Advertisement

Persistence and vertical distribution of termiticide fipronil in modified ground board test

  • KK Sharma
  • Kalpana
  • Vandana Sharma
  • Pratigya Gupta
  • Maisnam Jaya
  • Anoop Kumar
  • Bijendra Singh
Article

Abstract

Fipronil termiticide belongs to phenyl-pyrazole class of chemical compounds. It has broad-spectrum activity particularly against house hold pests such as cockroaches, mosquitoes, locusts, ticks, and fleas at both larval and adult stages. At high dosage it can be used to control subterranean termites in building foundations. To evaluate long term efficacy against termites the persistence and vertical distribution of fipronil was studied under natural weather conditions of Dehradun, India. Fipronil was applied at four concentrations i.e. 0.05, 0.1, 0.25 and 0.5% a.i ha−1 by drenching 17×17 in.2 plot prepared as per modified ground board test. Soil samples were collected after 22, 38 and 56 months of treatment up to the depth of 75 cm. The soil core was cut into five distinct sections i.e. 0–15, 15–30, 30–45, 45–60 and 60–75 cm depth. The residues were extracted by shaking 20 g soil sample with acetone. The acetone extract was concentrated and cleaned-up over florisil column. Fipronil residues were estimated on GLC at 220, 260, and 300°C oven, injector and detector temperature respectively. Fipronil was found to persist beyond 56 months after application. Two metabolites viz. desulfinyl and sulfide-fipronil were detected in sampling after 22 months of application that also dissipated with time. Fipronil residues were found up to 60 cm depth. The residues in deeper layers dissipate slowly with time and after 56 months of treatment residues were detected only up to 30 cm depth.

Keywords

Fipronil Termiticide Persistence Vertical movement 

References

  1. Baker, P. B. (2001). An update on termiticide degradation in Arizona soil. Turfgrass and Ornamental Research Report. Retrieved January, 16, 2006 from University of Arizona, College of Agriculture website http://ag.arizona.edu/pubs/crops/az1246/1
  2. Bobe, A., Coste, C. M., & Cooper, J-F. (1997). Factors influencing the adsorption of fipronil in soils. Journal of Agricultural and Food Chemistry, 45, 4861–4865.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. Cole, L. M., Nicholson, R. A., & Casida, J. E. (1993). Action of phenylpyrazole insecticides at the GABA-gated chloride channel. Pesticide Biochemistry and Physiology, 46, 47–54CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. Colliot, F., Kukowski, K. A., Hawkins, P. W., & Rober, D. A. (1992). Fipronil: a new soil and foliar broad-spectrum insecticide. Bringhton Crop Protection Conference — Pests and Diseases, 1, 29–34Google Scholar
  5. Fenet, H., Beltran, E., Gadji, B., Cooper, J. F., & Coste, C. M. (2001). Fate of a phenyl-pyrazole in vegetation and soil under tropical field condition. Journal of Agriculture and Food Chemistry, 49, 1293–1297.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. Gold, R. E., Howell H. N., Jr., Pawson B. M., Wright, M. S., & Lutz, J. C. (1996). Persistence and bioavailability of termiticides to subterranean termite (Isopetra: Rhinotermitidae) from five soil types and locations in Texas. Proceedings of the North-American Termite Biology and Control Conference (p.28, 337–363), Nassau, Bahamas.Google Scholar
  7. Henderson, G., & Forschler, B. T. (1997) Termite bait tests. Louisiana Agriculture, 40, 9–11.Google Scholar
  8. Kard, B. M., Mauldin, J. K., & Jones, S. C. (1989) Evaluation of soil termiticides for control of subterranean termites (Isoptera). Sociobiology, 15, 285–297.Google Scholar
  9. Melo, R. M., & de Veiga, A. F. S. L. (1998). Efficiency of fipronil in the control of the mould-building termite, Nasutitermes sp. (Isoptera: Termitidae) in sugarcane. Anais-de- Sociedade -Entimologica-do-Brasil, 27, 149–152.Google Scholar
  10. Merchant, M., & Gold, R. (2004). Choosing a termite treatment chemical. Retrieved December 21, 2004 from Texas A&M University, Department of Entomology website http://citybugs.tamu.edu/FastSheets/Ent-1005.html
  11. Mukherjee, I., & Kalpana (2006) Sorption of fipronil in Indian soils. Bulletin of Environmental Contamination and Toxicology, 76(2), 334–340.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. Potter, M. F., & Hillery, A. E. (2001) Thinking “outside” the box. Pest Control Technology, 29, 68–84.Google Scholar
  13. Raetano, C. G., Wilcken, C. F., & Crocomo, W. B. (1997). Termite control in eucalypt forests with fipronil (Regent 20G) applied to the soil surface. Revista Arvore, 21, 289–293.Google Scholar
  14. Su, N. A., Scheffrahn, R. H., & Ban, P. M. (1993). Barrier efficacy of pyrethroid and organophosphate formulations against subterranean termite (Isopetra: Rhinotermitidae). Journal of Economic Entomology, 86, 772–776.Google Scholar
  15. Valerio, J. R., Santos, A. V., Souza, A. P., Macial, C. A. M., & Oliveira, M. C. M. (1998). Chemical and mechanical control of mound building termite species (Isoptera: Termitidae) in pastures. Anais-de- Sociedade- Entomologica-do-Brasil, 27, 125-131.Google Scholar
  16. Ying, G. G., & Kookana, R. S. (2006). Persistence and movement of fipronil termiticide with under slab and trenching treatments. Environmental Toxicology and Chemistry, 25, 2045–2050CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media B.V. 2007

Authors and Affiliations

  • KK Sharma
    • 1
  • Kalpana
    • 1
  • Vandana Sharma
    • 1
  • Pratigya Gupta
    • 1
  • Maisnam Jaya
    • 1
  • Anoop Kumar
    • 1
  • Bijendra Singh
    • 1
  1. 1.All India Network Project on Pesticide ResiduesDivision of Agricultural ChemicalsNew DelhiIndia

Personalised recommendations