Bedoukian   RussellIPM   RussellIPM   Piezoelectric Micro-Sprayer


Home
Animal Taxa
Plant Taxa
Semiochemicals
Floral Compounds
Semiochemical Detail
Semiochemicals & Taxa
Synthesis
Control
Invasive spp.
References

Abstract

Guide

Alphascents
Pherobio
InsectScience
E-Econex
Counterpart-Semiochemicals
Print
Email to a Friend
Kindly Donate for The Pherobase

« Previous AbstractInfluence of protein extraction and texturization on odor-active compounds of pea proteins    Next AbstractThe neurobiology of reproductive development »

Pest Manag Sci


Title:Comparing greenhouse sprayers: the dose-transfer process
Author(s):Ebert TA; Derksen RC; Downer RA; Krause CR;
Address:"Laboratory For Pest Control Application Technology, Ohio Agricultural Research and Development Center, The Ohio State University, 1680 Madison Ave, Wooster, OH 44691, USA. ebert.39@osu.edu"
Journal Title:Pest Manag Sci
Year:2004
Volume:60
Issue:5
Page Number:507 - 513
DOI: 10.1002/ps.779
ISSN/ISBN:1526-498X (Print) 1526-498X (Linking)
Abstract:"Three sprayers were evaluated for their affect on retention and efficacy: a carbon dioxide powered high-volume sprayer, a DRAMM coldfogger, and an Electrostatic Spraying Systems (ESS) sprayer with air-assistance. The active ingredients used were spinosad and azadirachtin. The plant canopy was constructed in the greenhouse using potted soybeans (Glycine max (L) Merrill cr Pioneer 9392). Application efficacy with spinosad was assessed using thrips [Western flower thrips, Frankliniella occidentalis (Pergande)] and mite (two-spotted spider mite, Tetranychus urticae Koch) abundance on shoots and leaves. Application efficacy with azadirachtin was assessed using thrips and aphid (soybean aphid, Aphis glycines Matsumura) abundance on shoots and leaves. The atomization characteristics of each sprayer were measured using an Aerometrics phase/Doppler particle analyzer (PDPA) 100-1D. The results of four tests are presented. Two tests used each sprayer according to manufacturer recommendations. These are 'recommended volume' tests that confound differences in toxicant distribution caused by the sprayer with differences caused by changes in application volume. The other two tests were 'constant volume' tests in which all three sprayers were used to deliver the same application volume. Both types of test gave differences between sprayers in retention of toxicant, but only the recommended volume tests showed significant effects of the sprayers on pest abundance. We attribute this difference to the role played by changing application volumes in the dose-transfer process. The constant-volume tests showed that application equipment influences efficacy"
Keywords:"Aerosols Animals Biological Assay Coloring Agents/pharmacology Drug Combinations Environment, Controlled Insecta/*drug effects Insecticides/analysis/*toxicity Limonins/analysis/*toxicity Macrolides/analysis/*toxicity Nebulizers and Vaporizers/*statistics;"
Notes:"MedlineEbert, Timothy A Derksen, Richard C Downer, Roger A Krause, Charles R eng Comparative Study Research Support, Non-U.S. Gov't Research Support, U.S. Gov't, Non-P.H.S. England 2004/05/25 Pest Manag Sci. 2004 May; 60(5):507-13. doi: 10.1002/ps.779"

 
Back to top
 
Citation: El-Sayed AM 2024. The Pherobase: Database of Pheromones and Semiochemicals. <http://www.pherobase.com>.
© 2003-2024 The Pherobase - Extensive Database of Pheromones and Semiochemicals. Ashraf M. El-Sayed.
Page created on 06-07-2024