DOCSLIB.ORG

Proposed Interim Registration Review Decision for Imidacloprid

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read 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 ............................................................................................................. 18 5. Risk Summary and Characterization .......................................................................... 19 6. Ecological Incidents ................................................................................................... 30 7. Ecological and Environmental Fate Data Needs ........................................................ 32 C. Benefits Assessment ....................................................................................................... 32 IV. PROPOSED INTERIM REGISTRATION REVIEW DECISION ................................... 39 A. Proposed Risk Mitigation and Regulatory Rationale ..................................................... 39 1. Cancellation of Uses ................................................................................................... 41 2. Prohibition of On-farm Seed Treatment for Canola, Millet, and Wheat .................... 41 3. Personal Protection Equipment .................................................................................. 41 4. Application Rate Reductions ...................................................................................... 42 5. Crop Stage Restrictions .............................................................................................. 48 6. Residential Ornamental Advisory .............................................................................. 50 7. Label Language Improvements .................................................................................. 50 8. Restrictions to Poultry House Uses ............................................................................ 50 9. Spray Drift and Runoff Reduction .............................................................................. 51 10. Pesticide Resistance Management .............................................................................. 56 B. Stewardship .................................................................................................................... 57 C. Tolerance Actions .......................................................................................................... 58 D. Proposed Interim Registration Review Decision ........................................................... 58 E. Data Requirements ......................................................................................................... 59 V. NEXT STEPS AND TIMELINE .......................................................................................... 59 2 Docket Number EPA-HQ-OPP-2008-0844 www.regulations.gov A. Proposed Interim Registration Review Decision ........................................................... 59 B. Implementation of Mitigation Measures ........................................................................ 59 Appendix A: Summary of Proposed Actions for Imidacloprid ................................................... 60 Appendix B: Proposed Labeling Changes for Imidacloprid Products ......................................... 61 Appendix C: Endangered Species Assessment ............................................................................ 72 Appendix D: Endocrine Disruptor Screening Program ............................................................... 73 Appendix E: Summary of Proposed Tolerance Actions .............................................................. 74 3 Docket Number EPA-HQ-OPP-2008-0844 www.regulations.gov I. INTRODUCTION This document is the Environmental Protection Agency’s (EPA or the agency) Proposed Interim Registration Review Decision (PID) for imidacloprid (PC Code 129099) and is being issued pursuant to 40 CFR §§ 155.56 and 155.58. A registration review decision is the agency's determination whether a pesticide continues to meet, or does not meet, the standard for registration in the Federal Insecticide, Fungicide, and Rodenticide Act (FIFRA). The agency may issue, when it determines it to be appropriate, an interim registration review decision before completing a registration review. Among other things, the interim registration review decision may require new risk mitigation measures, impose interim risk mitigation measures, identify data or information required to complete the review, and include schedules for submitting the required data, conducting the new risk assessment and completing the registration review. Additional information on imidacloprid, can be found in the EPA’s public docket (EPA-HQ- OPP-2008-0844) at www.regulations.gov. FIFRA, as amended by the Food Quality Protection Act (FQPA) of 1996, mandates the continuous review of existing pesticides. All pesticides distributed or sold in the United States must be registered by the EPA based on scientific data showing that they will not cause unreasonable risks to human health or to the environment when used as directed on product labeling. The registration review program is intended to make sure that, as the ability to assess and reduce risk evolves and as policies and practices change, all registered pesticides continue to meet the statutory standard of no unreasonable adverse effects. Changes in science, public policy, and pesticide use practices will occur over time. Through the registration review program, the agency periodically re-evaluates pesticides to make sure that as these changes occur, products in the marketplace can continue to be used safely. Information on this program is provided at http://www.epa.gov/pesticide-reevaluation. In 2006, the agency implemented the registration review program pursuant to FIFRA § 3(g) and will review each registered pesticide every 15 years to determine whether it continues to meet the FIFRA standard for registration. The EPA is issuing a PID for imidacloprid so that it can (1) move forward with aspects of the registration review that are complete and (2) implement interim risk mitigation (see Appendices A and B). The agency is currently working with the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service and the National Marine Fisheries Service (together, the Services) to develop methodologies for conducting national threatened and endangered (listed) species assessments for pesticides in accordance with the Endangered Species Act (ESA) § 7. Therefore, although the EPA has not yet fully evaluated risks to listed species, the agency will complete its listed species assessment and any necessary consultation with the Services for imidacloprid prior to completing the imidacloprid registration review. Likewise, the agency will complete endocrine screening for imidacloprid, pursuant to the Federal Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act (FFDCA) § 408(p), before completing registration review. See Appendices C and D, respectively, for additional information on the endangered species assessment and the endocrine screening for the imidacloprid registration review. Imidacloprid is an N-nitroguanidine neonicotinoid insecticide, which causes irreversible blockage of the postsynaptic nicotinic acetylcholine receptors. It is a xylem and phloem-mobile systemic compound that is readily taken up by the roots of the plants and translocated through 4 Docket Number EPA-HQ-OPP-2008-0844 www.regulations.gov the plant via transpiration. There are over five hundred FIFRA § 3 and § 24(c) (Special Local Needs) products containing imidacloprid registered in the United States. Products containing imidacloprid can be formulated as granules, ready-to-use solutions, emulsifiable concentrates, flowable concentrates, water soluble packages (WSP), dust, impregnated materials, etc. Products can be applied via liquid spray of drench, broadcast granules, baits, and as seed treatment. Imidacloprid products can be applied to a variety of agricultural crops, including but not limited to, root and tuber vegetables, fruiting vegetables, oilseed crops, citrus fruit, leafy green vegetables, cucurbit vegetables and tropical and subtropical fruits. Imidacloprid products are also registered on non-agricultural use sites including but
Load more

Recommended publications
  • Insecticide Residue Analyses in Cucumbers Sampled from Çanakkale Open Markets1 Çanakkale Açık Pazarlarından Örneklenen Hıyarlarda Insektisit Kalıntı Analizleri
    Türk. entomol. derg., 2020, 44 (4): 449-460 ISSN 1010-6960 DOI: http://dx.doi.org/10.16970/entoted.767482 E-ISSN 2536-491X Original article (Orijinal araştırma) Insecticide residue analyses in cucumbers sampled from Çanakkale open markets1 Çanakkale açık pazarlarından örneklenen hıyarlarda insektisit kalıntı analizleri Hayriye ÇATAK2 Osman TİRYAKİ3* Abstract The aim of this study was to investigate four insecticide residues in cucumbers with the aid of QuEChERS 2007.1 method. For method verification assessment, pesticide-free cucumber matrix was spiked with 0.1, 1 and 10 times of MRL for each pesticide. The QuEChERS-LC-MS/MS analytical method revealed that the detection limits of the insecticides were below the MRLs and the overall recovery of method was 97.7%. These figures were within the SANTE recovery limits (60-140%) and the values specified for the repeatability (≤20%). Cucumbers were collected from six different stands (A-F) at Çanakkale open markets for 6 weeks between 23 November and 28 December 2018. Residues of each sampling time and each stand were assessed. Acetamiprid residue of 257g and 236 µg/kg were detected in week 5 from stand B and in week 2 from stand E, respectively. These values are close to MRL (300 µg/kg). Formetanate hydrochloride residue of the week 3 from stand F (36.3 µg/kg) was more than MRL of 10 µg/kg. Pirimiphos methyl and chlorpyrifos residues were not detected in cucumbers. Theoretical maximum daily intake assessment showed that there was no chronic exposure risk for these four pesticides through cucumber consumption. Keywords: Cucumber, insecticide residues, QuEChERS, risk assessment, toxicology Öz Bu çalışma hıyarlarda dört insektisit kalıntısını QuEChERS 2007.1 yöntemi ile belirlemek amacıyla yapılmıştır.
    [Show full text]
  • Monitoring of Pesticide Residues in Commonly Used Fruits and Vegetables in Kuwait
    International Journal of Environmental Research and Public Health Article Monitoring of Pesticide Residues in Commonly Used Fruits and Vegetables in Kuwait Mustapha F. A. Jallow *, Dawood G. Awadh, Mohammed S. Albaho, Vimala Y. Devi and Nisar Ahmad Environment and Life Sciences Research Center, Kuwait Institute for Scientific Research, P.O. Box 24885, Safat 13109, Kuwait; [email protected] (D.G.A.); [email protected] (M.S.A.); [email protected] (V.Y.D.); [email protected] (N.A.) * Correspondence: [email protected]; Tel.: +965-249-8984 Received: 1 May 2017; Accepted: 12 July 2017; Published: 25 July 2017 Abstract: The presence of pesticide residues in primary and derived agricultural products raises serious health concerns for consumers. The aim of this study was to assess the level of pesticide residues in commonly consumed fruits and vegetables in Kuwait. A total of 150 samples of different fresh vegetables and fruits were analyzed for the presence of 34 pesticides using the quick easy cheap effective rugged and safe (QuEChERS) multi-residue extraction, followed by gas chromatography-mass spectrometry (GC-MS) or liquid chromatography-tandem mass spectrometry (LC-MS/MS). Pesticide residues above the maximum residue limits (MRL) were detected in 21% of the samples and 79% of the samples had no residues of the pesticides surveyed or contained residues below the MRL. Multiple residues were present in 40% of the samples with two to four pesticides, and four samples were contaminated with more than four pesticide residues. Of the pesticides investigated, 16 were detected, of which imidacloprid, deltamethrin, cypermethrin, malathion, acetamiprid, monocrotophos, chlorpyrifos-methyl, and diazinon exceeded their MRLs.
    [Show full text]
  • What Is the Difference Between Pesticides, Insecticides and Herbicides? Pesticide Effects on Food Production
    What is the Difference Between Pesticides, Insecticides and Herbicides? Pesticides are chemicals that may be used to kill fungus, bacteria, insects, plant diseases, snails, slugs, or weeds among others. These chemicals can work by ingestion or by touch and death may occur immediately or over a long period of time. Insecticides are a type of pesticide that is used to specifically target and kill insects. Some insecticides include snail bait, ant killer, and wasp killer. Herbicides are used to kill undesirable plants or “weeds”. Some herbicides will kill all the plants they touch, while others are designed to target one species. Pesticide Effects on Food Production As the human population continues to grow, more and more crops are needed to meet this growing demand. This has increased the use of pesticides to increase crop yield per acre. For example, many farmers will plant a field with Soybeans and apply two doses of Roundup throughout the growing year to remove all other plants and prepare the field for next year’s crop. The Roundup is applied twice through the growing season to kill everything except the soybeans, which are modified to be pesticide resistant. After the soybeans are harvested, there is little vegetative cover on the field creating potential erosion issues for the reason that another crop can easily be planted. With this method, hundreds of gallons of chemicals are introduced into the environment every year. All these chemicals affect wildlife, insects, water quality and air quality. One greatly affected “good” insect are bees. Bees play a significant role in the pollination of the foods that we eat.
    [Show full text]
  • Transport of Dangerous Goods
    ST/SG/AC.10/1/Rev.16 (Vol.I) Recommendations on the TRANSPORT OF DANGEROUS GOODS Model Regulations Volume I Sixteenth revised edition UNITED NATIONS New York and Geneva, 2009 NOTE 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 Secretariat of the United Nations concerning the legal status of any country, territory, city or area, or of its authorities, or concerning the delimitation of its frontiers or boundaries. ST/SG/AC.10/1/Rev.16 (Vol.I) Copyright © United Nations, 2009 All rights reserved. No part of this publication may, for sales purposes, be reproduced, stored in a retrieval system or transmitted in any form or by any means, electronic, electrostatic, magnetic tape, mechanical, photocopying or otherwise, without prior permission in writing from the United Nations. UNITED NATIONS Sales No. E.09.VIII.2 ISBN 978-92-1-139136-7 (complete set of two volumes) ISSN 1014-5753 Volumes I and II not to be sold separately FOREWORD The Recommendations on the Transport of Dangerous Goods are addressed to governments and to the international organizations concerned with safety in the transport of dangerous goods. The first version, prepared by the United Nations Economic and Social Council's Committee of Experts on the Transport of Dangerous Goods, was published in 1956 (ST/ECA/43-E/CN.2/170). In response to developments in technology and the changing needs of users, they have been regularly amended and updated at succeeding sessions of the Committee of Experts pursuant to Resolution 645 G (XXIII) of 26 April 1957 of the Economic and Social Council and subsequent resolutions.
    [Show full text]
  • EUPT-CF10-Webinar
    Results of EUPT-CF10 Incurred and spiked pesticides in rye Mette Erecius Poulsen Holte, 20 September 2016 PTs on cereals/feed 2016 EUPT-CF10 Test material Rye flour Participants 178 (160) Compulsory target pesticides 134 Voluntary target pesticides 7 Incurred pesticides 10 Spiked pesticides 8 Total no. of pesticides 18 National Food Institute, Technical University of Denmark Advisory Group Quality Group Amadeo R. Fernández-Alba Antonio Valverde André de Kok Stewart Reynolds Antonio Valverde Magnus Jezussek Michelangelo Anastassiades Miguel Gamón Organising team at EURL Philippe Gros Mette Erecius Poulsen Ralf Lippold Susan Strange Herrmann Sonja Masselter Parvaneh Hajeb Stewart Reynolds Merete B. Ludwigsen Tuija Pihlström Lisbet Pilhkjær Finbarr Oregan Jens-Ole Frimann National Food Institute, Technical University of Denmark National Food Institute, Technical University of Denmark Activity Dates Announcement Calendar December 2015 Target Pesticide List EUPT-Registration Website 11 January 2016 Deadline for registration 1 February 2016 Release of Specific Protocol 29 February 2016 Distribution of Test items 7 March 2016 Deadline for Receipt and Acceptance of Test Materials within 24 hr on reciept 11 April 2016 Deadline for Result Submission at 13.00 CET Deadline for submission of additional method information for 15 April 2015 false negative results Preliminary Report (only compilation of results) 30 May 2015 Final Report December 2015 National Food Institute, Technical University of Denmark Target list - new pesticides and voluntary compounds
    [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]
  • CHLORPYRIFOS 2.5% GRANULAR INSECTICIDE for Professional Use Only
    CHLORPYRIFOS 2.5% GRANULAR INSECTICIDE For professional use only. Not for sale to homeowners. For Control of Various Insects (and Other Arthropods) Infesting Sod Farms, Golf Course Turf, Outdoor Areas around Industrial Plant Sites, and Ornamental Nurseries for Commercial Production Only. Active Ingredient: Chlorpyrifos: O,O-diethyl-0-(3,5,6-trichloro- 2-pyridinyl) phosphorothioate .... 2.5% Other Ingredients ....................... 97.5% Total ............................................ 100.0% FIRST AID ORGANOPHOSPHATE IF SWALLOWED: Call a physician or Poison Control Center. Drink 1 or 2 glasses of water and induce vomiting by touching back of throat with finger, or if available by administering syrup of ipecac. If person is unconscious, do not give anything by mouth and do not induce vomiting. IF ON SKIN: Wash with plenty of soap and water. Get medical attention if irritation persists. IF INHALED: Remove victim to fresh air. If not breathing, give artificial respiration, preferably mouth-to-mouth. Get medical attention. IF IN EYES: Flush eyes with plenty of water. Call a physician if irritation persists. FOR CHEMICAL EMERGENCY: Spill, leak, fire, exposure, or accident call CHEMTREC 1-800-424-9300. Have the product container or label with you when calling a poison control center or doctor, or going for treatment. For more information on this product (including health concerns, medical emergencies, or pesticide incidents), call the National Pesticide Information Center at: 1-800-858-7378. NOT TO PHYSICIAN: Chlorpyrifos is a cholinesterase inhibitor. Treat symptomatically. Atropine, only by injection, is the preferable antidote. PRECAUTIONARY STATEMENTS HAZARDS TO HUMANS AND DOMESTIC ANIMALS CAUTION: Harmful if swallowed or absorbed through skin or inhaled.
    [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]
  • Historical Use of Lead Arsenate and Survey of Soil Residues in Former Apple Orchards in Virginia
    HISTORICAL USE OF LEAD ARSENATE AND SURVEY OF SOIL RESIDUES IN FORMER APPLE ORCHARDS IN VIRGINIA by Therese Nowak Schooley Thesis submitted to the faculty of the Virginia Polytechnic Institute and State University in partial fulfillment of the requirements for the degree of MASTER OF SCIENCE IN LIFE SCIENCES in Entomology Michael J. Weaver, Chair Donald E. Mullins, Co-Chair Matthew J. Eick May 4, 2006 Blacksburg, Virginia Keywords: arsenic, lead, lead arsenate, orchards, soil residues, historical pesticides HISTORICAL USE OF LEAD ARSENATE AND SURVEY OF SOIL RESIDUES IN FORMER APPLE ORCHARDS IN VIRGINIA Therese Nowak Schooley Abstract Inorganic pesticides including natural chemicals such as arsenic, copper, lead, and sulfur have been used extensively to control pests in agriculture. Lead arsenate (PbHAsO4) was first used in apple orchards in the late 1890’s to combat the codling moth, Cydia pomonella (Linnaeus). The affordable and persistent pesticide was applied in ever increasing amounts for the next half century. The persistence in the environment in addition to the heavy applications during the early 1900’s may have led to many of the current and former orchards in this country being contaminated. In this study, soil samples were taken from several apple orchards across the state, ranging from Southwest to Northern Virginia and were analyzed for arsenic and lead. Based on naturally occurring background levels and standards set by other states, two orchards sampled in this study were found to have very high levels of arsenic and lead in the soil, Snead Farm and Mint Spring Recreational Park. Average arsenic levels at Mint Spring Recreational Park and Snead Farm were found to be 65.2 ppm and 107.6 ppm, respectively.
    [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]
  • Quantification of Neonicotinoid Pesticides in Six Cultivable Fish Species from the River Owena in Nigeria and a Template For
    water Article Quantification of Neonicotinoid Pesticides in Six Cultivable Fish Species from the River Owena in Nigeria and a Template for Food Safety Assessment Ayodeji O. Adegun 1, Thompson A. Akinnifesi 1, Isaac A. Ololade 1 , Rosa Busquets 2 , Peter S. Hooda 3 , Philip C.W. Cheung 4, Adeniyi K. Aseperi 2 and James Barker 2,* 1 Department of Chemical Sciences, Adekunle Ajasin University, Akungba Akoko P.M.B. 001, Ondo State, Nigeria; [email protected] (A.O.A.); [email protected] (T.A.A.); [email protected] (I.A.O.) 2 School of Life Sciences, Pharmacy and Chemistry, Kingston University, Kingston-upon-Thames KT1 2EE, UK; [email protected] (R.B.); [email protected] (A.K.A.) 3 School of Engineering and the Environment, Kingston University, Kingston-on-Thames KT1 2EE, UK; [email protected] 4 Department of Chemical Engineering, Imperial College, London SW7 2AZ, UK; [email protected] * Correspondence: [email protected] Received: 17 June 2020; Accepted: 24 August 2020; Published: 28 August 2020 Abstract: The Owena River Basin in Nigeria is an area of agricultural importance for the production of cocoa. To optimise crop yield, the cocoa trees require spraying with neonicotinoid insecticides (Imidacloprid, Thiacloprid Acetamiprid and Thiamethoxam). It is proposed that rainwater runoff from the treated area may pollute the Owena River and that these pesticides may thereby enter the human food chain via six species of fish (Clarias gariepinus, Clarias anguillaris, Sarotherodon galilaeus, Parachanna obscura, Oreochromis niloticus and Gymnarchus niloticus) which are cultured in the river mostly for local consumption.
    [Show full text]