Characteristics of Insecticides
Total Page：16
File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb
Load more
Recommended publications
-
Specific Target Organ Systemic Toxicity (Tost) Following Repeated Exposure
Chapter 13: SPECIFIC TARGET ORGAN SYSTEMIC TOXICITY (TOST) FOLLOWING REPEATED EXPOSURE DEFINITIONS 1. Classification identifies the chemical substance as being a specific target organ/systemic toxicant and, as such, it may present a potential for adverse health impact to people who are exposed to it. 2. Classification depends upon the availability of reliable evidence that repeated exposure to the substance has produced a consistent and identifiable toxic effect in humans, or, in experimental animals, toxicologically significant changes which have affected the function or morphology of a tissue/organ, or has produced serious changes to the biochemistry or haematology of the organism and these changes are relevant for human health. 3. Assessment of specific target organ/systemic toxicity should take into consideration not only significant changes in a single organ or biological system but also generalised changes of a less severe nature involving several organs. CONSIDERATIONS 4. The purpose of this document is to provide a means of classifying substances that produce specific target organ/systemic toxicity arising from repeated exposure that is not specifically addressed elsewhere in the harmonised classification system (GHS). All significant health effects that can impair function, both reversible and irreversible, following repeated or long-term exposure, are included. Other specific toxic effects, such as acute lethality/toxicity, eye and skin corrosivity/irritation, skin and respiratory sensitisation, carcinogenicity, mutagenicity and reproductive toxicity are assessed separately in the GHS and consequently are not included in the present proposal. 5. Non-lethal toxic effects observed after a single-event exposure are classified elsewhere in the GHS as a separate chapter and, therefore, are excluded from the present chapter. -
2017 Spray Bulletin for Commercial Tree Fruit Growers Virginia, West Virginia, and University of Maryland Extension
Publication 456-419 2017 Spray Bulletin for Commercial Tree Fruit Growers Virginia, West Virginia, and University of Maryland Extension West Virginia University Table of Incompatibilities abamectin (Abba, Agri-Mek, Temprano) abamectin + thiamethoxam (Agri-Flex) acequinocyl (Kanemite) azadirachtin (Aza-Direct, Neemazad, Neemix) Topsin-M bifenazate (Acramite) Bt Bordeaux Mixture buprofezin (Centaur) captan carbaryl (Sevin) chlorantraniliprole (Altacor) Compatible; safe and effective chlorothalonil (Bravo) chlorpyrifos (Lorsban, Nufos, Yuma) if used as recommended. clofentezine, hexythiazox (Apollo, Onager, Savey) CM virus (Carpovirusine, Cyd-X, Madex) Not compatible; unsafe, one copper cyantraniliprole (Exirel) or both materials ineffective. cyflumetofen (Nealta) diazinon Caution - not always safe or dichloran (Botran) effective. See text. diflubenzuron (Dimilin) dinotefuran (Scorpion, Venom) dodine (Syllit) Information lacking or mixture emamectin benzoate (Proclaim) not probable. etoxazole (eal) fenarimol (Rubigan) fenbutatin (Vendex) Use wettable powder fenpyroximate (Portal) formulation only. ferbam flonicamid (Beleaf) fluazinam (Omega) flubendiamide (Belt) flubendiamide + buprofezin (Tourismo) flupyradifurone (Sivanto)) formetanate hydrochl. (Carzol) imidacloprid + beta-cyfluthrin (Leverage) indoxacarb (Avaunt) iprodione (Rovral) kaolin (Surround) lambda-cyhalothrin + chlorantraniliprole (Voliam Xpress), lambda-cyhalothrin + thiamethoxam (Endigo) lime malathion mancozeb, iram methidathion (Supracide) methomyl (Lannate) methoxyfenozide -
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. -
Oecd Guideline for the Testing of Chemicals
Paris 28 November 2008 [email protected] OECD GUIDELINE FOR THE TESTING OF CHEMICALS DRAFT PROPOSAL FOR A NEW GUIDELINE: 436 Acute Inhalation Toxicity - Acute Toxic Class (ATC) Method INTRODUCTION 1. OECD Guidelines for the Testing of Chemicals are periodically reviewed in the light of scientific progress, changing regulatory needs and animal welfare considerations. The first acute inhalation Test Guideline 403 was adopted in 1981, and has since been revised (1). Development of an Inhalation Acute Toxic Class (ATC) method (2)(3)(4) was considered appropriate following the adoption of the revised oral ATC method (TG 423)(5) in December 2001. A retrospective validation study of the acute toxic class testing method for acute inhalation toxicity showed that the method is suitable for being used for Classification and Labelling purposes (6). The inhalation ATC Guideline will allow the use of serial steps of fixed target concentrations to provide a ranking of test article toxicity. Lethality is used as key endpoint. However, animals in severe pain or distress, suffering or impending death should be humanely killed to minimize suffering. Guidance on humane endpoints is available in the OECD Guidance Document No. 19 (7). 2. Guidance on the conduct and interpretation of the TG 436 can be found in the Guidance Document on Acute Inhalation Toxicity Testing (8). 3. Definitions used in the context of this Guideline are provided in Annex 1. 4. The method provides information on the hazardous properties and allows the substance to be ranked and classified according to the United Nations (UN) Globally Harmonized System of Classification and Labelling of Chemicals (GHS) for the classification of chemicals that cause acute toxicity (9). -
Understanding the Pesticide Label Greg J
NebGuide Nebraska Extension Research-Based Information That You Can Use G1955 Revised March 2021 Understanding the Pesticide Label Greg J. Puckett, Extension Assistant Jan R. Hygnstrom, Project Coordinator Erin C. Bauer, Entomology Lecturer Jennifer M. Weisbrod, Extension Educator This NebGuide describes the parts of a pesticide label to Pesticide manufacturers are required by law to provide aid in understanding and to promote safe and effective use of certain information on the label. This information includes: pesticide products. • brand name or trade name of the product; • ingredient statement; The pesticide label is more than just a piece of paper; it is a legal document recognized by courts of law. Using • percentage or amount of active ingredient(s) by a pesticide in a way that is inconsistent with its label is a weight; violation of the Federal Insecticide, Fungicide and Roden- • net contents of the container; and ticide Act (FIFRA). Pesticide applicators assume certain responsibilities when they purchase and use a product. (For • name and address of the manufacturer. more information see NebGuide G479, Pesticide Laws and Regulations). Other required parts of the label are: Label formats vary according to pesticide type, regis- tration, toxicity, and manufacturer. Some of the many types • the registration and establishment numbers; of pesticides include herbicides, insecticides, fungicides, • first aid statement (not always required); termiticides, and rodenticides. All pesticide products must be registered with the Environmental -
Manual for Certificate Course on Plant Protection & Pesticide Management
Manual for Certificate Course on Plant Protection & Pesticide Management (for Pesticide Dealers) For Internal circulation only & has no legal validity Compiled by NIPHM Faculty Department of Agriculture , Cooperation& Farmers Welfare Ministry of Agriculture and Farmers Welfare Government of India National Institute of Plant Health Management Hyderabad-500030 TABLE OF CONTENTS Theory Practical CHAPTER Page No. class hours hours I. General Overview and Classification of Pesticides. 1. Introduction to classification based on use, 1 1 2 toxicity, chemistry 2. Insecticides 5 1 0 3. fungicides 9 1 0 4. Herbicides & Plant growth regulators 11 1 0 5. Other Pesticides (Acaricides, Nematicides & 16 1 0 rodenticides) II. Pesticide Act, Rules and Regulations 1. Introduction to Insecticide Act, 1968 and 19 1 0 Insecticide rules, 1971 2. Registration and Licensing of pesticides 23 1 0 3. Insecticide Inspector 26 2 0 4. Insecticide Analyst 30 1 4 5. Importance of packaging and labelling 35 1 0 6. Role and Responsibilities of Pesticide Dealer 37 1 0 under IA,1968 III. Pesticide Application A. Pesticide Formulation 1. Types of pesticide Formulations 39 3 8 2. Approved uses and Compatibility of pesticides 47 1 0 B. Usage Recommendation 1. Major pest and diseases of crops: identification 50 3 3 2. Principles and Strategies of Integrated Pest 80 2 1 Management & The Concept of Economic Threshold Level 3. Biological control and its Importance in Pest 93 1 2 Management C. Pesticide Application 1. Principles of Pesticide Application 117 1 0 2. Types of Sprayers and Dusters 121 1 4 3. Spray Nozzles and Their Classification 130 1 0 4. -
INDEX to PESTICIDE TYPES and FAMILIES and PART 180 TOLERANCE INFORMATION of PESTICIDE CHEMICALS in FOOD and FEED COMMODITIES
US Environmental Protection Agency Office of Pesticide Programs INDEX to PESTICIDE TYPES and FAMILIES and PART 180 TOLERANCE INFORMATION of PESTICIDE CHEMICALS in FOOD and FEED COMMODITIES Note: Pesticide tolerance information is updated in the Code of Federal Regulations on a weekly basis. EPA plans to update these indexes biannually. These indexes are current as of the date indicated in the pdf file. For the latest information on pesticide tolerances, please check the electronic Code of Federal Regulations (eCFR) at http://www.access.gpo.gov/nara/cfr/waisidx_07/40cfrv23_07.html 1 40 CFR Type Family Common name CAS Number PC code 180.163 Acaricide bridged diphenyl Dicofol (1,1-Bis(chlorophenyl)-2,2,2-trichloroethanol) 115-32-2 10501 180.198 Acaricide phosphonate Trichlorfon 52-68-6 57901 180.259 Acaricide sulfite ester Propargite 2312-35-8 97601 180.446 Acaricide tetrazine Clofentezine 74115-24-5 125501 180.448 Acaricide thiazolidine Hexythiazox 78587-05-0 128849 180.517 Acaricide phenylpyrazole Fipronil 120068-37-3 129121 180.566 Acaricide pyrazole Fenpyroximate 134098-61-6 129131 180.572 Acaricide carbazate Bifenazate 149877-41-8 586 180.593 Acaricide unclassified Etoxazole 153233-91-1 107091 180.599 Acaricide unclassified Acequinocyl 57960-19-7 6329 180.341 Acaricide, fungicide dinitrophenol Dinocap (2, 4-Dinitro-6-octylphenyl crotonate and 2,6-dinitro-4- 39300-45-3 36001 octylphenyl crotonate} 180.111 Acaricide, insecticide organophosphorus Malathion 121-75-5 57701 180.182 Acaricide, insecticide cyclodiene Endosulfan 115-29-7 79401 -
Best Management Practices for Brown Dog Ticks
Best Management Practices For Brown Dog Ticks immediately seek shelter in cracks or crevices such as baseboards or furniture, but also commonly move en masse up walls and congregate in the corners of ceilings. These larvae eventually find the dog and receive their first blood meal. The larvae go largely unnoticed because they are about the size of a pencil tip. The larvae then drop off into the surrounding area, molt to the nymphal stage, and again seek the dog for a second blood meal. At this point owners occasionally notice the ticks, but they usually go unnoticed. After they molt to the adult stage, the ticks find the dog for a third and final blood meal. Ticks are noticed at this stage for two reasons: 1) Adult females engorge to the size of a raisin and are often located on or near the dog’s head, or 2) adults are seen Heavy infestation of BDT on the ear of a dog. crawling on floors actively looking for the dog. This “predatory” behavior is somewhat unique to ticks. The brown dog tick (BDT) can be a serious Typically, residents do not notice these ticks until they have pest in homes with pets. These Best Management completed a full generation. Often, overlapping generations of Practices are designed to support cooperation ticks occur in homes, so tick numbers can quickly multiply into the thousands. between homeowners and pest management A factor complicating BDT management is the ability of this professionals in order to prevent and control BDTs. tick to survive without a host for several months during each of At left: The black-legged its three life stages, thereby negating the “wait-it-out” strategy of tick (Ixodes scapularis). -
Assessing the Single and Combined Toxicity of Chlorantraniliprole And
toxins Article Assessing the Single and Combined Toxicity of Chlorantraniliprole and Bacillus thuringiensis (GO33A) against Four Selected Strains of Plutella xylostella (Lepidoptera: Plutellidae), and a Gene Expression Analysis Muhammad Zeeshan Shabbir 1,2, Ling He 1,2, Changlong Shu 3, Fei Yin 1,2, Jie Zhang 3 and Zhen-Yu Li 1,2,* 1 Institute of Plant Protection, Guangdong Academy of Agricultural Sciences, Guangzhou 510640, China; [email protected] (M.Z.S.); [email protected] (L.H.); [email protected] (F.Y.) 2 Guangdong Provincial Key Laboratory of High Technology for Plant Protection, Guangzhou 510640, China 3 State Key Laboratory for Biology of Plant Diseases and Insect Pests, Institute of Plant Protection, Chinese Academy of Agricultural Sciences, Beijing 100094, China; [email protected] (C.S.); [email protected] (J.Z.) * Correspondence: [email protected] Abstract: Concerns about resistance development to conventional insecticides in diamondback moth (DBM) Plutella xylostella (L.), the most destructive pest of Brassica vegetables, have stimulated interest in alternative pest management strategies. The toxicity of Bacillus thuringiensis subsp. aizawai (Bt GO33A) combined with chlorantraniliprole (Chl) has not been documented. Here, we examined sin- gle and combined toxicity of chlorantraniliprole and Bt to assess the levels of resistance in four DBM strains. Additionally, enzyme activities were tested in field-original highly resistant (FOH-DBM), Bt-resistant (Bt-DBM), chlorantraniliprole-resistant (CL-DBM), and Bt + chlorantraniliprole-resistant (BtC-DBM) strains. The Bt product had the highest toxicity to all four DBM strains followed by the Citation: Shabbir, M.Z.; He, L.; Shu, mixture of insecticides (Bt + Chl) and chlorantraniliprole. -
Sound Management of Pesticides and Diagnosis and Treatment Of
* Revision of the“IPCS - Multilevel Course on the Safe Use of Pesticides and on the Diagnosis and Treatment of Presticide Poisoning, 1994” © World Health Organization 2006 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 expressed 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. CONTENTS Preface Acknowledgement Part I. Overview 1. Introduction 1.1 Background 1.2 Objectives 2. Overview of the resource tool 2.1 Moduledescription 2.2 Training levels 2.3 Visual aids 2.4 Informationsources 3. Using the resource tool 3.1 Introduction 3.2 Training trainers 3.2.1 Organizational aspects 3.2.2 Coordinator’s preparation 3.2.3 Selection of participants 3.2.4 Before training trainers 3.2.5 Specimen module 3.3 Trainers 3.3.1 Trainer preparation 3.3.2 Selection of participants 3.3.3 Organizational aspects 3.3.4 Before a course 4. -
Acaricide Mode of Action Classification: a Key to Effective Acaricide Resistance Management Insecticide Resistance Action Committee
Acaricide Mode of Action Classification: A key to effective acaricide resistance management Insecticide Resistance Action Committee www.irac-online.org Introduction Effective IRM strategies: Sequences or alternations of MoA IRAC promotes the use of a Mode of Action (MoA) classification of All effective pesticide resistance management strategies seek to minimise the selection of resistance to any one type of MoA w MoA x MoA y MoA z MoA w MoA x insecticides and acaricides as the basis for effective and sustainable pesticide. In practice, alternations, sequences or rotations of compounds from different MoA groups provide sustainable and resistance management. Acaricides are allocated to specific groups based effective resistance management for acarine pests. This ensures that selection from compounds in the same MoA group is on their target site. Reviewed and re-issued periodically, the IRAC MoA minimised, and resistance is less likely to evolve. Sequence of acaricides through season classification list provides farmers, growers, advisors, extension staff, consultants and crop protection professionals witH a guide to the selection of Applications are often arranged into MoA spray windows or blocks that are defined by the stage of crop development and the biology of the pest species of concern. Local expert advice should acaricides and insecticides in resistance management programs. Effective always be followed witH regard to spray windows and timings. Several sprays may be possible witHin each spray window but it is generally essential to ensure that successive generations of the Resistance management of this type preserves the utility and diversity of pest are not treated witH compounds from the same MoA group. -
Lifetime Organophosphorous Insecticide Use Among Private Pesticide Applicators in the Agricultural Health Study
Journal of Exposure Science and Environmental Epidemiology (2012) 22, 584 -- 592 & 2012 Nature America, Inc. All rights reserved 1559-0631/12 www.nature.com/jes ORIGINAL ARTICLE Lifetime organophosphorous insecticide use among private pesticide applicators in the Agricultural Health Study Jane A. Hoppin1, Stuart Long2, David M. Umbach3, Jay H. Lubin4, Sarah E. Starks5, Fred Gerr5, Kent Thomas6, Cynthia J. Hines7, Scott Weichenthal8, Freya Kamel1, Stella Koutros9, Michael Alavanja9, Laura E. Beane Freeman9 and Dale P. Sandler1 Organophosphorous insecticides (OPs) are the most commonly used insecticides in US agriculture, but little information is available regarding specific OP use by individual farmers. We describe OP use for licensed private pesticide applicators from Iowa and North Carolina in the Agricultural Health Study (AHS) using lifetime pesticide use data from 701 randomly selected male participants collected at three time periods. Of 27 OPs studied, 20 were used by 41%. Overall, 95% had ever applied at least one OP. The median number of different OPs used was 4 (maximum ¼ 13). Malathion was the most commonly used OP (74%) followed by chlorpyrifos (54%). OP use declined over time. At the first interview (1993--1997), 68% of participants had applied OPs in the past year; by the last interview (2005--2007), only 42% had. Similarly, median annual application days of OPs declined from 13.5 to 6 days. Although OP use was common, the specific OPs used varied by state, time period, and individual. Much of the variability in OP use was associated with the choice of OP, rather than the frequency or duration of application.