Sims SR, Appel AG, Eva MJ. Comparative toxicity and repellency of microencapsulated and other liquid insecticide formulations to the German cockroach (Dictyoptera: Blattellidae).
JOURNAL OF ECONOMIC ENTOMOLOGY 2010;
103:2118-2125. [PMID:
21309234 DOI:
10.1603/ec09415]
[Citation(s) in RCA: 2] [Impact Index Per Article: 0.1] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [MESH Headings] [Track Full Text] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Indexed: 05/30/2023]
Abstract
Responses of German cockroaches, Blattella germanica (L.) (Dictyoptera: Blattellidae), to microencapsulated (ME) formulations of six insecticides (bifenthrin, chlorpyrifos, cyfluthrin, deltamethrin, lambda-cyhalothrin, and permethrin) were compared with emulsifiable concentrates (EC) (chlorpyrifos, cyfluthrin, deltamethrin, and permethrin) or ready-to-use (RTU) formulations (bifenthin and lambda-cyhalothrin). Two rates were tested per comparison. Baseline toxicity (LT50 value) was determined by continuous exposure to residual deposits. Repellency, toxicity (LT50), and performance index (PI) values were determined using Ebeling choice boxes. Baseline toxicity of the permethrin formulations was similar, but all other active ingredients had significant toxicity differences at one or both formulation x dose comparisons. Baseline toxicity and repellency were negatively correlated. Choice box LT50 and the time to reach 50% of the maximum PI were positively correlated. The maximum PI was positively correlated (P < 0.06) with baseline LT50 and negatively correlated (P < 0.07) with repellency. Chlorpyrifos had the lowest repellency except for the EC at 0.25%. Bifenthrin ME and lambda-cyhalothrin ME had greater PI values than comparative RTU formulations. Cyfluthrin EC at 0.03% and deltamethrin ME at 0.01% had significantly lower PI values than comparison treatments. Permethrin PI value for the EC at 0.03% exceeded that for the ME, but at 0.05% the ME had a significantly greater PI. These data demonstrate the difficulty in making generalizations about the relative performance of ME compared with EC or RTU formulations. Variable results observed within, and between, formulations may be influenced by application rate, formulation type, other formulation components, and the toxicity-repellency of the active ingredient.
Collapse