No CrossRef data available.
Article contents
Fumigation as a Method of controlling the Body Louse, Pediculus humanus corporis, De Geer
Published online by Cambridge University Press: 10 July 2009
Extract
The paper describes small and large scale methods of fumigation which have been worked out for six fumigants. The conditions under which complete control of body lice and their eggs may be obtained are set out, and the relative uses of the two methods and the various fumigants are described. Four of the materials tested, methyl formate, ethyl formate, ethylene dichloride and methyl-allyl chloride are comparatively safe and pleasant to handle, but they sometimes demand rather heavy dosages of fumigant or long exposures, especially at temperatures below 20°C. Chloropicrin and trichloracetonitrile on the other hand have strongly irritating properties, but their toxicity to lice is also much greater. The methods have the advantage that some are very safe and all are simple, demanding no elaborate technique or apparatus.
- Type
- Original Articles
- Information
- Copyright
- Copyright © Cambridge University Press 1944
References
Briejèr, C. J. (1938). Control of insects by methallyl-chloride.—Nature, 141, p. 1099.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Briejèr, C. J. (1939a). Neue Gase zur Bekämpfung von Vorratsschädlingen und die Feststellung ihres praktischen Wertes.—Verh. 7. Internat Kongr. Ent. Berlin 1938, 4, pp. 2753–2765.Google Scholar
Briejèr, C. J. (1939b). Methallyl chloride as a fumigant against insects infesting stored products.—N.V. de Bataafsche Petrol. Maatsch. Lab., Amsterdam (English Edition). Reprinted Shell Chemical Co., San Francisco, 1941.Google Scholar
Bryant, W. M. D. & Smith, D. M. (1936). The influence of structure on saponification. Improved analytical technique for esters.—J. Amer. chem. Soc., 58, p. 1014.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Busbey, R. L., Yust, H. R. & Fulton, R. A. (1942). Toxicity of trichloracetonitrile to the California red scale.—J. econ. Ent., 35, pp. 452–453.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Busvine, J. R. (1943). The toxicity of some common fumigants to body lice.—Bull. ent. Res., 34, pp. 19–26.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Cotton, R. & Roark, R. (1928). Fumigation of certain stored product insects with alkyl and alkylene formates.—Industr. Engng Chem., 20, p. 380.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
David, W. A. L. (1944). Fumigation as a method of controlling the body louse, Pediculus humanus corporis, De Geer. Pts. I & II.—Bull. ent. Res., 35, pp. 79–89.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Evreynova, L. I. & others. (1942). Methyl formate as a remedy in the struggle against Pediculosis. (In Russian.)—Hyg. & Hlth. 1942, no. 3–4, pp. 47–48.Google Scholar
Lacquer, . (1938?). Toxicity of methallyl chloride and other gases to higher animals.—(In flies Messrs. Technical Products.).Google Scholar
Latta, R. & Yeomans, A. H. (1943). Methods and equipment for fumigation of clothing infested with body lice—J. econ. Ent., 36, pp. 402–404, 4 figs.Google Scholar
Moore, Wm. (1918). Methods for controlling the clothes louse.—J. Lab. Clin. Med., 3, pp. 261–268.Google Scholar
Moore, Wm. & Hirschfelder, A. D. (1919). An investigation of the louse problem.—Res. Publ. Univ. Minn. Stud. biol. Sci. no. 3, 86 pp.Google Scholar
Peters, G. (1939). Zum Thema “Neue Schädlingsbekämpfungsmittel.”—Chemiker Ztg., 14 01 1939.Google Scholar
Peters, G. (1940). Ein neues Schädlingsbekämpfungsmittel.—Chemiker Ztg., 64, no. 99–100, pp. 485–486.Google Scholar
Roark, R. C. (1934). A bibliography of chloropicrin (1848–1932).—Misc. Publ. U.S. Dep. Agric. no. 176.Google Scholar
Sherrard, G. C. (1942). Five fumigants for disinfestation of bedding and clothing: a comparative study.—Publ. Hlth Rep. 57, pp.753–759.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Simmons, P. & others. (1935). Dried fruit fumigation.—E–353, U.S. Dep. Agric., Bur. Ent.Google Scholar
Wintringham, F. P. W. (1942). Determination of fumigants. XI. Determination of chlorohydrocarbons in air by reaction in monoethanolamine.—J. Soc. chem. Ind. Lond., 61, pp. 186–187.CrossRefGoogle Scholar