Skip to main content Accessibility help
×
Home
Hostname: page-component-78dcdb465f-2ktwh Total loading time: 0.694 Render date: 2021-04-14T10:39:01.993Z Has data issue: false Feature Flags: { "shouldUseShareProductTool": true, "shouldUseHypothesis": true, "isUnsiloEnabled": true, "metricsAbstractViews": false, "figures": false, "newCiteModal": false, "newCitedByModal": true }

Studies on aqueous Suspensions of Insecticides

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  10 July 2009

A. B. Hadaway
Affiliation:
Colonial Insecticide Research Unit, Porton.

Extract

Mosquitos were exposed for short contact periods to deposits on plaster blocks from aqueous suspensions of insecticides.

There is an inverse relation between the size of ground DDT crystals fractionated into size ranges by sedimentation and their effectiveness. Smaller particles are more effective than larger ones even when equivalent numbers are compared. Differences in effectiveness are attributed to differences in the amounts of insecticide picked up and retained by the insect.

There is no significant increase in kills of mosquitos exposed for the same contact period to dosages of 10–20 micron DDT crystals above 3 mg. per sq. ft. “Persistence” of deposits of these crystals, however, increases as the dosage increases.

Crystal length alone is not critical, for fine 60 micron DDT needles are slightly more effective than ground crystals in the 10–20 micron range. The shape and mass of crystals together influence pick-up and determine their effectiveness.

There is also an inverse relation between crystal size and effectiveness of methoxychlor and DDD. The effectiveness of Compound 497 and of the gamma isomer of benzene hexachloride is influenced much less by particle size than is that of DDT.

The inert ingredient of a wettable powder has a masking effect on the insecticide, and this is intensified as the proportion of diluent to insecticide increases.

The availability of the deposit from an aqueous suspension of DDT crystals depends largely on the nature of the surface to which it is applied.

Type
Original Articles
Copyright
Copyright © Cambridge University Press 1951

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below.

References

Armour Research Foundation. (1948). Analyt. Chem., 20, p. 275.Google Scholar
Burchfield, H. P. (1948). Analyt. Chem., 20, p. 1168.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Busvine, J. R. & Barnes, S. (1947). Bull. ent. Res., 38, p. 81.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Fankuchen, I. & others. (1946). Science, 103, p. 25.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Gullstrom, D. K. & Burchfield, H. P. (1948). Analyt. Chem., 20, p. 1174.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Hadaway, A. B. & Barlow, F. (1949). Bull. ent. Res., 40, p. 323.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Häfliger, E. (1949). J. econ. Ent., 42, p. 523.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Kennedy, J. S. (1947). Bull. ent. Res., 37, p. 593.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
McCauley, R. H., Fay, R. W. & Simmons, S. W. (1948). J. nat. Malar. Soc., 7, p. 294.Google Scholar
McGovran, E. R., Cassil, C. C. & Mayer, E. L. (1940). J. econ. Ent., 33, p. 525.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
McIntosh, A. H. (1947). Ann. appl. Biol., 34, p. 586.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
McIntosh, A. H. (1949). Ann. appl. Biol., 36, p. 535.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Muirhead Thomson, R. C. (1950). Trans. R. Soc. trop. Med. Hyg., 43, p. 401.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Potter, C. (1941). Ann. appl. Biol., 28, p. 142.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Smith, C. L. (1936). J. N. Y. ent. Soc., 44, p. 317.Google Scholar
Smith, C. M. & Goodhue, L. D. (1942). Industr. Engng Chem., 34, p. 490.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Webb, J. E. (1947). Bull. ent. Res., 38, p. 209.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Woodruff, N. & Turner, N. (1947). J. econ. Ent., 40, p. 206.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Full text views

Full text views reflects PDF downloads, PDFs sent to Google Drive, Dropbox and Kindle and HTML full text views.

Total number of HTML views: 0
Total number of PDF views: 3 *
View data table for this chart

* Views captured on Cambridge Core between September 2016 - 14th April 2021. This data will be updated every 24 hours.

Send article to Kindle

To send this article to your Kindle, first ensure no-reply@cambridge.org is added to your Approved Personal Document E-mail List under your Personal Document Settings on the Manage Your Content and Devices page of your Amazon account. Then enter the ‘name’ part of your Kindle email address below. Find out more about sending to your Kindle. Find out more about sending to your Kindle.

Note you can select to send to either the @free.kindle.com or @kindle.com variations. ‘@free.kindle.com’ emails are free but can only be sent to your device when it is connected to wi-fi. ‘@kindle.com’ emails can be delivered even when you are not connected to wi-fi, but note that service fees apply.

Find out more about the Kindle Personal Document Service.

Studies on aqueous Suspensions of Insecticides
Available formats
×

Send article to Dropbox

To send this article to your Dropbox account, please select one or more formats and confirm that you agree to abide by our usage policies. If this is the first time you use this feature, you will be asked to authorise Cambridge Core to connect with your <service> account. Find out more about sending content to Dropbox.

Studies on aqueous Suspensions of Insecticides
Available formats
×

Send article to Google Drive

To send this article to your Google Drive account, please select one or more formats and confirm that you agree to abide by our usage policies. If this is the first time you use this feature, you will be asked to authorise Cambridge Core to connect with your <service> account. Find out more about sending content to Google Drive.

Studies on aqueous Suspensions of Insecticides
Available formats
×
×

Reply to: Submit a response


Your details


Conflicting interests

Do you have any conflicting interests? *