Xinjiang Agricultural Sciences ›› 2022, Vol. 59 ›› Issue (3): 663-673.DOI: 10.6048/j.issn.1001-4330.2022.03.016
• Plant Protection·Agricultural Product Analysis and Detection • Previous Articles Next Articles
DU Yuemei1,2(), GAO Liping1(), SHAO Hua2()
Received:
2021-06-21
Online:
2022-03-20
Published:
2022-03-28
Correspondence author:
GAO Liping, SHAO Hua
Supported by:
通讯作者:
高丽萍,邵华
作者简介:
杜月梅(1995-),女,硕士研究生,研究方向为农产品质量安全与检测技术以及食品安全,(E-mail) 1046655264@qq.com
基金资助:
CLC Number:
DU Yuemei, GAO Liping, SHAO Hua. Study on UF and DN of Furoxime and Its Metabolites in Rice[J]. Xinjiang Agricultural Sciences, 2022, 59(3): 663-673.
杜月梅, 高丽萍, 邵华. 呋虫胺及其代谢物UF和DN在水稻上残留行为及其储存稳定性[J]. 新疆农业科学, 2022, 59(3): 663-673.
Add to citation manager EndNote|Ris|BibTeX
URL: http://www.xjnykx.com/EN/10.6048/j.issn.1001-4330.2022.03.016
地点 place | 作物品种 crop variety | 小区面积 community area (m2) | 剂量或浓度 dose or concentration (g a.i/ hm2) | 用水量 water consumption (kg/667m2) | 施药间隔期 Dosing interval (d) | 采收间隔 Harvest interval (d) | 施药次数 Number of applications (次) |
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
湖北省武汉市 Wuhan, Hubei | 水稻隆两优608 | 100 | 120 | 30 | 10 | 14、21 | 2 |
安徽省淮北市 Huaibei, Anhui | 水稻徐优733 | 100 | 120 | 30 | 10 | 14、21 | 2 |
吉林省长春市 Changchun,Jilin | 水稻吉农大838 | 100 | 120 | 30 | 10 | 14、21 | 2 |
上海市松江区 Songjiang,Shanghai | 水稻松香梗1018 | 100 | 120 | 30 | 10 | 14、21 | 2 |
湖南省张家界市 Zhangjiajie, Hunan | 水稻谷优3301 | 100 | 120 | 30 | 10 | 14、21 | 2 |
黑龙江省肇东市 Zhaodong, Heilongjiang | 水稻稻花香 | 100 | 120 | 30 | 10 | 14、21 | 2 |
浙江省金华市 Jinhua, Zhejiang | 水稻禾两优1号 | 100 | 120 | 30 | 10 | 14、21 | 2 |
四川省彭州市 Pengzhou,Sichuan | 水稻川优6203 | 100 | 120 | 30 | 10 | 14、21 | 2 |
河南省济源市 Jiyuan, Henan | 水稻黄金晴 | 100 | 120 | 30 | 10 | 14、21 | 2 |
云南省昆明市 Kunming,Yunnan | 水稻楚粳28 | 100 | 120 | 30 | 10 | 14、21 | 2 |
广西区南宁市 Nanning, Guangxi | 水稻Y两优2号 | 100 | 120 | 30 | 10 | 14、21 | 2 |
福建省南平市 Nanping, Fujian | 水稻,甬优1540 | 100 | 120 | 30 | 10 | 14、21 | 2 |
Table 1 Field test conditions
地点 place | 作物品种 crop variety | 小区面积 community area (m2) | 剂量或浓度 dose or concentration (g a.i/ hm2) | 用水量 water consumption (kg/667m2) | 施药间隔期 Dosing interval (d) | 采收间隔 Harvest interval (d) | 施药次数 Number of applications (次) |
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
湖北省武汉市 Wuhan, Hubei | 水稻隆两优608 | 100 | 120 | 30 | 10 | 14、21 | 2 |
安徽省淮北市 Huaibei, Anhui | 水稻徐优733 | 100 | 120 | 30 | 10 | 14、21 | 2 |
吉林省长春市 Changchun,Jilin | 水稻吉农大838 | 100 | 120 | 30 | 10 | 14、21 | 2 |
上海市松江区 Songjiang,Shanghai | 水稻松香梗1018 | 100 | 120 | 30 | 10 | 14、21 | 2 |
湖南省张家界市 Zhangjiajie, Hunan | 水稻谷优3301 | 100 | 120 | 30 | 10 | 14、21 | 2 |
黑龙江省肇东市 Zhaodong, Heilongjiang | 水稻稻花香 | 100 | 120 | 30 | 10 | 14、21 | 2 |
浙江省金华市 Jinhua, Zhejiang | 水稻禾两优1号 | 100 | 120 | 30 | 10 | 14、21 | 2 |
四川省彭州市 Pengzhou,Sichuan | 水稻川优6203 | 100 | 120 | 30 | 10 | 14、21 | 2 |
河南省济源市 Jiyuan, Henan | 水稻黄金晴 | 100 | 120 | 30 | 10 | 14、21 | 2 |
云南省昆明市 Kunming,Yunnan | 水稻楚粳28 | 100 | 120 | 30 | 10 | 14、21 | 2 |
广西区南宁市 Nanning, Guangxi | 水稻Y两优2号 | 100 | 120 | 30 | 10 | 14、21 | 2 |
福建省南平市 Nanping, Fujian | 水稻,甬优1540 | 100 | 120 | 30 | 10 | 14、21 | 2 |
名称 Name | 保留时间 Keep time (min) | 定性离子对 Qualitative ion pair (m/z) | 定量离子对 Quantitative transition (m/z) | 滞留时间 Residence time (s) | 去簇电压 Declustering voltage (V) | 碰撞能量 Collision energy (eV) |
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
呋虫胺 Dinotefuran | 1.94 | 203.2/129.2 | 203.2/129.2 | 0.2 | 28 | 20 |
203.2/114.2 | 0.2 | 28 | 25 | |||
代谢物UF | 2.23 | 159.2/102.1 | 159.2/102.1 | 0.2 | 22 | 16 |
159.2/85.0 | 0.2 | 22 | 22 | |||
代谢物DN | 2.23 | 159.0/102.1 | 159.0/102.1 | 0.2 | 24 | 17 |
159.0/85 | 0.2 | 24 | 24 |
Table 2 Mass Spectrometry Parameters of UF and DN of Furoxime and Its Metabolites in Multiple Reaction Monitoring Mode
名称 Name | 保留时间 Keep time (min) | 定性离子对 Qualitative ion pair (m/z) | 定量离子对 Quantitative transition (m/z) | 滞留时间 Residence time (s) | 去簇电压 Declustering voltage (V) | 碰撞能量 Collision energy (eV) |
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
呋虫胺 Dinotefuran | 1.94 | 203.2/129.2 | 203.2/129.2 | 0.2 | 28 | 20 |
203.2/114.2 | 0.2 | 28 | 25 | |||
代谢物UF | 2.23 | 159.2/102.1 | 159.2/102.1 | 0.2 | 22 | 16 |
159.2/85.0 | 0.2 | 22 | 22 | |||
代谢物DN | 2.23 | 159.0/102.1 | 159.0/102.1 | 0.2 | 24 | 17 |
159.0/85 | 0.2 | 24 | 24 |
分析物 Analyte | 添加浓度 Add Concen tration (mg /kg) | 稻壳 Rice husk | 糙米 Brown rice | 秸秆 Straw | 标准曲线 Standard curve line | R2 | 最小检出量 Minimum detection amount (MDA) (g) | |||
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
平均回收率 (%) | 相对标准偏差 (%) | 平均回收率 (%) | 相对标准偏差 (%) | 平均回收率 (%) | 相对标准偏差 (%) | |||||
呋虫胺 Dinotefuran | 0.05 | 86.8 | 6.9 | 91.6 | 3.5 | 92.0 | 5.5 | ①y=595.8x-4 778.5 | 0.997 5 | |
0.10 | 94.8 | 2.6 | 95.3 | 4.5 | 96.0 | 1.6 | ②y=970x+3.1e+003 | 0.999 5 | 2.5×10-11 | |
0.20 | 96.5 | 3.0 | 95.9 | 2.6 | 94.2 | 2.8 | ③y= 462.98x - 5 648.9 | 0.996 0 | ||
0.50 | 91.5 | 2.1 | 97.5 | 2.5 | 96.4 | 2.4 | ||||
UF | 0.05 | 92.0 | 4.5 | 92.7 | 3.9 | 91.2 | 5.0 | ①y=2.15e+003x+1.09e+004 | 0.996 6 | |
0.10 | 96.0 | 6.1 | 93.1 | 3.0 | 94.0 | 2.7 | ②y=2.79e+003x+5.37e+004 | 0.996 0 | 2.5×10-11 | |
0.20 | 94.2 | 1.6 | 94.3 | 2.9 | 95.9 | 1.6 | ③y= 2.11e+003x+3.93e+004 | 0.997 1 | ||
0.50 | 96.4 | 3.0 | 93.6 | 3.6 | 91.9 | 4.8 | ||||
DN | 0.05 | 94.2 | 1.7 | 89.7 | 6.7 | 93.4 | 4.6 | ①y=2.16e+003x+1.13e+004 | 0.998 7 | |
0.10 | 86.1 | 6.1 | 90.0 | 5.9 | 96.2 | 1.8 | ②y=2.95e+003x+5.77e+004 | 0.996 2 | 2.5×10-11 | |
0.20 | 97.8 | 3.3 | 90.5 | 7.0 | 94.8 | 3.6 | ③y= 2.95e+003x+5.77e+004 | 0.997 3 | ||
0.50 | 95.3 | 3.6 | 96.9 | 1.5 | 93.1 | 4.7 |
Table 3 Standard recovery and relative standard deviation of furoxime and its metabolites in rice (n=5)
分析物 Analyte | 添加浓度 Add Concen tration (mg /kg) | 稻壳 Rice husk | 糙米 Brown rice | 秸秆 Straw | 标准曲线 Standard curve line | R2 | 最小检出量 Minimum detection amount (MDA) (g) | |||
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
平均回收率 (%) | 相对标准偏差 (%) | 平均回收率 (%) | 相对标准偏差 (%) | 平均回收率 (%) | 相对标准偏差 (%) | |||||
呋虫胺 Dinotefuran | 0.05 | 86.8 | 6.9 | 91.6 | 3.5 | 92.0 | 5.5 | ①y=595.8x-4 778.5 | 0.997 5 | |
0.10 | 94.8 | 2.6 | 95.3 | 4.5 | 96.0 | 1.6 | ②y=970x+3.1e+003 | 0.999 5 | 2.5×10-11 | |
0.20 | 96.5 | 3.0 | 95.9 | 2.6 | 94.2 | 2.8 | ③y= 462.98x - 5 648.9 | 0.996 0 | ||
0.50 | 91.5 | 2.1 | 97.5 | 2.5 | 96.4 | 2.4 | ||||
UF | 0.05 | 92.0 | 4.5 | 92.7 | 3.9 | 91.2 | 5.0 | ①y=2.15e+003x+1.09e+004 | 0.996 6 | |
0.10 | 96.0 | 6.1 | 93.1 | 3.0 | 94.0 | 2.7 | ②y=2.79e+003x+5.37e+004 | 0.996 0 | 2.5×10-11 | |
0.20 | 94.2 | 1.6 | 94.3 | 2.9 | 95.9 | 1.6 | ③y= 2.11e+003x+3.93e+004 | 0.997 1 | ||
0.50 | 96.4 | 3.0 | 93.6 | 3.6 | 91.9 | 4.8 | ||||
DN | 0.05 | 94.2 | 1.7 | 89.7 | 6.7 | 93.4 | 4.6 | ①y=2.16e+003x+1.13e+004 | 0.998 7 | |
0.10 | 86.1 | 6.1 | 90.0 | 5.9 | 96.2 | 1.8 | ②y=2.95e+003x+5.77e+004 | 0.996 2 | 2.5×10-11 | |
0.20 | 97.8 | 3.3 | 90.5 | 7.0 | 94.8 | 3.6 | ③y= 2.95e+003x+5.77e+004 | 0.997 3 | ||
0.50 | 95.3 | 3.6 | 96.9 | 1.5 | 93.1 | 4.7 |
水稻 部位 Rice part | 储藏期 Storage period (d) | 添加 浓度 Add Concen tration (mg/kg) | 呋虫胺储存实验样品 Dinotefuran storage test sample | UF储存实验样品 UF storage of experimental samples | DN储存实验样品 DN storage experimental samples | ||||||||||||
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
残留量 (mg/kg) | 降解率 (%) | 残留量 (mg/kg) | 降解率 (%) | 残留量 (mg/kg) | 降解率 (%) | ||||||||||||
1 | 2 | 1 | 2 | 平均 | 1 | 2 | 1 | 2 | 平均 | 1 | 2 | 1 | 2 | 平均 | |||
稻谷 Paddy | 0 | 1 | 0.984 | 0.972 | 1.6 | 2.8 | 2.2 | 0.976 | 0.965 | 2.4 | 3.5 | 3.0 | 0.984 | 0.965 | 1.6 | 3.5 | 2.6 |
30 | 1 | 0.957 | 0.952 | 4.3 | 4.8 | 4.6 | 0.948 | 0.954 | 5.2 | 4.6 | 4.9 | 0.962 | 0.952 | 3.8 | 4.8 | 4.3 | |
60 | 1 | 0.915 | 0.924 | 8.5 | 7.6 | 8.1 | 0.927 | 0.926 | 7.3 | 7.4 | 7.4 | 0.943 | 0.937 | 5.7 | 6.3 | 6.0 | |
90 | 1 | 0.905 | 0.912 | 9.5 | 8.8 | 9.2 | 0.913 | 0.904 | 8.7 | 9.6 | 9.2 | 0.914 | 0.910 | 8.6 | 9.0 | 8.8 | |
120 | 1 | 0.872 | 0.884 | 12.8 | 11.6 | 12.2 | 0.876 | 0.894 | 12.4 | 10.6 | 11.5 | 0.891 | 0.887 | 10.9 | 11.3 | 11.1 | |
150 | 1 | 0.847 | 0.859 | 15.3 | 14.1 | 14.7 | 0.864 | 0.856 | 13.6 | 14.4 | 14.0 | 0.867 | 0.858 | 13.3 | 14.2 | 13.8 | |
180 | 1 | 0.828 | 0.834 | 17.2 | 16.6 | 16.9 | 0.851 | 0.845 | 14.9 | 15.5 | 15.2 | 0.836 | 0.824 | 16.4 | 17.6 | 17.0 | |
植株 Rice plant | 0 | 1 | 0.964 | 0.973 | 3.6 | 2.7 | 3.2 | 0.981 | 0.964 | 1.9 | 3.6 | 2.8 | 0.972 | 0.983 | 2.8 | 1.7 | 2.3 |
30 | 1 | 0.962 | 0.957 | 3.8 | 4.3 | 4.1 | 0.951 | 0.957 | 4.9 | 4.3 | 4.6 | 0.961 | 0.967 | 3.9 | 3.3 | 3.6 | |
60 | 1 | 0.934 | 0.927 | 6.6 | 7.3 | 6.9 | 0.930 | 0.927 | 7.0 | 7.3 | 7.2 | 0.946 | 0.954 | 5.4 | 4.6 | 5.0 | |
90 | 1 | 0.886 | 0.892 | 11.4 | 10.8 | 11.1 | 0.913 | 0.907 | 8.7 | 9.3 | 9.0 | 0.927 | 0.918 | 7.3 | 8.2 | 7.8 | |
120 | 1 | 0.871 | 0.873 | 12.9 | 12.7 | 12.8 | 0.882 | 0.876 | 11.8 | 12.4 | 12.1 | 0.907 | 0.986 | 9.3 | 1.4 | 5.4 | |
150 | 1 | 0.862 | 0.854 | 13.8 | 14.6 | 14.2 | 0.854 | 0.843 | 14.6 | 15.7 | 15.2 | 0.872 | 0.867 | 12.8 | 13.3 | 13.1 | |
180 | 1 | 0.834 | 0.826 | 16.6 | 17.4 | 17.0 | 0.831 | 0.827 | 16.9 | 17.3 | 17.1 | 0.846 | 0.851 | 15.4 | 14.9 | 15.2 |
Table 4 Experimental results of storage stability of furoxime amine and its metabolites on eggplant
水稻 部位 Rice part | 储藏期 Storage period (d) | 添加 浓度 Add Concen tration (mg/kg) | 呋虫胺储存实验样品 Dinotefuran storage test sample | UF储存实验样品 UF storage of experimental samples | DN储存实验样品 DN storage experimental samples | ||||||||||||
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
残留量 (mg/kg) | 降解率 (%) | 残留量 (mg/kg) | 降解率 (%) | 残留量 (mg/kg) | 降解率 (%) | ||||||||||||
1 | 2 | 1 | 2 | 平均 | 1 | 2 | 1 | 2 | 平均 | 1 | 2 | 1 | 2 | 平均 | |||
稻谷 Paddy | 0 | 1 | 0.984 | 0.972 | 1.6 | 2.8 | 2.2 | 0.976 | 0.965 | 2.4 | 3.5 | 3.0 | 0.984 | 0.965 | 1.6 | 3.5 | 2.6 |
30 | 1 | 0.957 | 0.952 | 4.3 | 4.8 | 4.6 | 0.948 | 0.954 | 5.2 | 4.6 | 4.9 | 0.962 | 0.952 | 3.8 | 4.8 | 4.3 | |
60 | 1 | 0.915 | 0.924 | 8.5 | 7.6 | 8.1 | 0.927 | 0.926 | 7.3 | 7.4 | 7.4 | 0.943 | 0.937 | 5.7 | 6.3 | 6.0 | |
90 | 1 | 0.905 | 0.912 | 9.5 | 8.8 | 9.2 | 0.913 | 0.904 | 8.7 | 9.6 | 9.2 | 0.914 | 0.910 | 8.6 | 9.0 | 8.8 | |
120 | 1 | 0.872 | 0.884 | 12.8 | 11.6 | 12.2 | 0.876 | 0.894 | 12.4 | 10.6 | 11.5 | 0.891 | 0.887 | 10.9 | 11.3 | 11.1 | |
150 | 1 | 0.847 | 0.859 | 15.3 | 14.1 | 14.7 | 0.864 | 0.856 | 13.6 | 14.4 | 14.0 | 0.867 | 0.858 | 13.3 | 14.2 | 13.8 | |
180 | 1 | 0.828 | 0.834 | 17.2 | 16.6 | 16.9 | 0.851 | 0.845 | 14.9 | 15.5 | 15.2 | 0.836 | 0.824 | 16.4 | 17.6 | 17.0 | |
植株 Rice plant | 0 | 1 | 0.964 | 0.973 | 3.6 | 2.7 | 3.2 | 0.981 | 0.964 | 1.9 | 3.6 | 2.8 | 0.972 | 0.983 | 2.8 | 1.7 | 2.3 |
30 | 1 | 0.962 | 0.957 | 3.8 | 4.3 | 4.1 | 0.951 | 0.957 | 4.9 | 4.3 | 4.6 | 0.961 | 0.967 | 3.9 | 3.3 | 3.6 | |
60 | 1 | 0.934 | 0.927 | 6.6 | 7.3 | 6.9 | 0.930 | 0.927 | 7.0 | 7.3 | 7.2 | 0.946 | 0.954 | 5.4 | 4.6 | 5.0 | |
90 | 1 | 0.886 | 0.892 | 11.4 | 10.8 | 11.1 | 0.913 | 0.907 | 8.7 | 9.3 | 9.0 | 0.927 | 0.918 | 7.3 | 8.2 | 7.8 | |
120 | 1 | 0.871 | 0.873 | 12.9 | 12.7 | 12.8 | 0.882 | 0.876 | 11.8 | 12.4 | 12.1 | 0.907 | 0.986 | 9.3 | 1.4 | 5.4 | |
150 | 1 | 0.862 | 0.854 | 13.8 | 14.6 | 14.2 | 0.854 | 0.843 | 14.6 | 15.7 | 15.2 | 0.872 | 0.867 | 12.8 | 13.3 | 13.1 | |
180 | 1 | 0.834 | 0.826 | 16.6 | 17.4 | 17.0 | 0.831 | 0.827 | 16.9 | 17.3 | 17.1 | 0.846 | 0.851 | 15.4 | 14.9 | 15.2 |
时间 地点 Time and location | 剂量 Dose (g a.i/hm2) | 采收 间隔期 Harvest interval (d) | 呋虫胺残留量 Dinotefuran residues (mg/kg) | UF残留量 UF residue (mg/kg) | CN残留量 CN residues (mg/kg) | ||||||
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
1 | 2 | 平均 | 1 | 2 | 平均 | 1 | 2 | 平均 | |||
2018年 黑龙江 2018 Heilong jiang | 120 | 14 | 0.061 | 0.062 | 0.062 | <0.050 | <0.050 | <0.050 | <0.050 | <0.050 | <0.050 |
21 | <0.050 | <0.050 | <0.050 | <0.050 | <0.050 | <0.050 | <0.050 | <0.050 | <0.050 | ||
2018年 湖北 2018 Hubei | 120 | 14 | 0.058 | 0.059 | 0.059 | <0.050 | <0.050 | <0.050 | <0.050 | <0.050 | <0.050 |
21 | <0.050 | <0.050 | <0.050 | <0.050 | <0.050 | <0.050 | <0.050 | <0.050 | <0.050 | ||
2018年 广西 2018 Guangxi | 120 | 14 | 0.057 | 0.060 | 0.059 | <0.050 | <0.050 | <0.050 | <0.050 | <0.050 | <0.050 |
21 | 0.057 | 0.058 | 0.058 | <0.050 | <0.050 | <0.050 | <0.050 | <0.050 | <0.050 | ||
2018年 安徽 2018 Anhui | 120 | 14 | <0.050 | <0.050 | <0.050 | <0.050 | <0.050 | <0.050 | <0.050 | <0.050 | <0.050 |
21 | <0.050 | <0.050 | <0.050 | <0.050 | <0.050 | <0.050 | <0.050 | <0.050 | <0.050 | ||
2018年 吉林 2018 Jilin | 120 | 14 | 0.075 | 0.077 | 0.076 | <0.050 | <0.050 | <0.050 | <0.050 | <0.050 | <0.050 |
21 | 0.061 | 0.061 | 0.061 | <0.050 | <0.050 | <0.050 | <0.050 | <0.050 | <0.050 | ||
2018年 上海 2018 Shang hai | 120 | 14 | <0.050 | <0.050 | <0.050 | <0.050 | <0.050 | <0.050 | <0.050 | <0.050 | <0.050 |
21 | <0.050 | <0.050 | <0.050 | <0.050 | <0.050 | <0.050 | <0.050 | <0.050 | <0.050 | ||
2018年 河南 2018 Henan | 120 | 14 | <0.050 | <0.050 | <0.050 | <0.050 | <0.050 | <0.050 | <0.050 | <0.050 | <0.050 |
21 | <0.050 | <0.050 | <0.050 | <0.050 | <0.050 | <0.050 | <0.050 | <0.050 | <0.050 | ||
2018年 云南 2018 Yunnan | 120 | 14 | 0.076 | 0.077 | 0.077 | <0.050 | <0.050 | <0.050 | <0.050 | <0.050 | <0.050 |
21 | 0.075 | 0.077 | 0.076 | <0.050 | <0.050 | <0.050 | <0.050 | <0.050 | <0.050 | ||
2018年 浙江 2018 Zhejiang | 120 | 14 | 0.106 | 0.108 | 0.107 | <0.050 | <0.050 | <0.050 | <0.050 | <0.050 | <0.050 |
21 | 0.076 | 0.077 | 0.077 | <0.050 | <0.050 | <0.050 | <0.050 | <0.050 | <0.050 | ||
2018年 湖南 2018 Hunan | 120 | 14 | <0.050 | <0.050 | <0.050 | <0.050 | <0.050 | <0.050 | <0.050 | <0.050 | <0.050 |
21 | 0.062 | 0.063 | 0.063 | <0.050 | <0.050 | <0.050 | <0.050 | <0.050 | <0.050 | ||
2018年 福建 2018 Fujian | 120 | 14 | <0.050 | <0.050 | <0.050 | <0.050 | <0.050 | <0.050 | <0.050 | <0.050 | <0.050 |
21 | <0.050 | <0.050 | <0.050 | <0.050 | <0.050 | <0.050 | <0.050 | <0.050 | <0.050 | ||
2018年 四川 2018 Sichuan | 120 | 14 | <0.050 | <0.050 | <0.050 | <0.050 | <0.050 | <0.050 | <0.050 | <0.050 | <0.050 |
21 | <0.050 | <0.050 | <0.050 | <0.050 | <0.050 | <0.050 | <0.050 | <0.050 | <0.050 |
Table 5 Final residues of furoximeamine and its metabolites in rice (2018)
时间 地点 Time and location | 剂量 Dose (g a.i/hm2) | 采收 间隔期 Harvest interval (d) | 呋虫胺残留量 Dinotefuran residues (mg/kg) | UF残留量 UF residue (mg/kg) | CN残留量 CN residues (mg/kg) | ||||||
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
1 | 2 | 平均 | 1 | 2 | 平均 | 1 | 2 | 平均 | |||
2018年 黑龙江 2018 Heilong jiang | 120 | 14 | 0.061 | 0.062 | 0.062 | <0.050 | <0.050 | <0.050 | <0.050 | <0.050 | <0.050 |
21 | <0.050 | <0.050 | <0.050 | <0.050 | <0.050 | <0.050 | <0.050 | <0.050 | <0.050 | ||
2018年 湖北 2018 Hubei | 120 | 14 | 0.058 | 0.059 | 0.059 | <0.050 | <0.050 | <0.050 | <0.050 | <0.050 | <0.050 |
21 | <0.050 | <0.050 | <0.050 | <0.050 | <0.050 | <0.050 | <0.050 | <0.050 | <0.050 | ||
2018年 广西 2018 Guangxi | 120 | 14 | 0.057 | 0.060 | 0.059 | <0.050 | <0.050 | <0.050 | <0.050 | <0.050 | <0.050 |
21 | 0.057 | 0.058 | 0.058 | <0.050 | <0.050 | <0.050 | <0.050 | <0.050 | <0.050 | ||
2018年 安徽 2018 Anhui | 120 | 14 | <0.050 | <0.050 | <0.050 | <0.050 | <0.050 | <0.050 | <0.050 | <0.050 | <0.050 |
21 | <0.050 | <0.050 | <0.050 | <0.050 | <0.050 | <0.050 | <0.050 | <0.050 | <0.050 | ||
2018年 吉林 2018 Jilin | 120 | 14 | 0.075 | 0.077 | 0.076 | <0.050 | <0.050 | <0.050 | <0.050 | <0.050 | <0.050 |
21 | 0.061 | 0.061 | 0.061 | <0.050 | <0.050 | <0.050 | <0.050 | <0.050 | <0.050 | ||
2018年 上海 2018 Shang hai | 120 | 14 | <0.050 | <0.050 | <0.050 | <0.050 | <0.050 | <0.050 | <0.050 | <0.050 | <0.050 |
21 | <0.050 | <0.050 | <0.050 | <0.050 | <0.050 | <0.050 | <0.050 | <0.050 | <0.050 | ||
2018年 河南 2018 Henan | 120 | 14 | <0.050 | <0.050 | <0.050 | <0.050 | <0.050 | <0.050 | <0.050 | <0.050 | <0.050 |
21 | <0.050 | <0.050 | <0.050 | <0.050 | <0.050 | <0.050 | <0.050 | <0.050 | <0.050 | ||
2018年 云南 2018 Yunnan | 120 | 14 | 0.076 | 0.077 | 0.077 | <0.050 | <0.050 | <0.050 | <0.050 | <0.050 | <0.050 |
21 | 0.075 | 0.077 | 0.076 | <0.050 | <0.050 | <0.050 | <0.050 | <0.050 | <0.050 | ||
2018年 浙江 2018 Zhejiang | 120 | 14 | 0.106 | 0.108 | 0.107 | <0.050 | <0.050 | <0.050 | <0.050 | <0.050 | <0.050 |
21 | 0.076 | 0.077 | 0.077 | <0.050 | <0.050 | <0.050 | <0.050 | <0.050 | <0.050 | ||
2018年 湖南 2018 Hunan | 120 | 14 | <0.050 | <0.050 | <0.050 | <0.050 | <0.050 | <0.050 | <0.050 | <0.050 | <0.050 |
21 | 0.062 | 0.063 | 0.063 | <0.050 | <0.050 | <0.050 | <0.050 | <0.050 | <0.050 | ||
2018年 福建 2018 Fujian | 120 | 14 | <0.050 | <0.050 | <0.050 | <0.050 | <0.050 | <0.050 | <0.050 | <0.050 | <0.050 |
21 | <0.050 | <0.050 | <0.050 | <0.050 | <0.050 | <0.050 | <0.050 | <0.050 | <0.050 | ||
2018年 四川 2018 Sichuan | 120 | 14 | <0.050 | <0.050 | <0.050 | <0.050 | <0.050 | <0.050 | <0.050 | <0.050 | <0.050 |
21 | <0.050 | <0.050 | <0.050 | <0.050 | <0.050 | <0.050 | <0.050 | <0.050 | <0.050 |
时间 地点 Time and location | 剂量 Dose (g a.i/hm2) | 采收 间隔期 Harvest interval (d) | 呋虫胺残留量 Dinotefuran residues (mg/kg) | UF残留量 UF residue (mg/kg) | CN残留量 CN residues (mg/kg) | ||||||
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
1 | 2 | 平均 | 1 | 2 | 平均 | 1 | 2 | 平均 | |||
2018年 黑龙江 2018 Heilong jiang | 120 | 14 | 0.500 | 0.506 | 0.503 | 0.172 | 0.194 | 0.183 | 0.185 | 0.189 | 0.187 |
21 | 0.329 | 0.323 | 0.326 | <0.050 | <0.050 | <0.050 | <0.050 | <0.050 | <0.050 | ||
2018年 湖北 2018 Hubei | 120 | 14 | 0.152 | 0.149 | 0.151 | <0.050 | <0.050 | <0.050 | <0.050 | <0.050 | <0.050 |
21 | 0.114 | 0.119 | 0.117 | <0.050 | <0.050 | <0.050 | <0.050 | <0.050 | <0.050 | ||
2018年 广西 2018 Guangxi | 120 | 14 | <0.050 | <0.050 | <0.050 | <0.050 | <0.050 | <0.050 | <0.050 | <0.050 | <0.050 |
21 | <0.050 | <0.050 | <0.050 | <0.050 | <0.050 | <0.050 | <0.050 | <0.050 | <0.050 | ||
2018年 安徽 2018 Anhui | 120 | 14 | 0.180 | 0.190 | 0.185 | 0.142 | 0.141 | 0.142 | 0.145 | 0.143 | 0.144 |
21 | 0.059 | 0.061 | 0.060 | <0.050 | <0.050 | <0.050 | <0.050 | <0.050 | <0.050 | ||
2018年 吉林 2018 Jilin | 120 | 14 | 0.069 | 0.067 | 0.068 | <0.050 | <0.050 | <0.050 | <0.050 | <0.050 | <0.050 |
21 | 0.434 | 0.436 | 0.435 | <0.050 | <0.050 | <0.050 | 0.158 | 0.159 | 0.159 | ||
2018年 上海 2018 Shang hai | 120 | 14 | <0.050 | <0.050 | <0.050 | <0.050 | <0.050 | <0.050 | <0.050 | <0.050 | <0.050 |
21 | 0.081 | 0.083 | 0.082 | <0.050 | <0.050 | <0.050 | <0.050 | <0.050 | <0.050 | ||
2018年 河南 2018 Henan | 120 | 14 | <0.050 | <0.050 | <0.050 | 0.165 | 0.170 | 0.168 | 0.175 | 0.177 | 0.176 |
21 | <0.050 | <0.050 | <0.050 | <0.050 | <0.050 | <0.050 | <0.050 | <0.050 | <0.050 | ||
2018年 云南 2018 Yunnan | 120 | 14 | <0.050 | <0.050 | <0.050 | <0.050 | <0.050 | <0.050 | <0.050 | <0.050 | <0.050 |
21 | <0.050 | <0.050 | <0.050 | <0.050 | <0.050 | <0.050 | <0.050 | <0.050 | <0.050 | ||
2018年 浙江 2018 Zhejiang | 120 | 14 | 0.183 | 0.181 | 0.182 | <0.050 | <0.050 | <0.050 | <0.050 | <0.050 | <0.050 |
21 | <0.050 | <0.050 | <0.050 | <0.050 | <0.050 | <0.050 | <0.050 | <0.050 | <0.050 | ||
2018年 湖南 2018 Hunan | 120 | 14 | <0.050 | <0.050 | <0.050 | <0.050 | <0.050 | <0.050 | <0.050 | <0.050 | <0.050 |
21 | <0.050 | <0.050 | <0.050 | <0.050 | <0.050 | <0.050 | <0.050 | <0.050 | <0.050 | ||
2018年 福建 2018 Fujian | 120 | 14 | <0.050 | <0.050 | <0.050 | <0.050 | <0.050 | <0.050 | <0.050 | <0.050 | <0.050 |
21 | <0.050 | <0.050 | <0.050 | <0.050 | <0.050 | <0.050 | <0.050 | <0.050 | <0.050 | ||
2018年 四川 2018 Sichuan | 120 | 14 | <0.050 | <0.050 | <0.050 | <0.050 | <0.050 | <0.050 | <0.050 | <0.050 | <0.050 |
21 | <0.050 | <0.050 | <0.050 | <0.050 | <0.050 | <0.050 | <0.050 | <0.050 | <0.050 |
Table 6 Final residues of furoxime and its metabolites in straw (measured dry, 2018)
时间 地点 Time and location | 剂量 Dose (g a.i/hm2) | 采收 间隔期 Harvest interval (d) | 呋虫胺残留量 Dinotefuran residues (mg/kg) | UF残留量 UF residue (mg/kg) | CN残留量 CN residues (mg/kg) | ||||||
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
1 | 2 | 平均 | 1 | 2 | 平均 | 1 | 2 | 平均 | |||
2018年 黑龙江 2018 Heilong jiang | 120 | 14 | 0.500 | 0.506 | 0.503 | 0.172 | 0.194 | 0.183 | 0.185 | 0.189 | 0.187 |
21 | 0.329 | 0.323 | 0.326 | <0.050 | <0.050 | <0.050 | <0.050 | <0.050 | <0.050 | ||
2018年 湖北 2018 Hubei | 120 | 14 | 0.152 | 0.149 | 0.151 | <0.050 | <0.050 | <0.050 | <0.050 | <0.050 | <0.050 |
21 | 0.114 | 0.119 | 0.117 | <0.050 | <0.050 | <0.050 | <0.050 | <0.050 | <0.050 | ||
2018年 广西 2018 Guangxi | 120 | 14 | <0.050 | <0.050 | <0.050 | <0.050 | <0.050 | <0.050 | <0.050 | <0.050 | <0.050 |
21 | <0.050 | <0.050 | <0.050 | <0.050 | <0.050 | <0.050 | <0.050 | <0.050 | <0.050 | ||
2018年 安徽 2018 Anhui | 120 | 14 | 0.180 | 0.190 | 0.185 | 0.142 | 0.141 | 0.142 | 0.145 | 0.143 | 0.144 |
21 | 0.059 | 0.061 | 0.060 | <0.050 | <0.050 | <0.050 | <0.050 | <0.050 | <0.050 | ||
2018年 吉林 2018 Jilin | 120 | 14 | 0.069 | 0.067 | 0.068 | <0.050 | <0.050 | <0.050 | <0.050 | <0.050 | <0.050 |
21 | 0.434 | 0.436 | 0.435 | <0.050 | <0.050 | <0.050 | 0.158 | 0.159 | 0.159 | ||
2018年 上海 2018 Shang hai | 120 | 14 | <0.050 | <0.050 | <0.050 | <0.050 | <0.050 | <0.050 | <0.050 | <0.050 | <0.050 |
21 | 0.081 | 0.083 | 0.082 | <0.050 | <0.050 | <0.050 | <0.050 | <0.050 | <0.050 | ||
2018年 河南 2018 Henan | 120 | 14 | <0.050 | <0.050 | <0.050 | 0.165 | 0.170 | 0.168 | 0.175 | 0.177 | 0.176 |
21 | <0.050 | <0.050 | <0.050 | <0.050 | <0.050 | <0.050 | <0.050 | <0.050 | <0.050 | ||
2018年 云南 2018 Yunnan | 120 | 14 | <0.050 | <0.050 | <0.050 | <0.050 | <0.050 | <0.050 | <0.050 | <0.050 | <0.050 |
21 | <0.050 | <0.050 | <0.050 | <0.050 | <0.050 | <0.050 | <0.050 | <0.050 | <0.050 | ||
2018年 浙江 2018 Zhejiang | 120 | 14 | 0.183 | 0.181 | 0.182 | <0.050 | <0.050 | <0.050 | <0.050 | <0.050 | <0.050 |
21 | <0.050 | <0.050 | <0.050 | <0.050 | <0.050 | <0.050 | <0.050 | <0.050 | <0.050 | ||
2018年 湖南 2018 Hunan | 120 | 14 | <0.050 | <0.050 | <0.050 | <0.050 | <0.050 | <0.050 | <0.050 | <0.050 | <0.050 |
21 | <0.050 | <0.050 | <0.050 | <0.050 | <0.050 | <0.050 | <0.050 | <0.050 | <0.050 | ||
2018年 福建 2018 Fujian | 120 | 14 | <0.050 | <0.050 | <0.050 | <0.050 | <0.050 | <0.050 | <0.050 | <0.050 | <0.050 |
21 | <0.050 | <0.050 | <0.050 | <0.050 | <0.050 | <0.050 | <0.050 | <0.050 | <0.050 | ||
2018年 四川 2018 Sichuan | 120 | 14 | <0.050 | <0.050 | <0.050 | <0.050 | <0.050 | <0.050 | <0.050 | <0.050 | <0.050 |
21 | <0.050 | <0.050 | <0.050 | <0.050 | <0.050 | <0.050 | <0.050 | <0.050 | <0.050 |
[1] | 徐磊. 烟碱类杀虫剂呋虫胺的逆袭之路[J]. 农药市场信息, 2020,(2): 36-37. |
XU Lei. Anti-attack road of nicotinic insecticide furosemide[J]. Pesticide Market Information, 2020,(2): 36-37. | |
[2] |
Goulson D. Review: An overview of the environmental risks posed by neonicotinoid insecticides[J]. Journal of Applied Ecology, 2013, 50(4): 977-987.
DOI URL |
[3] |
Wakita T, Kinoshita K, Yamada E, et al. The discovery of dinotefuran: a novel neonicotinoid[J]. Pest Management Science, 2003, 59(9): 1016-1022.
PMID |
[4] | 彭敏, 陈武瑛, 陈武荣, 等. 呋虫胺及其代谢物在甘蓝和土壤中的消解规律[J]. 农药, 2018, 57(2): 124-126. |
PENG Min, CHEN Wuying, CHEN Wurong, et al. Digestion of furosemide and its metabolites in cabbage and soil[J] Pesticides, 2018, 57(2): 124-126. | |
[5] | 韦婕, 邓婕, 黄慧俐, 等. 高效液相色谱检测呋虫胺在稻田水和土壤中的残留及消解动态[J]. 农药学学报, 2015, 17(2): 195-200. |
WEI Jie, DENG Jie, HUANG Huili, et al. Determination of Furoxime Residue and Dissipation Dynamics in Paddy Field Water and Soil by High Performance[J]. Liquid Chromatography Journal of Pesticide Science, 2015, 17(2): 195-200. | |
[6] | 郭明程, 王晓军, 聂东兴, 等. 8%呋虫胺·苯醚甲环唑悬浮种衣剂的HPLC分析[J]. 现代农药, 2018, 17(6): 20-22. |
GUO Mingcheng, WANG Xiaojun, NIE Dongxing, et al. HPLC analysis of 8% furosemide methylcyclozole suspension coating agent[J]. Modern Pesticides, 2018, 17(6): 20-22. | |
[7] | 韩昕炜, 康頔, 张海珍, 等. 改良QuEChERS/LC-MS/MS联用检测水稻及其土壤中呋虫胺的方法[J]. 贵州农业科学, 2016, 44(5): 47-50. |
HAN Xinwei, KANG Yu, ZHANG Haizhen, et al. Method of modified QuEChERS/LC-MS/MS combined detection of furoxime in rice and its soil[J]. Guizhou Agricultural Sciences, 2016, 44(5): 47-50. | |
[8] | 张慧, 李迎东, 李忠华, 等. 呋虫胺及其代谢物在大棚黄瓜上残留消解动态[J]. 农药, 2019, 58(7): 508-510. |
ZHANG Hui, LI Yingdong, LI Zhonghua, et al. Dynamics of residual digestion of furosemide and its metabolites on cucumber in greenhouse[J]. Pesticides, 2019, 58(7): 508-510. | |
[9] | 李清华, 尹明明, 陈福良, 等. 甜瓜、茄子及棉花3种作物叶片中呋虫胺的超高效液相-串联质谱仪检测方法[J]. 世界农药, 2020, 42(2): 51-54. |
LI Qinghua, YIN Mingming, CHEN Fuliang, et al. Determination of furoxime in leaves of melon, eggplant and cotton[J]. World Pesticides, 2020, 42(2): 51-54. | |
[12] | 何玉仙, 翁启勇, 黄建, 等. 烟粉虱田间种群的抗药性[J]. 应用生态学报, 2007, 18(7): 1578-1582. |
HE Yuxian, WENG Qiyong, HUANG Jian, et al. Drug resistance[J]. Journal of Applied Ecology, 2007, 18(7): 1578-1582. | |
[13] | 张雯雯, 徐军, 张盈, 等. 超高效液相色谱-串联质谱法检测棉花和土壤中呋虫胺残留[J]. 植物保护, 2015, 41(2): 125-129. |
ZHANG Wenwen, XU Jun, ZHANG Ying, et al. Determination of furosemide residues in cotton and soil by ultra-high performance liquid chromatography-tandem mass spectrometry[J]. Plant Protection, 2015, 41(2): 125-129. | |
[14] | 吴延灿, 蒋冰心, 施艳红, 等. 超高效液相色谱-串联质谱法测定蔬菜中呋虫胺及其代谢物残留[J]. 食品科学, 2018, 39(18): 262-266. |
WU Yancan, JIANG Bingxin, SHI Yanhong, et al. Determination of residues of furoxime and its metabolites in vegetables by ultra-high performance liquid chromatography-tandem mass spectrometry[J]. Food Science, 2018, 39(18): 262-266. | |
[15] | 钱程, 吴琼, 吕岱竹, 等. 超高效液相色谱-串联质谱法测定豇豆中溴氰虫酰胺等 5 种农药残留[J]. 农药学学报, 2014, 16(5): 594-599. |
QIAN Cheng, WU Qiong, LÜ Daizhu, et al. Determination of five pesticide residues[J]. in cowpea by ultra-high performance liquid chromatography-tandem mass spectrometry [J]. Journal of Pesticide Science, 2014, 16(5): 594-599. | |
[16] | 贾曼婷, 石梦琪, 戚燕, 等. 呋虫胺在水稻及稻田环境中的残留与消解动态研究[J]. 农产品质量与安全, 2017,(5): 78-82. |
JIA Manting, SHI Mengqi, QI Yan, et al. Study on the residual and dissolving dynamics of pyridosamine in rice and rice paddies[J]. Quality and Safety of Agricultural Products, 2017, (5): 78-82. | |
[17] | M D M R, AM A E-A, Jeong-Heui C, et al. Consequences of the Matrix Effect on Recovery of Dinotefuran and ItsMetabolites in Green Tea During Tandem Mass Spectrometry Analysis[J]. Food Chemistry, 2015,(168): 445-453. |
[18] |
M D M R, Jong-Hyouk P, A M A E-A, et al. Feasibility and Application of an HPLC/UVD to Determine Dinotefuran and Its Shorter Wavelength Metabolites Residues in Melon with Tandem Mass Confirmation[J]. Food Chemistry, 2013, 136(2): 1038-1046.
DOI URL |
[19] |
ALAAK. Refined Methodology for the Determination of Neonicotinoid Pesticides and Their Metabolites in Honey Bees and Bee Products by Liquid Chromatography-tandem Mass Spectrometry (LC-MS/MS)[J]. Journal of Agricultural and Food Chemistry, 2010, 58(10): 5926-5931.
DOI URL |
[20] | 柳新菊, 吴声敢, 安雪花, 等. 呋虫胺对环境生物的急性毒性与安全性评价[J]. 浙江农业科学, 2020, 61(6): 1130-1133. |
LIU Xinju, WU Shenggan, AN Xuehua, et al. Evaluation of acute toxicity and safety of pyrethramine on environmental organisms[J]. Zhejiang Agricultural Sciences, 2020, 61(6): 1130-1133. | |
[21] | 卢昊, 付少华. 98%呋虫胺原药对大鼠两代繁殖毒性研究[J]. 现代农药, 2019, 18(5): 38-41. |
LU Hao, FU Shaohua. 98% Pyridosamine primary drug to rats two generations of reproductive toxicity study[J]. Modern Pesticides, 2019, 18(5): 38-41. |
[1] | ZHANG Yanhong, HOU Tianyu, BA Yinhua, ZHAO Caiyue, LYU Yuping, Buhalikeimu Abunzi, ZHAO Zhiqiang, LI Dong, DU Xiaojing, YUAN Jie, WANG Fengbin. Identification and evaluation of salt tolerance of rice recombinant inbred lines at bud and seedling stages [J]. Xinjiang Agricultural Sciences, 2023, 60(5): 1041-1049. |
[2] | Buhaliqiemu Abulizi, ZHANG Yanhong, YUAN Jie, ZHAO Zhiqiang, WEN Xiaorong, DU Xiaojing, WANG Fengbin, LYU Yuping, Amanguli Aizizi. Screening and evaluation of aromatic rice varieties with high quality and high yield in Xinjiang [J]. Xinjiang Agricultural Sciences, 2023, 60(11): 2694-2703. |
[3] | CHEN Li, MA Jing, ZHU Zhiming, LIU Wei, SUN Jianchang. QTL mapping of processing quality traits on RIL population in rice [J]. Xinjiang Agricultural Sciences, 2023, 60(10): 2419-2425. |
[4] | PU Shenghai, WANG Zeyu, DING Feng, WANG Caifeng, LIU Xiaoli, MA Xiaopeng, WANG Tao, PENG Yinshuang, LI Yuntong. Hysiological and Biochemical Characteristics of Rice under Mulch Drip Irrigation with Different Water Controlin the Filling Stage [J]. Xinjiang Agricultural Sciences, 2022, 59(9): 2091-2103. |
[5] | Abdukeyoumu Abudurezike, Tuerson Tuerhong, Gulimira Aikebaier, Ayixiamu Shawuer. Effects of Different Drip Irrigation Rates on Quality Components of Cultivated Glycyrrhiza uralensis root in Desert Area [J]. Xinjiang Agricultural Sciences, 2022, 59(9): 2224-2231. |
[6] | Buhaliqem Abliz, YUAN Jie, ZHANG Yanhong, ZHAO Zhiqiang, WEN Xiaorong, JIA Chunping, KANG Mintai, TANG Fusen, WANG Fengbin. Analysis of Rice Quality Traits of Different Japonica Rice Varieties (Lines) [J]. Xinjiang Agricultural Sciences, 2022, 59(6): 1347-1355. |
[7] | CHU Xuan, SUO Changkai, WANG Luxia, YE Jun, MIN Wei, HOU Zhenan. Effects of Nitrogen Fertilizer Distribution Ratios on Drip Irrigation Upland Rice Yield and Nitrogen Use Efficiency [J]. Xinjiang Agricultural Sciences, 2022, 59(6): 1384-1391. |
[8] | DU Xiaojing, ZHANG Yanhong, LÜ Yuping, YUAN Jie, LI Dong, ZHAO Zhiqiang, Buhaliqem Abliz, WANG Fengbin. Responses of Seeds of Different Fragrant Rice Varieties to NaCl Stress in Germination and Seedling Stages [J]. Xinjiang Agricultural Sciences, 2022, 59(4): 827-838. |
[9] | TANG Mingyao, TANG Guangmu, SHAO Huawei, YAN Cuixia, MENG yuanduo, WANG Fei, SHEN Chongyang. Survey and Analysis of Fertilizer Market in Xinjiang [J]. Xinjiang Agricultural Sciences, 2022, 59(3): 759-766. |
[10] | WANG Zhenyang, WANG Jichuan, YUAN Jie, WANG Fengbin. Effects of Different Nitrogen Application Rates and Planting Densities on Population Growth and Yield Components of Rice [J]. Xinjiang Agricultural Sciences, 2022, 59(12): 2969-2978. |
[11] | WANG Luxia, SUO Changkai, CHU Xuan, YE Jun, MIN Wei, HOU zhenan. Response of Growth Development and Yield of Upland Rice and Paddy Rice to Irrigation Amount [J]. Xinjiang Agricultural Sciences, 2022, 59(12): 2979-2987. |
[12] | ZHANG Yanhong, DU Xiaojing, WEN Xiaorong, KANG Mintai, TANG Fusen, YUAN Jie, ZHAO Zhiqiang, Buhaliqem Abliz, GUO Hu, WANG Fengbin. Effects of Exogenous Microorganisms on Growth and Yield of Rice under Different Salt Concentrations [J]. Xinjiang Agricultural Sciences, 2022, 59(12): 2988-2996. |
[13] | DING Feng, PU Shenghai, LÜ Yuping, MA Xiaopeng, SHEN Xiaoming, MO Yan. Effects of Different Irrigation Quotas on Water Consumption Characteristics and Water Production Efficiency of Rice under Film Drip Irrigation [J]. Xinjiang Agricultural Sciences, 2021, 58(9): 1577-1584. |
[14] | ZHAO Xin, WANG Xiaowei, AI Xiantao. Analysis of the Impact of Target Price Reform on Cotton Production in Xinjiang [J]. Xinjiang Agricultural Sciences, 2021, 58(9): 1756-1764. |
[15] | LI Miao, YU Wen, DAI Jian. Correlation Analysis of Diversified Meat Consumption and Price of Urban Residents in Xinjiang [J]. Xinjiang Agricultural Sciences, 2021, 58(6): 1168-1176. |
Viewed | ||||||
Full text |
|
|||||
Abstract |
|
|||||