Updated: XX XX 20XX
Checklist for evaluating treatment submissions
(November 2nd 2009)
Submission No.: 20009-TPPT-103
Treatment description
Note: this description will be used as the basis for the treatment document for SC approval
and member consultation.
Name of treatment
Active ingredient
Treatment type
Target pest
Target regulated
articles
Treatment schedule
Other relevant
information
References
Vapour heat treatment of mango varieties for Queensland fruit fly
N/A
Vapor heat treatment (VHT)
Bactrocera tryoni (Queensland fruit fly)
[B. papayae (papaya fruit fly)
Ceratitis capitata (Mediterranean fruit fly)]
Mangifera indica (Mango) varieties: R2E2, Kent, Keitt, Palmer
Mango fruit varieties were heated to core temperatures of 41–47ºC
followed by immediate cooling. Results show no significant difference in
heat response of eggs treated in Kensington, R2E2, Kent or Keitt manages
and significantly less tolerant in Palmer
Corcoran, R.J., Peterson, P.M., Heslin, L.M., Eelkema, M. & Jen,
E.V. 2002. Study of the response to heat of Queensland fruit fly in
mangoes allows additional varieties to be exported to Japan. Acta
Hort. (ISHS) 575:673-679
Corcoran, R. J., R. A. Jordan, P. M. Peterson, M. Eelkema, L. M.
Heslin, 2000. Disinfestations of additional mango varieties for
export to Japan. Horticultural Research & Development Corp.,
NSW Gordon. 33 p. ISBN 0734100507
Check list
Note: For the first evaluation after submission of the treatment, the TPPT lead should
complete the comment column. The checklist will then be considered by the whole
TPPT and the panel may amend the comments during their discussion.
For subsequent evaluations of the treatment, new rows for additional information and
comments should be inserted underneath each relevant entry every time they are added by
the TPPT lead. As before, the TPPT may amend these comments during discussion at the
TPPT meeting.
For transparency, the date/year and initials of the author of each new row should be
indicated.
Summary information
The summary information should be
submitted by NPPOs or RPPOs to the
Secretariat and should include:
Comments – are the requirements met?
1
1. name of the treatment
Not applicable
Vapour heat treatment of mango varieties for
Queensland fruit fly
However, Target pest on treatment schedule
includes Papaya and Mediterranean fruit fly as well
as Queensland fruit fly
2. name of the NPPO or RPPO and Australia
contact information
3. name and contact details of a Lois Ransom
person responsible for submission Chief Plant Protection Officer
of the treatment
Australian Government Department of Agriculture,
Fisheries and Forestry
GPO Box 858
Canberra ACT 2601
Australia
Phone: +61 2 6272 4888
Fax: +61 2 6272 5835
E-mail: [email protected]
4. treatment
description
(active Not applicable
ingredient, treatment type, target
regulated article(s), target pest(s), Mango fruit varieties were heated to core
treatment
schedule,
other temperatures of 41–47ºC followed by immediate
information)
cooling. Results show no significant difference in
heat response of eggs treated in Kensington, R2E2,
Kent or Keitt manages and significantly less tolerant
in Palmer
However, more accurate temperature and time
needed for treatment description(ex. 47 ºC, 15min)
5. reason for submission, including The reason for this submission is not directly
its relevance to existing ISPMs.
addressed.
Efficacy data in support of the
submission
of
a
phytosanitary
treatment
The source of all efficacy data (published
or unpublished) should be provided in the
submission. Supporting data should be
presented clearly and systematically.
Efficacy data provided
EDxxx at XX%confidence level1
2
Efficacy level
Temperature-response test was carried out with
comparison of LT estimates for B. tryoni eggs in
Kensington and four varietis. LT99(95%FL) of
R2E2, Kent, Palmer, Keitt was 45.91(45.33-46.97),
46.02(45.57-46.65),
44.87(44.62-45.20),
46.29(45.90-46.82), respectively, which is less than
47 ℃(described in 2009-TPPT-103_Submision
form)
ED99.98458 at 95% confidence level in ‘Keitt’
mangoes. No survivor out of 19,424 B. tryoni eggs
treated to core temperature of 47 ºC
for
15min(described in 2009-TPPT-103_Supporting
Doc_2)
Efficacy and confidence level of the treatment
exceeds ED99.9968 at the 95% confidence level for
both Bactrocera tryoni (Queensland fruit fly) wet
heated to core temperature of 47 ºC for 15min(no
survivor out of 132,677 eggs) and Ceratitis capitata
to core temperature of 46.5 ºC for 10min(no
survivor out of 165,615 eggs) in ‘Kensington’
mangoes.
(deoscribed
in
2009-TPPT102_Submision form)
Intended outcome
Pest information
1. identity of the pest
2. conditions under which the pests
are cultured, reared or grown
Bactrocera tryoni. The flies used in these studies
came from laboratory populations.
Fruit flies were reared in laboratory conditions. The
temperatue and humidity maintained at 26±0.5℃
and 75±5%. Artificial lighting was turned off before
dusk and on after dawn
3. biological traits of the pest relevant Not described
to the treatment
However, According to 2009-TPPT-102_submision
form, the development time to each life stage
following oviposition was determined
4. method of natural or artificial
cage infestation
infestation
5. determination of most resistant
Previous research has shown that no stage of C.
species/life stage (in the regulated
capitata, B. papayae or B. tryoni was more heat
article where appropriate)
tolerant than mature eggs of B. tryoni(Heather et al.
1997; Corcoran et al. 1997 described in 2009-TPPT103_Supporting Doc_2 )
Regulated article information
1. type of regulated article and Mangifera indica (mango) var R2E2, Kent, Palmer,
intended use
Keitt, fruit for human consumption
2. botanical name for plant or plant
Mangifera indica
product
3
3. conditions of the plant/plant
product (free from non-target
pests/size, shape, weight/infested
at susceptible stage)
Experimental parameters
(labs and/or operational) and/or
historic information.
1. level of confidence of tests
provided by the method of
statistical analysis and the data
All mangoes were free from insecticides.
Information on mango weight was provided.
Temperature-response test was carried out with
comparison of LT estimates for B. tryoni eggs in
Kensington and four varietis. LT99(95%FL) of
R2E2, Kent, Palmer, Keitt was 45.91(45.33-46.97),
46.02(45.57-46.65),
44.87(44.62-45.20),
46.29(45.90-46.82), respectively, which is less than
47 ℃(described in 2009-TPPT-103_Submision
form)
ED99.98458 at 95% confidence level in ‘Keitt’
mangoes. No survivor out of 19,424 B. tryoni eggs
treated to core temperature of 47 ºC
for
15min(described in 2009-TPPT-103_Supporting
Doc_2)
2. experimental facilities and
equipment
3. experimental design
4. experimental conditions
Efficacy and confidence level of the treatment
exceeds ED99.9968 at the 95% confidence level for
both Bactrocera tryoni (Queensland fruit fly) wet
heated to core temperature of 47 ºC for 15min(no
survivor out of 132,677 eggs) and Ceratitis capitata
to core temperature of 46.5 ºC for 10min(no
survivor out of 165,615 eggs) in ‘Kensington’
mangoes.
(deoscribed
in
2009-TPPT102_Submision form)
Information provided.
Information provided.
Information provided.
When fruit were removed from the chamber they
were immediately cooled under a shower of water at
ambient temperature(25-27℃). Cooling with water
continued until the fruit core temperature dropped to
less than 35℃
Mangoes were treated at seven temperatures (41, 42,
43, 44, 45, 46 and 47 C) in comparative study.
Information provided.
5. determination of efficacy over a
range of critical parameters
6. methodology to measure the
effectiveness of the treatment
7. monitoring of critical parameters Information provided.
(e.g.
exposure
time,
dose,
temperature of regulated article
and ambient air, relative humidity)
4
Feasibility and applicability
This includes such items as:
1. procedure for carrying out the
phytosanitary treatment (including
ease of use, risks to operators,
technical complexity, training
required, equipment required,
facilities needed)
2. cost of typical treatment facility
and operational running costs if
appropriate
3. commercial relevance, including
affordability
4. extent to which other NPPOs have
approved the treatment as a
phytosanitary measure
5.
6.
7.
8.
This item wasn’t addressed.
This item wasn’t addressed.
This item wasn’t addressed.
On the basis of these results, the existing vapour
heat treatment of 47 C + 15 minutes, developed to
allow export of ‘R2E2, Kent, Palmer, Keitt’ as well
as ‘Kensington’ mangoes to Japan, was accepted by
Japanese authorities a being equally effective
against all stages of B. tryoni, B. papayae and C.
capitata. A treatment protocol was developed and
verified in 1999 and exports of the varieties Keitt
and R2E2 commenced in the 1999-2000 mango
season. Republic of Korea also allowed import of
mangoes from Australia with same condition as
Japan in 2007
availability of expertise needed to This item wasn’t addressed.
apply the phytosanitary treatment
versatility of the phytosanitary This item wasn’t addressed.
treatment (e.g. application to a
wide range of countries, pests and
commodities)
the degree to which the This item was not addressed.
phytosanitary
treatment
complements other phytosanitary
measures (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)
consideration of potential indirect This item was not addressed.
effects (e.g. impacts on the
environment, impacts on nontarget organisms, human and
animal health)
5
9. applicability of treatment with On the basis of these results, the existing vapour
respect to specific regulated heat treatment of 47 C + 15 minutes, developed to
article/pest combinations
allow export of ‘R2E2, Kent, Palmer, Keitt’ as well
as ‘Kensington’ mangoes to Japan, was accepted by
Japanese authorities a being equally effective
against all stages of B. tryoni, B. papayae and C.
capitata. A treatment protocol was developed and
verified in 1999 and exports of the varieties Keitt
and R2E2 commenced in the 1999-2000 mango
season. Republic of Korea also allowed import of
mangoes from Australia with same condition as
Japan in 2007
10. technical viability
This item wasn’t addressed.
11. phytotoxicity and other effects on This item wasn’t addressed.
the quality of regulated articles
12. consideration of the risk of the This item wasn’t addressed.
target
organism
having
or
developing resistance to the
treatment.
1
Provide appropriate reference here
Couey H M, Chew V (1986) Confidence limits and sample size in quarantine research. Journal
of Economic Entomology 79: pp 887-890
Corcoran, R.J., Leach, P.L., Pike, E.A., Peterson, P.M., Brown, M.D. Veronise, S.a. and OkelloOkanya, E. 1997. Comparative heat tolerance of Queensland fruit fly, Bactrocera tryoni and
papaya fruit fly, Bactrocera papayae in mangoes. Queesland Department of Primary Industies
report to Ministry of Agriculture, Forestry and Fisheries, Japan through AQIS.
Heather, N.W. and Corcoran, R.J. and Kopittke, R.A. 1997. Hot air disinfestation of Australian
‘Kensington’ mangoes against two fruit flies(Dipetera: Tephritidae). Posthavest Biology and
Technology 10: 99-105
6