Evidence map›Paper›PMID 41639313›Full record

ArticleScientific reports2026

Field efficacy of new-generation insecticides and household residue mitigation techniques assessed by LC-MS/MS for safe tomato consumption.

Chada Anu Reddy, Mahesh Pathak, Yengkhom Bijen Kumar, Kennedy Ningthoujam, Mohammad Abdul Waseem, Bimal Kumar Sahoo, Deepika Sorahia, Jyotim Gogoi, Abhinay, Arvind Kumar and 1 more

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Scientific reports, 2026. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
0citing papers in PubMed
–field-weighted citation impact
1 · What the graph read from it

What it found

Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.

The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.

2 · The registry

The trial behind it

Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.

Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

0 citing papers in PubMed.

No citing paper in PubMed yet.

4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

11 authors.

Chada Anu ReddySchool of Crop Protection, CPGS-AS, CAU (Imphal), Umiam, Meghalaya, 793103, India. anureddychada@gmail.com.
Mahesh PathakSchool of Crop Protection, CPGS-AS, CAU (Imphal), Umiam, Meghalaya, 793103, India. pathakmahesh@gmail.com.
Yengkhom Bijen KumarDivision of System Research and Engineering, ICAR RC for NEH Region, Umiam, Meghalaya, 793103, India.
Kennedy NingthoujamSchool of Crop Protection, CPGS-AS, CAU (Imphal), Umiam, Meghalaya, 793103, India. kennedy1982@gmail.com.
Mohammad Abdul WaseemInstitute of Agri-Food, Animal and Environmental Sciences, University of O'Higgins, Colchagua Campus, 3070000, San Fernando, Chile.
Bimal Kumar SahooDepartment of Agricultural Entomology, Tamil Nadu Agricultural University, Coimbatore, Tamil Nadu, 641003, India.
Deepika SorahiaSchool of Crop Protection, CPGS-AS, CAU (Imphal), Umiam, Meghalaya, 793103, India.
Jyotim GogoiSchool of Crop Protection, CPGS-AS, CAU (Imphal), Umiam, Meghalaya, 793103, India.
AbhinayDivision of Crop Improvement, ICAR- IIVR, Varanasi, Uttar Pradesh, 221001, India.
Arvind KumarDepartment of Chemistry, DSB Campus, Kumaun University, Nainital, Uttarakhand, India.
Sujan MajumderDivision of Crop Protection, ICAR-Indian Institute of Vegetable Research, Varanasi, Uttar Pradesh, 221001, India. sujaniari@gmail.com.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

The present study was conducted during 2023–24 and 2024–25 to evaluate the field efficacy of new-generation insecticides against major insect pests of tomato (Solanum lycopersicum L.) and to assess household-level residue mitigation techniques for safe tomato consumption. Field trials tested chlorantraniliprole, emamectin benzoate, spinosad, and indoxacarb at three dosages. Chlorantraniliprole 18.5% SC at the recommended 1× dose reduced Helicoverpa armigera populations by 59.82% and 51.60% across the two seasons, and aphid populations by 32.20% and 39.09%, achieving tomato yields of 17.40 t ha−1 with a benefit–cost ratio of 2.67:1, which were comparable to the marginally higher yields recorded at higher doses. Higher doses increased pest suppression and yield but reduced beneficial coccinellid beetles. Therefore, the identification of the most suitable insecticide was based on performance at the recommended (1×) dose, where effective pest control was achieved with minimal impact on beneficial arthropods. Among household decontamination methods, a 2% salt solution achieved over 84% residue reduction across all insecticides at the 1× dose, followed by lukewarm water (81.58–85.17%), lemon juice (78.82–81.88%), tamarind solution (78.15–79.55%), and tap water (77.46–79.38%). Residue removal was more effective at recommended doses due to lower initial deposits. Chlorantraniliprole 18.5% SC at the recommended dose showed effective pest control while preserving natural enemies, and simple household washing techniques, particularly salt solutions, significantly reduced residues, ensuring safer tomato consumption.

Indexed as

InsecticidesPesticide ResiduesSolanum lycopersicumAnimalsAphidsChromatography, LiquidDrug CombinationsHelicoverpa armigeraInsect ControlIvermectinLiquid Chromatography-Mass SpectrometryMacrolidesortho-AminobenzoatesOxazinesTandem Mass SpectrometrychlorantranilipoleDrug Combinationsemamectin benzoateindoxacarbInsecticidesIvermectinMacrolidesortho-AminobenzoatesOxazinesPesticide ResiduesspinosadChlorantraniliproleFood safetyHousehold washingLC-MS/MSNatural enemiesResidue mitigation

Identifiers

PMID41639313
PMCPMC12923851

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY-NC-ND
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.