DOCSLIB.ORG

Sublethal Effect of Imidacloprid on Solenopsis Invicta

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text
Sublethal Effect of Imidacloprid on Solenopsis Invicta Sublethal Effect of Imidacloprid on Solenopsis invicta (Hymenoptera: Formicidae) Feeding, Digging, and Foraging Behavior Author(s): Lei Wang, Ling Zeng, and Jian Chen Source: Environmental Entomology, 44(6):1544-1552. Published By: Entomological Society of America URL: http://www.bioone.org/doi/full/10.1093/ee/nvv127 BioOne (www.bioone.org) is a nonprofit, online aggregation of core research in the biological, ecological, and environmental sciences. BioOne provides a sustainable online platform for over 170 journals and books published by nonprofit societies, associations, museums, institutions, and presses. Your use of this PDF, the BioOne Web site, and all posted and associated content indicates your acceptance of BioOne’s Terms of Use, available at www.bioone.org/page/ terms_of_use. Usage of BioOne content is strictly limited to personal, educational, and non-commercial use. Commercial inquiries or rights and permissions requests should be directed to the individual publisher as copyright holder. BioOne sees sustainable scholarly publishing as an inherently collaborative enterprise connecting authors, nonprofit publishers, academic institutions, research libraries, and research funders in the common goal of maximizing access to critical research. BEHAVIOR Sublethal Effect of Imidacloprid on Solenopsis invicta (Hymenoptera: Formicidae) Feeding, Digging, and Foraging Behavior 1 1 2,3 LEI WANG, LING ZENG, AND JIAN CHEN Environ. Entomol. 44(6): 1544–1552 (2015); DOI: 10.1093/ee/nvv127 ABSTRACT There is increasing evidence that exposure to neonicotinoid insecticides at sublethal levels impairs colonies of honeybees and other pollinators. Recently, it was found that sublethal contamination with neonicotinoids also affect growth and behavior of ants. In this study, we exposed red imported fire ants, Solenopsis invicta Buren, to sublethal dosages of dietary imidacloprid and investigated its effect on ant feeding, digging, and foraging behavior. S. invicta consumed significantly more sugar water con- taining 0.01 lg/ml imidacloprid than untreated sugar water. Ants fed with 0.01 lg/ml imidacloprid also showed significantly increased digging activity than ants fed with untreated sugar water. However, imidacloprid at 0.25 lg/ml significantly suppressed sugar water consumption, digging, and foraging behavior. These results indicate that imidacloprid at sublethal concentrations may have a significant and complicated effect on S. invicta. KEY WORDS Solenopsis invicta, neonicotinoid, sublethal concentration, feeding, recruitment Neonicotinoids are widely used insecticides (Jeschke were also detected in bee pollen (Mullin et al. 2010, et al. 2011). Imidacloprid, a common neonicotinoid in- Blacquie`re et al. 2012). secticide, was routinely used on rice, sunflower, maize, Worldwide population declines of many pollinators potatoes, vegetable, sugar beets, fruit, cotton, hops, and may be caused by the extensive use of neonicotinoids turfs as seed dressing, soil treatment, and foliar spray (Decourtye and Devillers 2010). Neonicotinoids at sub- (Elbert et al. 2008). Residues and degradation of imida- lethal levels can effect learning and memory of honey- cloprid in soils, vegetable, food, and water have been bees (Decourtye et al. 2004, Aliouane et al. 2009), and well investigated. The half-life of imidacloprid can decrease their foraging success (Blacquie`re et al. 2012, range from 28.7 to 47.8 d in three different soil types— Henry et al. 2012). After feeding on dietary imidaclo- Gangetic alluvial soil, lateritic soil, and coastal alkaline prid at 6 to 12 ppb for 2 wk, the growth rate and queen soil (Sarkar et al. 2001). In vineyard, 86 d after the ap- production of colonies of the bumble bee, Bombus ter- plication at recommended and double the recom- restris (L.), were significantly reduced (Whitehorn et al. mended dosages (Confidor 200SL at 400 and 800 g 2012). On exposure to field-realistic doses of imidaclo- haÀ1 1,000 literÀ1 of water, 0.008 and 0.016% a.i.), the prid, pollen foraging efficiency, wax pot production, and residue level of imidacloprid in soil reached 0.12 and nectar storage of bumblebees, Bombus spp., were re- 0.22 mg/kg, respectively (Arora et al. 2009). When the duced (Felttham et al. 2014, Scholer and Krischik field was treated with imidacloprid (seed dressing), imi- 2014), and foraging preferences for the flower types dacloprid was detected at the end of the cultivation in were altered (Gill and Raine 2014). the soils with various compositions (mean ¼ 12 lg/kg; Among the few studies on ants, it was found that Bonmatin et al. 2003). In a study on the residues of exposure to sublethal neonictinoids can change ant be- imidacloprid in vegetables, fruits, and water samples havior and colony fitness. For instance, interspecific ag- collected from the West Bank, Palestine, the highest gressive behavior and colony fitness of Southern ants, and lowest imidacloprid concentrations were found in Monomorium antarcticum (Smith), and Argentine ants, eggplant (0.46 mg/kg) and green beans (0.08 mg/kg), re- Linepithema humile (Mayr), were altered after feeding spectively (Daraghmeh et al. 2007). Neonicotinoids on aqueous honey solution containing 1.00 lg/ml imida- cloprid (Barbieri et al. 2013). Imidacloprid at 10 ng/ant reduced self-grooming behavior of Acromyrmex subter- We declare that no conflict of interests exists. Mention of trade raneus subterraneus (Forel) (Galvanho et al. 2013). In names or commercial products in this publication is solely for the pur- this study, we investigated the effect of dietary imidaclo- pose of providing specific information and does not imply recommen- dation or endorsement by the U. S. Department of Agriculture. prid at concentrations ranging from 0.01 to 1.0 lg/ml on 1 College of Agriculture, South China Agricultural University, 483 feeding, digging, and foraging behavior of red imported Wushan Rd., Guangzhou, Guangdong 510642, P. R. China. 2 fire ants, Solenopsis invicta Buren, as these behaviors National Biological Control Laboratory, Southeast Area, Agricul- are essential to colony development. Due to its signifi- ture Research Service, United States Department of Agriculture, 59 Lee Rd., Stoneville, MS 38776. cance in public health, agriculture, and biodiversity, S. 3 Corresponding author, e-mail: [email protected]. invicta is considered as one of the worst invasive species Published by Oxford University Press on behalf of Entomological Society of America 2015. This work is written by US Government employees and is in the public domain in the US. December 2015 WANG ET AL.: SUBLETHAL EFFECT OF IMIDACLOPRID ON S. invicta 1545 in the world (Lowe et al. 2000). S. invicta has become contained 15 ml 5% sugar water and the other tube one of the most well studied ant species in the contained 15 ml sugar water with 0.01 lg/ml imidaclo- world (http://www.myrmecos.net/2009/01/25/the-most- prid. Ants were starved for 48 h before the experiment. studied-ant-species-are-either-trampy-or-european/, last The feeding tubes were weighed before and after the accessed 4 August 2015), making it an ideal model to 7-d feeding period and average daily consumption (mg evaluate the effect of neonicotinoid insecticides on ants. sugar water/gram ant/day) was calculated for each tube. Five colonies were used. Digging Bioassay. Digging is an intrinsic behavior Materials and Methods of S. invicta workers. They will dig whenever a suitable Insects. Red imported fire ant S. invcta colonies substrate is available. The effect of imidacloprid on ant were collected from Leroy Percy Wildlife Management digging effort was evaluated using the difference in the Area, Washington County, MS. Pesticide use is not amount of sand removed between ants fed on sugar allowed in this area. Species identity was confirmed water containing imidacloprid and those fed on using ant cuticular hydrocarbon characteristics (Ross untreated sugar water. Two bioassays were conducted: et al. 1987). Colonies were fed with 10% w/w sugar bioassay 1, in which sugar water supply in both control water and frozen crickets. All colonies were reared and imidacloprid treatments were unlimited before dig- under laboratory condition (28C and 45% relative ging bioassays, and bioassay 2, in which sugar water humidity [RH]) for at least 1 wk prior to experiment. supply in control but not in imidacloprid treatments Polygyne colonies were used in this study. were limited. In bioassay 1, fire ants were found to con- Insecticides and Sublethal Dosage. Imidacloprid sume significantly less sugar water containing (>99.9% purity, Sigma-Aldrich, St. Louis, MO) was 0.25 lg/ml imidacloprid than control. Because sugar directly dissolved in 5% w/w sugar water. Based on pre- intake itself might affect ant digging performance, to vious studies (Barbieri et al 2013, Galvanho et al 2013) evaluate the effect of imidacloprid, the possible effect and our preliminary experiments, five concentrations of of sugar intake must be minimized. To accomplish this, imidacloprid—0.01, 0.05, 0.25, 0.50, and 1.00 lg/ml— bioassay 2 was included. were selected for feeding and digging bioassays and For bioassay 1, subcolonies from the nonchoice feed- two concentrations—0.01 and 0.25 lg/ml—for foraging ing bioassays were used. Those subcolonies had fed on bioassays. Solutions were freshly prepared before each sugar water containing 0.00, 0.01, 0.05, 0.25, 0.50, or experiment. 1.00 lg/ml imidacloprid for 7 d. The digging bioassay Feeding Bioassay. The effect of imidacloprid on apparatus developed by Chen and Allen (2006) was sugar water consumption was evaluated in both non- used for the digging study. The apparatus consists of choice and choice bioassays. In nonchoice feeding bio- one Petri dish (9.0 by 2.0 cm2) and a capped Wheaton assay, a colony was divided into four subcolonies with liquid scintillation vial (2.8 by 6.1 cm2) right under- same weight, and each subcolony had at least one neath it (Supp. Fig. 1 [online only]). There was a 3-mm queen. Ants in these subcolonies were first starved for access hole between the Petri dish and the vial.
Load more

Recommended publications
  • COMBINED LIST of Particularly Hazardous Substances
    COMBINED LIST of Particularly Hazardous Substances revised 2/4/2021 IARC list 1 are Carcinogenic to humans list compiled by Hector Acuna, UCSB IARC list Group 2A Probably carcinogenic to humans IARC list Group 2B Possibly carcinogenic to humans If any of the chemicals listed below are used in your research then complete a Standard Operating Procedure (SOP) for the product as described in the Chemical Hygiene Plan. Prop 65 known to cause cancer or reproductive toxicity Material(s) not on the list does not preclude one from completing an SOP. Other extremely toxic chemicals KNOWN Carcinogens from National Toxicology Program (NTP) or other high hazards will require the development of an SOP. Red= added in 2020 or status change Reasonably Anticipated NTP EPA Haz list COMBINED LIST of Particularly Hazardous Substances CAS Source from where the material is listed. 6,9-Methano-2,4,3-benzodioxathiepin, 6,7,8,9,10,10- hexachloro-1,5,5a,6,9,9a-hexahydro-, 3-oxide Acutely Toxic Methanimidamide, N,N-dimethyl-N'-[2-methyl-4-[[(methylamino)carbonyl]oxy]phenyl]- Acutely Toxic 1-(2-Chloroethyl)-3-(4-methylcyclohexyl)-1-nitrosourea (Methyl-CCNU) Prop 65 KNOWN Carcinogens NTP 1-(2-Chloroethyl)-3-cyclohexyl-1-nitrosourea (CCNU) IARC list Group 2A Reasonably Anticipated NTP 1-(2-Chloroethyl)-3-cyclohexyl-1-nitrosourea (CCNU) (Lomustine) Prop 65 1-(o-Chlorophenyl)thiourea Acutely Toxic 1,1,1,2-Tetrachloroethane IARC list Group 2B 1,1,2,2-Tetrachloroethane Prop 65 IARC list Group 2B 1,1-Dichloro-2,2-bis(p -chloropheny)ethylene (DDE) Prop 65 1,1-Dichloroethane
    [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]
  • Prohibited and Restricted Pesticides List Fair Trade USA® Agricultural Production Standard Version 1.1.0
    Version 1.1.0 Prohibited and Restricted Pesticides List Fair Trade USA® Agricultural Production Standard Version 1.1.0 Introduction Through the implementation of our standards, Fair Trade USA aims to promote sustainable livelihoods and safe working conditions, protection of the environment, and strong, transparent supply chains.. Our standards work to limit negative impacts on communities and the environment. All pesticides can be potentially hazardous to human health and the environment, both on the farm and in the community. They can negatively affect the long-term sustainability of agricultural livelihoods. The Fair Trade USA Agricultural Production Standard (APS) seeks to minimize these risks from pesticides by restricting the use of highly hazardous pesticides and enhancing the implementation of risk mitigation practices for lower risk pesticides. This approach allows greater flexibility for producers, while balancing controls on impacts to human and environmental health. This document lists the pesticides that are prohibited or restricted in the production of Fair Trade CertifiedTM products, as required in Objective 4.4.2 of the APS. It also includes additional rules for the use of restricted pesticides. Purpose The purpose of this document is to outline the rules which prohibit or restrict the use of hazardous pesticides in the production of Fair Trade Certified agricultural products. Scope • The Prohibited and Restricted Pesticides List (PRPL) applies to all crops certified against the Fair Trade USA Agricultural Production Standard (APS). • Restrictions outlined in this list apply to active ingredients in any pesticide used by parties included in the scope of the Certificate while handling Fair Trade Certified products.
    [Show full text]
  • Toxicological Profile for Toxaphene
    TOXAPHENE 199 9. REFERENCES ACGIH. 2009. Chlorinated camphene. In: 2009 TLVs and BEIs: Threshold limit values for chemical substances and physical agents and biological exposure indices. Cincinnati, OH: American Conference of Governmental Industrial Hygienists. Adams RS. 1967. The fate of pesticide residue in soil. J Minn Acad Sci 34:44-48. Adinolfi M. 1985. The development of the human blood-CSF-brain barrier. Dev Med Child Neurol 27(4):532-537. Adlercreutz H. 1995. Phytoestrogens: Epidemiology and a possible role in cancer protection. Environ Health Perspect Suppl 103(7):103-112. Agency for Toxic Substances and Disease Registry. 1989. Decision guide for identifying substance- specific data needs related to toxicological profiles; Notice. Agency for Toxic Substances and Disease Registry, Division of Toxicology. Fed Regist 54(174):37618-37634. Agency for Toxic Substances and Disease Registry. 1990. Biomarkers of organ damage or dysfunction for the renal, hepatobiliary, and immune systems. Subcommittee on Biomarkers of Organ Damage and Dysfunction. Atlanta, GA: Agency for Toxic Substances and Disease Registry. Agency for Toxic Substances and Disease Registry. 2005. Health consultation. Organic chemical residue in schoolyard soils, Goodyear and Burroughs-Mollette Elementary Schools and Risley Middle School and Edo-Miller Park/Lanier Field, city of Brunswick, Glynn County, Georgia. http://www.atsdr.cdc.gov/HAC/pha/OrganicChemicalResidueInSchoolyardSoils/BWKSchoolHCFinal020 905.pdf. June 3, 2010. Agency for Toxic Substances and Disease Registry. 2009. Health consultation. Technical support document for a toxaphene reference dose (RfD) as a basis for fish consumption screening values (FCSVs). State of Michigan. Atlanta, GA: Agency for Toxic Substances and Disease Registry. AIHA. 2010.
    [Show full text]
  • Recommended Classification of Pesticides by Hazard and Guidelines to Classification 2019 Theinternational Programme on Chemical Safety (IPCS) Was Established in 1980
    The WHO Recommended Classi cation of Pesticides by Hazard and Guidelines to Classi cation 2019 cation Hazard of Pesticides by and Guidelines to Classi The WHO Recommended Classi The WHO Recommended Classi cation of Pesticides by Hazard and Guidelines to Classi cation 2019 The WHO Recommended Classification of Pesticides by Hazard and Guidelines to Classification 2019 TheInternational Programme on Chemical Safety (IPCS) was established in 1980. The overall objectives of the IPCS are to establish the scientific basis for assessment of the risk to human health and the environment from exposure to chemicals, through international peer review processes, as a prerequisite for the promotion of chemical safety, and to provide technical assistance in strengthening national capacities for the sound management of chemicals. This publication was developed in the IOMC context. The contents do not necessarily reflect the views or stated policies of individual IOMC Participating Organizations. The Inter-Organization Programme for the Sound Management of Chemicals (IOMC) was established in 1995 following recommendations made by the 1992 UN Conference on Environment and Development to strengthen cooperation and increase international coordination in the field of chemical safety. The Participating Organizations are: FAO, ILO, UNDP, UNEP, UNIDO, UNITAR, WHO, World Bank and OECD. The purpose of the IOMC is to promote coordination of the policies and activities pursued by the Participating Organizations, jointly or separately, to achieve the sound management of chemicals in relation to human health and the environment. WHO recommended classification of pesticides by hazard and guidelines to classification, 2019 edition ISBN 978-92-4-000566-2 (electronic version) ISBN 978-92-4-000567-9 (print version) ISSN 1684-1042 © World Health Organization 2020 Some rights reserved.
    [Show full text]
  • Pesticide Residues : Maximum Residue Limits
    THAI AGRICULTURAL STANDARD TAS 9002-2013 PESTICIDE RESIDUES : MAXIMUM RESIDUE LIMITS National Bureau of Agricultural Commodity and Food Standards Ministry of Agriculture and Cooperatives ICS 67.040 ISBN UNOFFICAL TRANSLATION THAI AGRICULTURAL STANDARD TAS 9002-2013 PESTICIDE RESIDUES : MAXIMUM RESIDUE LIMITS National Bureau of Agricultural Commodity and Food Standards Ministry of Agriculture and Cooperatives 50 Phaholyothin Road, Ladyao, Chatuchak, Bangkok 10900 Telephone (662) 561 2277 Fascimile: (662) 561 3357 www.acfs.go.th Published in the Royal Gazette, Announcement and General Publication Volume 131, Special Section 32ง (Ngo), Dated 13 February B.E. 2557 (2014) (2) Technical Committee on the Elaboration of the Thai Agricultural Standard on Maximum Residue Limits for Pesticide 1. Mrs. Manthana Milne Chairperson Department of Agriculture 2. Mrs. Thanida Harintharanon Member Department of Livestock Development 3. Mrs. Kanokporn Atisook Member Department of Medical Sciences, Ministry of Public Health 4. Mrs. Chuensuke Methakulawat Member Office of the Consumer Protection Board, The Prime Minister’s Office 5. Ms. Warunee Sensupa Member Food and Drug Administration, Ministry of Public Health 6. Mr. Thammanoon Kaewkhongkha Member Office of Agricultural Regulation, Department of Agriculture 7. Mr. Pisan Pongsapitch Member National Bureau of Agricultural Commodity and Food Standards 8. Ms. Wipa Thangnipon Member Office of Agricultural Production Science Research and Development, Department of Agriculture 9. Ms. Pojjanee Paniangvait Member Board of Trade of Thailand 10. Mr. Charoen Kaowsuksai Member Food Processing Industry Club, Federation of Thai Industries 11. Ms. Natchaya Chumsawat Member Thai Agro Business Association 12. Mr. Sinchai Swasdichai Member Thai Crop Protection Association 13. Mrs. Nuansri Tayaputch Member Expert on Method of Analysis 14.
    [Show full text]
  • Method Description
    Methods for Elements Method Method Description Analyte Calcium Copper Iron Inductively Coupled Plasma-Atomic Emission Magnesium EAM 4.4 Spectrometric Determination of Elements in Phosphorus Food Using Microwave Assisted Digestion Potassium Sodium Strontium Zinc Arsenic Cadmium Chromium Inductively Coupled Plasma-Mass Lead Spectrometric Determination of Arsenic, Manganese EAM 4.7 Cadmium, Chromium, Lead, Mercury and Mercury Other Elements in Food Using Microwave Molybdenum Assisted Digestion Nickel Selenium Uranium Vanadium Antimony Arsenic Barium Beryllium Cadmium Chromium Copper Method for Analysis of Bottled water for 18 Iron EAM 4.12 Elements by ICPMS Lead Manganese Mercury Nickel Selenium Thallium Uranium Zinc High Performance Liquid Chromatography- Inorganic arsenic, Inductively Coupled Plasma-Mass Dimethylarsinic acid (DMA), EAM 4.10 Spectrometric Determination of Four Arsenic Monomethylarsonic acid (MMA), Species in Fruit Juice Arsenobetaine (AsB) KAN-LAB-MET.95 Determination of Iodine in Foods Iodine Methods for Radionuclides Method Method Description Analyte Determination of Strontium-90 in Foods by WEAC.RN.METHOD.2.0 Strontium-90 Internal Gas-Flow Proportional Counting Americium-241 Cesium-134 Cesium-137 Determination of Gamma-Ray Emitting Cobalt-60 WEAC.RN.METHOD.3.0 Radionuclides in Foods by High-Purity Potassium-40 Germanium Spectrometry Radium-226 Ruthenium-103 Ruthenium-106 Thorium-232 Methods for Pesticides/Industrial Chemicals Method Method Description Analyte Extraction Method: Analysis of Pesticides KAN-LAB-PES.53 and
    [Show full text]
  • PAN International List of Highly Hazardous Pesticides
    PAN International List of Highly Hazardous Pesticides (PAN List of HHPs) December 2016 • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • Pesticide Action Network International Impressum © PAN International c/o PAN Germany, Nernstweg 32, 22765 Hamburg, Germany December, 2016 This 'PAN International List of Highly Hazardous Pesticides' was initially drafted by PAN Germany for PAN International. The 1st version was adopted by PAN International 2008 and published January 2009. Since then the list has been updated several times as classifications changed for numerous individual pesticides. In 2013/2014 the PAN International Working Group on “HHP criteria” revised the criteria used in this list to identify highly hazardous pesticides. This December 2016 version of the list is based on these hazard criteria adopted by PAN International in June 2014. • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • Contents Background and introduction ................................................................................................. 4 About this List ........................................................................................................................ 8 What is new in this List ........................................................................................................ 10 Work in progress ................................................................................................................
    [Show full text]
  • APPENDIX G. Bibliography of ECOTOX Open Literature
    APPENDIX G. Bibliography of ECOTOX Open Literature Explanation of OPP Acceptability Criteria and Rejection Codes for ECOTOX Data Studies located and coded into ECOTOX must meet acceptability criteria, as established in the Interim Guidance of the Evaluation Criteria for Ecological Toxicity Data in the Open Literature, Phase I and II, Office of Pesticide Programs, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, July 16, 2004. Studies that do not meet these criteria are designated in the bibliography as “Accepted for ECOTOX but not OPP.” The intent of the acceptability criteria is to ensure data quality and verifiability. The criteria parallel criteria used in evaluating registrant-submitted studies. Specific criteria are listed below, along with the corresponding rejection code. · The paper does not report toxicology information for a chemical of concern to OPP; (Rejection Code: NO COC) • The article is not published in English language; (Rejection Code: NO FOREIGN) • The study is not presented as a full article. Abstracts will not be considered; (Rejection Code: NO ABSTRACT) • The paper is not publicly available document; (Rejection Code: NO NOT PUBLIC (typically not used, as any paper acquired from the ECOTOX holding or through the literature search is considered public) • The paper is not the primary source of the data; (Rejection Code: NO REVIEW) • The paper does not report that treatment(s) were compared to an acceptable control; (Rejection Code: NO CONTROL) • The paper does not report an explicit duration of exposure; (Rejection Code: NO DURATION) • The paper does not report a concurrent environmental chemical concentration/dose or application rate; (Rejection Code: NO CONC) • The paper does not report the location of the study (e.g., laboratory vs.
    [Show full text]
  • SUGGESTIONS Jtj 10M
    1975 AY 2 0 l' 08 SUGGESTIONS JtJ 10M... for controlling Cotton Insects in the High Plains, Rolling Plains and Trans-Pecos Areas of Texas TEXAS AGRICULTURAL EXTENSION SERVICE THE TEXAS A&M UNIVERSITY SYSTEM JOHN E. HUTCHISON, DIRECTOR, COLLEGE STATION, TEXAS Suggestions for Controlling Cotton Insects In the High Plains, Rolling Plains and Trans-Pecos Areas of Texas Suggestions in this publication are based on results of continuing research conducted throughout the state by the Texas Agricultural Experiment Station and the Agricultural Research Service, U.S. Department of Agriculture. Research results from other cotton producing states for some of the minor cotton pests have been evaluated carefully and utilized in devel­ oping these suggestions. A committee of state and federal re­ search personnel and specialists of the Texas Agricultural Extension Service meets annually to review research results and to develop suggestions for the safest, most profitable insect control practices for Texas producers. At least 12 insect and mite species attacking Texas cotton show some resistance to once-effective chemicals. Evidence indicates that the more extensively a material is used, the more rapidly resistance develops. Therefore, use of insecticides should be restricted to actual need, based on field inspections. For information on identification of major cotton insects, their life history and the kind of damage they cause, see Cotton Insects (B-933, Texas Agricultural Extension Service). INSECT CONTROL PROGRAM Precise timing and execution of each production operation is extremely important in reducing insect injury and maximizing profits. In planning an insect control program, the cotton pro­ ducer should consider effective use of both natural and cultural control.
    [Show full text]
  • Gardner-Webb University Chemical Hygiene Plan Contents
    Gardner‐Webb University Chemical Hygiene Plan Date Issued: Prepared by: Venita Totten, Ph.D. Department of Natural Sciences Approved By: David Wacaster, Director Environmental & Occupational Safety Approved By: Gardner-Webb University Chemical Hygiene Plan Contents Introduction Definitions Scope and Applications Responsibilities Safe Laboratory Practices Good Laboratory Practices Guidelines for Chemical Use in Teaching Laboratories Food, Beverages & Chemical/Biological Contamination Housekeeping Glassware Personal Protective Equipment Warning Signs/MSDS Unattended Operations Working Alone Hazardous Waste Management Guidelines Hazardous Material Handling and Storage General Guidelines Preventing Exposure to Hazardous Chemicals Procurement Transport Chemical Storage Labeling Inventory Control Compressed Gases Controlling Specific Chemical Hazards and Exposures Corrosives Flammable and Combustible Liquids Carcinogens, Reproductive Toxins, and Acutely Toxic Chemicals Controlling Potential Exposure to Hazardous Chemicals Inhalation Hazards Skin/Eye Contact Hazards Ingestion Hazards Injection Hazards Chemical Hygiene Plan Page 2 Gardner-Webb University Chemical Hygiene Plan Personal Safety Major Hazard Emergencies Minor Hazard Emergencies Chemical Spills Fume Hoods and Other Engineering Controls Biological Safety Training and Information Medical Consultation Planning for Emergencies Appendices Appendix A Laboratory Standard Appendix B List of Acutely Toxic Chemicals Appendix C List of Select and Suspected Carcinogens Appendix D List of Reproductive Hazards Appendix E P-Listed Chemicals Appendix F Chemical Use Planning Form Appendix G Hazard Assessment & PPE Chemical Hygiene Plan Page 3 Gardner-Webb University Chemical Hygiene Plan Introduction and Purpose The Department of Natural Sciences at Gardner-Webb University has developed this Chemical Hygiene Plan to define work practices and procedures to help ensure that all personnel are protected from health and safety hazards associated with the chemicals with which they work.
    [Show full text]
  • 57518 Federal Register / Vol. 61, No. 216 / Wednesday, November 6, 1996 / Rules and Regulations
    57518 Federal Register / Vol. 61, No. 216 / Wednesday, November 6, 1996 / Rules and Regulations ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION implement certain pollution prevention, (BPT), §§ 455.43 and 455.63 (BCT), and AGENCY recycle and reuse practices. Facilities §§ 455.44 and 455.64 (BAT) are choosing and implementing the established in the National Pollutant 40 CFR Part 455 pollution prevention alternative will Discharge Elimination System (NPDES) receive a discharge allowance. permits. [FRL±5630±9] The final rule will benefit the ADDRESSES: For additional technical RIN 2040±AC21 environment by removing toxic information write to Ms. Shari H. pollutants (pesticide active ingredients Zuskin, Engineering & Analysis Division Pesticide Chemicals Category, and priority pollutants) from water (4303), U.S. EPA, 401 M Street SW, Formulating, Packaging and discharges that have adverse effects on Washington, D.C. 20460 or send e-mail Repackaging Effluent Limitations human health and aquatic life. EPA has to: [email protected] or call Guidelines, Pretreatment Standards, estimated the compliance costs and at (202) 260±7130. For additional and New Source Performance economic impacts expected to result economic information contact Dr. Lynne Standards from the Zero Discharge/Pollution Tudor at the address above or by calling Prevention Alternative (i.e., Zero/P2 AGENCY: Environmental Protection (202) 260±5834. Agency. Alternative). The Agency has determined that the Zero/P2 Alternative The complete record (excluding ACTION: Final rule. will result in a similar removal of toxic confidential business information) for this rulemaking is available for review SUMMARY: This final regulation limits pound equivalents per year at EPA's Water Docket; 401 M Street, the discharge of pollutants into (approximately 7.6 million toxic pound SW, Washington, DC 20460.
    [Show full text]