Deliquescence‐induced release of ethyl formate and chlorine dioxide from their precursors‐loaded sachets for in‐package fumigation of spotted wing drosophila (<i>Drosophila suzukii</i> Matsumura)
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Abstract The toxicity and environmental concerns of methyl bromide (MB) have been a significant impetus for research into environmentally benign fumigant alternatives. Ethyl formate (EF) and chlorine dioxide (ClO2) are FDA‐approved agents with potential as alternatives to MB. However, both are chemically unstable and pose considerable end‐use challenges. In this study, we developed moisture‐activated sachets for EF and ClO2 to facilitate their end‐use deployment for in‐package fumigation. The sachets were loaded with EF or ClO2 metastable precursors, citric acid (CA), and a deliquescent salt carrier (e.g., CaCl2 or NaCl). When placed in an elevated relative humidity environment, these combinations activate the release of EF or ClO2 gases, separately. The deliquescence lowering phenomenon and its effect on fumigants release rate were investigated when mixing CA with CaCl2 or NaCl. The mutual deliquescence relative humidity for CA–CaCl2 and CA–NaCl mixtures were 40% and 63%, respectively. CaCl2 enhanced the release rate of fumigants from their sachets, whereas NaCl resulted in a slower release rate. EF and ClO2 sachets were evaluated for fumigation of different life stages of spotted wing drosophila (SWD). Complete control of SWD adults was achieved after exposure to 10.1 mg·h/L EF, while eggs, larval, and pupal stages were more tolerant toward EF vapour and required 110.2 mg·h/L EF to achieve control. ClO2 at low concentrations was more effective than EF against all SWD life stages, excluding pupae. Complete mortality was achieved after fumigating SWD adults, eggs, and larvae with 0.73, 2.39, and 1.21 mg·h/L ClO2, respectively. These results indicated that both EF and ClO2 sachets could be employed safely for EF and ClO2 in‐packaging fumigation to control produce pests.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".