DOCSLIB.ORG

Laboratory Evaluation of Insect Growth Regulators Against Several Species of Anopheline Mosquitoes

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text

Load more

[~pn.J. Sanit. 2001. Vo1. 44 No. 4 p. 349-353 19931 Laboratory evaluation of insect growth regulators against several species of anopheline mosquitoes Hitoshi KAWADA,*Yoshinori SHONO,*Takaaki ITO* and Yasuo ABE* Agricultural Science Research Center, Takarazuka Research Center, Sumitomo Chemical Co., Ltd., Takarazuka 665, Japan (Received: May 27, 1993) Key words: insecticide, insect growth regulator, pyriproxyfen, methoprene, diflubenzuron, Anopheles, vector. -- - Abstract : Larvicide efficacy of insect growth regulators (pyriproxyfen, metho- prene and diflubenzuron), in comparison with the larvicidal and adulticidal efficacy of conventional insecticides, against several species of Anopheline mosquitoes includ- ing several insecticide resistant; strains were evaluated in laboratory conditions. In all species, no cross resistance between IGRs and the other kinds of insecticides, such as organophosphate, organochlorine, carbamate and pyrethroid, was observed. Relative effectiveness of pyriproxyfen to methoprene ranged from several to 40 times and that to diflubenzuron ranged from 19.5 times to more than 400 times. In this respect, IGRs (insect growth regu- lators) seem to be useful insecticides. Pyri- proxyfen, a juvenile hormone mimic, had Anopheline mosquito is one of the most high activities to mosquitoes in the field important vectors of tropical diseases. Re- (Kawada et al., 1988; Suzuki et al., 1989; sidual spray on the wall surface and treat- Okazawa et al., 1991). In this study, we ment of breeding areas with chemicals, such evaluated the larvicide efficacy of pyriproxy- as organochlorine, organophosphate and car- fen against several species of Anopheline bamate insecticides, have been employed as mosquitoes in laboratory conditions, compar- the best and appropriate ways of controlling ing with other insecticides, and discuss the these mosquitoes. However, as a result of possibility of its use as a new vector control over-use or inappropriate treatment of in- agent. secticides, many cases of insecticide resistance development have been reported (Heming- way and Georghiou, 1983; Scott and Georg- hiou, 1986; Hemingway et al., 1986). The I. Test chemicals. Pyriproxyfen : 4-phe- adoption of insecticides with different modes noxyphenyl (RS)-2- (2-pyridyloxy) propyl of action from conventional ones and the ether (576 emulsifiable concentrate). Metho- combination use of them could provide a prene : isopropyl- (2E, 4E) - 11-methoxy-3, 7, solution to overcome this problem. 11-trimethyl-2, 4-dodecadienoate (570 emul- * , , , , , : sifiable concentrate). Diflubenzuron: 1- (4- 4L%r% (%)5~%i&&@%%~f%F@E% chlorophenyl) -3- (2, 6-difluorobenzoyl). urea (7665 ZgfiSd 4-2-1) (25% wettable powder formulation in com- 350 Jpn. J. Sanit. 2001. Table 1 Anopheline mosquitoes used in the study. Species Strain Site of collection Institution introduced A. stephensi SUS - St. Marianna Univ. MLT-R Pakistan London Univ. A. gambiae SUS Tanzania London Univ. DLD-R Burkina fuso London Univ. DDT-R Africa London Univ. A. albimanus SUS - London Univ. OPC-R El-Salvador London Univ. A. fa~auti Solomon Islands Ministry of Health, Solomon Islands SUS, strain which shows normal susceptibility to insecticides; MLT-R, malathion resistant DLD-R; dieldrin resistant; DDT-R, DDT resistant; OPC-R, organophosphate and carbamate resistant. mercial (Dimilinm, Sankyo Co., Ltd.) was ally applied to the dorsal mesothorax of a used) . Temephos : 0, Or-(thiodi-4, l-pheny- 2- to 3-days-old female adult. Insects treated lene) bis (0, 0'-dimethyl phosphorothioate) were kept under the conditions noted above (5% emulsifiable concentrate) . Fenitro- and fed with 3% sugar solution. Mortality thion: 0, 0-dimethyl 0-4-nitro-rn-tolyl phos- was observed 24 hr after treatment. The data phorothioate (59% emulsifiable concentrate). obtained were corrected by the mortality of Malathion : diethyl mercaptosuccinate S-ester untreated adults and LDj0 was calculated with 0, 0-dimethyl phosphorodithioate (55% by Bliss' probit method (Bliss, 1934). emulsifiable concentrate) . Propoxur : 2- (1- (2) Larval susceptibility : An emulsifi- methylethoxy ) phenol methylcarbamate (5% able concentrate of each chemical and wet- emulsifiable concentrate) . DDT : dichloro table powder of diflubenzuron were used. diphenyl trichloroethane. Dieldrin : ( 1R, 4S, The test formulation was diluted with de- 4aS, 5R, 6R, 7S, 8S, 8aR)-I, 2, 3, 4, 10, 10- ionized water at appropriate concentrations. hexachloro-1, 4, 4a, 5, 6, 7, 8, 8a-octahydro- Thirty 4th instar larvae were released into 6, 7-epoxy l, 4 :5, 8-dimethanaphthalene. Per- 150 ml of each test solution in an aluminum methrin : 3-phenoxybenzyl ( 1RS, 3RS : 1RS, cup. After 24 hr, mortality was observed and 3SR) -3- (2, 2-dichlorovinyl) -2, Z-dimethyl- LD5, was caIculated in the same manner cyclopropane carboxylate (5% emulsifiable noted above. In the case of IGRs, larvae concentrate). were reared in the solution until adult emer- 2. Test insects. Adults and larvae of gence. The percentage of emergence was Anopheline mosquitoes, A. stephensi, A. garn- corrected by that of control to calculate ICio biae, A. albimanus, A. farauti, were used. in the same manner noted above. Table 1 shows their collection sites and the institutes which provided colonies to us. In- sects were reared at 25°C and 60% RH, under 16L-8D photoperiodic regime. Resist- 1. Adult and larval susceptibility to insecti- ant strains were selected periodically with cides insecticides at the larval stage in OPC-R Adult and larval susceptibility to insecti- strain of A. albimanus and adult stage in the cides is shown in Figs. 1 and 2. Adult MLT- other strains. R strain of A. steplzensi showed higher resist- 3. Bioassays. All experiments were con- ance to malathion (R/S ratio= 71 ) than lar- ducted under the same conditions described vae (R/S ratio=2.6). The degree of cross above. resistance between malathion and fenitrothion (1) Adult susceptibility: A 0.3 ace- was small in this strain. This is due to the tone solution of the test chemical was topic- resistance factor of malathion carboxyleste- Vo1. 44 No. 4 1993 LDjO for SUS stram Pemethrin Dieldrin DDT Propoxur Malathion Fenitrothion 1 10 100 Relative resistance ratlo Fig. 1 Efficacy of insecticides to adult Anopheline mosquitoes by topical application. Figures in abscissa indicate resistance ratio to SUS strain (strain which shows normal susceptibility to insecticides). Figures in ordinate indicate LDzo (pg/female) for SUS strain: upper, A. stephensi; middle, A. gambiae; bottom, A. albimanus. LC50 far SUS stman .................... ............................... ........................ Malathion (I 19 .............................. Fenitrothion ooii 10 100 Re1atiL.e res~sta~lceratio Fig. 2 Efficacy of insecticides to larval Anopheline mosquitoes. Figures in abscissa indicate resistance ratio to SUS strain (strain which shows normal susceptibility to insecticides). Figures in ordinate indicate LC, (ppm) for sus strain: upper, A. stephensi; middle, A. gambiae; bottom, A. albinanu5. 352 Jpn. J. Sanit. 2001. Table 2 IC,, values of IGRs against the last instar larvae of Anopheline mosquitoes ICso (ppb) Species Strain Pyriproxyfen Methoprene DiAubenzuron A. stephensi SUS 0.043 0.54 0.84 (0. 01 1-0.16) (0.39-0.77) (0.71-0.99) MLT-R 0.025 0.75 1.6 (0.019-0.034) (0.099-5.6) (1.4-1. 7) A. gambiae SUS DLD-R 0.0098 0.039 0.87 (0.0025-0.038) (0.011-0. 14) (0.76-0.99) DDT-R 0.0040 0.072 1.9 (0.0028-0.0057) (0.0023-2.3) (0.53-7.1) A. albimanus SUS OPC-R 0.00042 0.016 0.20 (0.000035-0.005) (0.012-0.021) - A. farauti 0.0017 - - (0.011-0. 16) - - Numbers in parentheses are 95% fiducial limits. Blank area indicates that no test was done. rase (Scott and Georghiou, 1986). Differ- was 41 for adult and 100 for larva). ences in adult and larval susceptibility of three strains of A. gambiae to organophos- 2. Larval susceptibility to insect growth phate and propoxur were not observed. Re- regulators sistance ratio of DDT-R strain to DDT was Larval susceptibility to insect growth regu- significant but moderate (R/S ratio was 4.8 lators is shown in Table 2. IC,, of pyriproxy- for adult and 8.8 for larva). Cross resistance fen ranged widely from 0.00042 ppb (A. between DDT and dieldrin or permethrin was albimanus OPC-R) to 0.043 ppb (A. ste- not observed. Resistance ratio of OPC-R phensi SUS). In A. stephensi there was no strain of A. albimanus to organophosphate difference in susceptibility to pyriproxyfen of was smaIler than that to propoxur. Larvae SUS strains and that of malathion-resistant of this strain showed higher resistance to strain. In contrast, in A. albimanus and A. temephos than the other strains. gambiae, susceptibility to pyriproxyfen was Larval resistance ratio of each strain was rather higher in resistant strains than in SUS relatively smaller than that of adult except strains. These results indicate that there is for A. albimanus OPC-R. This seems to be no cross resistance between pyriproxyfen and explained by the fact that A. albimanus OPC- the other insecticides, such as organophos- R strain was selected at larval stages with phate, carbamate and pyrethroids. Schaefer severe contamination of various insecticides et al. (1988) also reported that IC,,s of for agricultural use (Bruce-Chwatt, 1985). pyriproxyfen for SUS and organophosphate A. gambiae DLD-R strain showed high resist- resistant strain for Culex quinquefasciatus ance to dieldrin in both stages (R/S ratio were 0.018 and 0.022 ppb, and those for C. Vol. 44 No. 4 1993 tarsalis were 0.021 and 0.052 ppb, respective- Hemingway, J. and G. P. Georghiou (1983): ly. There also seemed to be no cross resist- Studies on the acetylcholin esterase of Anopheles ance between methoprene or diflubenzuron albimanus resistant and susceptible to organo- phosphate and carbamate insecticides. Pestic. and the other insecticides. Relative effective- Biochem. Physiol., 19: 167-1 71. ness of pyriproxyfen to methoprene was less Hemingway, J., K. G. Jayawardena and P.
Recommended publications
  • Potential for Resistance to Pyriproxyfen: a Promising

    Potential for Resistance to Pyriproxyfen: a Promising

    SEPTEMBER 199I RnsrsreNcn PornNtrer, To PyRrpRoxyFEN POTENTIAL FOR RESISTANCETO PYRIPROXYFEN:A PROMISING NEW MOSQUITO LARVICIDE C. H. SCHAEFER eNo F. S. MULLIGAN III1 Mosquito Control Researchlnboratory, IJniuersity of California, 9240 S. Riuerbend,Auenue, Parli.er, CA 93648 ABSTRACT. An organophosphorus-resistantstrain of Culcx quin4u.efasciaturwas pressured with pyriproxyfen for 1? genbrations.Egg viability began declining in the F? generation and becamelower as the ielection procesi continued; by the F17generation egg viabilif was too low to proceed further. Susceptibility tests on larvae of the Fs, Fro, Frr, and Frz generationsshowed no indication of increased tolerance to pyriproxyfen. INTRODUCTION of chlorpyrifos and related compounds due to insecticide resistance(Stewart 1975). Pyriproxyfen, 2-[1-methyl-2-(4-phenoxy- Another consideration is the potential for phenoxy)ethoxyl pyridine, is also known as S- cross-resistanceof strains which have already 31183and by the trademark names Nylar@and been selectedfor insecticide resistance.For ex- [email protected] compound acts as a juvenile ample, when a new benzamide larvicide which hormone mimic; it doesnot producedirect larval had a high degreeof efficacy against mosquitoes toxicity but disrupts the normal processof insect was used to pressure an organophosphorus-re- development, which results in pupal mortality sistant (OP-R) strain of Cx. quirquefasciatu.s, or in the production of abnormal adults. Pyri- cross-resistancebecame apparent after only 4 proxyfen is highly active against a variety of generationsof selection (Schaeferet al. 1981). insects of public health importance including Information on how quickly insecticide-resist- cockroaches (Chow and Yang 1990), fleas ant strains might develop tolerance to pyri- (Palma and Meola 1990),the tsetsefly (Langley proxyfen was sought.Insecticide pressure exper- et al.
  • Historical Perspectives on Apple Production: Fruit Tree Pest Management, Regulation and New Insecticidal Chemistries

    Historical Perspectives on Apple Production: Fruit Tree Pest Management, Regulation and New Insecticidal Chemistries

    Historical Perspectives on Apple Production: Fruit Tree Pest Management, Regulation and New Insecticidal Chemistries. Peter Jentsch Extension Associate Department of Entomology Cornell University's Hudson Valley Lab 3357 Rt. 9W; PO box 727 Highland, NY 12528 email: [email protected] Phone 845-691-7151 Mobile: 845-417-7465 http://www.nysaes.cornell.edu/ent/faculty/jentsch/ 2 Historical Perspectives on Fruit Production: Fruit Tree Pest Management, Regulation and New Chemistries. by Peter Jentsch I. Historical Use of Pesticides in Apple Production Overview of Apple Production and Pest Management Prior to 1940 Synthetic Pesticide Development and Use II. Influences Changing the Pest Management Profile in Apple Production Chemical Residues in Early Insect Management Historical Chemical Regulation Recent Regulation Developments Changing Pest Management Food Quality Protection Act of 1996 The Science Behind The Methodology Pesticide Revisions – Requirements For New Registrations III. Resistance of Insect Pests to Insecticides Resistance Pest Management Strategies IV. Reduced Risk Chemistries: New Modes of Action and the Insecticide Treadmill Fermentation Microbial Products Bt’s, Abamectins, Spinosads Juvenile Hormone Analogs Formamidines, Juvenile Hormone Analogs And Mimics Insect Growth Regulators Azadirachtin, Thiadiazine Neonicotinyls Major Reduced Risk Materials: Carboxamides, Carboxylic Acid Esters, Granulosis Viruses, Diphenyloxazolines, Insecticidal Soaps, Benzoyl Urea Growth Regulators, Tetronic Acids, Oxadiazenes , Particle Films, Phenoxypyrazoles, Pyridazinones, Spinosads, Tetrazines , Organotins, Quinolines. 3 I Historical Use of Pesticides in Apple Production Overview of Apple Production and Pest Management Prior to 1940 The apple has a rather ominous origin. Its inception is framed in the biblical text regarding the genesis of mankind. The backdrop appears to be the turbulent setting of what many scholars believe to be present day Iraq.
  • Interim Reregistration Eligibility Decision (IRED) for Carbaryl Is Being Published in the Federal Register

    Interim Reregistration Eligibility Decision (IRED) for Carbaryl Is Being Published in the Federal Register

    CARBARYL IRED FACTS [Revised 10/22/04] Action and Rationale EPA has assessed the risks of carbaryl and, on June 30, 2003, reached an Interim Reregistration Eligibility Decision (IRED) for this carbamate pesticide. A revised IRED document is being released for public comment on October 27, 2004. A letter from EPA to registrants dated October 22, 2004 precedes the IRED document and explains the revisions made. Although all uses may not meet the current safety standard and some uses may pose unreasonable risks to human health and the environment, these effects can be mitigated by the measures identified in the Carbaryl IRED. Provided that these risk mitigation measures are adopted, aggregate risks for carbaryl alone will be within acceptable levels and the pesticide will be eligible for reregistration once EPA considers the cumulative risks of the carbamates. Carbaryl is one of the most widely used broad-spectrum insecticides in agriculture, professional turf management and ornamental production, and residential pet, lawn, and garden markets. Although dietary (food and drinking water) exposures are not of concern, carbaryl does pose risks of concern from uses in and around the home. With mitigation measures discussed in the IRED document, carbaryl will fit into its own “risk cup” and will not pose significant aggregate risk concerns. Carbaryl also poses risks of concern to occupational handlers who mix, load, and apply the pesticide in agricultural sites, and to workers who may be exposed upon re-entering treated agricultural areas. Carbaryl poses ecological risks, particularly to honey bees and aquatic invertebrates. With mitigation measures, these occupational and ecological risks also will not be of concern for reregistration.
  • US EPA, Pesticide Product Label, PYRIPROXYFEN 10% EC,06/24

    US EPA, Pesticide Product Label, PYRIPROXYFEN 10% EC,06/24

    UNITED STATES ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY WASHINGTON, DC 20460 OFFICE OF CHEMICAL SAFETY AND POLLUTION PREVENTION June 24, 2021 Lisa Adamson Regulatory Manager Control Solutions, Inc. 5903 Genoa-Red Bluff Pasadena, TX 77507-1041 Subject: Registration Review Label Mitigation for Pyriproxyfen Product Name: Pyriproxyfen 10% EC EPA Registration Number: 53883-280 Application Date: 02/21/2020 Decision Number: 560323 Dear Ms. Adamson: The Agency, in accordance with the Federal Insecticide, Fungicide and Rodenticide Act (FIFRA), as amended, has completed reviewing all the information submitted with your application to support the Registration Review of the above referenced product in connection with the Pyriproxyfen Interim Decision, and has concluded that your submission is acceptable. The label referred to above, submitted in connection with registration under FIFRA, as amended, is acceptable. Should you wish to add/retain a reference to the company’s website on your label, then please be aware that the website becomes labeling under the Federal Insecticide Fungicide and Rodenticide Act and is subject to review by the Agency. If the website is false or misleading, the product would be misbranded and unlawful to sell or distribute under FIFRA section 12(a)(1)(E). 40 CFR 156.10(a)(5) list examples of statements EPA may consider false or misleading. In addition, regardless of whether a website is referenced on your product’s label, claims made on the website may not substantially differ from those claims approved through the registration process. Therefore, should the Agency find or if it is brought to our attention that a website contains false or misleading statements or claims substantially differing from the EPA approved registration, the website will be referred to the EPA’s Office of Enforcement and Compliance.
  • APPENDIX G3 Diflubenzuron Rejected by OPP and ECOTOX

    APPENDIX G3 Diflubenzuron Rejected by OPP and ECOTOX

    APPENDIX G3 Diflubenzuron Rejected by OPP and ECOTOX Rejected Abgrall, J. F. (1999). Short and Medium Term Impact of Aerial Application of Insecticide Against the Winter Moth (Operophtera Brumata L.). Revue forestiere francaise (nancy) 50: 395-404. Chem Codes: Chemical of Concern: DFZ Rejection Code: NON-ENGLISH. Aguirre-Uribe, L. A., Lozoya-Saldana, A., Luis-Jauregui, A., Quinones-Luna, S., and Juarez-Ramos, F. (1991(1992)). Field Evaluation for the Population Control of Musca Domestica (Diptera: Muscidae) in Chicken Manure With Diflubenzuron. Folia entomol mex 0: 143-151. Chem Codes: Chemical of Concern: DFZ Rejection Code: NON-ENGLISH. Akanbi, M. O. and Ashiru, M. O. (1991). Towards Integrated Pest Management of Forest Defoliators the Nigerian Situation. Xviii international congress of entomology, vancouver, british columbia, canada, 1988. For ecol manage 39: 81-86. Chem Codes: Chemical of Concern: DFZ Rejection Code: REVIEW,CHEM METHODS. Akiyama, Y., Yoshioka, N., Yano, M., Mitsuhashi, T., Takeda, N., Tsuji, M., and Matsushita, S. (1997). Pesticide Residues in Agricultural Products (F.y. 1994-1996). J.Food Hyg.Soc.Jpn. 38: 381-389 (JPN) . Chem Codes: Chemical of Concern: FNT,ACP,DZ,DDVP,MTM,CYP,EFX,FNV,FVL,PMR,MOM,BFZ,IPD,TFZ,CYF,TFY,MLN,BPH,ILL,T BA,DPHP,ES,DM,BTN,FRM,IPD,MYC,TDF,TDM Rejection Code: NON-ENGLISH. Alho, C. Jr and Vieira, L. M. (1997). Fish and Wildlife Resources in the Pantanal Wetlands of Brazil and Potential Disturbances From the Release of Environmental Contaminants. Environmental toxicology and chemistry 16: 71-74. Chem Codes: Chemical of Concern: DFZ Rejection Code: REVIEW. Ali, A.
  • Effect of Dinotefuran, Permethrin, and Pyriproxyfen

    Effect of Dinotefuran, Permethrin, and Pyriproxyfen

    insects Article Effect of Dinotefuran, Permethrin, and Pyriproxyfen (Vectra® 3D) on the Foraging and Blood-Feeding Behaviors of Aedes albopictus Using Laboratory Rodent Model Younes Laidoudi 1,2 , Djamel Tahir 1,2 , Hacène Medkour 1,2 , Marie Varloud 3 , Oleg Mediannikov 1,2 and Bernard Davoust 1,2,* 1 AP-HM, Microbes, Evolution, Phylogeny and Infection (MEPHI), IHU Méditerranée Infection, IRD, Aix Marseille Univ, 19-21, Bd Jean Moulin, 13005 Marseille, France; [email protected] (Y.L.); [email protected] (D.T.); [email protected] (H.M.); [email protected] (O.M.) 2 IHU Méditerranée Infection, 19-21, Bd Jean Moulin, 13005 Marseille, France 3 Ceva Santé Animale, 10, Av de la Ballastière, 33500 Libourne, France; [email protected] * Correspondence: [email protected] Received: 26 June 2020; Accepted: 4 August 2020; Published: 5 August 2020 Simple Summary: Tiger mosquito (Aedes albopictus) is a harmful vector involved in the transmission of several diseases to humans and their pets. Currently, several veterinary products are used to prevent pets against bites of arthropod vectors. However, there is no available information on the effect of these products on feeding and host choice behaviors of Aedes albopictus in the presence of treated and untreated hosts, as is the case of treated dogs present in close physical contact with their owners. The present study investigated the effect of a spot-on product (Vectra® 3D) on the feeding and host choice behaviours of Aedes albopictus when treated and untreated hosts are presents. Laboratory rodent model was performed to simulate the natural conditions. Rat and mouse hosts were alternately treated with Vectra® 3D and exposed simultaneously to starved mosquitoes.
  • US EPA, Pesticide Product Label, Sergeant's Imidacloprid + Pyriproxyfen Spot on for Cats,03/10/2016

    US EPA, Pesticide Product Label, Sergeant's Imidacloprid + Pyriproxyfen Spot on for Cats,03/10/2016

    U.S. ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY EPA Reg. Number: Date of Issuance: Office of Pesticide Programs Registration Division (7505P) 2517-175 3/10/16 1200 Pennsylvania Ave., N.W. Washington, D.C. 20460 NOTICE OF PESTICIDE: X Registration Term of Issuance: Reregistration Conditional, Time-Limited Expires: 3/10/2018 (under FIFRA, as amended) Name of Pesticide Product: Sergeant’s Imidacloprid + Pyriproxifen Spot On for Cats Name and Address of Registrant (include ZIP Code): Kelly R. Hoskins Sergeant’s Pet care Products, Inc. 10077 South 134th Street Omaha, NE 68138-3710 Note: Changes in labeling differing in substance from that accepted in connection with this registration must be submitted to and accepted by the Registration Division prior to use of the label in commerce. In any correspondence on this product always refer to the above EPA registration number. On the basis of information furnished by the registrant, the above named pesticide is hereby registered under the Federal Insecticide, Fungicide and Rodenticide Act. Registration is in no way to be construed as an endorsement or recommendation of this product by the Agency. In order to protect health and the environment, the Administrator, on his motion, may at any time suspend or cancel the registration of a pesticide in accordance with the Act. The acceptance of any name in connection with the registration of a product under this Act is not to be construed as giving the registrant a right to exclusive use of the name or to its use if it has been covered by others. This product is conditionally registered in accordance with FIFRA section 3(c)(7)(A).
  • Proposed Interim Registration Review Decision for Imidacloprid

    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 ............................................................................................................
  • Pesticides and Toxic Substances

    Pesticides and Toxic Substances

    UNITED STATES ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY WASHINGTON D.C., 20460 OFFICE OF PREVENTION, PESTICIDES AND TOXIC SUBSTANCES MEMORANDUM DATE: July 31, 2006 SUBJECT: Finalization of Interim Reregistration Eligibility Decisions (IREDs) and Interim Tolerance Reassessment and Risk Management Decisions (TREDs) for the Organophosphate Pesticides, and Completion of the Tolerance Reassessment and Reregistration Eligibility Process for the Organophosphate Pesticides FROM: Debra Edwards, Director Special Review and Reregistration Division Office of Pesticide Programs TO: Jim Jones, Director Office of Pesticide Programs As you know, EPA has completed its assessment of the cumulative risks from the organophosphate (OP) class of pesticides as required by the Food Quality Protection Act of 1996. In addition, the individual OPs have also been subject to review through the individual- chemical review process. The Agency’s review of individual OPs has resulted in the issuance of Interim Reregistration Eligibility Decisions (IREDs) for 22 OPs, interim Tolerance Reassessment and Risk Management Decisions (TREDs) for 8 OPs, and a Reregistration Eligibility Decision (RED) for one OP, malathion.1 These 31 OPs are listed in Appendix A. EPA has concluded, after completing its assessment of the cumulative risks associated with exposures to all of the OPs, that: (1) the pesticides covered by the IREDs that were pending the results of the OP cumulative assessment (listed in Attachment A) are indeed eligible for reregistration; and 1 Malathion is included in the OP cumulative assessment. However, the Agency has issued a RED for malathion, rather than an IRED, because the decision was signed on the same day as the completion of the OP cumulative assessment.
  • Recommended Classification of Pesticides by Hazard and Guidelines to Classification 2019 Theinternational Programme on Chemical Safety (IPCS) Was Established in 1980

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

    The WHO Recommended Classi cation of Pesticides by Hazard and Guidelines to Classi cation 2019 cation Hazard of Pesticides by and Guidelines to Classi The WHO Recommended Classi The WHO Recommended Classi cation of Pesticides by Hazard and Guidelines to Classi cation 2019 The WHO Recommended Classification of Pesticides by Hazard and Guidelines to Classification 2019 TheInternational Programme on Chemical Safety (IPCS) was established in 1980. The overall objectives of the IPCS are to establish the scientific basis for assessment of the risk to human health and the environment from exposure to chemicals, through international peer review processes, as a prerequisite for the promotion of chemical safety, and to provide technical assistance in strengthening national capacities for the sound management of chemicals. This publication was developed in the IOMC context. The contents do not necessarily reflect the views or stated policies of individual IOMC Participating Organizations. The Inter-Organization Programme for the Sound Management of Chemicals (IOMC) was established in 1995 following recommendations made by the 1992 UN Conference on Environment and Development to strengthen cooperation and increase international coordination in the field of chemical safety. The Participating Organizations are: FAO, ILO, UNDP, UNEP, UNIDO, UNITAR, WHO, World Bank and OECD. The purpose of the IOMC is to promote coordination of the policies and activities pursued by the Participating Organizations, jointly or separately, to achieve the sound management of chemicals in relation to human health and the environment. WHO recommended classification of pesticides by hazard and guidelines to classification, 2019 edition ISBN 978-92-4-000566-2 (electronic version) ISBN 978-92-4-000567-9 (print version) ISSN 1684-1042 © World Health Organization 2020 Some rights reserved.
  • Fate of Pyriproxyfen in Soils and Plants

    Fate of Pyriproxyfen in Soils and Plants

    toxics Review Fate of Pyriproxyfen in Soils and Plants James Devillers CTIS, 3 Chemin de la Gravière, 69140 Rillieux-La-Pape, France; [email protected] Received: 17 February 2020; Accepted: 10 March 2020; Published: 13 March 2020 Abstract: Since the 1990s, the insect growth regulator pyriproxyfen has been widely used worldwide as a larvicide in vector control and in agriculture to fight a very large number of pests. Due to its widespread use it is of first importance to know how pyriproxyfen behaves in the terrestrial ecosystems. This was the goal of this work to establish the fate profile of pyriproxyfen in soils and plants. Thus, in soil, pyriproxyfen photodegrades slowly but its aerobic degradation is fast. The insecticide presents a high tendency to adsorb onto soils and it is not subject to leaching into groundwater. On the contrary its two main metabolites (40-OH-Pyr and PYPAC) show a different fate in soil. When sprayed to plants, pyriproxyfen behaves as a translaminar insecticide. Its half-life in plants ranges from less than one week to about three weeks. The review ends by showing how the fate profile of pyriproxyfen in soils and plants influences the adverse effects of the molecule on non-target organisms. Keywords: pyriproxyfen; soil; plant; metabolites; insect growth regulator; endocrine disruptor; terrestrial ecosystems 1. Introduction The behavior of pesticides in soils is under the dependence of physical, chemical, and biological processes including volatilization, sorption–desorption, aerobic and anaerobic degradation, uptake and release by plants, run-off, and leaching. These various complex processes control the transport of pesticides within the soil and their transfer from the soil to the other environmental compartments [1–3].
  • Grasshopper Control in Pastures, Rangeland, and Non-Crop Areas

    Grasshopper Control in Pastures, Rangeland, and Non-Crop Areas

    Grasshopper Control in Pastures, Rangeland, and Non-Crop Areas – 2002 James Robinson Extension Entomologist Texas A&M University Agricultural Research & Extension Center, Overton Grasshoppers may cause problems in Texas again this year. Pesticides labeled for hopper control in pasture, rangelands and non-crop areas are listed below. Note: the restrictions are for beef cattle only. If these products are used on a dairy, refer to the label for information on harvest and grazing. Insecticides Labeled for Grasshopper Control in Pastures or Rangeland Malathion 57 EC: Use 1 ½ to 2 pts per acre. There are no grazing or harvest restrictions. Malathion ULV: Use 8-12 fluid ounces per acre. This product is specifically designed for aircraft and ground equipment capable of applying ultra low volumes. There are no grazing or harvest restrictions. Carbaryl: Sevin 4F and Sevin XLR. Use ½ to 1 qt per acre. Restrictions: Rangeland: May be harvested or grazed the same day as application. Do not make more than one application per year. Pasture: Do not apply within 14 days of harvest or grazing. Do not exceed 3 3/4 pounds per acre per year. Up to two applications per year may be made but not more often than once every 14 days. Carbaryl: Sevin 4-Oil ULV. Use 3/8 to 1 qt per acre. For use only on rangeland. This product is not labeled for pastures. Restrictions: Do not make more than one application per year. May be harvested or grazed the same day as treatment. Do not apply more than one quart per acre per year.