Hostname: page-component-848d4c4894-m9kch Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-06-13T04:24:18.924Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Specific Susceptibility to HCN and the amount of HCN recovered from Fumigated Insects

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  10 July 2009

S. Pradhan  and
S. C. Bhatia
S. Pradhan
Affiliation:
Division of Entomology, Indian Agricultural Research Institute, New Delhi.
S. C. Bhatia
Affiliation:
Division of Entomology, Indian Agricultural Research Institute, New Delhi.
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Extract

The relationship was studied between susceptibility of a number of different species of insects to HCN fumigation and the recovery of HCN from them immediately after fumigation.

The test insects used were Tribolium castaneum, seventh stage caterpillars of Corcyra cephalonica, first-and second-instar nymphs of Drosicha sp., third-and fourthinstar nymphs of Drosicha sp. and adult females of Drosicha sp.

The apparatus and methods used in the fumigation and in the recovery of HCN from the fumigated insects are fully described.

Preliminary expsriments showed that the processes of distillation and redistillation did not affect the recovery of HCN but that the result obtained for recovery from distillation could be affected if some volatile reducing substance were produced and carried over to the distillate. It was found that this did actually take place in the case of one of the test insects—T. castaneum—but that redistillation got rid of the impurity.

In the main experiments it was shown that, on the assumption that the concentration of HCN to which insects are exposed is the effective dosage, the susceptibility of the test insects varied in the following descending order : firstand second-stage nymphs of Drosicha sp. > third- and fourth-stage nymphs of Drosicha sp.>C. cephalonica> T. castaneum>the adult females of Drosicha sp.

When the same insects were arranged in descending order of the quantities of HCN recovered per 100 gm. of body weight, the order was identical except for the nymphs of Drosicha sp. which occupied a different relative position. The two categories of nymphs of Drosicha sp. were found to occupy a different relative position again with regard to the other three test insects when exposed to a superlethal concentration and assessed for recovery of HCN per 100 gr. body weight.

Parallel batches of T. castaneum and C. cephalonica were fumigated and the HCN was recovered from the dead and survivors. More HCN was recovered from the dead insects than from those that survived.

Both recovery and sorption of HCN were estimated separately in parallel batches of insects (adult females of Drosicha sp. and C. cephalonica). Recovery was found to be less than sorption showing that a part of the HCN absorbed is converted into a non-recoverable state. Further, that the weight of HCN sorbed per gram body weight of adult females of Drosicha sp. is much less than in the case of C. cephalonica under similar conditions of fumigation and that the amount of HCN converted into non-recoverable products is less in Drosicha adults than in C. cephalonica.

A comparison of the water content of T. castaneum, C. cephalonica and Drosicha sp. (adults) showed that there was a positive correlation between water content and higher susceptibility to HCN and greater recovery of HCN was also indicated. It is suggested that this may be a factor in the “ Surface Resistance ” of an insec to a fumigant.

The observations of previous workers that larger amounts are sorbed by or recovered (after fumigation) from more susceptible species than for those less susceptible was corroborated by the results obtained with C. cephalonica, T. castaneum and adult females of Drosicha sp. but not with those from nymphs of Drosicha sp.

When dosage-mortality graphs were prepared by taking the amount of HCN recovered per gram body weight as an index of internal dose, the order of resistance of different test insects based on this new criterion was found to be entirely different from that based on the usual criterion of the concentration of HCN in the fumatorium being the index of effective dosage.

These apparently anomalous observations may be explained by assuming that the resistance shown by an insect in an actual fumigation operation, i.e., to the concentration of HCN to which it is exposed (external dose) is what may be called the total “ Effective Resistance ” and that this “ Effective Resistance ” is the resultant of (a) “ Surface Resistance ” to the entry of fumigant and (b) “ Internal Resistance ” to the amount of HCN which actually gains entry into the body in some way or other. Thus the “Effective Resistance ” of an insect may be due to a combination either of low “ Surface Resistance ” and high “ Internal Resistance ”, giving a very low “ Effective Resistance ” as in the case of C. cephalonica, or vice versa giving the maximum “ Effective Resistance ” as in adult females of Drosicha sp. The lower recovery of HCN from the nymphs of Drosicha sp., although they were more susceptible to fumigation than C. cephalonica, is explained by their higher “ Surface Resistance ” combined with a very much lower “ Internal Resistance ”, leading to a lower “ Effective Resistance ”.

Type
Original Articles
Information
Bulletin of Entomological Research , Volume 42 , Issue 2 , September 1951 , pp. 399 - 418
Copyright
Copyright © Cambridge University Press 1951

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

Abbott, W. S. (1925). A method of computing the effectiveness of an insecticide.—J. econ. Ent., 18, pp. 265–267.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
*Barber, G. W.&Schmitt, J. B. (1948). Houseflies resistant to DDT residual sprays.—Bull. N. J. agric. Exp. Sta., no. 742, 8 pp.Google Scholar
Barber, G. W. & Schmitt, J. B. (1949). Further studies on resistance to DDT in the housefly.—J. econ. Ent., 42, pp. 287–292.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Bartholomew, E. T., Sinclair, W. B. &Lindgren, D. L. (1942). Measurements on hydrocyanic acid absorbed by citrus tissues during fumigation.—Hilgardia, 14, pp. 373–409.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Carpenter, E. L.&Moore, W. (1938). Sorption of hydrocyanic acid by different species of insects.—J. econ. Ent., 31, pp. 270–275.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Cupples, H. L. (1933). Determination of hydrocyanic acid in air and in air-carbon dioxide mixtures.—Industr. Engng Chem., Anal. Ed. 5, pp. 50–52.Google Scholar
Haas, A. R. C. (1934). Relation between the chemical composition of citrus scale insects and their resistance to hydrocyanic acid fumigation.—J. agric. Res., 49, pp. 477–492.Google Scholar
Keiding, J.&van Deurs, H. (1949). DDT-resistance in houseflies in Denmark.—Nature, Lond., 163, pp. 964–965.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Lindgren, D. L. &Sinclair, W. B. (1944). Relation of mortality to amounts of hydrocyanic acid recovered from fumigated resistant and non-resistant citrus scale insects.—Hilgardia, 16, pp. 303–315.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Lindgren, D. L. & Sinclair, W. B. (1945). Sorption of HCN by insect pupae.—J. econ. Ent., 38, p. 617.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Lindquist, A. W. &Wilson, H. J. (1948). DDT resistant flies developed in laboratories.—Science, 107, p. 276.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Lubatti, O. F. (1945). Sorption of fumigants.—Nature, Lond., 155, p. 577.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Melander, A. L. (1914). Can insects become resistant to sprays ?—J. econ. Ent., 7, pp. 167–172.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Quayle, H. J. (1938). The development of resistance to hydrocyanic acid in certain scale insects.—Hilgardia, 11, pp. 183–210.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Sinclair, W. B.&Ramsey, R. C. (1944). The picric acid method for determining minute amounts of hydrocyanic acid in fumigated insects.—Hilgardia, 16, pp. 291–300.CrossRefGoogle Scholar