Hostname: page-component-7dd5485656-zlgnt Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2025-10-31T00:35:37.198Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Studies on Aqueous Suspensions of Insecticides. Part III. Factors affecting the Persistence of some Synthetic Insecticides

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  10 July 2009

A. B. Hadaway  and
F. Barlow
A. B. Hadaway
Affiliation:
Colonial Insecticide Research Unit, Porton.
F. Barlow
Affiliation:
Colonial Insecticide Research Unit, Porton.
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Extract

Factors affecting the persistence of deposits from aqueous suspensions of insecticides have been studied.

There is an inverse relationship between particle size of insecticides and the initial contact toxicity to mosquitos. The influence of particle size on effectiveness decreases as the intrinsic toxicity of the insecticide increases. The compounds investigated can be arranged in order of immediate contact toxicity to mosquitos (Aëdes aegypti): dieldrin ≥ gamma-BHC > aldrin > DDT.

Information

Type
Research Article
Information
Bulletin of Entomological Research , Volume 43 , Issue 2 , July 1952 , pp. 281 - 311
Copyright
Copyright © Cambridge University Press 1952

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.)

Article purchase

Temporarily unavailable

References

Balson, E.W.. (1947). Trans. Faraday Soc., 43, p. 54.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Barlow, F. & Hadaway, A.B.. (1952). Bull. ent. Res.., 42, p. 769.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Bertram, D.M.. (1950). Ann. trop. Med. Parasit., 44, p. 242.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Davidson, G.. (1950). Ann. trop. Med. Parasit.., 44, 1.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Downs, W.G.., Bordas, E. & Navarro, L.. (1951). Science, 114, p. 259.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Fay, R.W.., Cole, E.L. & Simmons, S.W.. (1948). Soap & sanit, Chem., 24, no. 6, p. 130.Google Scholar
Fulton, R.A.., Nelson, R.H. & Smith, F.F.. (1950). J. econ. Ent., 43, p. 223.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Garnham, P.C.C.. (1929). J. trop. Med. Hyg., 32, p. 207.Google Scholar
Gibbins, E.G.. (1933). Ann. trop. Med. Parasit., 27, p. 15.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Hadaway, A.B.. (1950). Bull. ent. Res., 41, p. 63.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Hadaway, A.B. & Barlow, F.. (1949). Bull. ent. Res., 40. p. 323.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Hadaway, A.B. & Barlow, F.. (1951). Bull. ent. Res., 41, p. 603.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Haddow, A.J.. (1942). Bull. ent. Res., 33, p. 91.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Kruse, C.W. & Konchacy, D. (1950). Indian J. Malariol., 4, p. 267.Google Scholar
Kuhn, W. & Massini, P.., (1949). Helv. chim. Acta., 32, p. 1530.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
MuirheadThomson, R.C.. (1950). Trans. R Soc. trop. Med. Hyg.., 43, p. 401.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Riemschneider, R.. (1950). Pharmazie, Beih. 9'Ergänzungsbd I., p. 649.Google Scholar
Sundararaman, S. & Peffly, R.L.. (1949). J. nat. Malar. Soc., 8, p. 267.Google Scholar
Wharton, R.H.. (1951). Bull. ent. Res., 42. p. 1.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Wharton, R.H. & Reid, J.A.. (1950). Nature, 165, p. 28.CrossRefGoogle Scholar