
| Oranges | 17 | 14 | 3 | 0 | 0 | 0 | |
| Tangelos | 1 | 1 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | |
| Cucurbits | Honeydew | 1 | 1 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 |
| Rockmelon | 5 | 5 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | |
| Watermelon | 6 | 6 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | |
| Tropical and sub-tropical (edible peel) |
Dates | 1 | 1 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 |
| Olives | 1 | 1 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | |
| Persimmon | 3 | 3 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | |
| Tropical and sub- tropical (inedible peel) |
Kiwifruit | 1 | 1 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 |
| Pomegranate | 1 | 1 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | |
| Total | 197 | 90 | 102 | 1 | 1 | 4 | |
Table 3. Summary of fruit samples analysed and the results
The majority of the fruit samples had no detectable residues or residues that were well below the MRL for the various chemical/commodity combinations.
Table 4 summarises the unacceptable residues detected in five (2.5 per cent) fruit samples. There was no FSANZ or APVMA MRL for four of the residues. The other unacceptable residue detected was methidathion in pears, which was above the MRL.
| Category | Commodity | Chemical detected | Concentration (mg/kg) | FSANZ MRL (mg/kg) |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Fruit | Lemon | Iprodione | 0.13 | No MRL |
| Lemon | Prochloraz | 0.06 | No MRL | |
| Nectarine | Diphenylamine | 0.08 | No MRL | |
| Grapes | Chlorfenapyr | 0.17 | No MRL | |
| Pears | Methidathion | 0.22 | 0.2 |
Table 4. Summary of unacceptable agricultural chemicals detected in randomly selected Victorian-grown fresh fruit
One apple sample had a diphenylamine residue in the range of 50-100 per cent of the MRL.
3.1.3 Nuts
Thirteen nut samples were analysed. These consisted of 11 chestnut samples and one sample of pistachio and walnut. As detailed in Table 5, only two chestnut samples were found to have unacceptable residues.
| Category | Commodity | Chemical detected | Concentration (mg/kg) | FSANZ MRL (mg/kg) |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Nuts | Chestnuts | Iprodione | 1.9 | No MRL |
| Chestnuts | Iprodione | 1.1 | No MRL |
Table 5. Summary of unacceptable agricultural chemicals detected in randomly selected Victorian-grown nuts
There is no FSANZ or APVMA MRL for iprodione on chestnuts. All other nut samples were free of unacceptable residues.
3.1.4 Herbs
The eight herb samples analysed comprised five rosemary and three parsley samples. As outlined in Table 6, two of the parsley samples contained unacceptable residues.
At the time of analysis, there was no MRL for pirimicarb on parsley. The APVMA has set a temporary MRL of 20mg/kg for pirimicarb on herbs, therefore the residue was acceptable.
| Category | Commodity | Chemical detected | Concentration (mg/kg) | FSANZ MRL (mg/kg) |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Herbs | Parsley | Pirimicarb | 0.41 | No MRL (APVMA TMRL 20) |
| Parsley | Dimethoate | 2.96 | 2 |
Table 6. Summary of unacceptable agricultural chemicals detected in randomly selected Victorian-grown fresh herbs
4 Discussion
DPI purchases FreshTest data to monitor agricultural chemical residues in Victorian grown produce. Analysing industry-generated data is a cost effective means of identifying areas that require additional monitoring by Chemical Standards.
The FreshTest data comprised a broad range of Victorian grown horticultural commodities that were sampled and tested during 2008 -2009. These samples were screened for a range of agricultural chemical residues. The data provides a snapshot of the residue status of Victorian-grown fresh horticultural produce. The results reported are indications of what chemicals are being used on particular crops and if they are being using in accordance with GAP.
Of the 378 samples analysed for agricultural chemicals, 359 complied with FSANZ MRLs. This high compliance rate (95 per cent) indicates that the tested Victorian horticultural produce was grown in accordance with GAP. It should be noted that 241 (64 per cent) of the samples contained no detectable agricultural chemical residues.
These results are consistent with the European Food Safety Authority’s 2007 Annual Report on Pesticide Residues states that 96 per cent of the 74,305 samples analysed in the program complied with the relevant MRLs.
DPI Chemical Standards will use the data in this report to plan proactive monitoring of chemical use on Victorian produce. These activities may include targeted residue monitoring, audits, surveys and industry engagement.
Nineteen samples (five per cent) had residues, indicating that the growers did not adhere to GAP when applying the chemicals. From the results reported by FreshTest in 2008-09 trends were particularly noted for residues in chestnuts and carrots. These commodities have been included in future DPI targeted monitoring programs. This will give more statistically valid data for DPI to plan future activities with those industry bodies.
The results of this survey should give consumers confidence that Victorian-grown horticultural produce is largely grown according to good agricultural practice, resulting in a low percentage of detectable residues. DPI Chemical Standards will continue to monitor and enforce standards of agricultural chemical use.
Acknowledgements
The project coordinator wishes to acknowledge the following people and organisations that have supported this project:- FreshTest, in particular Martin Clark for providing the results for this survey
- Program Manager of Chemical Standards Field Services Alan Roberts
- Director Chemical Standards Russell McMurray
- Senior Chemical Standards Officer David Rumbold
- Acting Manager Grain & Horticulture Michael Laity
Contacts
For additional copies of this report please contact Deann Chy, Communications Manager, Chemical Standards on (03) 9217 4391, email deann.chy@dpi.vic.gov.au
For more information on the project, please contact Maresa Heath, Project Officer of Plant Residues, Chemical Standards Field Services on (03) 9217 4179, email maresa.heath@dpi.vic.gov.au
References
EFSA 2007 Annual Report on Pesticide Residues according to Article 32 of Regulation (EC) No 396/20051. Prepared by Pesticides Unit (PRAPeR) of EFSA (Question No EFSA-Q-2008-714). Issued on 10 June 2009.
http://www.efsa.europa.eu/EFSA/efsa_locale-1178620753812_1211902667778.htm
Food Standards Australia New Zealand (FSANZ), Food Standards Code, Standard 1.4.2. http://www.foodstandards.gov.au/thecode/foodstandardscode/standard142maximumre4244.cfm
Australian Pesticides and Veterinary Medicines Authority (APVMA) Table 1 Maximum residue limits of agricultural and veterinary chemicals and associated substances in food commodities http://www.apvma.gov.au/residues/mrl.shtml
Appendix A: Multi-residue screens used for FreshTest analyses
|
Screen |
Analyte Group |
Chemical |
Limit of Reporting (LOR) (mg/kg) |
|---|---|---|---|
| C3 | Organochlorines | Aldrin | 0.05 |
| BHC-alpha | 0.05 | ||
| BHC-beta | 0.05 | ||
| BHC-delta |
0.05 |
||
| BHC-total | 0.05 | ||
| DDD-p,p' | 0.05 | ||
| DDE-p,p' | 0.05 | ||
| DDT-p,p' | 0.05 | ||
| DDT-total | 0.05 | ||
| Dicofol | 0.05 | ||
| Dieldrin | 0.05 | ||
| Endosulfan-alpha | 0.05 | ||
| Endosulfan-beta | 0.05 | ||
| Endosulfan-sulphate | 0.05 | ||
| Endosulfan-total | 0.05 | ||
| HCB | 0.05 | ||
| Lindane | 0.05 | ||
| Trichlorfon | 0.1 | ||
| C3 | Organophosphates | Acephate | 0.1 |
| Azinphos methyl | 0.05 | ||
| Chlorpyrifos | 0.01 | ||
| Chlorpyrifos methyl | 0.05 | ||
| Diazinon | 0.05 | ||
| Dichlorvos | 0.05 | ||
| Dimethoate | 0.05 | ||
| Fenamiphos | 0.05 | ||
| Fenitrothion | 0.05 | ||
|
Screen |
Analyte Group |
Chemical |
Limit of Reporting (LOR) (mg/kg) |
| C3 | Organophosphates | Fenthion | 0.05 |
| Malathion | 0.05 | ||
| Methamidophos | 0.05 | ||
| Methidathion | 0.05 | ||
| Mevinphos | 0.05 | ||
| Monocrotophos | 0.05 | ||
| Omethoate | 0.1 | ||
| Parathion ethyl | 0.05 | ||
| Parathion methyl | 0.05 | ||
| Profenofos | 0.05 | ||
| Prothiofos | 0.05 | ||
| Tebufos | 0.05 | ||
| C3 | Herbicides | Chlorthal dimethyl | 0.05 |
| Linuron | 0.05 | ||
| Metribuzin | 0.05 | ||
| Oxyfluorfen | 0.05 | ||
| Pendimethalin | 0.05 | ||
| C3 | Acaracides | Buprofezin | 0.05 |
| Propargite | 0.05 | ||
| Tebufenpyrad | 0.05 | ||
| Tetradifon | 0.05 | ||
| C3 | Fungicides | Benalaxyl | 0.05 |
| Biteranol | 0.05 | ||
| Captan | 0.05 | ||
| Chlorothalonil | 0.05 | ||
| Cypraconazole | 0.05 | ||
| Cyprodinil | 0.05 | ||
| Dicloran | 0.05 | ||
| Difenoconazole | 0.05 | ||
| Dimethomorph | 0.05 | ||
| Screen | Analyte Group | Chemical | Limit of Reporting (LOR) (mg/kg) |
| C3 | Fungicides | Diphenylamine | 0.05 |
| Fenarimol | 0.05 | ||
| Fludioxonil | 0.05 | ||
| Flusilazole | 0.05 | ||
| Hexaconazole | 0.05 | ||
| Imazalil | 0.05 | ||
| Iprodione | 0.05 | ||
| Kresoxim methyl | 0.05 | ||
| Metalaxyl | 0.05 | ||
| Myclobutanil | 0.05 | ||
| Paclobutrazol | 0.05 | ||
| Penconazole | 0.05 | ||
| Piperonyl butoxide | 0.05 | ||
| Prochloraz | 0.05 | ||
| Procymidone | 0.05 | ||
| Propiconazole | 0.05 | ||
| Pyrimethanil | 0.05 | ||
| Quintozene | 0.05 | ||
| Tebuconazole | 0.05 | ||
| Toclophos methyl | 0.05 | ||
| Triadimefon | 0.05 | ||
| Triadimenol | 0.05 | ||
| Vinclozin | 0.05 | ||
| C3 | Others | Chlorfenapyr | 0.05 |
| Clofentazine | 0.05 | ||
| Fenoxycarb | 0.05 | ||
| Fipronil | 0.05 | ||
| Hexythiazox | 0.05 | ||
| Indoxacarb | 0.05 | ||
| Pyriproxifen | 0.05 | ||
| Screen | Analyte Group | Chemical | Limit of Reporting (LOR) (mg/kg) |
| C3 | Phenols | O-Phenylphenol | 0.05 |
| C3 | Carbamates | Carbaryl | 0.05 |
| Pirimicarb | 0.05 | ||
| C3 | Synthetic Pyrethroids | Bifenthrin | 0.01 |
| Bioresmethrin | 0.05 | ||
| Cyfluthrin-beta | 0.02 | ||
| Cyfluthrin | 0.05 | ||
| Cyhalothrin-lamda | 0.02 | ||
| Cyhalothrin | 0.02 | ||
| Cypermethrin-alpha | 0.02 | ||
| Cypermethrin | 0.05 | ||
| Deltamethrin | 0.02 | ||
| Esfenvalerate | 0.05 | ||
| Fenvalerate | 0.05 | ||
| Fluvalinate | 0.05 | ||
| tau-Fluvalinate | 0.05 | ||
| Permethrin | 0.05 | ||
| Phenothrin | 0.05 | ||
| Pyrethrins | 0.05 | ||
| C4 | Dithiocarbamates | Mancozeb | 0.1 |
| Ferbam | 0.1 | ||
| Metiram | 0.1 | ||
| Propineb | 0.1 | ||
| Thiram | 0.1 | ||
| Zineb | 0.1 | ||
| Ziram | 0.1 | ||
| Screen | Analyte Group | Chemical | Limit of Reporting (LOR) (mg/kg) |
| C5 | Various | Azoxystrobin | 0.05 |
| Benomyl | 0.1 | ||
| Carbendazim | 0.1 | ||
| Dithianon | 0.02 | ||
| Diuron | 0.05 | ||
| Fenhexamid | 0.02 | ||
| Fenpyroximate | 0.05 | ||
| Imidacloprid | 0.05 | ||
| Methomyl | 0.02 | ||
| Methomyl Oxime | 0.02 | ||
| Pymetrozine | 0.02 | ||
| Spinosad | 0.02 | ||
| Tebufenozide | 0.05 | ||
| Thiabendazole | 0.02 | ||
| Thiacloprid | 0.05 | ||
| Trifloxystrobin | 0.05 | ||
| C6 | C3 and C5 | All analytes and the relevant LOR for the analytes in these screens. | |
