Report of the meeting of the Technical Panel on by l990juh

VIEWS: 7 PAGES: 5

									                                                                                                 2009-IFQRG-10
       Report of the meeting of the Technical Panel on Phytosanitary Treatments (excerpts)
                                       26-30 January 2009
                                          Tokyo, Japan
              ____________________________________________________________________

6.1.1 Replacement or reduction of the use of methyl bromide as a phytosanitary measure
The document entitled Replacement or reduction of the use of methyl bromide as a phytosanitary measure was
developed as a draft International Standard for Phytosanitary Measures (ISPM) and presented to the Standards
Committee, which recommended it to the CPM for adoption. However, CPM-3 felt that this was not an ISPM
so instead adopted it as a Recommendation, which was annexed to the report of CPM-3. CPM will discuss how
to format and disseminate CPM recommendations.

6.2     International Forest Quarantine Research Group (IFQRG)
Mr. Michael Ormsby provided an update of the last IFQRG meeting in September 2008. IFQRG discussed ISPM
No.15 treatments being considered by the TPPT and recommended that a fumigation treatment (sulfuryl fluoride,
submission number: 2007-TPPT-101) and a microwave irradiation treatment (submission number: 2007-TPPT-
114) be approved for inclusion in ISPM No. 15. With regard to the microwave irradiation, the schedule in the
submission to the TPPT was 65 degrees centigrade for 1 min; but a new schedule was submitted to IFQRG by
researchers, which was 62 degrees centigrade for 2 min (see also 10.2.1.4).

Considering that IFQRG is not an IPPC body, the TPPT noted the discussion at the meeting of 2008 IFQRG and
it was decided that there was no need to reply formally.

6.3     SC (November 2008)
The Secretariat and both the in coming and outgoing stewards provided an update of the SC in November 2008,
particularly mentioning some changed procedures of Technical Panels.

Terms of reference and rules of procedure for technical panels
As the Terms of reference and rules of procedure for technical panels were adopted by CPM-3, the SC decided
to ask all technical panels to review their specifications to ensure they were harmonized with it (see also 7.1).

Common procedures for technical panels
The SC revised and adopted the common procedures for technical panels.

Criteria for evaluating treatments to be included in ISPM No. 15
With regard to criteria for evaluating treatments to be included in ISPM No 15, the SC agreed that treatments
submitted in 2006 and 2007 should be evaluated for equivalence to the current ISPM No. 15 methyl bromide
treatment. The SC also agreed that treatments submitted in the future should be evaluated against criteria that
were being developed by the Technical Panel on Forest Quarantine (TPFQ) and approved by the SC.

6.4     TPFQ (December 2008)
Mr. Mike Ormsby (also a member of TPFQ) reported the discussion of the TPFQ meeting in December 2008,
especially on how the draft criteria for evaluating future ISPM No.15 treatments had been developed.

A member enquired whether there were any criteria for determining appropriate surrogates. The TPPT noted
that the draft criteria for future ISPM No. 15 treatments use the terms ‘equal biological characteristics and
response to the treatment’, but the Secretariat indicated that additional work could be done to define criteria for
choosing surrogates. It was agreed that the TPPT should develop draft guidelines for choosing a surrogate pest
and put this on the work programme. Some members expressed the view that the new system may be very strict
in regard to the provision of data and these may limit the number of applications for the approval of treatments.
                                                                                                   2009-IFQRG-10
7.3   Review of criteria for future ISPM No.15 treatment submissions and criteria for treatments for
wood moving in international trade

7.3.1 Criteria for future ISPM No.15 treatment submissions
 The process for reviewing future ISPM No. 15 treatment submissions was described, with reference to a
decision tree chart.. The TPPT noted the draft criteria and was informed that it would be sent to the SC for
approval for member consultation.

7.3.2 Criteria for treatments for woods moving in international trade
The TPFQ is currently engaged with drafting a new ISPM for the international movement of wood. The TPFQ
had produced draft criteria for treatments for the international movement of wood. This included two categories
of treatments, firstly those already in use in bilateral trades and with efficacies against specific pests. The second
category was for classes of wood (round wood, sawn wood and mechanically processed wood) and was based on
the draft criteria for future ISPM No.15 treatment submissions and used the same decision-tree approach. The
SC had recommended to the CPM that a new topic “treatments for wood moving in international trade” should
be added to the IPPC standard setting work programme and, if added by the CPM a call for treatments for wood
moving in international trade could go out later in 2009. However, the TPPT noted that the draft criteria for
wood treatments would not be sent to the SC until after the next TPFQ meeting.

A member suggested that the panel should consider how historical data could be used in support of a treatment
submission. The TPPT discussed how it might be possible to include such historical data on the successful use
of a treatment in trade. It was considered that it would be necessary to document inspection rates and volumes
of trade over time, records of treatments applied, and evidence for success or failure. However, it was also noted
that this approach would not be strictly quantitative and could not produce precise efficacy data while ISPM No.
28 requires that an efficacy level be stated. Nevertheless, the TPPT thought that it might be possible to derive a
general efficacy and outline how historical data might be used, this was added to the work programme.

A member drew attention to an FAO fumigation guide on the FAO website on fumigation of methyl bromide
and phosphine under containment, which contains lots of useful information. It is not intended as a training
manual, but includes best practice. It was agreed to investigate the FAO fumigation guide and provide advice to
the TPPT, this was put on the work programme.

9.      Overview of treatment submitted in 2006 and 2007
As the TPPT directed at its meeting in 2007, letters were sent out in 2008 by the Secretariat to submitters of
treatment submissions requesting additional information. The Secretariat updated the TPPT on submitters’
responses to the letters. Lead members for the potential submissions were reallocated as two new members have
joined the panel (Annex 5).


10.2     Treatments submitted in 2006 and 2007
The TPPT discussed 13 treatments submitted in 2006 and 2007, following updates provided by lead members on
the progress of their relevant submissions since the last TPPT meeting. The TPPT reviewed or created checklists
for the submissions as needed.

The TPPT recommended a vapor heat treatment of Cucumis melo var reticulates for Bactrocera cucurbitae to
the SC. The Secretariat will format the treatment appropriately and submit it to the SC through the special
process.

The TPPT were appreciative of the additional information that had been received in 2008 from submitters and
acknowledged the amount of work involved in providing this information. Answers had been provided to many
of the questions that had been raised during the evaluations in 2007. However, the TPPT were unable to
recommend any other treatments. The TPPT therefore requested that for seven submissions (sulfuryl fluoride,
Ecotwin, hydrogen cyanide, microwave, phosphine, methyl iodide and generic irradiation), the Secretariat
should send a letter with a summary report of the TPPT evaluation to the submitters, asking for further additional
                                                                                                 2009-IFQRG-10
data on specific issues and for the treatment to be resubmitted, so that the TPPT can re-evaluate them at its next
meeting. Leads were encouraged to follow up with submitters.


10.2.1 ISPM No. 15 treatment
With regard to criteria for evaluating treatments to be included in ISPM No 15, the SC in November 2008 agreed
that treatments submitted in 2006 and 2007 should be evaluated for equivalence to the current ISPM No. 15
methyl bromide treatment. The two reference papers which provide the criteria are:
-        Barak A. V., Wang Y., Xu L., Rong Z., Hang X. and Zhan G. (2005) Methyl Bromide as a Quarantine
Treatment for Anoplophora glabripennis (Coleoptera: Cerambycidae) in Regulated Wood Packing Material. J.
Econ. Entomol. 98(6): 1911-1916
-        Soma Y., Goto M., Naito H., Ogawa N., Kawakami F., Hirata K., Komatus H. and Matsumoto Y. (2003)
Effects of Some Fumigation on Pine Wood Nematode Bursaphelenchus xylophilus infesting Wooden Packages.
3. Mortality and Fumigation Standards for Pine Wood Nematode by Methyl Bromide. Research Bulletin Plant
Protection Japan 39: 7-14

10.2.1.1Sulfuryl fluoride (SF) (Submission number: 2007-TPPT-101)
Additional information was provided by the submitter in 2008 in response to the request by the TPPT. A new
study on pine wood nematode (PWN) was initiated and completed in 2008, addressing the issues identified at the
last TPPT meeting. The lead reported that he had also asked a PWN expert from the TPFQ to examine the paper.
Whilst many of the issues of concern to the TPPT had been addressed in the new study (such as determining the
numbers of nematodes and the numbers of each life stage), it was still not known what the most resistant stage
was. The TPPT also noted that the conditions of the experiment in the second submission in 2007 were not the
same as those in the first submission in 2006.

One of the major concerns of the experiments, as admitted by the submitters in their comments, was that the
number of PWN infesting each wood stick was unknown and therefore they “could not verify that zero PWN
emergence from treated wood was due to zero infestation of the wood prior to fumigation”. The experimental
design precluded the determination of an efficacy level due to the lack of a representative sample demonstrating
the number (mean +/- SD) of nematodes present in the wood samples prior to fumigation.

The TPPT could not determine on what basis the submitters had produced the schedules for 36 and 48 hrs, since
the experiments were only carried out over a 24 hour period

The highest mean moisture content of the tested wood was 59%, which may be the limit under which this
treatment can be carried out it if the efficacy is related to moisture content (which it could be). The practical
implications of this would be that wood with higher moisture contents would have to be left to dry out to this
level, or below, before being treated. The TPPT decided to restrict the treatment to those conditions where wood
is less than 59% moisture.

 The TPPT considered that in the absence of evidence of the most resistant life-stage of PWN, future
submissions should provide evidence that all life stages of the nematode likely to be associated with wood
packaging material were present at the time of treatment.

It was considered that sufficient information was provided to support a Probit-9 efficacy for SF fumigation
against Anoplophora glabripennis (Asian longhorned beetle, ALB) in wood packaging material (WPM), and
therefore no further information is required for this organism. The TPPT also considered that published papers
and the historical use of SF have demonstrated that this treatment practically eliminates other pests of concern
associated with WPM in trade.

The TPPT requested that the Secretariat should send a letter with a summary report of evaluation asking for
further data.
                                                                                                 2009-IFQRG-10
A member mentioned that there was a potential issue with Agrilus planipennis (Emerald Ash Borer), which is
reportedly resistant to SF and heat treatment. In addition there might also be an issue with SF because it is being
examined as a potentially potent greenhouse gas.

10.2.1.2Ecotwin fumigation (Submission number: 2007-TPPT-102)
Additional information was provided by the submitter in 2008 in response to the request by the TPPT.

The TPPT pointed out that data in the submission showed that methyl isothiocyanate (MITC) concentrations
rapidly declined to a low level relatively, i.e. SF/MITC ratios changed markedly over time. The TPPT also
pointed out that the submitter indicated that different woods may absorb MITC in different ways, potentially
altering the ratio of SF to MITC and perhaps the efficacy. It was not known exactly what effect the MITC had
on the overall mortality of the pests (it is known to act on eggs) and how the contribution of this chemical to the
efficacy of the mixture product was maintained during treatment.

The TPPT found that carbon dioxide (CO2) represented 40% of the Ecotwin formulation, but was considered an
inactive ingredient. The TPPT felt that the potential contribution of CO2 to mortality should also be considered
and agreed that they would be best dealt with by incorporating this formulation level into the schedule.

The TPPT discussed that the proposed treatment schedule called for a minimum CT product of 420 mg per h/l at
a dose of 27 g/m3 of both products, at 15°C or below, and it was agreed that the CT product was appropriate.

The TPPT thought that further information was needed regarding Ecotwin fumigation safety and aeration. It was
reported that a practical test of tarpaulin fumigation had been carried out for logs using Ecotwin and results
would be provided once the information is made public.

It was also necessary to request Probit-9 supporting data on Asian Longhorn beetle. However, the TPPT
considered that the numbers of pine wood nematodes tested was sufficiently large (>Probit-9) and likely
included the more tolerant stages. The TPPT requested that the Secretariat should send a letter with a summary
report of evaluation, asking for further data.

10.2.1.3Hydrogen cyanide (Submission number: 2007-TPPT-103)
Experiments required by the TPPT in 2007 were still in progress and would not be completed until later in the
year (2009).

10.2.1.4Microwave irradiation (Submission number: 2007-TPPT-114)
No additional information had been provided by the submitter in response to the TPPT request in 2008.

IFQRG, at their meeting in 2008, considered this treatment effective and they felt it should be recommended
(see also 6.2). The TPPT noted some inconsistencies in the literature regarding the parameters defining the
treatments. The TPPT agreed that a single treatment schedule be specified and asked the Secretariat to send a
letter to the submitter to request this .

It was noted that additional work needs to address the TPPT requirement for Probit-9 data for PWN applicable to
operational conditions.

10.2.1.5Phosphine treatment (Submission number: 2007-TPPT-115)
Additional information was provided by the submitter in 2008 in response to the request by the TPPT.

The TPPT felt that further information and research were required to 1) provide comprehensive efficacy data for
pests of wood and 2) to demonstrate its feasibility for use (especially how to maintain a sufficiently high
concentration over time).

The TPPT discussed the use and limitations of phosphine and concluded that phosphine fumigation was not
equivalent to methyl bromide but in some cases may be an effective replacement to be included into ISPM No.
                                                                                                   2009-IFQRG-10
15. However, to achieve this goal the TPPT requested additional information in the form of Probit-9 data for
ALB and PWN. The TPPT also asked for additional information as to whether higher temperatures would
effectively shorten the treatment time, and could therefore be used to facilitate the versatility of the treatment.

The TPPT requested that the Secretariat should send a letter with a summary report of evaluation, asking for
further data.

10.2.1.6Methyl iodide (Submission number: 2007-TPPT-115)
Additional information was provided by the submitter in 2008, to address the issues raised by the TPPT.

Although no new research was undertaken, the submitter extracted the requested information from existing
research . The TPPT agreed that there was sufficient information to support the 99.99683% (Probit-9) efficacy
of this schedule against PWN.

On the other hand, the TPPT considered that there was no such equivalent information for ALB. It was pointed
out that ALB was not present in the submitter’s country. The TPPT agreed that as long as a small-scale
comparative test was done to determine the relative susceptibilities of ALB with the surrogate species, a native
Anoplophora species could be used.

The TPPT discussed the fact that the mortality in the controls at 10 °C was high and did not allow Probit-9 to be
calculated at this temperature. To avoid restricting the use of the treatment to temperatures >10°C, the TPPT
offered to investigate whether the relevant data can be extrapolated to Probit-9 efficacy at this temperature.

It was pointed out that no life stage information was available for PWN. Given the very large number of PWN
individuals tested, and the condition of the wood at testing, the TPPT was content that the most tolerant life stage
had been tested.

The TPPT requested that the Secretariat should send a letter with a summary report of evaluation, asking for
further data.

         Leads for treatments identified as potential submissions at TPPT meating in 2007
                             (Update: TPPT meeting, January 2009)

     Submission                                   Name of treatment                                      Lead
      number

  ISPM No. 15
  2007-TPPT-101       Sulfuryl fluoride - eradication of pests infesting wood packaging material M Ormsby
                      (submitted by Germany)
  2007-TPPT-102       Ecotwin fumigation of solid wood packaging material for                    S Wood
                      Bursapelenchus xylophilus (pine wood nematode), longhorn beetles and
                      scolyted beetles
                      (submitted by Japan)
  2007-TPPT-103       Wood preservative for using in hermetically sealed structures              A Jessup
                      (submitted by Czech Republic)
  2007-TPPT-114       Microwave irradiation (submitted by UK)                                    M Ormsby
  2007-TPPT-115       Phosphine treatment for invertebrates in wood and wooden products          W. Yuejin
                      (submitted by New Zealand)
  2007-TPPT-116       Methyl iodide treatment for wood packaging                                 M Ormsby
                      (submitted by Japan)

								
To top