Field trials test substance

For studies involving test substance application to soil, there may be a requirement for more soil information than for studies where applications are made to foliage of established crops. The study protocol should describe any specific requirements relative to soil type selection and how to confirm the soil characteristics for the study. Most studies simply require that the soil be identified by its name (e.g., Keystone silt loam) and composition (e.g., percent sand, silt, and clay). This information can typically be acquired from farm records, a soil survey of the local area, or a typical soil analysis by a local soil analysis laboratory. In some instances, a GLP compliant soil analysis must be completed. The study protocol must clearly define what is needed and how it is to be obtained. Unless specified in the protocol, non-GLP sources are adequate to identify the soil and its characteristics. The source of the soil information should be identified in the field trial record. 

The movement of the test substance during the course of a Held residue study must be tracked to assure that the integrity of the test substance is maintained [40 CFR 160.185(a)(10)]. The COC can be accomplished in a number of ways. In the simplest situation, every person signs their name on a piece of paper that accompanies the test substance when they handle the test substance. Eventually the COC will list the names of all those who handled the test substance during the course of the study. Shipment, receipt, weighing, and final disposition of the test substance container must all be tracked and promptly recorded if an unbroken COC is to be present at the end of the trial. The completed COC becomes an essential part of the field residue trial record. 

Application of the test substance to the test system is without doubt the most critical step of the residue field trial. Under-application may be corrected, if possible and if approved by the Study Director, by making a follow-up application if the error becomes known shortly after the application has been made. Over-application errors can usually only be corrected by starting the trial again. The Study Director must be contacted as soon as an error of this nature is detected. Immediate communication allows for the most feasible options to be considered in resolving the error. If application errors are not detected at the time of the application, the samples from such a trial can easily become the source of undesirable variability when the final analysis results are known. Because the application is critical, the PI must calculate and verify the data that will constitute the application information for the trial. If the test substance weight, the spray volume, the delivery rate, the size of the plot, and the travel speed for the application are carefully determined and then validated prior to the application, problems will seldom arise. With the advent of new tools such as computers and hand-held calculators, the errors traditionally associated with applications to small plot trials should be minimized in the future. The following paragraphs outline some of the important considerations for each of the phases of the application. 

Summarizing, the use of natural products as miticides in apiculture, with the exception of some substances, is not widespread. In extensive laboratory tests many compounds showed significant acaricidal properties. However, very few of them have proven to be effective when applied in field trials. Considerable variations in local environmental and colony conditions can affect efficacy. In case of mixtures, such as essential oils, the difficulty in obtaining standardized compounds also affects treatment predictability. Nevertheless, identifying new acaricide compounds with low toxicity to honey bees is fundamental for providing candidate compounds for field trials. Furthermore, the development of... 

As with the FFDCA, the FIFRA requires pesticide firms to conduct batteries of extensive testing to identify and characterize a candidate pesticide s bioavailability, distribution, metabolites, routes of excretion in experimental animals, and any adverse or toxic effects that the substance may cause, so that the safety of the pesticide can be assessed. In addition, in cases of pesticides intended to have food uses, extensive field trials must be conducted to characterize residues of the pesticide or metabolites thereof remaining on or in raw agricultural commodities. 

These signals may derive either from the presence of a single substance or the joint presence of several substances. A test organism, on the other hand, is used to assess the toxicity of a specific substance in laboratory tests and/or field trials. The distinction is clearly made for the sake of convenience, as the same organism, e.g. the honey bee, may be used as either an indicator or a test organism in different circumstances [3]. 

Little work has, however, been done on the preparation of insolubilized antibiotics, but, in view of the success of initial trials, the field may be expected to develop quite rapidly. Many of the polysaccharide derivatives discussed in the present article may have antibiotic characteristics, although few have been tested for such. Furthermore, many of the polysaccharide derivatives used for insolubilization of other molecules (see Sections VIII-X, pp. 361-387) are suitable for insolubilization of antibiotics, the choice of derivative depending upon the functional groups available in the particular antibiotic substance under consideration. 

---