Pyrethrins and Pyrethroids
Total Page:16
File Type:pdf, Size:1020Kb
Load more
Recommended publications
-
Guidance on Identification of Alternatives to New Pops
Stockholm Convention on Persistent Organic Pollutants Guidance on identification of alternatives to new POPs Secretariat of the Stockholm Convention Concept of “Substitution” under the Stockholm Convention • The substitution is a strategy promoted by the Stockholm Convention to reach its objectives • Parties that are still producing or using the new POPs listed in Annex A, will need to search and identify alternatives to replace them • In the case of PFOS and for the exemptions for uses allowed by the Convention, these group of chemicals will be eventually prohibited and Parties are therefore encouraged to find alternatives to substitute them 2 Availability of alternatives • Currently, some countries have phased out the use of some of the new POPs, and there are feasible alternatives available to replace them Alternatives Chemical Name Use Ethoprop, oxamyl Pesticide to control banana root borer Cyfluthrin, Imidacloprid Pesticide to control tobacco wireworms Azadirachtin, bifenthrin, boric acid, carbaryl, Pesticide to control capsaicin, cypermethrin, cyfluthrin, ants and/or deltamethrin, diazinon, dichlorvos, cockroaches esfenvalerate, imidacloprid, lamda-cyhalothrin, Chlordecone malathion, permethrin, piperonyl butoxide, pyrethrins, pyriproxyfen, resmethrin, s- bioallerthrin, tetramethrin Bacillus thuringiensis, cultural practices such Pest management as crop rotation, intercropping, and trap cropping; barrier methods, such as screens, and bagging of fruit; use of traps such as pheromone and light traps to attract and kill insects. 3 -
Cypermethrin
International Environmental Health Criteria 82 Cypermethrin Published under the joint sponsorship of the United Nations Environment Programme, the International Labour Organisation, and the World Health Organization WORLD HEALTH ORGANIZATION GENEVA 1989 Other titles available in the ENVIRONMENTAL HEALTH CRITERIA series include: 1. Mercury 2. Polychlorinated Biphenyls and Terphenyls 3. Lead 4. Oxides of Nitrogen 5. Nitrates, Nitrites, and N-Nitroso Compounds 6. Principles and Methods for Evaluating the Toxicity of Chemicals, Part 1 7. Photochemical Oxidants 8. Sulfur Oxides and Suspended Particulate Matter 9. DDT and its Derivatives 10. Carbon Disulfide 11. Mycotoxins 12. Noise 13. Carbon Monoxide 14. Ultraviolet Radiation 15. Tin and Organotin Compounds 16. Radiofrequency and Microwaves 17. Manganese 18. Arsenic 19. Hydrogen Sulfide 20. Selected Petroleum Products 21. Chlorine and Hydrogen Chloride 22. Ultrasound 23. Lasers and Optical Radiation 24. Titanium 25. Selected Radionuclides 26. Styrene 27. Guidelines on Studies in Environmental Epidemiology 28. Acrylonitrile 29. 2,4-Dichlorophenoxyacetic Acid (2,4-D) 30. Principles for Evaluating Health Risks to Progeny Associated with Exposure to Chemicals during Pregnancy 31. Tetrachloroethylene 32. Methylene Chloride 33. Epichlorohydrin 34. Chlordane 35. Extremely Low Frequency (ELF) Fields 36. Fluorine and Fluorides 37. Aquatic (Marine and Freshwater) Biotoxins 38. Heptachlor 39. Paraquat and Diquat 40. Endosulfan 41. Quintozene 42. Tecnazene 43. Chlordecone 44. Mirex continued on p. 156 -
Exposure of Phlebotomus Argentipes to Alpha-Cypermethrin, Permethrin, and DDT Using CDC Bottle Bioassays to Assess Insecticide Susceptibility
Utah State University DigitalCommons@USU Undergraduate Honors Capstone Projects Honors Program 5-2020 Exposure of Phlebotomus Argentipes to Alpha-Cypermethrin, Permethrin, and DDT Using CDC Bottle Bioassays to Assess Insecticide Susceptibility Jacob Rex Andersen Utah State University Follow this and additional works at: https://digitalcommons.usu.edu/honors Part of the Biology Commons Recommended Citation Andersen, Jacob Rex, "Exposure of Phlebotomus Argentipes to Alpha-Cypermethrin, Permethrin, and DDT Using CDC Bottle Bioassays to Assess Insecticide Susceptibility" (2020). Undergraduate Honors Capstone Projects. 485. https://digitalcommons.usu.edu/honors/485 This Thesis is brought to you for free and open access by the Honors Program at DigitalCommons@USU. It has been accepted for inclusion in Undergraduate Honors Capstone Projects by an authorized administrator of DigitalCommons@USU. For more information, please contact [email protected]. © 2020 Jacob Rex Andersen All Rights Reserved i Abstract Background: Insecticide resistance for sand flies is a concern since sand flies are vectors for Leishmania spp. parasites which cause leishmaniasis affecting millions of people each year. The CDC bottle bioassay is used to assess resistance by comparing known insecticide diagnostic doses and diagnostic times from an insecticide-susceptible population. The objective of this study was to determine diagnostic doses and diagnostic times for α-cypermethrin and the lethal dose for 50% and 90% mortality for α- cypermethrin, permethrin, and DDT for Phlebotomus argentipes. Methods: The CDC bottle bioassays were performed in 1,000 mL glass bottles with 15- 25 sand flies from a laboratory strain of insecticide-susceptible P. argentipes. A range of concentrations of α-cypermethrin, permethrin, and DDT were evaluated. -
Treatments for the Protection of Stored Southern-Grown Corn from Rice Weevil Attack — Exploratory Tests ~
Historic, archived document Do not assume content reflects current scientific l<nowledge, policies, or practices. C~1 ^^ i -»T f-W-t-^-m-—, y>/^ .'3 L i B R •:i;RPEin SERIAL KLUu.^. Marketing Research Report No.272 L- nr.T2 7lS58 '.' S. uEFARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE Treatments for the Protection of Stored Southern-Grown Corn from Rice Weevil Attack — Exploratory Tests ~ Marketing Research Division Agricultural Marketing Service U.S. DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE WARNING No tolerances have been established for the use of lindane, methoxychlor, or ryania as insecticidal applications to the entire bulk of stored grain for the prevention of insect infestation. The tests reported herein were exploratory studies to develop information that could be used in considering the establishment of tolerances. Until such tolerances are announced, lindane, methoxychlor, or ryania protective treatments should not be used. A tolerance of 2 p. p.m. for methoxychlor in grain permits the spraying of bin walls and some surface applications, but is not high enough to cover protective treat- ments in the sense considered here. CONTENTS Page Summary 1 Introduction 2 Techniques 2 Tests with lindane 4 Tests with malathion 6 Tests with methoxychlor 8 Tests with synergized pyrethrum 12 Tests with ryania 16 Findings 19 Washington, D. C. September 1958 sale For by the Superintendent of Documents, U. S. Government Printing Office Washington 25, D. C. - Price 15 cents TREATMENTS FOR THE PROTECTION OF STORED SOUTHERN-GROWN CORN FROM RICE WEEVIL ATTACK—EXPLORATORY TESTS By D. W. La Hue, Herbert Womack, and B. W. Clements, Jr. Stored-Product Insects Laboratory- Georgia Coastal Plain Experiment Station Tifton, Ga.-"- SUMMARY Exploratory studies were made at Tifton, Ga. -
Characterization of Residential Pest Control Products Used in Inner City Communities in New York City
Journal of Exposure Science and Environmental Epidemiology (2010), 1–11 r 2010 Nature America, Inc. All rights reserved 1559-0631/10 www.nature.com/jes Characterization of residential pest control products used in inner city communities in New York City MEGAN K. HORTONa, J. BRYAN JACOBSONb, WENDY MCKELVEYb, DARRELL HOLMESa, BETTY FINCHERc, AUDREY QUANTANOc, BEINVENDIDA PAEZ DIAZc, FAYE SHABBAZZc, PEGGY SHEPARDc, ANDREW RUNDLEa AND ROBIN M. WHYATTa aColumbia Center for Children’s Environmental Health, Mailman School of Public Health, Columbia University, New York, New York, USA bNew York City Department of Health and Mental Hygiene, New York, New York, USA cWest Harlem Environmental Action, New York, New York, USA The Columbia Center for Children’s Environmental Health (CCCEH) previously reported widespread residential insecticide use in urban communities in New York City. Research suggests that pyrethroids are replacing organophosphates (OPs) in response to 2000–2001 US EPA pesticide regulations restricting OP use. A systematic assessment of active ingredients used for residential pest control is lacking. We queried a database of pesticide applications reported by licensed applicators between 1999 and 2005 and surveyed pest control products available in 145 stores within 29 zip codes in the CCCEH catchment area including Northern Manhattan and the South Bronx. Pyrethroids, pyrethrins, piperonyl butoxide, and hydramethylnon were the most common insecticide active ingredients reported as used by licensed pesticide applicators within the 29 zip codes of the CCCEH catchment area between 1999 and 2005. Use of certain pyrethroids and some non-spray insecticides such as fipronil and boric acid increased significantly by year (logistic regression, OR41.0, Po0.05), whereas use of OPs, including chlorpyrifos and diazinon decreased significantly by year (logistic regression, ORo1.0, Po0.05). -
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. -
Federal Register/Vol. 75, No. 146/Friday, July 30, 2010/Notices
44954 Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 146 / Friday, July 30, 2010 / Notices 4. Submission of Your Response in the of the information? If so, please attach must be submitted for inclusion in the English Language a copy of the determination. public docket. All responses to this notice must be 6. For each category of information 2. Tips for Preparing Your Comments. in the English language. claimed as confidential, explain with When submitting comments, remember specificity why release of the to: 5. The Effect of Failure To Respond to information is likely to cause substantial • Identify the notice by docket This Notice harm to your competitive position. number and other identifying In accordance with 40 CFR 2.204(e)(1) Explain the specific nature of those information (subject heading, Federal harmful effects, why they should be Register date and page number). and 2.205(d)(1), EPA will construe your • failure to furnish timely comments in viewed as substantial, and the causal Explain your views as clearly as response to this notice as a waiver of relationship between disclosure and possible, avoiding the use of profanity such harmful effects. How could your or personal threats. your business’s claim(s) of • confidentiality for any information in competitors make use of this Describe any assumptions and the types of documents identified in this information to your detriment? provide any technical information and/ notice. 7. Do you assert that the information or data that you used. is submitted on a voluntary or a • Provide specific examples to 6. What To Include in Your Comments mandatory basis? Please explain the illustrate your concerns, and suggest If you believe that any of the reason for your assertion. -
New Brunswick Drug Plans Formulary
New Brunswick Drug Plans Formulary August 2019 Administered by Medavie Blue Cross on Behalf of the Government of New Brunswick TABLE OF CONTENTS Page Introduction.............................................................................................................................................I New Brunswick Drug Plans....................................................................................................................II Exclusions............................................................................................................................................IV Legend..................................................................................................................................................V Anatomical Therapeutic Chemical (ATC) Classification of Drugs A Alimentary Tract and Metabolism 1 B Blood and Blood Forming Organs 23 C Cardiovascular System 31 D Dermatologicals 81 G Genito Urinary System and Sex Hormones 89 H Systemic Hormonal Preparations excluding Sex Hormones 100 J Antiinfectives for Systemic Use 107 L Antineoplastic and Immunomodulating Agents 129 M Musculo-Skeletal System 147 N Nervous System 156 P Antiparasitic Products, Insecticides and Repellants 223 R Respiratory System 225 S Sensory Organs 234 V Various 240 Appendices I-A Abbreviations of Dosage forms.....................................................................A - 1 I-B Abbreviations of Routes................................................................................A - 4 I-C Abbreviations of Units...................................................................................A -
STRUCTURAL PEST CONTROL APPLICATOR: GUIDANCE DOCUMENT Label Changes for Pyrethroid Non-Agricultural Outdoor Products
Structural Pest Section 19 Martin Luther King, Jr. Dr. Atlanta, Georgia 30334-4201 Phone: (404) 656-3641 STRUCTURAL PEST CONTROL APPLICATOR: GUIDANCE DOCUMENT Label Changes for Pyrethroid Non-agricultural Outdoor Products Why are these labels being changed? Recently, pesticide products containing insecticides in the chemical class known as pyrethroids have undergone a series of label changes. These changes are in response to water quality monitoring studies that found significant amounts of pyrethroid insecticides in sediments of urban creeks. Pyrethroids are highly toxic to aquatic organisms, accumulate in sediments and thus produce an increased risk of causing harm to invertebrates and other creatures living within sediments. What is currently happening? The Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) is requiring revised “Environmental Hazard Statements” and general “Directions for Use” for pyrethroid pesticide products used in non-agricultural outdoor settings. These label changes are intended to reduce pyrethroid movement into non-target areas through runoff or spray drift that may occur during applications. Pyrethroid products containing the new label language are now in the marketplace. Both consumer products and those designed for use by pest management professionals (PMPs) are affected by these changes. These new requirements will result in changing use patterns for the prevention and control of general household pests, lawn and ornamental pests as well as termites and other wood-destroying organisms. New language will be found on pyrethroid products formulated as liquid concentrates, broadcast granules, dusts and ready-to-use liquid mixtures. Older products that do not have new label restrictions can continue to be used according to the attached label. Broadcast applications to large surfaces such as exterior walls of buildings, patios, or concrete walkways will no longer be allowed. -
Federal Register/Vol. 75, No. 115/Wednesday, June 16, 2010
34126 Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 115 / Wednesday, June 16, 2010 / Notices TABLE 2.—REGISTRANTS REQUESTING TABLE 2.—REGISTRANTS REQUESTING the cancellation action. Because the VOLUNTARY CANCELLATION—Con- VOLUNTARY CANCELLATION—Con- Agency has identified no significant tinued tinued potential risk concerns associated with these pesticide products, upon cancellation of the products identified Company Name and EPA Co. Number Company Name and EPA Co. Number Address Address in Table 1 of Unit II., EPA anticipates allowing registrants to sell and AZ970004; Chemtura Corpora- MN940003 Arysta Lifescience distribute existing stocks of these OR030022; tion North America, products for 1 year after publication of LLC WA910017 ATTN: Crop Reg- the Cancellation Order in the Federal istration, Michael 155401 Weston Dupre Parkway, Suite Register. Thereafter, registrants will be 199 Benson Road 150 prohibited from selling or distributing (2-5) Cary, NC 27513 the pesticides identified in Table 1 of Middlebury, CT Unit II., except for export consistent 06749 III. What is the Agency’s Authority for with FIFRA section 17 or for proper Taking this Action? disposal. Persons other than registrants OR910006; FMC Corp., Agricul- will generally be allowed to sell, Section 6(f)(1) of FIFRA provides that CO920001 tural Products distribute, or use existing stocks until a registrant of a pesticide product may Group such stocks are exhausted, provided that ATTN: Michael C. at any time request that any of its such sale, distribution, or use is Zucker pesticide registrations be canceled. consistent with the terms of the 1735 Market St., FIFRA further provides that, before previously approved labeling on, or that RM. -
4. Chemical and Physical Information
PYRETHRINS AND PYRETHROIDS 131 4. CHEMICAL AND PHYSICAL INFORMATION 4.1 CHEMICAL IDENTITY The naturally-occurring pyrethrins, extracted from chrysanthemum flowers, are esters of chrysanthemic acid (Pyrethrin I, Cinerin I, and Jasmolin I) and esters of pyrethric acid (Pyrethrin II, Cinerin II, and Jasmolin II). In the United States, the pyrethrum extract is standardized as 45–55% w/w total pyrethrins. The typical proportion of Pyrethrins I to II is 0.2:2.8, while the ratio of pyrethrins:cinerins:jasmolins is 71:21:7 (Tomlin 1997). Information regarding the chemical identity of the pyrethrins is presented in Table 4-1. Pyrethroids are synthetic esters derived from the naturally-occurring pyrethrins. One exception to the axiom that all pyrethroids are esters of carboxylic acids is noteworthy. There is a group of oxime ethers that exhibits insecticidal activity similar in nature to the pyrethrins and pyrethroid esters (Davies 1985). Little data exist regarding these compounds, and no commercial products have been produced. Commercially available pyrethroids include allethrin, bifenthrin, bioresmethrin, cyfluthrin, cyhalothrin, cypermethrin, deltamethrin, esfenvalerate (fenvalerate), flucythrinate, flumethrin, fluvalinate, fenpropathrin, permethrin, phenothrin, resmethrin, tefluthrin, tetramethrin, and tralomethrin. Information regarding the chemical identity of pyrethroids is shown in Table 4-2. With the exception of deltamethrin, pyrethroids are a complex mixture of isomers rather than one single pure compound. For pyrethroids possessing the cyclopropane moiety, isomerism about the cyclopropane ring greatly influences the toxicity of these insecticides. The presence of two chiral centers in the ring results in two pairs of diastereomers. The diastereomers and their nonsuperimposable mirror images (enantiomers) are illustrated in Figure 4-1. -
Interim Review of Chlorfenvinphos
National Registration Authority for Agricultural and Veterinary Chemicals Section 3 AGRICULTURAL ASSESSMENT 1. INTRODUCTION........................................................................................................................ 6 1.1 Registration Status...................................................................................................................... 6 1.2 Methods of Application.............................................................................................................. 8 1.3 Permits..................................................................................................................................... 11 1.4 Performance Questionnaires ..................................................................................................... 11 2. EFFICACY ASSESSMENT....................................................................................................... 16 2.1 Background ............................................................................................................................. 16 2.2 Evaluation of Efficacy............................................................................................................... 16 2.3 Alternatives.............................................................................................................................. 16 2.4 Side Effects.............................................................................................................................. 18 2.5 Resistance Management ..........................................................................................................