DOCSLIB.ORG

Environmental and Health Impacts of the Insect Juvenile Hormone Analogue, S-Methoprene

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text
Environmental and Health Impacts of the Insect Juvenile Hormone Analogue, S-Methoprene REPORT FOR THE MINISTRY OF HEALTH Environmental and health impacts of the insect juvenile hormone analogue, S-methoprene Travis R. Glare and Maureen O'Callaghan Biocontrol and Biodiversity, Grasslands Division, AgResearch PO Box 60, Lincoln March, 1999 Contents Abbreviations............................................................................................................................ 4 1. Summary.............................................................................................................................. 5 2. Introduction ......................................................................................................................... 7 2.1. Background..................................................................................................................... 7 2.2. Insect growth regulators ................................................................................................. 8 2.3. Methoprene..................................................................................................................... 8 3. Methoprene-based products............................................................................................. 10 3.1. Application rates........................................................................................................... 12 4. Activity of methoprene ..................................................................................................... 13 4.1. Mode of action and effect of methoprene treatment .................................................... 13 4.2. Sublethal effects ........................................................................................................... 14 4.2.1. Sublethal effects in mosquitoes............................................................................. 14 4.2.2. Effect on morphology/development...................................................................... 14 4.2.3. Effect on behaviour ............................................................................................... 15 4.2.4. Effect on pheromones............................................................................................ 15 4.2.5. Effect on reproduction and sex ratios..................................................................... 15 4.3. Developmental stage affected....................................................................................... 16 4.3.1. Ovicidal activity.................................................................................................... 16 4.3.2. Larvicidal and pupicidal activity........................................................................... 17 4.3.3. Adults .................................................................................................................... 18 5. Susceptible insect and mite species.................................................................................. 19 5.1. Records of susceptible insects and mites ..................................................................... 19 5.2. Comparative toxicity in the laboratory......................................................................... 28 6. Use of methoprene in the field.......................................................................................... 31 6.1 Use of methoprene against insects ................................................................................ 31 6.2. Use for mosquito control.............................................................................................. 32 6.1.1. Aedes spp............................................................................................................... 32 6.1.2. Culex spp............................................................................................................... 33 6.1.3. Mansonia spp. ....................................................................................................... 35 6.1.4. Psorophora spp. .................................................................................................... 35 7. Comparison of efficacy of methoprene with other agents............................................. 37 7.1. Mosquitoes ................................................................................................................... 37 7.1.1. Laboratory............................................................................................................. 37 7.1.2. Field....................................................................................................................... 38 7.2. Flies .............................................................................................................................. 40 7.3. Chironomids ................................................................................................................. 40 7.4. Fleas.............................................................................................................................. 41 7.5. Lepidoptera................................................................................................................... 41 7.6. Chrysomelids................................................................................................................ 41 7.7. Mites............................................................................................................................. 41 8. Use of methoprene in eradication campaigns................................................................. 42 9. Effects on non-target organisms ...................................................................................... 43 9.1. Phytotoxicity ................................................................................................................ 43 9.2. Microorganisms............................................................................................................ 43 9.2.1. Bacillus thuringiensis............................................................................................ 43 Environmental and health impacts of juvenile hormone analogue, methoprene page 2 9.2.2. Protozoa................................................................................................................. 44 9.2.3. Fungi ..................................................................................................................... 45 9.2.4. Virus...................................................................................................................... 45 9.3. Invertebrates ................................................................................................................. 46 9.3.1. Benthic and aquatic communities ......................................................................... 46 9.3.2. Nematoda .............................................................................................................. 46 9.3.3. Insects.................................................................................................................... 47 9.3.3.1. Insect predators .............................................................................................. 48 9.3.3.2. Parasitoids ...................................................................................................... 49 9.3.3.3. Bees ................................................................................................................ 50 9.4. Rotifers and marine worms .......................................................................................... 51 9.5. Mollusca ....................................................................................................................... 51 9.6. Crustaceans................................................................................................................... 52 9.6.1. Microcrustaceans................................................................................................... 52 9.6.2. Macrocrustaceans.................................................................................................. 53 9.7. Fish and amphibians..................................................................................................... 54 9.7.1. Mosquito predatory fish, Gambusia affinis........................................................... 56 9.8. Deformed frog controversy .......................................................................................... 56 9.9. Mammalian toxicity...................................................................................................... 60 9.9.1. Humans.................................................................................................................. 60 9.9.2. Residue tolerances in animal products.................................................................. 61 9.9.3. Cattle ..................................................................................................................... 61 9.9.4. Sheep ..................................................................................................................... 63 9.9.5. Small mammals and birds ..................................................................................... 63 10. Persistence and activity in the environment ................................................................. 65 10.1. Environmental persistence ......................................................................................... 65 10.2. Persistence in water .................................................................................................... 66 10.2.1. Effect of water quality........................................................................................
Load more

Recommended publications
  • Global Insecticide Use for Vector-Borne Disease Control
    WHO/CDS/NTD/WHOPES/GCDPP/2007.2 GLOBAL INSECTICIDE USE FOR VECTOR-BORNE DISEASE CONTROL M. Zaim & P. Jambulingam DEPARTMENT OF CONTROL OF NEGLECTED TROPICAL DISEASES (NTD) WHO PESTICIDE EVALUATION SCHEME (WHOPES) First edition, 2002 Second edition, 2004 Third edition, 2007 © World Health Organization 2007 All rights reserved. The designations employed and the presentation of the material in this publication do not imply the expression of any opinion whatsoever on the part of the World Health Organization concerning the legal status of any country, territory, city or area or of its authorities, or concerning the delimitation of its frontiers or boundaries. Dotted lines on maps represent approximate border lines for which there may not yet be full agreement. The mention of specific companies or of certain manufacturers’ products does not imply that they are endorsed or recommended by the World Health Organization in preference to others of a similar nature that are not mentioned. Errors and omissions excepted, the names of proprietary products are distinguished by initial capital letters. All reasonable precautions have been taken by the World Health Organization to verify the information contained in this publication. However, the published material is being distributed without warranty of any kind, either express or implied. The responsibility for the interpretation and use of the material lies with the reader. In no event shall the World Health Organization be liable for damages arising from its use. The named authors alone are responsible for the views expressed in this publication. CONTENTS Page Acknowledgements i Introduction 1 Collection of information 2 Data analysis and observations on reporting 3 All uses in vector control 6 Malaria vector control 22 Dengue vector control 38 Chagas disease vector control 48 Leishmaniasis vector control 52 Other vector-borne disease control 56 Selected insecticides – DDT 58 Selected insecticides – Insect growth regulators 60 Selected insecticides – Bacterial larvicides 62 Country examples 64 Annex 1.
    [Show full text]
  • United States Patent (19) 11 Patent Number: 5,152,096 Rudolph 45 Date of Patent: Oct
    III USOO5152096A United States Patent (19) 11 Patent Number: 5,152,096 Rudolph 45 Date of Patent: Oct. 6, 1992 (54) BAIT STATION (56) References Cited (75) Inventor: Robin R. Rudolph, Grain Prairie, U.S. PATENT DOCUMENTS Tex. 3,972,993 8/1976 Kobayashi et al................ 43/124 X 4,793,093 12/1988 Gentile ............................... 43/132.1 (73) Assignee: Sandoz Ltd., Basel, Switzerland 4,999,346 3/1991 Rudolph .............................. 514/120 21 Appl. No.: 808,054 5,057,316 10/1991 Gunner et al. ................. 43/132.1 X 22 Filed: Dec. 12, 1991 Primary Examiner-Richard K. Seidel Assistant Examiner-Patty E. Hong Related U.S. Application Data Attorney, Agent, or Firm-Allen E. Norris 63 Continuation of Ser. No. 713,480, Jun. 11, 1991, aban 57) ABSTRACT doned. A bait station device for the control of ants, especially (51) Int. Cl. ............................................... A0M 1/20 of Pharaoh's or Sugar Ant. (52 U.S. C. ......................................... 43/131; 43/124 58) Field of Search ....................... 43/124, 131, 132.1 5 Claims, 1 Drawing Sheet U.S. Patent Oct. 6, 1992 5,152,096 DSN a- 5,152,096 1. 2 enting the ants with a combination of an insect growth BAIT STATION regulant (IGR) bait and insecticide bait in such a way that the worker ants have to forage their way through This is a continuation of application Ser. No. the IGR bait to reach the insecticide bait. 07/713,480, filed Jun. 11, 1991, now abandoned. 5 In this way foraging worker ants will transport back The present invention concerns a bait station device to nests for feeding of the colony IGR bait and upon for the control of ants, especially of Pharaoh's or Sugar exhausting the available IGR bait will themselves ingest Ant.
    [Show full text]
  • Pest Management News
    Pest Management News Dr. John D. Hopkins, Associate Professor and Extension Entomologist – Coeditor Dr. Kelly M. Loftin, Associate Professor and Extension Entomologist – Coeditor Contributors Dr. Jackie Lee, Extension Specialist - Horticulture IPM Dr. Rebecca McPeake, Professor and Wildlife Extension Specialist Dr. Bob Scott, Professor and Extension Weed Scientist Sherrie E. Smith, Plant Pathology Instructor, Plant Health Clinic Diagnostician Letter #2 June 30, 2016 ________________________________________________________________________________ Are You Being Annoyed by Fleas? John D. Hopkins The most common fleas people encounter are found on cats and dogs year-round, but are most common during warm and humid weather. Fleas are attracted to animals by body heat, movement and the carbon dioxide that animals exhale. Adult fleas can jump up to 150 times the length of their body to reach a host. Adult fleas feed on blood while the immature larval form of the flea feeds on organic debris. The typical life span of the flea is more than 100 days – enough time for a pair of fleas and their descendants to produce millions of offspring. Under ideal conditions and assuming that none die; a pair of fleas has the potential to produce more than 20 trillion descendants in one year. The cat flea ranges in size from 1/12 to 1/6 inch long. They are small and have no wings, and therefore do not fly. Instead, they jump or spring. Their bodies are narrow if viewed from the sides (said to be laterally compressed), ideal for a life spent moving among hairs. Because their bodies are covered with spines projecting backwards, they are difficult to remove by shaking or scratching.
    [Show full text]
  • Evaluation of Fluralaner and Afoxolaner Treatments to Control Flea
    Dryden et al. Parasites & Vectors (2016) 9:365 DOI 10.1186/s13071-016-1654-7 RESEARCH Open Access Evaluation of fluralaner and afoxolaner treatments to control flea populations, reduce pruritus and minimize dermatologic lesions in naturally infested dogs in private residences in west central Florida USA Michael W. Dryden1*, Michael S. Canfield2, Kimberly Kalosy1, Amber Smith1, Lisa Crevoiserat1, Jennifer C. McGrady1, Kaitlin M. Foley1, Kathryn Green2, Chantelle Tebaldi2, Vicki Smith1, Tashina Bennett1, Kathleen Heaney3, Lisa Math3, Christine Royal3 and Fangshi Sun3 Abstract Background: A study was conducted to evaluate and compare the effectiveness of two different oral flea and tick products to control flea infestations, reduce pruritus and minimize dermatologic lesions over a 12 week period on naturally infested dogs in west central FL USA. Methods: Thirty-four dogs with natural flea infestations living in 17 homes were treated once with a fluralaner chew on study day 0. Another 27 dogs living in 17 different homes were treated orally with an afoxolaner chewable on day 0, once between days 28–30 and once again between days 54–60. All products were administered according to label directions by study investigators. Flea populations on pets were assessed using visual area counts and premise flea infestations were assessed using intermittent-light flea traps on days 0, 7, 14, 21, and once between days 28–30, 40–45, 54–60 and 82–86. Dermatologic assessments were conducted on day 0 and once monthly. Pruritus assessments were conducted by owners throughout the study. No concurrent treatments for existing skin disease (antibiotics, anti-inflammatories, anti-fungals) were allowed.
    [Show full text]
  • Historical Perspectives on Apple Production: Fruit Tree Pest Management, Regulation and New Insecticidal Chemistries
    Historical Perspectives on Apple Production: Fruit Tree Pest Management, Regulation and New Insecticidal Chemistries. Peter Jentsch Extension Associate Department of Entomology Cornell University's Hudson Valley Lab 3357 Rt. 9W; PO box 727 Highland, NY 12528 email: [email protected] Phone 845-691-7151 Mobile: 845-417-7465 http://www.nysaes.cornell.edu/ent/faculty/jentsch/ 2 Historical Perspectives on Fruit Production: Fruit Tree Pest Management, Regulation and New Chemistries. by Peter Jentsch I. Historical Use of Pesticides in Apple Production Overview of Apple Production and Pest Management Prior to 1940 Synthetic Pesticide Development and Use II. Influences Changing the Pest Management Profile in Apple Production Chemical Residues in Early Insect Management Historical Chemical Regulation Recent Regulation Developments Changing Pest Management Food Quality Protection Act of 1996 The Science Behind The Methodology Pesticide Revisions – Requirements For New Registrations III. Resistance of Insect Pests to Insecticides Resistance Pest Management Strategies IV. Reduced Risk Chemistries: New Modes of Action and the Insecticide Treadmill Fermentation Microbial Products Bt’s, Abamectins, Spinosads Juvenile Hormone Analogs Formamidines, Juvenile Hormone Analogs And Mimics Insect Growth Regulators Azadirachtin, Thiadiazine Neonicotinyls Major Reduced Risk Materials: Carboxamides, Carboxylic Acid Esters, Granulosis Viruses, Diphenyloxazolines, Insecticidal Soaps, Benzoyl Urea Growth Regulators, Tetronic Acids, Oxadiazenes , Particle Films, Phenoxypyrazoles, Pyridazinones, Spinosads, Tetrazines , Organotins, Quinolines. 3 I Historical Use of Pesticides in Apple Production Overview of Apple Production and Pest Management Prior to 1940 The apple has a rather ominous origin. Its inception is framed in the biblical text regarding the genesis of mankind. The backdrop appears to be the turbulent setting of what many scholars believe to be present day Iraq.
    [Show full text]
  • Household Flea Management
    Household Flea Management Moving Beyond Pet‐Only Treatments to an IPM Approach Stephanie Hughes, PE BAPPG October 5, 2016 Today’s Outline • Context • The Flea Cycle • Management Options – The Case Against Topical Approaches – The Case for Oral Meds – The Case for IPM • Audiences and Next Steps Context ‐ Imidacloprid • A common “spot on” topical treatment for dogs and cats • Found in urban runoff, POTW effluent, and waterbodies, sometimes at concentrations toxic to sensitive aquatic species. • U.S. EPA’s Registration review environmental risk assessment anticipated in December 2016 (comments due February 2017) Context ‐ Fipronil • A common “spot on” topical treatment for dogs and cats • Fipronil and degradates found in urban runoff, POTW effluent, and waterbodies, sometimes at concentrations toxic to sensitive aquatic species. • U.S. EPA registration review environmental risk assessment anticipated in December 2016 (comments due February 2017) • DPR: – Is evaluating human exposure risk – Is considering significant mitigation measures to reduce consumer and child exposure – Findings anticipated December 2016 The Flea Cycle https://www.pesticideresearch.com/site/?page_id=2933 So if you were looking to kill the fleas in this cycle, you might seek… To my knowledge, no active ingredients penetrate the shell and kill the pupae An “adulticide” ‐ an active ingredient that kills the adults An “insect growth regulator” –an active ingredient that minimizes number or viability of eggs or larvae What products in the marketplace contain those active ingredients?
    [Show full text]
  • Evaluation of Indoxacarb and Fipronil (S)-Methoprene Topical Spot-On
    Dryden et al. Parasites & Vectors 2013, 6:366 http://www.parasitesandvectors.com/content/6/1/366 RESEARCH Open Access Evaluation of indoxacarb and fipronil (s)-methoprene topical spot-on formulations to control flea populations in naturally infested dogs and cats in private residences in Tampa FL. USA Michael W Dryden1*, Patricia A Payne1, Vicki Smith1, Monica Chwala1, Emery Jones1, Jacob Davenport1, Gabrielle Fadl1, Maria F Martinez-Perez de Zeiders1, Kathleen Heaney2, Pamela Ford2 and Fangshi Sun2 Abstract Background: A study was conducted to evaluate and compare the effectiveness of two different spot-on topical flea products to control flea infestations on naturally infested dogs and cats in Tampa, FL USA. Methods: Thirty-two dogs and 3 cats with natural flea infestations living in 18 homes were treated topically with a 19.53% w/w spot-on formulation of indoxacarb. Another thirty dogs and 2 cats living in 19 different homes were treated topically with either fipronil (9.8% w/w)/(s)-methoprene (8.89% w/w) or fipronil (9.8% w/w)/(s)-methoprene (11.8% w/w), respectively. All products were applied according to label directions by study investigators on day 0 and again between days 28 and 30. Flea populations on pets were assessed using visual area counts and premise flea infestations were assessed using intermittent-light flea traps on days 0, 7, 14, 21, 28–30, 40–45, and 54–60. Results: A single application of the indoxacarb or fipronil (s)-methoprene formulations reduced flea populations on pets by 97.8% and 85.5%, respectively within 7 days.
    [Show full text]
  • The Biology and Ecology of Cat Fleas and Advancements in Their Pest Management: a Review
    insects Review The Biology and Ecology of Cat Fleas and Advancements in Their Pest Management: A Review Michael K. Rust ID Department of Entomology, University of California Riverside, Riverside, CA 92521, USA; [email protected]; Tel.: +1-951-827-5327 Academic Editors: Changlu Wang and Chow-Yang Lee Received: 7 August 2017; Accepted: 18 October 2017; Published: 27 October 2017 Abstract: The cat flea Ctenocephalides felis felis (Bouché) is the most important ectoparasite of domestic cats and dogs worldwide. It has been two decades since the last comprehensive review concerning the biology and ecology of C. f. felis and its management. Since then there have been major advances in our understanding of the diseases associated with C. f. felis and their implications for humans and their pets. Two rickettsial diseases, flea-borne spotted fever and murine typhus, have been identified in domestic animal populations and cat fleas. Cat fleas are the primary vector of Bartonella henselae (cat scratch fever) with the spread of the bacteria when flea feces are scratched in to bites or wounds. Flea allergic dermatitis (FAD) common in dogs and cats has been successfully treated and tapeworm infestations prevented with a number of new products being used to control fleas. There has been a continuous development of new products with novel chemistries that have focused on increased convenience and the control of fleas and other arthropod ectoparasites. The possibility of feral animals serving as potential reservoirs for flea infestations has taken on additional importance because of the lack of effective environmental controls in recent years. Physiological insecticide resistance in C.
    [Show full text]
  • Pests of the Flower Garden Phillip E
    Pests of the Flower Garden Phillip E. Sloderbeck Entomologist Southwest Area Office This publication is meant to help ent names. One of the more popular prey, predators and parasites. It is im- gardeners select insecticides for use groups of insecticides labeled for portant to select and use insecticides in flower gardens. It lists some of the home use are the pyrethroids, which carefully. common pests associated with flow- come in a variety of names such as When selecting insecticides, buy in ers and some of the active ingredients bifenthrin, cyfluthrin, permethrin and quantities that can be used in a reason- found in insecticides labeled for use esefenvalerate. Many of these com- able amount of time. Look for prod- on ornamental plants. The list contains pounds end in “-thrin,” but not all. ucts that can be used for more than common active ingredients for each Many have a broad spectrum, but the one pest. For example, if a gardener pest from the Kansas pesticide data- lists of pests controlled by each pyre- has problems with aphids and mealy- base. Other effective materials may throid varies. bugs, it might be best to buy a product also be available. Gardeners should Remember that to be a pest, insects that controls both rather than buying check labels carefully and visit local have to be present in substantial num- separate products for each pest. Re- retail outlets to determine which prod- bers. Spotting one or two insects in a member that if it is necessary to treat ucts are best suited for a particular garden should not trigger an insecti- pests several times during the season, pest problem.
    [Show full text]
  • Recommended Classification of Pesticides by Hazard and Guidelines to Classification 2019 Theinternational Programme on Chemical Safety (IPCS) Was Established in 1980
    The WHO Recommended Classi cation of Pesticides by Hazard and Guidelines to Classi cation 2019 cation Hazard of Pesticides by and Guidelines to Classi The WHO Recommended Classi The WHO Recommended Classi cation of Pesticides by Hazard and Guidelines to Classi cation 2019 The WHO Recommended Classification of Pesticides by Hazard and Guidelines to Classification 2019 TheInternational Programme on Chemical Safety (IPCS) was established in 1980. The overall objectives of the IPCS are to establish the scientific basis for assessment of the risk to human health and the environment from exposure to chemicals, through international peer review processes, as a prerequisite for the promotion of chemical safety, and to provide technical assistance in strengthening national capacities for the sound management of chemicals. This publication was developed in the IOMC context. The contents do not necessarily reflect the views or stated policies of individual IOMC Participating Organizations. The Inter-Organization Programme for the Sound Management of Chemicals (IOMC) was established in 1995 following recommendations made by the 1992 UN Conference on Environment and Development to strengthen cooperation and increase international coordination in the field of chemical safety. The Participating Organizations are: FAO, ILO, UNDP, UNEP, UNIDO, UNITAR, WHO, World Bank and OECD. The purpose of the IOMC is to promote coordination of the policies and activities pursued by the Participating Organizations, jointly or separately, to achieve the sound management of chemicals in relation to human health and the environment. WHO recommended classification of pesticides by hazard and guidelines to classification, 2019 edition ISBN 978-92-4-000566-2 (electronic version) ISBN 978-92-4-000567-9 (print version) ISSN 1684-1042 © World Health Organization 2020 Some rights reserved.
    [Show full text]
  • Resistance to Juvenile Hormone and an Insect Growth Regulator In
    Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. USA Vol. 87, pp. 2072-2076, March 1990 Agricultural Sciences Resistance to juvenile hormone and an insect growth regulator in Drosophila is associated with an altered cytosolic juvenile hormone-binding protein (insecticide resistance) LIRIM SHEMSHEDINI* AND THOMAS G. WILSONt Department of Zoology, University of Vermont, Burlington, VT 05405 Communicated by Robert L. Metcalf, December 26, 1989 ABSTRACT The Met mutant ofDrosophila melanogaster is suggesting a target-site insensitivity mechanism of resis- highly resistant tojuvenile hormone Im (JH III) or its chemical tance. analog, methoprene, an insect growth regulator. Five major mechanisms ofinsecticide resistance were examined in Met and susceptible Met+ flies. These two strains showed only minor EXPERIMENTAL PROCEDURES differences when penetration, excretion, tissue sequestration, JHs and Insects. JH III (Sigma) and [3H]JH III (New or metabolism of [3H]JH m was measured. In contrast, when England Nuclear; specific activity, 11.9 Ci/mmol; 1 Ci = 37 we examined JH III binding by a cytosolic binding protein from GBq) were racemic mixes. [3H]Methoprene (R isomer, 83.9 a JH target tissue, Met strains had a 10-fold lower binding Ci/mmol) was a generous gift of G. Prestwich (Stony Brook, affmity than did Met+ strains. Studies using deficiency-bearing NY). Each was stored in a stock solution in hexane at -20'C. chromosomes provide strong evidence that the Met locus con- Purity was monitored periodically by thin-layer chromatog- trols the binding protein characteristics and may encode the raphy. Breakdown was almost negligible over a 1-year period protein. These studies indicate that resistance in Met flies under these conditions.
    [Show full text]
  • A Link Between Consumer Flea and Tick Control and San Francisco Bay
    A Link Between Consumer Flea and Tick Control and San Francisco Bay Stephanie Hughes, PE March 2018 Organizations involved in this project • Bay Area Pollution Prevention Group (55 regional agencies) • City of Palo Alto • San Francisco Estuary Institute • San Francisco Dept of Environment • San Francisco Public Utilities Commission • TDC Environmental, LLC Our Concerns • Pesticides from common flea control products are discharged into sewer systems. • Pesticide concentrations discharged into SF Bay can exceed toxicity thresholds for aquatic invertebrates Pesticides of concern are those that exhibit aquatic toxicity and persist in the environment • Bifenthrin • Deltamethrin • Fipronil * • Imidacloprid * • Indoxacarb • Permethrin * Uses of fipronil and imidacloprid are currently under review by the California Department of Pesticide Regulation due to possible health risks posed to adults and children. Which indoor‐use products contain pesticides of concern? • Topicals – Collars – Spot treatments • Shampoos or dusts • House sprays and foggers We have evidence that fipronil and imidacloprid pass through wastewater treatment to the Bay Sadaria, A.M. et al. 2017. Passage of Fiproles and Imidacloprid from Urban Pest Control Uses Through Wastewater Treatment Plants in Northern California. Environmental Toxicology and Chemistry. 36 (6), 1473-1482. Topical treatments (spot and collar) do not remain where applied Researchers incorporated a fluorescent dye into the spot treatment to photograph the spread “Fate and Distribution of Fipronil on Companion Animals and in Their Indoor Residences Following Spot‐On Flea Treatments," Bigelow Dyk, M., et al., J. of Env Science and Health, Part B, 2012, Vol 47, pp 913‐924. Fipronil Washes Off Pets Wash‐off continues for at least 28 days 1.0 0.8 0.6 0.4 0.2 0.0 2728 Days Post Application Teerlink, J., J Hernandez, R Budd.
    [Show full text]