DOCSLIB.ORG

Neonicotinoids and Honeybee Colony Collapse

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text
Neonicotinoids and Honeybee Colony Collapse University of Pennsylvania ScholarlyCommons Master of Environmental Studies Capstone Department of Earth and Environmental Projects Science 12-2012 The Producer-Pollinator Dilemma: Neonicotinoids and Honeybee Colony Collapse Benjamin W. Reynard Follow this and additional works at: https://repository.upenn.edu/mes_capstones Reynard, Benjamin W., "The Producer-Pollinator Dilemma: Neonicotinoids and Honeybee Colony Collapse" (2012). Master of Environmental Studies Capstone Projects. 50. https://repository.upenn.edu/mes_capstones/50 This paper is posted at ScholarlyCommons. https://repository.upenn.edu/mes_capstones/50 For more information, please contact [email protected]. The Producer-Pollinator Dilemma: Neonicotinoids and Honeybee Colony Collapse Abstract Neonicotinoid insecticides are the most important new insecticide class introduced in the past 40 years. They are the number one selling insecticide in the world, and are used on over 90% of the corn produced in the U.S. However, neonicotinoids could very likely be causing widespread and severe impairment to bee colonies, and possibly contributing to Colony Collapse Disorder (CCD). This is problematic since bees, and honey bees in particular, are the single most important pollinator for global agriculture. Pollination services contribute to one of every three mouthfuls of food consumed (Xerces Society, 2011). Direct pollination services were recently valued in a Cornell University study to be worth 16 billion dollars a year in U.S. farm income (Calderone, 2012). As more is learned about the nature of systemic neonicotinoids and their adverse effects on beneficial pollinators, a potential conflict between crop protection and pollinator conservation becomes clear, posing a dilemma between food production required to feed a growing global population and the risk of widespread colony collapses. The scientific community has been examining the phenomenon of CCD, and anecdotal links between the bee losses and the application of neonicotinoid insecticides, since it was first noticed by French beekeepers in 1994 and then in the U.S. in 2006. While previous studies failed to demonstrate links to CCD, a new generation of field-realistic studies has chronicled the synergistic and sublethal effects of neonicotinoids on individual bees and colonies over longerterm exposure using real-world foraging conditions. Recent studies strongly support the link between neonicotinoids and CCD (Henry et al., 2012; Whitehorn et al., 2012; Gill, Ramos- Rodriguez, and Raine, 2012; Lu et al., 2012; Tapparo et al., 2012; Krupke et al., 2012). However, independent researchers such as James Cresswell, Jim Frazier, and USDA scientist Jeffrey Pettis (Cresswell, 2011; Cresswell, Desneux, and vanEngelsdorp, 2012; Frazier et al., 2011; Frazier 2012; Grist.org) along with farming and crop protection interests and the producers of the neonicotinoid products all caution that there is not yet enough evidence to draw definitive conclusions, and that there are a variety of causal factors behind CCD. Can these pesticides continue to be used safely in the U.S. or do their risks to pollinators outweigh their benefits ot humans and animals? This presentation is available at ScholarlyCommons: https://repository.upenn.edu/mes_capstones/50 THE PRODUCER-POLLINATOR DILEMMA: NEONICOTINOIDS AND HONEYBEE COLONY COLLAPSE Benjamin W. Reynard December 2012 Sarah A. Willig, PhD Robert F. Giegengack, PhD DEDICATION To my mom for her brilliance, guidance, inspiration, and love. Thank You. ii ACKNOWLEDGMENTS Many thanks to Dr. Sarah Willig and Dr. Robert Giegengack for their direction, wisdom, and patience throughout the writing process. Special thanks to Dr. Yvette Bordeaux, Willistown Conservation Trust, Rushton Sustainable Farm, Lisa Kiziuk, Fred de Long, Noah Gress, Joannah Whitnah, Blake Goll, William Hartman, and Bonnie Van Alen for helping me develop my knowledge and appreciation of sustainable agriculture and land conservation. Thank you to Sam Droege, Stephanie Wilson, Sue Costello, and Dr. Tatyana Livshultz for lending their time, expertise, and advice in support of my bee studies. Also, thanks to Jeffrey Johnson and Dr. Barry Baysinger for their encouragement and support. iii ABSTRACT THE PRODUCER-POLLINATOR DILEMMA: NEONICOTINOIDS AND HONEYBEE COLONY COLLAPSE Benjamin Reynard Sarah Willig, Ph.D. Robert Giegengack, Ph.D. Neonicotinoid insecticides are the most important new insecticide class introduced in the past 40 years. They are the number one selling insecticide in the world, and are used on over 90% of the corn produced in the U.S. However, neonicotinoids could very likely be causing widespread and severe impairment to bee colonies, and possibly contributing to Colony Collapse Disorder (CCD). This is problematic since bees, and honey bees in particular, are the single most important pollinator for global agriculture. Pollination services contribute to one of every three mouthfuls of food consumed (Xerces Society, 2011). Direct pollination services were recently valued in a Cornell University study to be worth 16 billion dollars a year in U.S. farm income (Calderone, 2012). As more is learned about the nature of systemic neonicotinoids and their adverse effects on beneficial pollinators, a potential conflict between crop protection and pollinator conservation becomes clear, posing a dilemma between food production required to feed a growing global population and the risk of widespread colony collapses. The scientific community has been examining the phenomenon of CCD, and anecdotal links between the bee losses and the application of neonicotinoid insecticides, since it was first noticed by French beekeepers in 1994 and then in the U.S. in 2006. While previous studies failed to demonstrate links to CCD, a new generation of field-realistic studies has chronicled the synergistic and sublethal effects of neonicotinoids on individual bees and colonies over longer- term exposure using real-world foraging conditions. Recent studies strongly support the link between neonicotinoids and CCD (Henry et al., 2012; Whitehorn et al., 2012; Gill, Ramos-Rodriguez, and Raine, 2012; Lu et al., 2012; Tapparo et al., 2012; Krupke et al., 2012). However, independent researchers such as James Cresswell, Jim Frazier, and USDA scientist Jeffrey Pettis (Cresswell, 2011; Cresswell, Desneux, and vanEngelsdorp, 2012; Frazier et al., 2011; Frazier 2012; Grist.org) along with farming and crop protection interests and the producers of the neonicotinoid products all caution that there is not yet enough evidence to draw definitive conclusions, and that there are a variety of causal factors behind CCD. Can these pesticides continue to be used safely in the U.S. or do their risks to pollinators outweigh their benefits to humans and animals? iv TABLE OF CONTENTS Dedication ii Acknowledgments iii Abstract iv List of Tables vi List of Figures vii Introduction 1 A Green Revolution 3 An Agricultural Necessity for Feeding the World 5 Pesticide Overview 8 Major Pesticide Classes Over Time 13 Botanical 13 Inorganic 15 Organochlorines 16 Organophosphates 18 Carbamates 20 Synthetic Pyrethroids 21 Resistance and Cross-Resistance 24 Pesticide Treadmill 25 Pesticide Summary as of 1990 (Pre-Neonicotinoids) 27 Development and Spread of Neonicotinoids 29 A New Mode of Action Based on a Natural Compound 29 Neonicotinoid Types 34 The Versatility and Spread of Neonicotinoids 40 Market and Economic Success 43 Persistence in Nature 47 Ecotoxicology 47 Soils 49 Water 50 Plants 51 Metabolism 51 Unintended Consequences for Pollinators 52 Possible Links to Colony Collapse Disorder 60 Concern for Beekeepers 60 Complex Interactions 61 Realistic Field Studies 64 Neonicotinoid Regulation in the U.S. and Europe 68 European Restrictions 69 U.S. Conditional Registration and Regulation 71 Conclusions: Weighing Evidence and Measuring Risks 83 Appendix of Tables and Figures 97 Works Cited 107 v LIST OF TABLES Table 1. 2007 EPA Market Estimate for Pesticide Sales and Usage 8 Table 2. Neonicotinoid Heterocyclic Subclasses 35 Table 3. Neonicotinoid Pharmacophore Subclasses 37 Table 4. Neonicotinoid Chart 39 Table 5. Neonicotinoid Applications 41 Table 6. 2008 Top Ten Agrochemicals in terms of Global Sales 43 Table 7. Relative Toxicity of Nicotine and Imidacloprid 47 Table 8. Neonicotinoid Half-life in Soils 49 Table 9. Mass Balance of Imidacloprid in soil leaching Experiments 50 Table 10. Neonicotinoid Toxicity to Bees 53 Table 11. Results of field realistic dose and long-term exposure study 66 Table 12. Total 2006 U.S beekeeper losses 73 Table 13. Some major pesticides used over time 97 Table 14. Neonicotinoid synergy with common DMI-fungicides 99 Table 15. Major products and companies in the neonicotinoid market 100 Table 16. Neonicotinoid crop use patterns in the U.S. 106 vi LIST OF FIGURES Figure 1. Dr. Norman Borlaug 3 Figure 2. 2012 Global Hunger Index 6 Figure 3. 1991 Insecticide Market by Mode of Action 27 Figure 4. Development of insecticide classes, 1990 to 2008 28 Figure 5. Synthesis of Nithiazine and structural similarity to Nicotine 29 Figure 6. Synthesis of Nithiazine, Intermediate Prototype, Imidacloprid 31 Figure 7. Structural Elements of Neonicotinoids 33 Figure 8. Substitutions leading to Second Generation Thiamethoxam 36 Figure 9. Three Generations of Neonicotinoids and Lead Compounds 38 Figure 10. Development of seed treatment from 1990 to 2008 42 Figure 11. Neonicotinoid Seed & Sapling 9 and 21 Days After Planting 45 Figure 12. Partial Positive Charge of Nicotinoids
Load more

Recommended publications
  • Chemicals Implicated in Colony Collapse Disorder
    Chemicals Implicated While research is underway to determine the cause of Colony Collapse Disorder (CCD), pesticides have emerged as one of the prime suspects. Recent bans in Europe attest to the growing concerns surrounding pesticide use and honeybee decline. Neonicotinoids Neonicotinoids are a relatively new class of insecticides that share a common mode of action that affect the central nervous system of insects, resulting in paralysis and death. They include imidacloprid, acetamiprid, clothianidin, dinotefuran, nithiazine, thiacloprid and thiamethoxam. According to the EPA, uncertainties have been identified since their initial registration regarding the potential environmental fate and effects of neonicotinoid pesticides, particularly as they relate to pollinators. Studies conducted in the late 1990s suggest that neonicotinic residues can accumulate in pollen and nectar of treated plants and represent a potential risk to pollinators. There is major concern that neonicotinoid pesticides may play a role in recent pollinator declines. Neonicotinoids can also be persistent in the environment, and when used as seed treatments, translocate to residues in pollen and nectar of treated plants. The potential for these residues to affect bees and other pollinators remain uncertain. Despite these uncertainties, neonicotinoids are beginning to dominate the market place, putting pollinators at risk. The case of the neonicotinoids exemplifies two critical problems with current registration procedures and risk assessment methods for pesticides: the reliance on industry-funded science that contradicts peer-reviewed studies and the insufficiency of current risk assessment procedures to account for sublethal effects of pesticides. • Imidacloprid Used in agriculture as foliar and seed treatments, for indoor and outdoor insect control, home gardening and pet products, imidacloprid is the most popular neonicotinoid, first registered in 1994 under the trade names Merit®, Admire®, Advantage TM.
    [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]
  • Impact of Imidacloprid and Horticultural Oil on Nonâ•Fitarget
    University of Tennessee, Knoxville TRACE: Tennessee Research and Creative Exchange Masters Theses Graduate School 8-2007 Impact of Imidacloprid and Horticultural Oil on Non–target Phytophagous and Transient Canopy Insects Associated with Eastern Hemlock, Tsuga canadensis (L.) Carrieré, in the Southern Appalachians Carla Irene Dilling University of Tennessee - Knoxville Follow this and additional works at: https://trace.tennessee.edu/utk_gradthes Part of the Entomology Commons Recommended Citation Dilling, Carla Irene, "Impact of Imidacloprid and Horticultural Oil on Non–target Phytophagous and Transient Canopy Insects Associated with Eastern Hemlock, Tsuga canadensis (L.) Carrieré, in the Southern Appalachians. " Master's Thesis, University of Tennessee, 2007. https://trace.tennessee.edu/utk_gradthes/120 This Thesis is brought to you for free and open access by the Graduate School at TRACE: Tennessee Research and Creative Exchange. It has been accepted for inclusion in Masters Theses by an authorized administrator of TRACE: Tennessee Research and Creative Exchange. For more information, please contact [email protected]. To the Graduate Council: I am submitting herewith a thesis written by Carla Irene Dilling entitled "Impact of Imidacloprid and Horticultural Oil on Non–target Phytophagous and Transient Canopy Insects Associated with Eastern Hemlock, Tsuga canadensis (L.) Carrieré, in the Southern Appalachians." I have examined the final electronic copy of this thesis for form and content and recommend that it be accepted in partial fulfillment of the equirr ements for the degree of Master of Science, with a major in Entomology and Plant Pathology. Paris L. Lambdin, Major Professor We have read this thesis and recommend its acceptance: Jerome Grant, Nathan Sanders, James Rhea, Nicole Labbé Accepted for the Council: Carolyn R.
    [Show full text]
  • The Impact of the Nation's Most Widely Used Insecticides on Birds
    The Impact of the Nation’s Most Widely Used Insecticides on Birds Neonicotinoid Insecticides and Birds The Impact of the Nation’s Most Widely Used Insecticides on Birds American Bird Conservancy, March 2013 Grasshopper Sparrow by Luke Seitz Cover photos: Horned Lark and chicks by Middleton Evans; Corn field, stock.xchng, sxc.hu; Calico Pennant dragonfly by David Cappaert, Michigan State University, Bugwood.org 1 Neonicotinoid Insecticides and Birds American Bird Conservancy would like to thank the Turner Foundation, Wallace Genetic Foundation, Jeff and Connie Woodman, Cornell Douglas Foundation and A.W. Berry Foundation for their ongoing support for American Bird Conservancy’s Pesticides Program. Written by Dr. Pierre Mineau and Cynthia Palmer Designed by Stephanie von Blackwood About the Authors Dr. Pierre Mineau began his long and distinguished scientific career studying the effects of persistent organochlorine compounds, like DDT and PCBs, on fish-eating birds. He then became responsible for the Canadian assessment of new and existing pesticides to determine their adverse impacts on wildlife. In 1994 he transitioned from regulatory reviews to full-time research on the environmental impacts of pesticides, achieving the rank of Senior Research Scientist at Environment Canada. Working with international collaborators and graduate students, he works on assessing globally the environmental footprint of pesticides. He also studies how birds are exposed to pesticides and how bird populations respond to pesticide use and agricultural practices. His work includes defining the ecological values of birds in cropland as well as estimating the incidental take of birds from various other human activities. He has written more than 100 peer-reviewed publications and has authored some 200 presentations.
    [Show full text]
  • Neuroactive Insecticides: Targets, Selectivity, Resistance, and Secondary Effects
    EN58CH06-Casida ARI 5 December 2012 8:11 Neuroactive Insecticides: Targets, Selectivity, Resistance, and Secondary Effects John E. Casida1,∗ and Kathleen A. Durkin2 1Environmental Chemistry and Toxicology Laboratory, Department of Environmental Science, Policy, and Management, 2Molecular Graphics and Computational Facility, College of Chemistry, University of California, Berkeley, California 94720; email: [email protected], [email protected] Annu. Rev. Entomol. 2013. 58:99–117 Keywords The Annual Review of Entomology is online at acetylcholinesterase, calcium channels, GABAA receptor, nicotinic ento.annualreviews.org receptor, secondary targets, sodium channel This article’s doi: 10.1146/annurev-ento-120811-153645 Abstract Copyright c 2013 by Annual Reviews. Neuroactive insecticides are the principal means of protecting crops, people, All rights reserved livestock, and pets from pest insect attack and disease transmission. Cur- ∗ Corresponding author rently, the four major nerve targets are acetylcholinesterase for organophos- phates and methylcarbamates, the nicotinic acetylcholine receptor for neonicotinoids, the γ-aminobutyric acid receptor/chloride channel for by Public Health Information Access Project on 04/29/14. For personal use only. Annu. Rev. Entomol. 2013.58:99-117. Downloaded from www.annualreviews.org polychlorocyclohexanes and fiproles, and the voltage-gated sodium channel for pyrethroids and dichlorodiphenyltrichloroethane. Species selectivity and acquired resistance are attributable in part to structural differences in binding subsites, receptor subunit interfaces, or transmembrane regions. Additional targets are sites in the sodium channel (indoxacarb and metaflumizone), the glutamate-gated chloride channel (avermectins), the octopamine receptor (amitraz metabolite), and the calcium-activated calcium channel (diamides). Secondary toxic effects in mammals from off-target serine hydrolase inhibi- tion include organophosphate-induced delayed neuropathy and disruption of the cannabinoid system.
    [Show full text]
  • Genetically Modified Baculoviruses for Pest
    INSECT CONTROL BIOLOGICAL AND SYNTHETIC AGENTS This page intentionally left blank INSECT CONTROL BIOLOGICAL AND SYNTHETIC AGENTS EDITED BY LAWRENCE I. GILBERT SARJEET S. GILL Amsterdam • Boston • Heidelberg • London • New York • Oxford Paris • San Diego • San Francisco • Singapore • Sydney • Tokyo Academic Press is an imprint of Elsevier Academic Press, 32 Jamestown Road, London, NW1 7BU, UK 30 Corporate Drive, Suite 400, Burlington, MA 01803, USA 525 B Street, Suite 1800, San Diego, CA 92101-4495, USA ª 2010 Elsevier B.V. All rights reserved The chapters first appeared in Comprehensive Molecular Insect Science, edited by Lawrence I. Gilbert, Kostas Iatrou, and Sarjeet S. Gill (Elsevier, B.V. 2005). All rights reserved. No part of this publication may be reproduced or transmitted in any form or by any means, electronic or mechanical, including photocopy, recording, or any information storage and retrieval system, without permission in writing from the publishers. Permissions may be sought directly from Elsevier’s Rights Department in Oxford, UK: phone (þ44) 1865 843830, fax (þ44) 1865 853333, e-mail [email protected]. Requests may also be completed on-line via the homepage (http://www.elsevier.com/locate/permissions). Library of Congress Cataloging-in-Publication Data Insect control : biological and synthetic agents / editors-in-chief: Lawrence I. Gilbert, Sarjeet S. Gill. – 1st ed. p. cm. Includes bibliographical references and index. ISBN 978-0-12-381449-4 (alk. paper) 1. Insect pests–Control. 2. Insecticides. I. Gilbert, Lawrence I. (Lawrence Irwin), 1929- II. Gill, Sarjeet S. SB931.I42 2010 632’.7–dc22 2010010547 A catalogue record for this book is available from the British Library ISBN 978-0-12-381449-4 Cover Images: (Top Left) Important pest insect targeted by neonicotinoid insecticides: Sweet-potato whitefly, Bemisia tabaci; (Top Right) Control (bottom) and tebufenozide intoxicated by ingestion (top) larvae of the white tussock moth, from Chapter 4; (Bottom) Mode of action of Cry1A toxins, from Addendum A7.
    [Show full text]
  • Imidacloprid Does Not Enhance Growth and Yield of Muskmelon In
    HORTSCIENCE 30(5):997–999. 1995. plant growth and yield responses of muskmel- ons to imidacloprid in the presence and ab- Imidacloprid Does Not Enhance sence of whiteflies. Growth and Yield of Muskmelon in the Materials and Methods Greenhouse studies. All plants used in the Absence of Whitefly greenhouse tests were direct-seeded ‘Topmark’ muskmelons in a 3 soil : 3 perlite : 1 peat J.C. Palumbo and C.A. Sanchez mixture in 1.5-liter pots. Each pot contained 500 g of soil mixture and was planted with four University of Arizona, Yuma Valley Agricultural Center, 6425 West 8th Street, to five seeds. Seedlings were grown during Yuma, AZ 85364 Mar. and Apr. 1994 in a glasshouse under natural light with adequate water and nutrients Additional index words. Bemisia tabaci, Bemisia argentifolii, Cucumis melo, relative growth for maximum growth. Upon emergence, seed- rate, net assimilation rate ling plants were thinned to one per pot. Pots Abstract. Imidacloprid is a new, chloronicotinyl insecticide currently being used to control were then placed in wooden-frame exclusion × × sweetpotato whitefly [Bemisia tabaci Genn, also known as silverleaf whitefly (Bemisia cages (1.7 m width 1.2 m long 0.6 m high) argentifolii Bellows and Perring)]. Large growth and yield increases of muskmelon screened with fine organdy cloth to exclude (Cucumis melo L.) following the use of imidacloprid have caused some to speculate that this whitefly adults and other insects. The cages ± compound may enhance growth and yield above that expected from insect control alone. were maintained in the glasshouse at 28 4C. Greenhouse and field studies were conducted to evaluate the growth and yield response of Whitefly adults used in these studies were melons to imidacloprid in the presence and absence of whitefly pressure.
    [Show full text]
  • Large-Scale Field Trials of Imidacloprid for Control of The
    PEST MANAGEMENT HORTSCIENCE 38(4):555–559. 2003. 5 mL/100 L (half-rate), were compared with endosulfan (350 g·L–1 a.i.) at the industry standard rate of 57 mL/100 L. The higher of Large-scale Field Trials of the two rates for imidacloprid corresponds to the discriminate dose (100% kill) of the Imidacloprid for Control of the insecticide against SCB (James and Nicholas, 2000). A water-only treatment was provided as Spined Citrus Bug control in all but one trial. Applications of the treatments were made with air-blast sprayers J. Mo1 and K. Philpot at a spray volume of 10 L/tree. Yanco Agricultural Institute, PMB Yanco, NSW 2703, Australia Trial-1 was conducted from 25 Oct. to 24 Nov. 2000 in Leeton. Lemon trees from three Additional index words. endosulfan withdrawal, alternative insecticide, beneficials, lemon, neighbouring citrus farms (separated by 1–2 Biprorulus bibax km) were used in this trial. The test trees were in six separate blocks (>100 m apart) containing Abstract. Four large-scale field trials were carried out in 2001 and 2002 in lemon or- from 60 to 453 trees. Fifteen plots of 60–100 chards in south-western New South Wales to assess the suitability of imidacloprid as a trees each were set up in the six lemon blocks. replacement for endosulfan in controlling the spined citrus bug (SCB), Biprorulus bibax Where more than one plot was set up in a Breddin (Hemiptera: Pentatomidae). The results showed that imidacloprid was at least single block, the boundaries were chosen in as effective as endosulfan in controlling SCB, even when it was applied at a rate cor- such a way that each plot contained a similar responding to half of its discriminate dose (100% kill).
    [Show full text]
  • 4-Cyano-3-Benzoylamino-N
    (19) TZZ _T (11) EP 2 427 427 B1 (12) EUROPEAN PATENT SPECIFICATION (45) Date of publication and mention (51) Int Cl.: of the grant of the patent: C07C 255/60 (2006.01) 25.12.2013 Bulletin 2013/52 (86) International application number: (21) Application number: 10713937.0 PCT/EP2010/054862 (22) Date of filing: 14.04.2010 (87) International publication number: WO 2010/127926 (11.11.2010 Gazette 2010/45) (54) 4-CYANO-3-BENZOYLAMINO-N-PHENYL-BENZAMIDES FOR USE IN PEST CONTROL 4-CYANO-3-BENZOYLAMINO-N-PHENYL-BENZAMIDE ZUR VERWENDUNG IN DER SCHÄDLINGSBEKÄMPFUNG 4-CYANO-3-BENZOYLAMINO-N-PHÉNYL-BENZAMIDES DESTINÉS À ÊTRE UTILISÉS DANS LA LUTTE ANTIPARASITAIRE (84) Designated Contracting States: • HUETER, Ottmar Franz AT BE BG CH CY CZ DE DK EE ES FI FR GB GR CH-4332 Stein (CH) HR HU IE IS IT LI LT LU LV MC MK MT NL NO PL • MAIENFISCH, Peter PT RO SE SI SK SM TR CH-4332 Stein (CH) (30) Priority: 06.05.2009 GB 0907822 (74) Representative: Herrmann, Jörg et al 18.12.2009 GB 0922234 Syngenta Crop Protection Münchwilen AG (43) Date of publication of application: Intellectual Property Department 14.03.2012 Bulletin 2012/11 Schaffhauserstrasse CH-4332 Stein (CH) (73) Proprietor: Syngenta Participations AG 4058 Basel (CH) (56) References cited: EP-A1- 1 714 958 WO-A1-2008/000438 (72) Inventors: WO-A1-2008/074427 • JUNG, Pierre Joseph Marcel CH-4332 Stein (CH) Remarks: • GODFREY, Christopher Richard Ayles Thefile contains technical information submitted after CH-4332 Stein (CH) the application was filed and not included in this specification Note: Within nine months of the publication of the mention of the grant of the European patent in the European Patent Bulletin, any person may give notice to the European Patent Office of opposition to that patent, in accordance with the Implementing Regulations.
    [Show full text]
  • (12) United States Patent (10) Patent No.: US 8,900,554 B2 Tamarkin Et Al
    US0089.00554B2 (12) United States Patent (10) Patent No.: US 8,900,554 B2 Tamarkin et al. (45) Date of Patent: *Dec. 2, 2014 (54) FOAMABLE COMPOSITION AND USES 3,062,715. A 1 1/1962 Reese et al. THEREOF 3,067,784 A 12/1962 Gorman 3,092.255. A 6, 1963 Hohman 3,092,555 A 6, 1963 Horn (75) Inventors: Dov Tamarkin, Maccbim (IL); Doron 3,141,821 A 7, 1964 Compeau Friedman, Karmei Yosef (IL); Meir 3,142,420 A 7/1964 Gawthrop Eini, Ness Ziona (IL) 3: A S3; sistenbackaa. (73) Assignee: Foamix Pharmaceuticals Ltd., Rehovot 3:33 A 1943: Sir (IL) 3.236,457 A 2/1966 Kennedy et al. 3,244,589 A 4, 1966 Sunnen (*) Notice: Subject to any disclaimer, the term of this 3,252,859 A 5, 1966 Silver patent is extended or adjusted under 35 3.333 A 3. Siskiewicz U.S.C. 154(b) by 0 days. 3,263,8694- W - A 8, 1966 Corsetteea spent is Subject to a terminal disis- 3,301,4443,298.919 A 1/19671, 1967 WittkeBishop et al. 3,303,970 A 2f1967 Breslau et al. 3,330,730 A 7, 1967 Hernandez (21) Appl. No.: 13/400,330 3,333,333 A 8, 1967 Noack 3,334,147 A 8, 1967 Brunelle et al. (22) Filed: Feb. 20, 2012 3,346,451 A 10, 1967 Collins et al. (Continued) (65) Prior Publication Data US 2012/0148503 A1 Jun. 14, 2012 FOREIGN PATENT DOCUMENTS AU 19878O257 9, 1986 AU 7825.15 12/2005 Related U.S.
    [Show full text]
  • Acute Toxicity of Selected Insecticides and Their Safety to Honey Bee (Apis Mellifera L.) Workers Under Laboratory Conditions
    Open Access Austin Environmental Sciences Special Article - Pesticides Acute Toxicity of Selected Insecticides and Their Safety to Honey Bee (Apis mellifera L.) Workers Under Laboratory Conditions Abbassy MA1*, Nasr HM1, Abo-yousef HM2 and Dawood RR1 Abstract 1 Department of Plant Protection, Damanhur University, Objectives: The honey bee, Apis mellifera L., is widely used for the Egypt production of honey, wax, pollen, propolis, royal jelly and venom and crop 2Central Laboratory of Pesticides, Ministry of Agriculture pollination. Since honey bees can be exposed to insecticides in sprayed flowering and Land Reclamation, Egypt crops, therefore, this study aimed to assess the acute toxicity and safety index *Corresponding author: Moustafa A Abbassy, of five commonly used insecticides to honey bee workers in laboratory. Department of Plant Protection, Damanhur University, Methods: Bees were exposed to the insecticides: Imidacloprid, Pesticide Chemistry and Toxicology, Egypt Thiamethoxam, Esfenvalerate, Indoxacarb and Chlorantraniliprole by two Received: May 03, 2020; Accepted: May 25, 2020; methods of exposure: topical application and feeding techniques. LD50 and LC50 Published: June 01, 2020 values for each insecticide to honey bees were determined after 24 and 48 h from treatment. Results: The LD50 values in µg per bee were 0.0018 (indoxacarb), 0.019 (esfenvalerate), 0.024 (thiamethoxam), 0.029 (imidacloprid) and 107.12 -1 (chlorantraniliprole). The LC50 values (mg L ), for each insecticide, were as follows: indoxacarb, 0.091; esfenvalerate, 0.014; thiamethoxam, 0.009; imidacloprid, 0.003 and chlorantraniliprole, 0.026, after 24 h from exposure. In general, the neonicotinoid insecticides were the most toxic to bees by feeding technique, and indoxacarb, esfenvalerate were the most toxic by contact method while chlorantraniliprole had slightly or non- toxic effect by the two methods.
    [Show full text]
  • Proposed Interim Registration Review Decision for Imidacloprid
    Docket Number EPA-HQ-OPP-2008-0844 www.regulations.gov Imidacloprid Proposed Interim Registration Review Decision Case Number 7605 January 2020 Approved by: Elissa Reaves, Ph.D. Acting Director Pesticide Re-evaluation Division Date: __ 1-22-2020 __ Docket Number EPA-HQ-OPP-2008-0844 www.regulations.gov Table of Contents I. INTRODUCTION .................................................................................................................. 4 A. Summary of Imidacloprid Registration Review............................................................... 5 B. Summary of Public Comments on the Draft Risk Assessments and Agency Responses 7 II. USE AND USAGE ............................................................................................................... 14 III. SCIENTIFIC ASSESSMENTS ......................................................................................... 15 A. Human Health Risks....................................................................................................... 15 1. Risk Summary and Characterization .......................................................................... 15 2. Human Incidents and Epidemiology .......................................................................... 17 3. Tolerances ................................................................................................................... 18 4. Human Health Data Needs ......................................................................................... 18 B. Ecological Risks ............................................................................................................
    [Show full text]