Hostname: page-component-586b7cd67f-g8jcs Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-11-26T05:49:00.927Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

The relationship between the chemical constitution of organic compounds and their toxicity to insects.1

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  27 March 2009

F. Tattersfield
F. Tattersfield
Affiliation:
(Rothamsted Experimental Station, Harpenden.)
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

1. The various classes of insecticides are outlined, and the sense in which the term “contact insecticide” is used is denned as one which is brought into external contact with the insect, either as solid, liquid or vapour.

2. An analysis is made of the relationships between chemical constitution and insecticidal action in the vapour phase. There is rough correlation between both the molecular weights and volatilities of organic compounds and toxicity, but it is probable that these relationships are only indirectly involved and that they indicate a connection of a more direct kind with some other property such as adsorption.

3. An account is given of the toxicity to insects of certain plant products. The most potent of these are certain tropical leguminous plants used as fish-poisons. A brief account is given of the chemical derivatives found in these plants. One of them, “tubatoxin,” is one of the most potent contact insecticides known.

4. A list of the groups of organic chemicals tested for their toxic action on Aphis rumicis and the eggs of Selenia tetralunaria is given. A more detailed account is given for each group of the relationships between chemical constitution and insecticidal action. It is shown that the substitution of certain radicals in the benzene ring profoundly affects toxicity, but that toxic action depends not only upon the radicals but the number substituted and in certain cases upon their relative position.

5. 3 : 5-Dinitro-o-cresol is shown to have a most powerful ovicidal effect.

6. An examination of the toxicity of the fatty acids is made. It is shown that as the series is ascended toxicity increases up to undecylic acid, after which it declines.

Type
Research Article
Information
The Journal of Agricultural Science , Volume 17 , Issue 2 , April 1927 , pp. 181 - 208
Copyright
Copyright © Cambridge University Press 1927

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

LITERATURE CITED

(1)Janisch, E. (1924). Cenir. J. Bakt. 2, Abt. 61, p. 10.Google Scholar
(2)McIndoo, N. E. (1916). Journ. Agric. Res. 7, 89.Google Scholar
(3)Holt, J. J. H. (1916). Lancet, 5, 190, p. 1136.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
(4)Moore, W. (1918). Journ. Agric. Res. 13, 523.Google Scholar
(5)Tattersfield, F. and Robeets, A. W. R. (1920). Journ. Agric. Sci. 10, 199.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
(6)Jewson, S. T. and Tattersfteld, F. (1922). Ann. App. Biol. 9, 213.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
(7)Fryer, J. C. F., Stenton, R., Tattersfield, F. and Roach, W. A. (1923). Ann. App. Biol. 10, 18.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
(8)Richardson, C. H. and Smith, C. R. (1926). Journ. Agric. Res. 33, 597.Google Scholar
(9)Tattbrsfield, F. and Morris, H. M. (1924). Bull. Ent. Res. 14, 223.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
(10)Tattersfield, F. and Roach, W. A. (1923). Ann. App. Biol. 10, 1.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
(11)Ishikawa, (1916). Fr. Tokyo Igakkwai Zasshi, 30, 45 (1917): Chem. Absts. 2370.Google Scholar
Ishikawa, (1917). Jap. Med. Lit. 1, 7.Google Scholar
(12)Tattersfield, F., Gimingham, C. T. and Morris, H. M. (1926). Ann. App. Biol. 13, 424.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
(13)Kariyone, T. and Atsumi, K. (1923). Journ. Pharm. Soc. Japan, 10.Google Scholar
(14)Takei, S. (1923). Rikwagaku Kenkyujo Ihó, 2, 485; Journ. Chem. Soc. 126, A 1, 478.Google Scholar
(15)Priess, H. (1911). Ber. Deut. Pharm. Gesell. 21, 267.Google Scholar
(16)Ellinger, A. (1908). Archiv Expt. Path. Pharm. 150.Google Scholar
(17)Tattersfield, F., Gimingham, C. T. and Morris, H. M. (1925). Ann. App. Biol. 12, 66.Google Scholar
(18)Hanriot, M. (1907). Compt. Rend. 144, 150, 498, 651.Google Scholar
(19)Dale, H. H. and Laidlaw, P. P. (1912). Journ. Pharm. Expt. Therap. 3, 205.Google Scholar
(20)Tattersfield, F., Gimingham, C. T. and Morris, H. M.Ann. App. Biol. 12, 218.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
(21)Cooper, E. A. (1913). Biochem. Journ. 7, 175.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
(22)Plantefol, L. (1922). Compt. Rend. 174, 123.Google Scholar
(23)Sidgwick, N. V., Spurrell, W. J. and Davies, T. E. (1915). Journ. Chem. Soc. Trans. 107, 1202.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Sidgwick, N. V. and Aldous, W. M. (1921). Journ. Chem. Soc. Trans. 119, 1001.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Sidgwick, N. V. and Callow, R. K. (1925). Journ. Chem. Soc. Trans. 125, 127.Google Scholar
(24)Gimingham, C. T., Massee, A. M. and Tattersfield, F. (1926). Ann. App. Biol. 13, 446.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
(25)Gimingham, C. T. and Tattersfield, F. (1927). Journ. Agric. Sci. 17, 162.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
(26)Burn, J.H. and Dale, H. H. (1915). Journ. Pharm. Expt. Therap. 6, No. 4, 417.Google Scholar
(27)Flusin, G. (1900). Compt. Rend. 131, 1308.Google Scholar
(28)Dale, H. H. (1920). Johns Hopkins Hospital Bull. 31, No. 356, 22.Google Scholar
(29)Pictet, A. and Rotschy, A. (1904). Ber. 37, 1233.Google Scholar
(30)Smith, C. R. (1924). Journ. Amer. Chem. Soc. 46, 414.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Richardson, C. H. (1925). Journ. Econ. Ent. 18, 281.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
(31)Siegler, E. and Popenoe, C. H. (1924). Journ. Agric. Res. 29, 259.Google Scholar
Siegler, E. and Popenoe, C. H. (1925). Journ. Econ. Res. 18, 292.Google Scholar
(32)Phellipson, M. and Hannevart, G. (1920). Compt. Rend. Soc. Biol. 83, 1570.Google Scholar
(33)Traube, I. Many papers in Pflüg. Archiv Physiol. etc.Google Scholar
(34)Czapek, F. (1910). Ber. Bot. Oes. 28, 480.Google Scholar
(35)King, H. H. (1922). Kansas Agric. Expt. Sta. Tech. Bull. 9.Google Scholar
(36)Frumkin, A. (1925). Zeitschr. physilc. Chem. 116, 466.Google Scholar
(37)Shafer, G. D. (1912). Michigan Expt. Sta. Tech. Bull. 11.Google Scholar
Shafer, G. D. (1916). Michigan Expt. Sla. Tech. Bull. 21.Google Scholar