December 1946 STATE PLANT BOARD E "' United States Department of Agriculture Agricultural Research Administration Bureau of Entomology and Plant Quarantine NICOTINE INSECTICIDES. PART II— SEARCH TOR ACTIVATORS By E. L. Mayer, Division of Control Investigations, Bureau of Entomology and Plant Quarantine, and Florence B. Talley and C. 7. Woodward, Eastern Regional Research Laboratory, Bureau of Agricultural and Industrial Chemistry \J This is the second of a series of investigations on nicotine insecticides' conducted by this Bureau in cooperation with the Bureau of Agricultural and Industrial Chemistry. Part I of this series (E-646) reported a study of complex salts containing nicotine, usu- ally combined with a metal. In the investigation- described herein an effort was made to find activators for nicotine, partly to stretch the limited supply of this insecticide and partly to make its use more economical. As before, the samples studied were prepared at the Eastern Regional Research Laboratory of the Bureau of Agricultural and Industrial Chemistry, for testing against plant-feeding insects by the Bureau of Entomology and Plant Quarantine at its Sanford, 71a., laboratory. Previous attempts by other Investigators to increase the tox- icity of nicotine Insecticides were concerned largely with the use of various alkaline materials to liberate the alkaloid from nico- tine sulfate. Tor example, dolomite and lime have been called chemical accelerators by Headlee and Rudolfs (£), while Thatcher and Streeter (&) have classed them as active carriers. In a few cases, however, nonalkallne materials have been used, such as agar- agar (£), karaya gum (4), lecithin (l), and hydrocarbon oils (5) . In this investigation the entomological tests were conducted on several species of leaf-feeding larvae. In order to minimise losses of nicotine by volatilisation from the dusts in shipment and on storage, the adjuncts to be evaluated as activators were not tested with nicotine alkaloid, but in combination with (l) nicotine bentonite in bentonite and (2) nicotine sulfate in pyro- phyllite as the diluents. l/The authors are indebted to E. R. McOovran and 0. T, Bottger for supervision and technical guidance in this work. - 2 - Thie report covers the teste on the firet 100 mixtures tried and hence is in the nature of a progress report. Since it is al- most impossible to predict what kinds of chemicals might act as activators, or to deduce from the effect of one compound what an- other might do, the materials reported herein were chosen more or less at random. Materials As indicated above, two series of samples were prepared, con- taining the same adjuncts. Pure nicotine was added to bentonite, forming nicotine bentonite diluted with the excess bentonite. Nico- tine sulfate was used in the pyrophyllite, since the nicotine loss on standing was too great when the dust was prepared by mixing the alkaloid with pyrophyllite. All samples contained 5 percent of ad- junct, 5 percent of nicotine, and, with the exception of two samples, 90 percent of diluent. In these two sulfur was used at 10- and 20- percent levels instead of 5-percent, thus reducing the amount of diluent to 85 and 75 percent, respectively. Dusts containing 5 per- cent of nicotine with no adjunct were also included in these groups to be used as standards. The fact that a liquid was involved in making a 5-percent nic- otine dust with 40 percent of nicotine sulfate Influenced the dieper- sibllity of the pyrophyllite samples. They completely settled in the dusting chamber within 30 eeconds, while the bentonite materials re- quired 3 or 4 minutes. The following species of insects were used: Bean leaf roller (Slianaa Pro t bus U)5, cabbage looper ( Autoeraoha brasslcae (Riley)) (= Trlchonlusla nJL (Hbn.)). fall web worm (fiTPtanSrlfl SM1& (Drury)), Hawaiian beet webworm ( Hvmenla faeclalls (Cram.)) , melon worm ( Diaphania h.valinata (L.)) . southern armyworm ( Prodsnia erlda nia (Cram.)), and southern beet webworm ( Pachviancla bluunc talis (?•)) . fourth instars of all species were used and in addition firet instars of the southern armyworm. Methods The procedure used in testing these materials was similar to that described by Swingle (2) euad in part I of this series. The mate- rials were first tested as dusts by placing dusted foliage in 9-cm. petri dishes with the larger larvae, or in cloth-covered vials with the flrst-instar armyworms. The mortality may have been due to con- tact, stomach, or fumigating action, but since the most effective mate- rials are relatively nonvolatile, it may be assumed that there was little fumigating action. About 30 larvae were used in each test, and mortality counts and estimates of the amount of feeding were made each - 3 - 24 hours for 3 day*. The deposit used depended upon the species being tested and also upon the susceptibility of that species at the time the tests were made, the desired mortalities being between 20 and 80 percent. Xach sample was tested on from 2 to 6 species of insects. The melon worm and southern armyworm were used in all tests. Since these tests were only preliminary, no replications were made. The second step was foliage-injury tests, made on 4 or 5 varie- ties of plants in an outdoor garden with the samples that showed some increase in toxicity as dusts over the standard materials against insects. The plants used were bean, collard, corn, cotton, okra, potato, pumpkin, sweetpotato, and tomato. Materials were sprayed on the plants twice, at an interval of 7 days and at a concen- tration of 0.1 percent of nicotine. Records of the amount of injury were taken on the third, seventh, and fourteenth days after the appli- cation of the first spray. The third stage of testing was with sprays. All materials that showed some promise in dust tests, and which did not cause foliage Injury, were used in spray tests on leaf sections which were fed to larvae in petri dishes and In cloth-covered vials. Discussion of Results Ths adjuncts which in the dust test, with either carrier, gave mortality of the melon worm or the southern armyworm, or both, 10 per- cent above that given by the standard were considered as activators of the nicotine. The following materials were found to be in this class: 2, 2' -Allylidenebist 5, 6-dimethyl- 1 , 3-cyclohexanedlone 2-Butoxyethanol 2-Chloroallyl lactate £-Dichlorobenzene Diethylene glycol monobutyl ether Diethylene glycol monomethyl ether 5, 5-Dlmethyl-l, 3-cyclohezanedione Dodecanolc acid 2-Sthoxye thanol Ethyl n-butylacetoacetate o_-Phenylphenol 12- Hydroxy stearic acid Kojlc acid Lauryl acetoacetate Lecithin litrobenzene 2-Hi trobiphenyl Paraffin Pentachloroethane Pentachlorophenol Polylactlc acid (115# lactic acid) Stearic acid T e t rahydro furfuryl lactate -4- The samples containing pentachlorophenol and nicotine were the only ones that gave higher mortalities than the standards in every test. In subsequent tests 97 percent of the melon worms and 100 per- cent of the armywor&s were killed with rather light deposits of dust mixtures containing only pentachlorophenol as the toxicant. Swingle, Phillips, and Gahan (&) found this material to he toxic to 9 of 10 species against which it was tested, and it is also toxic to sub- terranean termites ( 10) . It appeared that only eight compounds in the list merited fur- ther attention. Mare complete data on these eight materials are given in table 1. With the exception of 2-nitrobiphenyl, these ad- juncts were nontoxic when tested as 5 percent dusts without nicotine; 2-nitrobiphenyl was slightly toxic to the southern armyworm. Kojic acid and o-phenylphenol appeared to be the most effective adjuncts for nicotine sulfate in pyrophyllite. Since none of these eight materials were injurious to plants in phytotoxicity tests, they were tested as sprays. The results are shown in table 2. In table 3 a comparison of the two carriers as dusts and sprays indicates that the mixtures are slightly more effective as sprays. Furthermore, the indications are that dusts in which the materials are diluted in pyrophyllite, using nicotine sulfate, are more effec- tive than the nicotine bentonite dusts. On the other hand, when the materials are applied as sprays the bentonite group is superior to the pyrophyllite. Table 4 includes the adjuncts which gave insect mortalities above the standard when used in nicotine dusts or sprays. Since none of these compounds were highly effective, no attempt was made to show the degree of activity towards individual species. The table lists the test insects used. Several materials appeared to be specific in their activation of nicotine toward different species of insects. The nicotine dusts con- taining the following materials in both bentonite and pyrophyllite were active agains the melon worm, but not against the southern army- worm: Ethyl acetoacetate, ethyl 2-( 2-butoxyethoxyethyl) acetoacetate, ethyl &-lauryl-acetoacetate, furll, lauryl acetoacetate, octadecyl acetoacetate, octyl disulfide, and sulfur. Nicotine sprays containing lauryl acetoacetate were also effective against the southern armyworm in each series. Levulose was effective against the armyworm but was ineffective against the melon worm. Four other materials were act- ivators of the nicotine against one of these two insects in one series -5- and against the other in the second eeriee. Cyclohexanol, allyl maleate, and E-tolyl E-toluenesulfonat© In bentonite were effective against the melon worn, and in pyrophylllte they were effective against the armyworm. Another material, 9,10-epoxy- stearic acid, in bentonite produced higher mortalities than the standard against the southern armyworm, but in pyrophylllte the melon worm was the susceptible insect. The adjuncts which were inactive in all tests are listed in table 5. In this search for an effective activator for niootine none of the adjuncts sufficiently increased the inseoticidal action of the nicotine compounds in these preliminary tests to merit further study on the test inseots used. -6- Literature Cited ( 1) Bousquet, B. w . 1935. Contact insecticides containing lecithin. tT„ S. Pat. 2,006,227, issued June 25. (2) Cox, A. J. 1943. Terminology of insecticides, fungicides and other economic poisons. Jour. Scon. Int. 36: 813-821. (3) Pelt, I. P., and Bromley, S. V. 1931. Tests with nicotine activators. Jour. Scon. Snt. 24: 105-111. (4) Garman, P. 1939. Use of karaya gua as an activator for nicotine sul- fate against Aphis rumicis . Conn. State Agr. Expt. Sta. Bui. 428, p. 76. (5) Headlee, T. J., and Rudolfs, V. 1923. Some principles which underlie the making and use of nicotine dust. H. J. Agr. Expt. Sta. Bui. 381. 47- pp. (6) Sharp, S. S. 1939. Agar-agar, a new activator for nicotine sprays. Jour. Econ. Ent. 32: 294-295. (7) Swingle, M. C. 1943. Exploring the insecticidal possibilities of new materials. I& Laboratory procedures in studies of the chemical control of insects, edited by F. L. Campbell and F. R. Moul ton, Amer. Assoc. Adv. Sci. Pub. 20, pp. 82-84. Washington, D. C. (8) , Phillips, A. N. , and Gahan, J. B. 1944. Preliminary tests of synthetic organic compounds as insecticides. Part I. U. S. Bur. Int. and Plant O^ar. S-621, 134 pp. (Processed) (9) Thatcher, R. W., and Streeter, L, R, 1923. Factors which affect the volatility of nicotine from insecticide dusts. V. T. Agr. Expt. Sta. Bui. 501, 34 pp. ( 10 ) United States Bureau of Entomology and Plant Quarantine, Division of Forest Insect Investigations. 1942. Preventing damage to buildings by subterranean ter- mites and their control. TJ. S. Dept. Agr. Farmers' Bui. 1911, 37 pp., illus. S CO I OJ + + I + I I I + + I + 5 CO o in cn I « J IS w t I I I CD CO 1 • I c 1 i 1 • U O I I I ® -d s i 3 I t I 9 8 I H H I O CAi CD * H rl N + + + + + I *• tO O O 0> (-4 <0 H <0 MM > j g> . • I o o i n c i m in ! S3 CD N M ifl 3 5* O ^ to -tf in o -p C • 1 to m o t + + i m o I to O i in o IO H n M •<*< in i i + + to o o in in o • +> 6 9 U • *j a o MO O r-j << 35 H H H I H H H I + + + i in m I CI LO « «J Oi c-- fil is w 43 CI fl i o rt .cs ,d o -p +» © o g o s to ra o q © 0) o 43 •P o o c P m (S 43 « ■p (3 g 8 2 O A -H 43 P g S3 V, o p I p to •H H HE h! wl nl -9- 6 o +» cl a cj rH a ft to go o to N H C3 4- + + + + 4 5«« * + to w to + + o to + to 00 rH 1 + GO + IS 1 + CI 1 to + rH + o H + rH CO tO w O + + CO in + • 4 • 4 • 4 • 4 tO <4< tO tO to to IS 8 is ts o IS CO cn to 8 to to cn rH CO o in q to ts + + 4 8 5 +3 o o P © rH t rH O oj 4> rH © g 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 I 1 1 o o o O o o *s t3 f> 1 1 r i 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 m ts in o to • • H • rH • rH • rH • o m *©" • n m o 0J TJ •H Q rO s M O « © S HOD Hri O >» O r-l I to * * CI H 9 +» «s © rH rH vS ' ' • POO P Q I I h a i i m in t> in HOW rl • • • • O * rrj o •H rH C 3 5 -10- > © rt o 3 H +? -2 • O c o si ° s s1 3 € d 551 4» «H S o c Eh is 1 I 4* es • oh cl 5 +» •h B a ■p •>-» • OA o o e « •H O -2 2. O a 3 tO If) H rl H + + + If) o rH rH o s r-l tO If) to + + 4 tO iH o o ft I h6 b g • 9 4 fid P. O +> •HH 3 JO • O g ^ t$< (71 + + + tO CO o <0 04 a g o e» ^ eS h .+ + + to to o I I O «3 t> to o> to to H + I I I I <4» tO tf ^ tON ON CD rj» IS W o « o « If) If) IS If) HOCH rH CO <7> (O tO O tO If) + + + + + 3 to to* to H If) CD as o -p « a ts +» o • s 35 tt -p S3 *s i «3 a o | P. 2 to 5 4 2 u gVi <- S3 r- o o 9 P 9 B e p o I I t l i .1 I ll I (Ml 1 1 1 i h a ! I I I I I I : h NUN N-N m 3 i i i i i i I I I I I M I ! ! S ! I ! xj p 9 O U o Pi H ■H 44 «M o tig Pm Ph O •H •P O 6 rH LO rH H H — O ft eS t3 O h O O -H rH P ■=» 2 o c5 9 ■P c3 P o eJ H S $H O >> 83 rH JH P >» S rt h a c P P* Ph CO CO Eh a 9 •H o 9 ft 10 o > P O c p XJ p (0 p o $3 9 T3 ,1 9 O O o rt o | ■H P O eG P M CD P CO % u o p a 9 1 H I H . coo e O 4* Xl » P o 3 ,0 X> O CO CO ■p o -d g CO Q ■P M •3 o d -H +a o o d +> O O o >, CtJ © to P d ■H XI -P O g| O P tS g O tH d es c d 3 -d CO CO ■p o ■d < I I o rH 5 & 43 S CO +» ■h d o op h c o X) p. X» O 1 X> O 5 I I I H I I I I M I M M M M I M I I I I M I M M M M I I I M I I t I I I I I I I I I I M M I M M I M I I I M M I I I H H MMMMM MMMMM MMMMM MMMMM MMMMM M 1 I M 1 H M M M I M M M M M o x» >» a] CO o CO CO IfN CO I o CO o 43 1 •H •d o M o ■s rH O >> o I to >» XI -p o I •d I 10 in" rs CO •rl •d d •h o ^"1 "rl CO >» o H at c o ^3 •3 d Hr3 >> I 8 N o « CP M I I H H 1 M M M M M MMMMM I I M I I O 4 s C o o O rH rH Xl g 31 J. H rH >> >» X! XI 43 43 O o ftp? o o rH rH >> >> H rH rH rH a a rQ X» U 8 o 1 I rH rH K CO •H tH e 4» CJ 43 O o s p o o c rl rH O O >> P XI Xj C8 4» 4» H OOO — r*r» -d ft p © & o p O 4a o o rH o rH fa en •H I m m w d CO CO — CO M I I I M M M I I M MMMMM I I I I I 1 O -d i ! in .1 CD >d O o o C -d H O >H o -d o I i s m o o cj o I I I M M I I I M M MMMMM MIIMM MMMMM MMMMM I 1 I I I I I I I I o o d d o o 4> 4 HH I I o o © u xi P -d P € J f d in m rH I I HHH rH >, >> -rH >. xl xl o XI 43 4» 4» o © >d S g g § rl rl rl Q o o o d HHH O fan* CM CM Ol O Pi © d I © g •H 13 o o L © H 43 o rH © o •H -P . ■rH © O c © s c © I I • I W till M M W W W I I I I I W W W W I W W W H W I ! I I I •H © p © H C c3 o -=» s © 09 ■a +> -p •H T"t Q O © P aa S 5 h •H rH >»« >> A I O P O © © H O a H r) rt -15- W t I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I Mill W W W I I IIIIH Willi W I W I Willi I I I I X Willi WWMW WWWWW WWWMW WMWWW WWWI Willi I I I I W WIWII WIIW WIIWW WWWWW WWWWW WWWW WWWWW WWWWW WWWWW till Willi IIIIW I I I I I a © c >, _ H 5 §3 U <5 C5 © © o o oil rH r?£ S3 © 1 © ■p o •H Pi O O P © © o I >> £ o © rt o © © © » q H C5 C H >. 43 P © O P © £ © I p ■as rH C C5 rH © o -H •O O I © o rH O >> o I to * rH I rH >» 43 +> © •H 43 © .-I rH Pi >> >» © rH rH •H © O t3 © t2 P CQ rH >» © © P O ■tH rH P o p" rH O P n 1 1 3 I C 43 rH H P >> >>© 43 43 s p p T © - o © £ o t>> rH O T-t a S Q I a •rl H rH >> o 2 a © p Ph o o p © c I a HNIO hlrl PJ W W 3 p<( O CJ Ah Ph (k h i d « e o &p s 5 § I o o CO ? p ^ to O :1 +» m p is 3 © I o C5 O O H 4-1 O © o m h c H . O O a 5 •i-i P H •H O O s -16- I I I I I | I I H I II K I I W I I I I M I »l III I I I H I » H M M M M HHKMM MM II I I I M I II HHIH M M M M M MM MMMHH X M M M M MM ,1111 I | I I I II O ■§ o H rH O P O I in n § o ■0 ■M rH >> o — * H c3 0) 13 31 S 0) * P w p o d p n » P o h t< a « o p» o • O