DOCSLIB.ORG

Global Insecticide Use for Vector-Borne Disease Control

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text

Load more

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

  • 1
  • Introduction

  • Collection of information
  • 2

Data analysis and observations on reporting All uses in vector control
36

  • Malaria vector control
  • 22

38 48 52 56 58 60 62 64 78
Dengue vector control Chagas disease vector control Leishmaniasis vector control Other vector-borne disease control Selected insecticides – DDT Selected insecticides – Insect growth regulators Selected insecticides – Bacterial larvicides Country examples Annex 1. Data reporting form and instructions for completion

The Department of Control of Neglected Tropical Diseases (NTD) of the World Health Organization (WHO) thanks the many individuals in Member States who assisted NTD in collecting and validating data on the use of insecticides to control vector-borne diseases. Special thanks are extended to the following staff in WHO regional offices for their valuable assistance in facilitating data collection:

ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS

- Dr B. Ameneshewa, WHO Regional Office for Africa, Harare, Zimbabwe - Dr M. Ejov, WHO Regional Office for Europe, Copenhagen, Denmark - Dr C. Frederickson, Caribbean Epidemiology Centre, Pan American Health
Organization, Port-of-Spain, Trinidad and Tobago
- Dr L. Manga, WHO Regional Office for Africa, Brazzaville, Congo - Dr A. Mnzava, WHO Regional Office for the Eastern Mediterranean, Cairo,
Egypt
- Dr K. Palmer, WHO Regional Office for the Western Pacific, Manila,
Philippines
- Dr C. Prasittisuk, WHO Regional Office for South-East Asia, New Delhi, India - Dr G. Zamani, WHO Regional Office for the Eastern Mediterranean, Cairo,
Egypt

This publication was funded by the Global Collaboration for Development of Pesticides for Public Health.

i
WHO/CDS/NTD/WHOPES/GCDPP/2007.2
Page 1

Vector control constitutes an important element in the current global strategy for the control of major vector-borne diseases, and chemical control remains an important element in an integrated approach to vector control. In order to support the development of products to control vectors, facilitate the judicious use of insecticides and effectively manage insecticide resistance, there is a need to develop pesticide management systems based on regular monitoring and reporting of insecticide use in different disease control programmes.

INTRODUCTION

An attempt has been made to document the use of insecticides for vector control at the global level (WHO, 20021,2), which could form the basis for the following:

ꢀ development of guidelines on safe and effective use of insecticides; ꢀ development of guidelines for management of insecticide resistance; ꢀ agreements for international use of insecticides (e.g. DDT, re-registration of insecticides in certain countries and how that may affect their international use);
ꢀ investment for development of alternatives; ꢀ review and formulation of policies for insecticide usage at different levels (national, regional and global levels).

This document is a continuation of such effort and contains information on the global use of insecticides for control of vector-borne diseases for the reporting period 2003–2005.

1 Zaim M (2002). Global insecticide use for vector-borne disease control. Geneva, World Health Organization

(WHO/CDS/WHOPES/GCDPP/2002.2). 2 Zaim M, Jambulingam P (2004). Global insecticide use for vector-borne disease control, 2nd ed. Geneva, World Health Organization (WHO/CDS/WHOPES/GCDPP/2004.9).

WHO/CDS/NTD/WHOPES/GCDPP/2007.2 Page 2

The data on the use of insecticides in vector-borne disease control programmes were

COLLECTION OF INFORMATION

collected and validated, with the assistance of WHO regional offices, from the national disease control programmes, using a standard questionnaire (Annex 1). Only Member States having vector-borne diseases as their major public health problem were approached for such information.

The WHO Pesticide Evaluation Scheme (WHOPES) invites national disease control programmes to report regularly on the use of insecticides for vector control, using the questionnaire provided in Annex 1. They are also invited to submit data on such use for the missing years, in order to obtain a clear understanding of insecticide use at national, regional and global levels.

WHO/CDS/NTD/WHOPES/GCDPP/2007.2
Page 3

A total of 81 countries from the six WHO regions responded to the questionnaire as follows: African Region, (20); Region of the Americas, (25); Eastern Mediterranean Region (11); European Region (6); South-East Asia Region, (6); and Western Pacific Region (13).

DATA ANALYSIS AND OBSERVATIONS ON REPORTING

While many countries provided information for the entire three-year reporting period (2003–2005), others provided information for either two years or just one year. A few countries provided data on insecticide use pooled with those for more than one vectorborne disease. Such data were not included in the analysis of insecticide use for specific diseases but used only to estimate the total use of insecticides for vector control.

While the data provided by most countries were on the use of the four major classes of insecticides (see below), some countries also reported on the use of bacterial larvicides and/or insect growth regulators. Such data are presented separately in this document.

The number of countries reporting to WHOPES on insecticide use for vector control remains almost the same as in the previous survey. In addition, some countries updated their information by providing data for the missing years. Comparison of data from the current survey with previous surveys was done using the updated information.

As in the previous survey, one of the reasons cited by countries for not providing complete data is that decentralized programmes have difficulty in collecting such information. This is a matter of major concern that could adversely affect the management of insecticides for vector control. It is therefore important that these countries take adequate steps to develop appropriate and effective monitoring and reporting systems for insecticide use in their vector-borne disease control programmes.
WHO/CDS/NTD/WHOPES/GCDPP/2007.2 Page 4

The major vector-borne diseases reportedly controlled with insecticides were:

DATA ANALYSIS AND OBSERVATIONS ON REPORTING

- malaria, caused by protozoan Plasmodium parasites transmitted by Anopheles mosquitoes;
- dengue, Japanese encephalitis, yellow fever and other arboviruses transmitted by certain mosquitoes;
- leishmaniasis, caused by protozoan Leishmania parasites transmitted by phlebotomine sandflies;
- Chagas disease, caused by protozoan Trypanosoma cruzi parasites transmitted by triatomine bugs.

The insecticides used against these disease vectors were mostly of the following classes, as detailed in other WHO documents:1,2

- organochlorines, of which DDT is the main insecticide used in vector control; - organophosphates such as fenitrothion, malathion and temephos; - carbamates such as bendiocarb and propoxur; - pyrethroids such as alpha-cypermethrin, cyfluthrin, cypermethrin, deltamethrin, etofenprox, lambda-cyhalothrin and permethrin;
- insect growth regulators such as diflubenzuron, methoprene and pyriproxyfen;

- bacterial larvicides such as Bacillus thuringiensis israelensis.

1 Pesticides and their application for the control of vectors and pests of public health importance (2006). Geneva, World Health Organization

(WHO/CDS/NTD/WHOPES/GCDPP/2006.1).

2 Najera JA, Zaim M (2002). Malaria vector control – Decision making criteria and procedures for judicious use of insecticides. Geneva,

World Health Organization (WHO/CDS/WHOPES/2002.5 Rev.1).

WHO/CDS/NTD/WHOPES/GCDPP/2007.2
Page 5

The most common formulations of synthetic insecticides employed for particular applications were:

DATA ANALYSIS AND OBSERVATIONS ON REPORTING

ꢀ larvicidal treatments with emulsifiable concentrate and granules; ꢀ residual treatment with wettable powder, suspension concentrate and capsule suspension;
ꢀ treatment of mosquito nets with aqueous formulations such as suspension

concentrate, capsule suspension and emulsion oil in water; use of emulsifiable concentrate is discouraged for treatment of mosquito nets, except for permethrin;1
ꢀ space spraying with emulsifiable concentrate, emulsion oil in water or ultra-low-volume

liquid.

1 Zaim M, Aitio A, Nakashima N (2000). Safety of pyrethroid-treated mosquito nets. Medical and Veterinary Entomology, 14, 1–5.

WHO/CDS/NTD/WHOPES/GCDPP/2007.2 Page 6

Table 1 shows the reporting period of insecticide use for vector control by Member States.

ALL USES IN VECTOR CONTROL

A total of 81 countries from the six WHO regions reported on the use of insecticides for vector control in this survey; 60 countries provided data for the three-year reporting period (2003–2005); 7 for two years; and 14 for just one year. Compared with the previous survey (2000–2002), the number of countries reporting for the entire survey period has increased considerably.

In the African Region, 20 countries out of 46 Member States reported the use of insecticides; the remaining five regions, where the majority of the countries were requested to provide data and where major vector-borne diseases occur, responded to the questionnaire. In the African Region, 8 of the reporting countries were among those that had reported during the previous survey.

Region of the Americas (25 countries), Mediterranean Region (11 countries) and European Region (6 countries) – With a few exceptions, many of the countries reporting during the previous survey also reported this time. A few additions were also reported from the Region of the Americas and the Eastern Mediterranean Region.

South-East Asia Region (6 countries) – Except for Bangladesh, India and the Maldives, 3 countries continued to provide data on insecticide use for vector control.

Western Pacific Region – Of the 13 countries reporting from this region, 8 had reported previously.
WHO/CDS/NTD/WHOPES/GCDPP/2007.2
Page 7

Although some variations occurred in the number of countries reporting the use of insecticides in the three surveys, it is encouraging to note that among the 81 countries that reported insecticide use during this survey, 45 provided data on insecticide use continuously for the three surveys and 61 for the past two surveys. This trend is observed from countries in all WHO regions except the African Region.

ALL USES IN VECTOR CONTROL

Note: The 81 countries that reported on the use of insecticides have the important vector- borne diseases as their major public health problem and have a population of about 1.8 billion. Excluding China and India, this population constitutes a considerable proportion of the total population living in countries endemic for vector-borne diseases.

WHO/CDS/NTD/WHOPES/GCDPP/2007.2 Page 8

Table 1.

Insecticide use for vector control: reporting period by countries in each WHO region
WHO region

African

  • Country
  • Total population

2004a

  • 2003
  • 2004
  • 2005

Angola Benin
15 490 000
8 177 000 1 769 000 4 232 000
75 600 000
1 478 000 9 202 000
33 467 000 18 113 000 13 124 000
1 233 000
19 424 000
2 009 000 8 882 000
80 000
–++–+++++++–++++–+––
–+++
++++
Botswana Eritrea

  • b
  • b

Ethiopia Gambia Guinea Kenya

  • +
  • +

++++++–++++––+–
++++++
Madagascar Mali Mauritius Mozambique Namibia

b

+++++
Rwanda Seychelles South Africa Swaziland Togo
47 208 000
1 034 000 5 988 000
11 479 000 12 936 000

b

++

  • +
  • Zambia

Zimbabwe

b

+

a Source: The world health report 2006 – working together for health. Geneva, World Health Organization, 2006.

b DDT use only.

WHO/CDS/NTD/WHOPES/GCDPP/2007.2
Page 9

Table 1 (cont'd).

Insecticide use for vector control: reporting period by countries in each WHO region

  • WHO region
  • Country
  • Total population

2004a

  • 2003
  • 2004
  • 2005

  • Americas
  • Argentina

Bahamas Belize
38 372 000
319 000 264 000
++++++++++++++–++++–+
+–––++++++++++–++++––
+–––++++++++++++++++–
Bolivia Brazil Chile
9 009 000
183 913 000
16 124 000 44 915 000 11 245 000
79 000
Colombia Cuba Dominica Dominican Republic Ecuador
8 768 000
13 040 000
6 762 000
12 295 000
750 000
El Salvador Guatemala Guyana Haiti Jamaica
8 407 000 2 639 000
105 699 000
3 175 000 6 017 000
27 562 000
159 000
Mexico Panama Paraguay Peru Saint Lucia
WHO/CDS/NTD/WHOPES/GCDPP/2007.2 Page 10

Table 1 (cont'd).

Insecticide use for vector control: reporting period by countries in each WHO region

  • WHO region
  • Country
  • Total population

2004a

118 000

  • 2003
  • 2004
  • 2005

  • Americas
  • Saint Vincent and the

Grenadines Trinidad and Tobago Uruguay

  • +
  • –
  • –

1 301 000 3 439 000
26 282 000
716 000
+++–+–++++–+++++++++
++++++++++++++++++++
++++++++++++++++++++
Venezuela

  • Bahrain
  • Eastern

Mediterranean
Iran (Islamic Republic of) Iraq Jordan
68 803 000 28 057 000
5 561 000
31 020 000
2 534 000
154 794 000
23 950 000 35 523 000 18 582 000 20 329 000
3 026 000 8 355 000 4 518 000 5 204 000 6 430 000
72 220 000
Morocco Oman Pakistan Saudi Arabia Sudan Syrian Arab Republic Yemen

  • Armenia
  • European

Azerbaijan Georgia Kyrgyzstan Tajikistan Turkey

WHO/CDS/NTD/WHOPES/GCDPP/2007.2
Page 11

Table 1 (cont'd).

Insecticide use for vector control: reporting period by countries in each WHO region

  • WHO region
  • Country
  • Total population

2004a

  • 2003
  • 2004
  • 2005

  • South-East Asia
  • Bhutan
  • 2 116 000

220 077 000
321 000
50 004 000 20 570 000 63 694 000
366 000
++++++++++++++–
++++++++++++++–
++++–+++++++++++–
Indonesia Maldives Myanmar Sri Lanka Thailand Brunei Darussalam Cambodia Fiji
Western Pacific
13 798 000
841 000

  • Kiribati
  • 97 000

Malaysia New Zealand Palau Philippines Singapore Tonga Tuvalu Vanuatu Viet Nam

81 countries

24 894 000
3 989 000
20 000
81 617 000
4 273 000

  • 102 000
  • +

+++

69

+––+

66

10 000
207 000
83 123 000

1 880 569 000

–+

  • 73
  • All regions

WHO/CDS/NTD/WHOPES/GCDPP/2007.2 Page 12

See Table 2 and Figures 1 and 2.

ALL USES IN VECTOR CONTROL

On average, 547 tonnes of active ingredient of organochlorines, 437 of organophosphates, 25 of carbamates and 161 of pyrethroids were reportedly used annually for vector control at the global level during 2003–2005 (Table 2). The use of organochlorines, exclusively DDT, was reported to WHOPES only from the African Region (Figure 2 and Table 2). The use of organophosphates was reported from all regions; about 84% of their total use was in the Region of the Americas and 1–6% in countries from other regions. Compared with other classes of insecticides, the use of carbamates was limited, with 80% of their total use globally in the African Region; the remaining use was in the Region of the Americas (11%), the South-East Asia Region (8%) and the Eastern Mediterranean Region (1%). Carbamates were reportedly not used in the Western Pacific Region and in the European Region. The use of pyrethroids was higher in countries from the Region of the Americas (57% of total use) than in other regions. The European Region reported the lowest (1%) use of pyrethroids.

During 2003–2005, the annual use of organochlorines increased in the African Region. The use of organophosphates increased in the Region of the Americas, the South-East Asia Region and the Western Pacific Region; it was stable in the Eastern Mediterranean Region and drastically declined in the European Region. There was no reported use of organophosphates in the European Region during 2005. While an increase in the use of carbamates was reported in the South-East Asia Region and African Region, notably in 2005, a declining trend in their use was observed in the Region of the Americas and the Eastern Mediterranean Region. Globally, the quantity of pyrethroids used for vector control increased slightly during 2005, mainly as a result of their increased use in the African Region and the Western Pacific Region; however, their use in the Region of the Americas and the South-East Asia Region declined during this period. Overall, the quantity of insecticides reportedly used was lesser in 2004 compared with 2003 and 2005.
WHO/CDS/NTD/WHOPES/GCDPP/2007.2
Page 13

Table 2.

Global use of insecticides for vector control reported to WHOPES, in kg of active ingredient, by class of insecticidea and WHO region, 2003–2005

WHO region
European
South- East Asia
Eastern
Mediterranean
Western Pacific

  • Year
  • Class
  • African

Recommended publications
  • United States Patent (19) 11 Patent Number: 5,152,096 Rudolph 45 Date of Patent: Oct

    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.
  • 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

    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.
  • 162998571.Pdf

    162998571.Pdf

    View metadata, citation and similar papers at core.ac.uk brought to you by CORE provided by University of Liverpool Repository Please do not adjust margins Investigating the breakdown of the nerve agent simulant methyl paraoxon and chemical warfare agents GB and VX using nitrogen containing bases Received 00th January 20xx, Accepted 00th January 20xx Craig Wilson,a Nicholas J. Cooper,b Michael E. Briggs,a Andrew I. Cooper,*a and Dave J. Adams*c DOI: 10.1039/x0xx00000x A range of nitrogen containing bases was tested for the hydrolysis of a nerve agent simulant, methyl paraoxon (MP), and www.rsc.org/ the chemical warfare agents, GB and VX. The product distribution was found to be highly dependant on the basicity of the base and the quantity of water used for the hydrolysis. This study is important in the design of decontamination technology, which often involve mimics of CWAs. production of EA-2192 Introduction (S-(2-diisopropylaminoethyl) methylphosphonothioic acid), which exhibits roughly the same toxicity as VX itself.12 The Chemical warfare agents (CWAs) have a devastating effect on blister agent HD (Fig. 1d) can also undergo deactivation via the body and will disable or kill on exposure. Blister agents, such hydrolysis.13 However, its poor water solubility reduces the as sulfur mustard (HD, bis(2-chloroethyl) sulfide), target the skin efficiency of this decontamination method.14 As a result, and respiratory system causing severe pain and damage to the oxidation to the sulfoxide, or the addition of a co-solvent is most body whereas nerve agents, such as sarin (GB, isopropyl commonly used for HD deactivation.15-17 methylphosphonofluoridate) and VX (O-ethyl The high toxicity of CWAs means that research into their S-[2-(diisopropylamino)ethyl] methylphosphonothioate), target deactivation is often carried out using simulants.
  • Full Page Fax Print

    Full Page Fax Print

    RESISTANCE TO MALATHION, PIRIMIPHOS-METHYL AND FENITROTHION IN COLEOPTERA FROM STORED GRAINS. Ivania A. PACHECO; M. Regina SARTORI; Scheilla BOLONHEZI Instituto de Tecnologia de Alimentos Avenida Brasil, 2880 - Caixa Postal 139 Campinas - Sao Paulo - Brasil - CEP 13073 SUMMARY The objectives of this paper were:l) to verify the occurrance of resistance to malathion, pirimiphos-methyl and fenitrothion in populations of coleoptera from stored grains and 2) to obtain data that could contribute to the adequate control of these insects during storage, thus reducing losses. Populations of Sitophilus oryzae, ~. zeamais, Tribolium castaneum and Rhyzopertha dominica were collected from storage facilities located in different regions of Brazil, and tested for resistance to the tree insecticides according to the FAO Standard Method (FAO, 1975). Insects were collected in the States of Sao Paulo, Rio Grande do SuI, Santa Catarina, Goias, Acre and Rondonia. Twenty populations of S. oryzae, ten of S. zeamais, twenty of R. dominica and twenty­ -five of T. castan~ad already been tested for - resistance to the three insecticides. Seven populations of S. oryzae, six of R. dominica and ten of S. zean~is were susceptible 'to the th~ee insecticides. Resistance to malathion was showed in thirteen populations of S. oryzae, fourteen of ~. dominica and twenty-five of !. castaneum. Simultaneous cross-resistance to pirimiphos-methyl and fenitrothion was indicated in one population of ~. oryzae and eight of !. castaneum. Cross resistance only to pirimiphos-methyl was indicated in two populations of ~. oryzae, one of ~. dominica and one of !. castaneum and only to fenitrothion in two of R. dominica and two of T.
  • Evaluation of Indoxacarb and Fipronil (S)-Methoprene Topical Spot-On

    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.
  • Pesticides and Toxic Substances

    Pesticides and Toxic Substances

    UNITED STATES ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY WASHINGTON D.C., 20460 OFFICE OF PREVENTION, PESTICIDES AND TOXIC SUBSTANCES MEMORANDUM DATE: July 31, 2006 SUBJECT: Finalization of Interim Reregistration Eligibility Decisions (IREDs) and Interim Tolerance Reassessment and Risk Management Decisions (TREDs) for the Organophosphate Pesticides, and Completion of the Tolerance Reassessment and Reregistration Eligibility Process for the Organophosphate Pesticides FROM: Debra Edwards, Director Special Review and Reregistration Division Office of Pesticide Programs TO: Jim Jones, Director Office of Pesticide Programs As you know, EPA has completed its assessment of the cumulative risks from the organophosphate (OP) class of pesticides as required by the Food Quality Protection Act of 1996. In addition, the individual OPs have also been subject to review through the individual- chemical review process. The Agency’s review of individual OPs has resulted in the issuance of Interim Reregistration Eligibility Decisions (IREDs) for 22 OPs, interim Tolerance Reassessment and Risk Management Decisions (TREDs) for 8 OPs, and a Reregistration Eligibility Decision (RED) for one OP, malathion.1 These 31 OPs are listed in Appendix A. EPA has concluded, after completing its assessment of the cumulative risks associated with exposures to all of the OPs, that: (1) the pesticides covered by the IREDs that were pending the results of the OP cumulative assessment (listed in Attachment A) are indeed eligible for reregistration; and 1 Malathion is included in the OP cumulative assessment. However, the Agency has issued a RED for malathion, rather than an IRED, because the decision was signed on the same day as the completion of the OP cumulative assessment.
  • Qsar Analysis of the Chemical Hydrolysis of Organophosphorus Pesticides in Natural Waters

    Qsar Analysis of the Chemical Hydrolysis of Organophosphorus Pesticides in Natural Waters

    QSAR ANALYSIS OF THE CHEMICAL HYDROLYSIS OF ORGANOPHOSPHORUS PESTICIDES IN NATURAL WATERS. by Kenneth K. Tanji Principal Investigator and Jonathan 1. Sullivan Graduate Research Assistant Department of Land, Air and Water Resources University of California, Davis Technical Completion Report Project Number W-843 August, 1995 University of California Water Resource Center The research leading to this report was supported by the University of California Water Resource Center as part of Water Resource Center Project W-843. Table of Contents Page Abstract 2 Problem and Research Objectives 3 Introduction 5 Theoretical Background 6 QSAR Methodology 7 Molecular Connectivity Theory 8 Organophosphorus Pesticides 12 Experimental Determination of Rates 15 Results and Discussion 17 Principal Findings and Significance 19 References 34 List of Tables Page Table 1. Statistical relationship between OP pesticides and first-order MC/'s. 30 Table 2. Inherent conditions of waters used in experimental work. 16 Table 3. Estimated half-lives for organophosphorus esters derived from model. 31 Table 4. Half-lives and first-order MCI' sfor model calibration data set. 31 Table 5. Experimental kinetic data for validation set compounds, Sacramento. 33 List of Figures Page Figure 1. Essential Features OfQSAR Modeling Methodology. 21 Figure 2. Regression plot for In hydrolysis rate vs. 1st order MCl' s. 22 Figure 3. a 3-D molecular model, a line-segment model and a graphical model. 23 Figure 4. Molecular connectivity index suborders. 24 Figure 5. Chlorpyrifos and its fourteen fourth order path/cluster fragments. 25 Figure 6. Abridged MClndex output. 26 Figure 7. Parent acids of most common organophosphorus pesticides. 12 Figure 8.
  • Environmental Health Criteria 63 ORGANOPHOSPHORUS

    Environmental Health Criteria 63 ORGANOPHOSPHORUS

    Environmental Health Criteria 63 ORGANOPHOSPHORUS INSECTICIDES: A GENERAL INTRODUCTION Please note that the layout and pagination of this web version are not identical with the printed version. Organophophorus insecticides: a general introduction (EHC 63, 1986) INTERNATIONAL PROGRAMME ON CHEMICAL SAFETY ENVIRONMENTAL HEALTH CRITERIA 63 ORGANOPHOSPHORUS INSECTICIDES: A GENERAL INTRODUCTION This report contains the collective views of an international group of experts and does not necessarily represent the decisions or the stated policy of the United Nations Environment Programme, the International Labour Organisation, or the World Health Organization. Published under the joint sponsorship of the United Nations Environment Programme, the International Labour Organisation, and the World Health Organization World Health Orgnization Geneva, 1986 The International Programme on Chemical Safety (IPCS) is a joint venture of the United Nations Environment Programme, the International Labour Organisation, and the World Health Organization. The main objective of the IPCS is to carry out and disseminate evaluations of the effects of chemicals on human health and the quality of the environment. Supporting activities include the development of epidemiological, experimental laboratory, and risk-assessment methods that could produce internationally comparable results, and the development of manpower in the field of toxicology. Other activities carried out by the IPCS include the development of know-how for coping with chemical accidents, coordination
  • Pests of the Flower Garden Phillip E

    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.
  • Recommended Classification of Pesticides by Hazard and Guidelines to Classification 2019 Theinternational Programme on Chemical Safety (IPCS) Was Established in 1980

    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.
  • Resistance to Juvenile Hormone and an Insect Growth Regulator In

    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.
  • BACWA Methoprene Comment Letter

    BACWA Methoprene Comment Letter

    December 22, 2020 Cody Kendrick Office of Pesticide Programs (OPP) Regulatory Public Docket Center (28221T) U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) 1200 Pennsylvania Ave., NW Washington, DC 20460–0001 Subject: Methoprene – Combined Final Work Plan and Proposed Interim Registration Review Decision (EPA–HQ–OPP–2013–0586) Dear Mr. Kendrick: On behalf of the Bay Area Clean Water Agencies (BACWA), we thank you for the opportunity to comment on the Combined Final Work Plan and Proposed Interim Registration Review Decision (PID) for methoprene. BACWA’s members include 55 publicly owned wastewater treatment facilities (“POTWs”) and collection system agencies serving 7.1 million San Francisco Bay Area residents. We take our responsibilities for safeguarding receiving waters seriously. BACWA is especially interested in pesticides that are used in manners that have transport pathways to the sanitary sewer, as even the most sophisticated wastewater treatment plants cannot fully remove complex chemicals like pesticides. BACWA has a strong interest in methoprene due to use in pet flea control and abandoned swimming pool products. The purposes of this letter are: (1) to request that the qualitative discussion of sewer discharges in the Proposed Interim Decision be replaced with a quantitative (i.e., modeled) down-the-drain evaluation addressing discharges of methoprene to the sewer due to companion animal treatments and (2) to request that the PID require registrants to include the same swimming discharge instructions on methoprene products that are being required by EPA on all other pool products (e.g., lithium hypochlorite, copper, chlorine, halohydantoins, terbuthylazine, inorganic halides, zinc salts, boric acid/sodium salts) as suggested by BPPD’s own risk assessors.1 1 Jones, R.S., Risk Assessment Branch, Biopesticides and Pollution Prevention Division (2020).