Hostname: page-component-cd9895bd7-jn8rn Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-12-22T19:41:24.572Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Contact Activity and Real Toxicity of some Iodo-Nitrobenzene Compounds*

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  10 July 2009

B. J. Krijgsman  and
Tita Lingbeek
B. J. Krijgsman
Affiliation:
Zoology Department, University of Cape Town.
Tita Lingbeek
Affiliation:
Zoology Department, University of Cape Town.
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Extract

Experiments have been carried out on the insecticidal action of p-, m- and o-iodo-nitrobenzene and their dichlorides. The real toxicity of these substances was estimated with the micro-injection method of Dresden, the contact action with the petri-dish method of Krijgsman & Berger. The real toxicity of the p- compounds appeared to be somewhat higher than that of their isomers. The dichlorides showed a somewhat higher toxicity than the other compounds. The contact action of the p- compounds is much higher than that of their isomers. This is caused by considerable differences in permeation velocity. The position of the iodine atom affects the permeation velocity very considerably but has much less influence on the real toxicity. It is suggested that the enhanced effect of the p- position on the permeation velocity is a general rule.

P-iodo-nitrobenzenedichloride shows such a high permeation velocity that it must be considered as a promising contact insecticide despite the fact that its real toxicity is low as compared with several other modern insecticides.

Type
Original Articles
Information
Bulletin of Entomological Research , Volume 42 , Issue 1 , September 1951 , pp. 135 - 141
Copyright
Copyright © Cambridge University Press 1951

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

Bushland, R. C. (1940). J. econ. Ent., 33, pp. 669–676.Google Scholar
Dresden, D. (1949). Doct. Thesis Univ. Utrecht.Google Scholar
Dresden, D. & Krijgsman, B. L. (1948). Bull. ent. Res., 38, pp. 575–578.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Fink, D. E., Smith, L. E., Vivian, D. J. & Claborn, H. V. (1938). U.S. Bur. Ent., E425, 34 pp.Google Scholar
Gersdorff, W. A. & Smith, L. E. (1940). Amer. J. Pharm., 112, pp. 197–204, 316–322, 389–394.Google Scholar
Krijgsman, B. J. (1947). T.N.O. Nieuws, 2, pp. 41–43.Google Scholar
Krijgsman, B. J. (1949). T.N.O. Nieuws, 4, pp. 195–198.Google Scholar
Krijgsman, B. J. & Berger, N. E. (1949). Bull. ent. Res., 40, pp. 355–358.Google Scholar
McGovran, E. R. (1934). Iowa St. Coll. J. Sci., 9, pp. 177–179.Google Scholar
McGovran, E. R. (1936). J. econ. Ent., 29, pp. 417–420.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Questel, D. D., Gertler, S. I., Smith, L. E. & Vivian, D. L. (1941). U.S. Dep. Agric., Bur. Ent., E557, 17 pp. 2 figs.Google Scholar
Siegler, E. H., Munger, F. & Smith, L. E. (1939). J. econ. Ent., 32, pp. 129–131.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Siegler, E. H., Munger, F. & Smith, L. E., (1939). Circ. U.S. Dep. Agric., no. 523, 9 pp.Google Scholar
Smith, L. E. (1942). Industr. Engng. Chern., Industr. Edn., 34, pp. 499–501.Google Scholar
Smith, L. E., Siegler, E. H. & Munger, F. (1936). J. econ. Ent., 29, p. 1,027.Google Scholar
Smith, L. E., Siegler, E. H. & Munger, F. (1938). J. econ. Ent., 31, pp. 322–323.Google Scholar