Hostname: page-component-7479d7b7d-qs9v7 Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-07-11T22:38:44.048Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Studies of Toxicity Of 3:5 Dinitro-ortho-cresol and its Sodium Salt to the Honey Bee

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  10 July 2009

G. D. Glynne Jones  and
R. A. Edwards
G. D. Glynne Jones
Affiliation:
Seale-Hayne Agricultural College, Devon.
R. A. Edwards
Affiliation:
Seale-Hayne Agricultural College, Devon.
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Extract

Laboratory and field experiments were carried out to study the toxicity of 3:5 dinitro-ortho-cresol and its sodium salt to the honey bee.

The acid DNOC was shown to be a rapidly acting poison under a wide variety of conditions and its toxicity was not greatly affected by differences in temperature or humidity during or after treatment.

Although both the acid and salt were equally toxic as stomach poisons, considerable differences were observed between the two substances as aqueous sprays and dry films. The toxicity of the sodium salt as an aqueous spray was considerably influenced by the humidity of the environment after spraying; the higher the humidity the greater the kill.

The sodium salt was apparently non-toxic as a dry film and increasing the humidity of the environment had no effect until the saturation point was reached and the salt went into solution. At this point the salt was almost as rapid in action as the acid. The type of surface on which the film was deposited was also shown to affect the toxicity.

Experiments were carried out on the penetration of the two substances through beeswax and these confirmed that whilst the acid could penetrate the beeswax in all forms tested the salt would only penetrate in aqueous solution.

Type
Original Articles
Information
Bulletin of Entomological Research , Volume 43 , Issue 1 , March 1952 , pp. 67 - 78
Copyright
Copyright © Cambridge University Press 1952

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

Beament, J. W. L. (1945). J. exp. Biol., 21, pp. 115–131.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Chancogne, N., Lavie, P., Louvexaux, J. & Viel, G. (1948). C. R. Acad. Agric. Fr., 34, pp. 782–786.Google Scholar
Edie, P. M. (1947). J. econ, Ent., 40, pp. 49–54.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Flimer, R. S. & Smith, C. L. (1944). J. econ, Ent., 37, p. 537.Google Scholar
Frings, H. (1944). j. exp. Zool., 97, pp. 123–134.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Ginsburg, J. M. (1929). Rep. Dep. Ent. N. J. agric. Exp. Sta. 1927–28, pp. 158–163.Google Scholar
Goble, G. J. & Patton, R. L. (1946). J. econ. Ent., 39, pp. 177–180.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Johnson, C. G. (1940). Ann. appl. Biol., 27, pp. 295–299.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Krahl, M. E. & Clowers, G. H. A. (1938). J. cell. comp. physiol., 11, pp. 1–20.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Potter, C. (1941). Ann. appl. Biol., 28, pp. 142–169.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Pradhan, s. (1949). Bull. ent. Res., 40, pp. 431–444.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Rodríguez Icart, J. (1947). Rev. Asoc. rur. Uruguay, 74, no. 7, pp. 16–17.Google Scholar
Schneder, F. (1945). Schweiz. Bienenztg, 68, p. 125. (Abstr. in Bee world, 27, p. 28)Google Scholar
Way, M. J. (1949). Ann. appl. Biol., 36, pp. 86–112.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Webb, J. E. & Green, R. A. (1945). J. exp. Biol., 22, pp. 8–20.CrossRefGoogle Scholar