Hostname: page-component-78c5997874-ndw9j Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-11-10T11:58:57.548Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Studies concerning the Uptake of Contact Insecticides

II.—The Contamination of Flies exposed to particulate Deposits

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  10 July 2009

C. T. Lewis  and
J. C. Hughes
C. T. Lewis
Affiliation:
Imperial College Field Station, Sunninghill, Berks.
J. C. Hughes
Affiliation:
Imperial College Field Station, Sunninghill, Berks.
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Extract

This paper presents the results of an investigation of certain processes taking place when flies of the species Phormia (Protophormia) terraenovae R.-D. are exposed to finely particulate deposits. Information is advanced concerning the precise sites of uptake of particles on the tarsi and pretarsi, the effects of “cleaning” reflex movements on the location and retention of particles and the influence of lipoid solubility (a fundamental property of contact insecticides) on the adhesion of dry particles to the lipophilic surfaces of insect and leaf cuticle.

A technique for the controlled exposure of active blowflies of the species P. terraenovae to particulate deposits is described.

Type
Original Articles
Information
Bulletin of Entomological Research , Volume 48 , Issue 4 , December 1957 , pp. 755 - 768
Copyright
Copyright © Cambridge University Press 1957

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

Barlow, F. & Hadaway, A. B. (1950). Factors affecting the availability of contact insecticides.—7 pp. Colonial Insecticides Committee Report.Google Scholar
Barlow, F. & Hadaway, A. B. (1952). Studies on aqueous suspensions of insecticides. Part II. Quantitative determinations of weights of DDT picked up and retained.—Bull. ent. Res., 42, pp. 769–777.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Elmendorf, J. E. jr, Marucci, P. E., Griffin, J. B., Meyer, S. L. & Ryan, G. S. (1946). Longevity of killing effect of DDT for mosquitoes contacting screen wire painted with DDT solutions.—Amer. J. trop. Med., 26, pp. 663–685.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Fisher, R. W. (1952). The importance of the locus of application on the effectiveness of DDT for the House Fly, Musca domestica L. (Diptera: Muscidae).—Canad. J. Zool., 30, pp. 254–266.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Gregg, S. J. (1951). The surface chemistry of solids.—297 pp. London, Chapman & Hall.Google Scholar
Hadaway, A. B. & Barlow, F. (1952). Symposium on insecticides. III. Some physical factors affecting the efficiency of insecticides.—Trans. R. Soc. trop. Med. Hyg., 46, pp. 236–242.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Hadaway, A. B. & Barlow, F. (1953). Studies on aqueous suspensions of insecticides. Part IV. The behaviour of mosquitos in contact with insecticidal deposits.—Bull. ent. Res., 44, pp. 255–271.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Hayes, W. P. & Liu, Yu-su. (1947). Tarsal chemoreceptors of the housefly and their possible relation to DDT toxicity.—Ann. ent. Soc. Amer., 40, pp. 401–416.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Kennedy, J. S. (1947). The excitant and repellent effects on mosquitos of sublethal contacts with DDT.—Bull. ent. Res., 37, pp. 593–607.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
LeRoux, E. J. & Morrison, F. O. (1954). The adsorption, distribution, and site of action of DDT in DDT-resistant and DDT-susceptible house flies using carbon14-labelled DDT.—J. econ. Ent., 47, pp. 1058–1066.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Lewis, C. T. (1954 a). Studies concerning the uptake of, contact insecticides. I. The anatomy of the tarsi of certain Diptera of medical importance.—Bull. ent. Res., 45, pp. 711–722.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Lewis, C. T. (1954 b). The contamination and penetration of the integument of the Blowfly Protophormia terraenovae R.-D. by contact insecticides.—Ph.D. thesis, Univ. London.Google Scholar
Mote, D. C., wilcox, J. & Davis, E. G. (1926). The natural “cleaning up” habit of insects.—J. econ. Ent. 19, pp. 745–748.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Muirhead-Thomson, R. C. (1950). DDT and Gammexane as residual insecticides against Anopheles gambiae in African houses.—Trans. R. Soc. trop. Med. Hyg., 43, pp. 401–412.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Potts, W. H. & Vanderplank, F. L. (1945). Mode of entry of contact insecticides.—Nature, Lond., 156, p. 112.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Richardson, C. H. & Glover, L. H. (1932). Some effects of certain “inert” and toxic substances upon the Twelve-spotted Cucumber Beetle, Diabrotica duodecimpunctata (Fab.).—J. econ. Ent., 25, pp. 1176–1181.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Sarkaria, D. S. & Patton, R. L. (1949). Histological and morphological factors in the penetration of DDT through the pulvilli of several insect species.—Trans. Amer. ent. Soc., 75, pp. 71–82.Google Scholar
Smith, L. M. (1938). The relation of concentration of active ingredient to insecticidal efficiency of dusts.—J. econ. Ent., 31, pp. 598–602.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Wharton, R. H. (1951). The behaviour and mortality of Anopheles maculatus and Culex fatigans in experimental huts treated with DDT and BHC.—Bull. ent. Res., 42, pp. 1–20.CrossRefGoogle Scholar