Hostname: page-component-cd9895bd7-gvvz8 Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-12-25T18:58:08.233Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Studies on the Toxicity of insecticide Films*

III.—Effect of relative Humidity on the Toxicity of Films

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  10 July 2009

S. Pradhan
S. Pradhan
Affiliation:
Department of Insecticides and Fungicides, Rothamsted Experimental Station, Harpenden, Herts.
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Extract

Experiments on the effect of changes in relative humidity on the toxicity of DDT- and DNC-films to adults of Tribolium castaneum and larvae of Plutella maculipennis are described. With T. castaneum adults the toxicity of both DDT and DNC films is increased at higher relative humidities, but with larvae of P. maculipennis the toxicity of DDT films decreases while that of DNC films increases at higher humidities. Like these experiments the perusal of the literature does not help in deducing any general principle. However, it is possible to collect instances showing that besides the insect and the insecticide, there may be various factors like the range of humidity tested, the strength of the insecticide used, the stage of the insect, etc., which can affect the result of humidity changes.

Type
Original Articles
Information
Bulletin of Entomological Research , Volume 40 , Issue 3 , December 1949 , pp. 431 - 444
Copyright
Copyright © Cambridge University Press 1949

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

Bertrand, G. & others. (1919). C. R. Acad. Sci., Paris, 169, pp. 1057–1061.Google Scholar
Chapman, R. N. & Johnson, A. H. (1925). J. agric. Res., 31, pp. 745–760.Google Scholar
Craufurd-Benson, H. J. (1938). Bull. ent. Res., 29, pp. 41–56.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
David, W. A. L. (1946). Bull. ent. Res., 36, pp. 373–393.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Eddy, G. W. (1947). J. econ. Ent., 40, pp. 116–118.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Fisk, F. W. & Shepard, H. H. (1938). J. econ. Ent., 31, pp. 79–84.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Glass, E. H. (1944). J. econ. Ent., 37, pp. 74–78.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Gösswald, K. (1934). Z. angew. Ent., 20, pp. 489–530.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Hansens, E. J. (1944). J. econ. Ent., 37, pp. 750–755.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Harries, F. H., DeCoursey, J. D. & Hofmaster, R. N. (1945). J. agric. Res., 71, pp. 553–565.Google Scholar
Laug, E. P. (1946). J. Pharmacol., 86–87, pp. 324–331.Google Scholar
Lindgren, D. L. (1935). Tech. Bull. Minn. agric. Exp. Sta., no. 109, 32 pp.Google Scholar
Lindgren, D. L. & Shepard, H. H. (1932). J. econ. Ent., 25, pp. 248–253.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Mellanby, K. (1936). Nature, 138, p. 124.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Parkin, E. A. (1944). Ann. appl. Biol., 31, pp. 84–88.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Potter, C. & Gillham, E. M. (1946). Ann. appl. Biol., 33, pp. 142–159.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Pradhan, S. (1949a). Studies on the toxicity of insecticide films. Part I.—Bull. ent. Res., 40, pp. 1–25.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Pradhan, S. (1949b). Studies on the toxicity of insecticide films.—Part II.—T.c., pp. 239–265.Google Scholar
Quayle, H. J. (1934). Calif. Citrogr., 19, no. 10, p. 264. (Exp. Sta. Rec., 72, p. 225, 1935.)Google Scholar
Quayle, H. J. & Rohrbaugh, P. W. (1934). J. econ. Ent., 27, pp. 1083–1095.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Richardson, H. H. & others. (1943). Tech. Bull. U.S. Dep. Agric., no. 853, 20 pp.Google Scholar
Steiner, L. R. & Arnold, C. H. (1943). J. econ. Ent., 36, pp. 117–118.CrossRefGoogle Scholar