Additional file 1 of Optimizing ethyl formate fumigation in greenhouse cucurbit crops for efficient control of major agricultural pests, Myzus persicae and Thrips palmi
Creators: name: Kim, Kyeongnam
name: Kim, Chaeeun
name: Kwon, Tae Hyung
name: Jeon, Hwang-Ju
name: Kim, Yurim
name: Cho, Yerin
name: Kim, Donghyeon
name: Lee, Yubin
name: Kim, Dongbin
name: Lee, Byung-Ho
name: Lee, Sung-Eun
Publisher: name: figshare
Year: 2024
Subjects: subject: Biophysics
subject: Biochemistry
subject: Molecular Biology
subject: Biotechnology
subject: Chemical Sciences not elsewhere classified
subject: Ecology
subject: FOS: Biological sciences
subject: Biological Sciences not elsewhere classified
subject: Science Policy
subject: Plant Biology

description: Additional file 1: Fig. S1. Scan mode for identification of product ion to establish ethyl formate mode analysis using gas chromatography-mass spectrometry (GC–MS).Fig. S2. Photographs of phytotoxicity evaluation of ethyl formate (5 g/m3 for 2 h, CT = 6.41 g∙h/m3) for controlling Myzus persicae depending on developmental stages towards three crops using 0.275 m3 fumigation chamber in Lab scale. Fig. S3. Photographs of phytotoxicity evaluation of ethyl formate (8 g/m3 for 2 h, CT = 10.14 g∙h/m3) for controlling Thrips palmi depending on developmental stages towards three crops using 0.275 m3 fumigation chamber in Lab scale. Fig. S4. Additional chromatograms and standard curves using Headspace Gas Chromatography-Mass Spectrometry (HS-GC–MS). (a) Evaluation of basal content in ethanol and EF in 1 g of zucchini, melon leaf, and soil. Retention time (RT) of three chemicals was 1.24 min for carbon dioxide (CO2), 1.35 min for EtOH, and 1.44 min for EF, respectively. (b) Standard curve of EF and ethanol in a headspace sampling vials without leaf or soil for quantification of EF and ethanol basal contents. Fig. S5. Chromatogram of time-dependent residue analysis of ethyl formate (EF, red line). Fig. S6. Reducing EF induced-phytotoxicity strategy with sodium bicarbonate (NaHCO3). Pre-treatment of 0.5% or 1% NaHCO3 was conducted before 2 h EF-fumigation at a concentration of 7.5 or 10 g/m3 in half treatment with distilled water (DW) treatment on the same watermelon. Photographs were pictured at 3 days post-fumigation. Fig. S7. Photographs of phytotoxicity of EF towards zucchini and melon leaves with microscope image after pre-treatment of sodium bicarbonate (NaHCO3) with and without ethyl formate (EF) fumigation. Table S1. Limit of detection (LOD) and limit of quantification (LOQ), and standard curve information for ethyl formate (EF) residue analysis. Table S2. Phytotoxicity evaluation of ethyl formate (EF) at 7 days post-fumigation depending on target pest and developmental stages towards three crops using 0.275 m3 fumigation chamber in Lab-scale (CON: Control, EF: EF-treated group). Table S3. CT values for ethyl formate (EF) in three crops phytotoxicity assessments. Table S4. Optimal ethyl formate (EF) fumigation condition with 6 g/m3 EF for 2 h with phytotoxicity evaluation at 7 days post-fumigation (dpf) depending on developmental stages towards three crops in 340 m3 greenhouse in field scale (Temp.: 26.8–34.2℃, Humidity: 70–99%).