1. ABOUT THE DATASET ------------ Title: Residue variability in pollen and nectar following application with different application techniques and at different sites Creator(s): Fiona Gierer Organisation(s): University of Reading Rights-holder(s): University of Reading Publication Year: 2022 Description: The aim of the experiments was to investigate pesticide residue profiles in different plant matrices following an application with cyprodinil and fludioxonil using different application techniques and under protected (glasshouse) and open field conditions. Courgette plants were sprayed during flowering with two active ingredients with systemic and contact properties. In the glasshouse the plants were sprayed either with an automated track sprayer or a hand-held sprayer. In the field, the plants were sprayed with a knapsack sprayer with boom. Nectar, pollen, anther, flower and leaf samples were taken daily over the course of 5 days. Samples were analysed for residues of both active ingredients using LC-MS/MS. Cite as: Gierer (2022): Residue variability in pollen and nectar following application with different application techniques and at different sites. University of Reading. Dataset. https://doi.org/10.17864/1947.000376. Contact: fiona.gierer@outlook.com 2. TERMS OF USE ----------------- Copyright 2022 University of Reading. This dataset is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International Licence: https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/. 3. PROJECT AND FUNDING INFORMATION ------------ Title: Improving our understanding of residues in bee important matrices Dates: September 2017 - November 2021 Funding organisation: University of Reading, Syngenta Ltd (Jeallot's Hill, Bracknell, UK) Grant no.: Not available 4. CONTENTS ------------ File listing ResidueData-Application: Residue data of fludioxonil and cyprodinil in courgette pollen, nectar, anthers, flowers and leaves following a foliar spray application during flowering collected on 0-5 days after application (DAA). Plants were either sprayed with a hand-held sprayer or a track sprayer in the glasshouse (cyprodinil only), or with a knapsack sprayer in the field (cyprodinil and fludioxonil). 10 variables are included in the dataset: Sample (sample name), Repetition (treatment replicate), DAA (days after application sample was taken), DoseRate (in kg active ingredient/ha), Residues (in mg/kg), Matrix (plant matrix analysed), AI (active ingredient applied/analysed), Site (GlassHouse or field), App (application method: hand-held, track sprayer, field (knapsack boom sprayer)), Temperature (daily mean in degree Celsius) 5. METHODS -------------------------- Courgettes (Cucurpita pepo var. cylindrica) were grown in pots in the glasshouse. One third of the plants were sprayed during flowering with cyprodinil using an automated track sprayer with 6 nozzles, one third of the plants were sprayed with cyprodinil using a single nozzle hand-held pressure sprayer (both 750g ai/ha). One third of the plants were left untreated as control. When the spray solution had tried, the pots were gathered in a randomised block design with five replicate plots (15plants each). In the field, courgette seeds was directly sown into the soil to form three treatment plots with three replicates each. The first treatment was an application with cyprodinil (750g ai/ha), the second treatment was an application with fludioxonil (500g ai/ha), the third treatment served as control. Samples of pollen, nectar, anthers, flowers and leaves were taken 0 days after application (0 DAA)from each plot, when the spray solution had dried, and on each subsequent day for 1 weeks. All flowers in one plot were cut and nectar was removed using a pipette and stored in Eppendorf tubes. Pollen was carefully scraped off with a plastic stick into Eppendorf tubes. About 10g of leaves were randomly collected in each plot. All samples were stored at -18 degree Celsius until analysis. Samples were extracted twice with acetonitrile/water (80/20, v/v) on a tissue homogeniser (FastPrep, MP Biomedicals), ultrasonicated and centrifuged. Analysis was performed using LC-MS/MS. Matrix-matched standards were used for calibration. At least one control, one reagent blank and two procedural recoveries at the LOQ (0.01mg/kg) and 10xLOQ were included in each run which were within 70-120% with and RSD<20%. Matrix effects and linearity (R2>0.99) were assessed. Control samples were free from contamination, but are not included in the dataset. -