Fate of multi-residue insecticides and their metabolites in the process of vinification: Analytical method validation, dissipation kinetics, processing factor, and risk assessment.

In viticulture, the use of synthetic chemical formulations introduces insecticide residues into harvested grapes and further into processed grape products, posing a safety concern to consumers. This study investigated the fate of ten insecticide residues and their metabolites from vine to wine. A rapid validated multi-residue approach using QuEChERS extraction and LC-MS/MS configuration was employed for targeted analysis in grape, pomace, and wine. The targeted insecticides showed satisfactory mean recoveries (76.03-111.95%) and precision (RSD = 0.75-7.90%) across the three matrices, with a matrix effect ranging from -16.88 to 35.18%, particularly higher in pomace. Preliminary grape washing effectively removed 15.52-61.31% of insecticide residues based on water solubility and systemic nature. Residue dissipation during fermentation ranged from 73.19% to 87.15% with a half-life spanning from 1 to 5.5 days. The mitigation rate was observed at 12.85-26.81% for wine and 17.76-51.55% for pomace, with the highest transfer rate for buprofezin (51.55%) to pomace and fipronil (25.72%) to wine. Calculated processing factors (PF) for final wine ranged from 0.16 to 0.44, correlating strongly with the octanol-water partition ratio of targeted insecticides. The reported PF, calculated hazard quotient (HQ) (0.003-5.800%), and chronic hazard index (cHI) (2.041-10.387%) indicate reduced residue concentrations in wine and no potential chronic risk to consumers, ensuring a lower dietary risk to wine consumers.

Urological implications of SARS CoV-19.

INTRODUCTION: The novel coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19), pandemic has afflicted > 3.3 million people around the world since December 2019. Though, more than 1000 publications have appeared in scientific journals addressing a plethora of questions, there is a considerable hiatus in understanding of the behavior and natural history of the virus and its impact on urology. Also, a modified approach is the need of hour in taking care of patients as urologists should safeguard their teams, families, and patients. MATERIAL AND METHODS: The authors have used guidelines from USA, Canada, UK, Europe and India for making recommendations to help urologist define their own policies that may have to be fine-tuned on the basis of continued and evolving challenges they would encounter and the local resources at their disposal. RESULTS: COVID-19 do effect genitourinary system from kidney to testis. The authors provide scientific basis to urologists to help identify patients by remote consultation who are likely to be harmed by coming to the hospital, and not to miss those who need hospitalization for diagnostic or therapeutic interventions. There is uncompromised need of specific precautions during surgery to safe guard the surgeon and his team along with the patient. CONCLUSIONS: Urological operations during COVID-19 pandemic should be limited to emergency cases during the acute phase with an exit strategy planned in a staggered manner, based on the scientific risk stratification. Telemedicine (e-clinics or virtual clinics) would help achieve the goal of risk stratification.