Hostname: page-component-76fb5796d-45l2p Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-04-28T06:04:44.068Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

An improved Method for testing Liquid Contact Insecticides in the Laboratory

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  10 July 2009

H. J. Craufurd-Benson
H. J. Craufurd-Benson
Affiliation:
The Cooper Technical Bureau, London.
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Extract

1. Methods for laboratory testing of contact insecticides are reviewed, and some of the disadvantages of these methods are discussed. Reasons are given for preferring an immersion to a spraying method, and the necessity for a supply of “ standardised ” insects is stressed.

2. An improved immersion method for laboratory testing of contact insecticides is described, and the rigid technique necessary is detailed.

3. The effect on the resistance of Ahasverus advena to a derris insecticide of varying the time of immersion, the age of the insects, the temperature and the humidity before, during, and after immersion is illustrated and shows the necessity of controlling all these factors.

4. Results with a standard derris insecticide are given to show the great accuracy that can be obtained by the new method ; that the same result with the same insecticide can be repeated from day to day; and that two workers using the same insecticide have obtained identical results.

5. The reaction to starvation is correlated with variations in age, temperature, and humidity, to show that the starvation death rate is a measure of the insects' powers of resistance to an insecticide.

6. Statistical analysis and discussion of methods of expressing mortality is reserved for a later communication.

Type
Original Articles
Information
Bulletin of Entomological Research , Volume 29 , Issue 1 , March 1938 , pp. 41 - 56
Copyright
Copyright © Cambridge University Press 1938

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

1.Badertscher, A. E. (1936). Insecticide tests compared.—Soap, 12, (9) pp. 96, 97, 101.Google Scholar
2.Fleming, W. E. (1934). Development of a standard cage method for testing the effectiveness of stomach-poison insecticides on the Japanese beetle.—J. Agric. Res. 48, pp. 115–130.Google Scholar
3.Fleming, W. E. & Baker, F. E. (1934). Testing contact insecticides on the Japanese beetle, and results with some sodium and potassium soaps.—J. Agric. Res. 49, pp. 29–38.Google Scholar
4.Grady, A. G. (1937). Comments on the Peet-Grady Test.—Soap, 13, (1) pp. 110–112.Google Scholar
5.Jones, H. A., Campbell, F. D. & Sullivan, W. N. (1935). Cracca—a source of insecticides.—Soap, 11, (9) pp. 99, 101–103, 105, 107, 109.Google Scholar
6.Nelson, F. C., Buc, H. E., Sankowsky, N. A. & Jernakoff, M. A. (1934). Evaluating liquid insecticides.—Soap, 10, (10) pp. 85, 87, 89, 91, 105, 107.Google Scholar
7.O'Kane, W. C., Westgate, W. A., Glover, L. C. & Lowry, P. R. (1930). Surface tension, surface activity, and wetting ability as factors in the performance of contact insecticides. Studies of contact insecticides I.—Tech. Bull. N.H. Agric. Exp. Sta. No. 39.Google Scholar
8.O'Kane, W. C., Walker, G. L., Guy, H. G., & Smith, O. J. (1933). Studies of contact insecticides VI. 1. Reactions of certain insects to controlled applications of various concentrated chemicals. 2. A new technique for initial appraisal of proposed contact insecticides.—Tech. Bull. N.H. Agric. Exp. Sta. No. 54.Google Scholar
9.Peet, C. H. & Grady, A. G. (1928). Studies in insecticidal activity.—J. Econ. Ent. 21, pp. 612–625.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
10.Shepard, H. H. & Richardson, C. H. (1931). A method of determining the relative toxicity of contact insecticides, with special reference to the action of nicotine against Aphis rumicis.—J. Econ. Ent. 24, pp. 905–914.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
11.Siegler, E. H. & Munger, F. (1933). A field and laboratory technique for toxicological studies of the codling moth.—J. Econ. Ent. 26, pp. 438–445.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
12.Siegler, E. H. & Munger, F. (1935). A laboratory spray apparatus.—J. Econ. Ent. 28, pp. 704–706.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
13.Simanton, W. A. (1937). Evaluating liquid insecticides.—Soap, 13, (10) pp. 103, 105, 107, 115.Google Scholar
14.Tattersfield, F. (1937). Modern developments in research on insecticides, Part I. General survey.—J. Soc. Chem. Ind. Lond. 56, pp. 79t–85t.Google Scholar
15.Tattersfield, F. & Morris, H. M. (1924). An apparatus for testing the toxic values of contact insecticides under controlled conditions.—Bull. Ent. Res. 14, pp. 223–224.CrossRefGoogle Scholar