Hostname: page-component-cd9895bd7-dzt6s Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-12-23T01:46:43.511Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Larvicidal effectiveness of three controlled-release formulations of Dursban and Dimilin on Culex pipiens L. and Aedes aegypti (L.)

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  27 March 2009

M. S. Saleh ,
I. A. Gaaboub  and
Sh. M. I. Kassem
M. S. Saleh
Affiliation:
Plant Protection Department, Faculty of Agriculture, University of Alexandria, Alexandria, Egypt
I. A. Gaaboub
Affiliation:
Plant Protection Department, Faculty of Agriculture, University of Alexandria, Alexandria, Egypt
Sh. M. I. Kassem
Affiliation:
Plant Protection Department, Faculty of Agriculture, University of Alexandria, Alexandria, Egypt
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Summary

Three plastic formulations of both Dursban and Dimilin were tested as controlledrelease pellets against larvae of C. pipiens and A. aegypti. Each pellet had an initial concentration of 0·116 μg/l. Results showed that Dimilin did not appear to give as high percentages of larval mortality as Dursban although in most cases a clearly delayed inhibition of adult emergence was noted. Larval mortalities of 90–100% were obtained in 3–14 (in the case of C pipiens) and 1–12 (in the case of A. aegypti) days when the second instar larvae were treated with Dursban formulations. With the Dimilin formulations no more than 31% (in case of C. pipiens) and 24% (in case of A. aegypti) larval mortalities occurred up to 13–14 days until completion of pupation.

The results obtained showed that formulation 1 (polyvinyl chloride + dibutyl phthalate + toxicant) was the most effective of the three tested ones, followed by formulations 2 (polyvinyl chloride + dibutyl phthalate + triton X·100 + toxicant) and 3 (polyvinyl chloride + dibutyl phthalate + triton X·100 + ammonium carbonate + citric acid + water + toxicant), respectively. This was so on the basis both of percentage of larval mortality and time post-treatment. The durations of effectiveness of Dursban pellets were 123, 94 and 86 days for the formulations 1, 2 and 3 respectively. However, on the basis of number of tests with over 90% larval mortality, formulation 2 gave the highest level (13 tests) followed by formulation 3 (12 tests) and finally formulation 1 (10 tests). Therefore, consideration must be given to the cumulative effect of these factors of activity when using these formulations for control of mosquito larvae. Activity indices also proved that there was no definite variation in the toxicity of both DDT-susceptible and resistant strains against these formulations. Such results were obtained with Dimilin which confirmed that formulation 3 was the most effective one. The durations of effectiveness were about 112–115 (11–67% inhibition of adult emergence), 111–113 (11–93% inhibition of adult emergence) and 102–113 (12–100% inhibition of adult emergence) days for formulations 1, 2 and 3, respectively, for the susceptible and resistant lines of C. pipiens and A. aegypti.

Type
Research Article
Information
The Journal of Agricultural Science , Volume 97 , Issue 1 , August 1981 , pp. 87 - 96
Copyright
Copyright © Cambridge University Press 1981

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

REFERENCES

Axtell, R. C., Dukes, J. C. & Edwards, T. D. (1979). Field tests of diflubenzuron, methoprene, Filt MLO® and chlorpyrifos for the control of Aedes taeniorhychus larvae in diked dredged spoil areas. Mosquito News 39, 520–527.Google Scholar
Dame, D. A., Lowe, A. E., Wichterman, G. J., Cameron, A. L., Baldwin, K. R. & Miller, T. W. (1976). Laboratory and field assessment of insect growth regulators for mosquito control. Mosquito News 35, 462–472.Google Scholar
Evans, E. S., Nelson, J. H., Pennington, N. E. & Young, W. W. (1975). Larvicidal effectiveness of a controlled-release formulation of chlorpyrifos in a woodland pool habitat. Mosquito News 35, 343–349.Google Scholar
Gaaboub, I. A. & Busvine, J. R. (1975). DDT-resistance status and the effects of DDT exposure, in relation to the vectorial capacity of Aedes aegypti L. for Brugia pahangi (Buck. & Ed.). Annals of Tropical Medicine and Parasitology 69, 493–501.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Gaaboub, I. A., Rawash, I. A. & Saleh, M. S. (1977). The effect of larval selection with DDT and malathion on the susceptibility stata of larvae and adults of Culex pipiens L. during the successive generations. In Proceedings of the Second Arab Pesticide Conference, Tanta University, Egypt, pp. 472–479.Google Scholar
Keenan, C. M. (1978). Use of a controlled release larvicide in Southern Maryland. Mosquito News 38, 203–207.Google Scholar
Lawson, M. A., Miller, I. A., Oakleaf, R. J. & Young, W. W. (1973). Polymer formulations of mosquito larvacides. VIII. Laboratory evaluations of selected polyethylene formulations of chlorpyrifos. Mosquito News 33, 561–567.Google Scholar
Litchfield, J. T. Jr & Wilcoxon, F. (1949). A simplified method of evaluation dose-effect experiments. Journal of Pharmacology and Experimental Therapeutics 69, 99–113.Google Scholar
McDonald, J. L. & Dickens, J. H. (1970). Field evaluations of Dursban® insecticide'briquettes when used as mosquito larvicide. Mosquito News 30, 503–506.Google Scholar
Miles, J. W. & Woehst, J. E. (1969). Formulations for controlled release of Abate in water. In Pesticidal Formulations Research. Advances in Chemistry, series no. 86, pp. 183–191. Washington, D.C.: American Chemical Society.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Mulder, R. & Gijswijt, M. J. (1973). The laboratory evaluation of two promising new insecticides which interfere with cuticle deposition. Pesticide Science 4, 737–745.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Nelson, H. H., Barnes, W. W., Harris, F. W. & Lawson, M. H. (1970). Evaluation of release rates of Dursban from polyvinyl chloride formulations. Journal of Economic Entomology 63, 1870–1873.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Post, L. C. & Vincent, W. R. (1973). A new insecticide which inhibits chitin synthesis. Naturieissenschaften 60, 431–432.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Rathburn, C. B. Jr, & Bonus, A. H. Jr, (1975). Laboratory and small plot field tests of Altosid and Dimilin for the control of Aedes tatniorhynchus and Culex nigripalpus larvae. Mosquito News 35, 540–546.Google Scholar
Rathburn, C. B. Jr, & Boike, A. H. Jr, (1977). The efficacy of preflood and residual applications of two formulations of methoprene. Mosquito News 37, 620–623.Google Scholar
Rogers, A. J., Rathburn, C. B. Jr, Beilder, G. Dood & Lafferty, A. (1976). Tests of two insect growth regulators formulated on sand against larvae of salt-marsh mosquitoes. Mosquito News 36, 273–277.Google Scholar
Whitlaw, J. T. & Evans, E. S. (1968). Selected plastic formulations use as mosquito larvicides. Journal of Economic Entomology 61, 889–892.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
World Health Organization (1975). The World Health Organization Expert Committee on Insecticides. Technical Report Series no. 561.Google Scholar
World Health Organization (1976). Resistance of vectors and reservoirs of disease to pesticides. Twenty-second Report of the WHO Expert Committee on Insecticides. Technical Report Series no. 585.Google Scholar