Hostname: page-component-7479d7b7d-767nl Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-07-11T05:20:58.988Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false

Responses of Pests to Fumigation. III.—The Fumigation of Wheat containing Calandra spp.(Curculionidae) with three Fumigants, under Reduced Pressure*

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  10 July 2009

A. K. M. El Nahal
Affiliation:
Imperial College Field Station, Sunninghill, Berks.

Extract

Wheat of three moisture contents was fumigated with ethylene oxide, methyl bromide and hydrogen cyanide. Both chemical and biological assays were used to follow the changing distribution of the fumigant when applied with sustained vacuum, in a vacuum fumigation with simultaneous admission of air and fumigant, or at atmospheric pressure.

As these various factors were altered, in a multifactorial experiment, the changes in the fumigant distribution were also recorded chemically, and then analysed statistically. Changes in the mortality of both species of Calandra, either buried in a one-cwt sack of wheat or in the free-space, were estimated so that that part of the changes which was associated with the altered fumigant distribution was segregated by a covariance analysis and the remainder formed an estimate of the direct influence of the experimental Conditions on the susceptibility of the weevils to the fumigants.

When either ethylene oxide or methyl bromide is used as a fumigant for wheat, vacuum fumigation with simultaneous admission of air and fumigant gives results, in terms of the control of Calandra spp., which are almost indistinguishable from those obtained at atmospheric pressure under comparable conditions. When hydrogen cyanide is the fumigant, atmospheric fumigation is superior, quite apart from the capital expense and other practical disadvantages of fumigations at reduced pressures.

Type
Original Articles
Copyright
Copyright © Cambridge University Press 1953

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

Brown, W. B. (1936). Determination of fumigants VI. Purity of commercial ethylene oxide in cylinders.—J. Soc. chem. Ind., 55, pp. 321T325T.Google Scholar
Brown, W. B. & Heuser, S. G. (1953). Behaviour of fumigants during vacuum fumigation. I. Penetration of methyl bromide into boxes of dates.—J. Sci. Fd Agric., 4, pp. 4857.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Crumb, S. E. & Chamberlain, F. S. (1933). A comparison of the effectiveness of sustained vacuum and dissipated vacuum in fumigation with hydrocyanic acid gas.—J. econ. Ent., 26, pp. 259262.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Gray, G. P. & Kirkpatrick, A. F. (1929). The protective stupefaction of certain scale insects by hydrocyanic acid vapour.—J. econ. Ent., 22, pp. 878892.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Lepigre, A. L. (1949). La déinsectisation par fumigation avec vide préalable.—Docum. phytosanit. Minist. Agric. Fr. Sér. ent., no. 9, 818 pp.Google Scholar
Lindgren, D. L. (1936). Vacuum fumigation.—J. econ. Ent., 29, pp. 11321137.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Lindgren, D. L. (1938). The stupefaction of red scale, Aonidiella aurantii, by hydrocyanic acid.—Hilgardia, 11, pp. 211225.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Lubatti, O. F. & Blackith, E. E. (1950). Fumigation of agricultural products II. The susceptibility of seed potatoes to the vapour of methyl bromide.—J. Sci. Fd Agric., 1, pp. 240244.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Moore, W. & Carpenter, E. L. (1938). The fumigation of insects with hydrocyanic acid: effect of different air pressures.—J. econ. Ent., 31, pp. 419426.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Page, A. B. P., Blackith, R. E., Brown, W. B. & Heuser, S. G. (1953). Descriptive terms for vacuum fumigation.—Chem. & Ind., 1953, pp. 353354.Google Scholar
Salmond, K. F. (1953). Responses of pests to fumigation. II. Toxicity of hydrogen cyanide to Calandra spp. under reduced pressure.—Bull. ent. Res., 44, pp. 225230.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Young, H. D., Wagner, G. B. & Cotton, R. T. (1935). The vacuum fumigation of flour products with hydrocyanic acid.—J. econ. Ent., 28, pp. 10491055.CrossRefGoogle Scholar