Behaviour of Imidacloprid in Fields. Toxicity for Honey Bees

  • J. M. Bonmatin
  • I. Moineau
  • R. Charvet
  • M. E. Colin
  • C. Fleche
  • E. R. Bengsch

Abstract

Following evidence for the intoxication of bees, the systemic insecticide imidacloprid was suspected from the mid nineties of having harmful effects. Recently, some studies have demonstrated that imidacloprid is toxic for the bees at sub-lethal doses. These doses are evaluated in the range between 1 and 20 µg kg−1, or less. It appeared thus necessary to study the fate of imidacloprid in the environment at such low levels. Thus, we developed methods for the determination of low amounts, in the µg kg−1 range, of the insecticide imidacloprid in soils, plants and pollens using high pressure liquid chromatography — tandem mass spectrometry (LC/APCI/MS/MS). The extraction and separation methods were performed according to quality assurance criteria, good laboratory practices and the European Community’s criteria applicable to banned substances (directive 96/23 EC). The linear concentration range of application was 1–50 µg kg−1 of imidacloprid, with a relative standard deviation of 2.9% at 1 µg kg−1. The limit of detection and quantification are respectively LOD = 0.1 µg kg−1 and LOQ = 1 µg kg−1 and are suited to the sub-lethal dose range. This technique allows the unambiguous identification and quantification of imidacloprid. The results show the remanence of the insecticide in soils, its ascent into plants during flowering and its bioavailability in pollens.

Key words

imidacloprid insecticide Gaucho® analysis soils plants pollens bees 

Preview

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

References

  1. Baskaran K, Kookana RS, Naidu RJ (1997) Determination of the pesticide imidacloprid in water and soil using high-performance liquid chromatography. J Chromatogr 787:271–275CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. Belzunces LP (2001) In: Rapport d’étude 2000–2001 au Ministère de l’Agriculture et de la Pêche, VIème Programme Communautaire pour l’Apiculture, Projet 2106Google Scholar
  3. Belzunces LP, Tasei J-N (1997) Impacts sur les dépeuplements de colonies d’abeilles et sur les miellées. In: Rapport au Ministère de l’agriculture sur les effets des traitements de semences de tournesol au Gaucho® (imidacoprid)Google Scholar
  4. Bonmatin J-M (2002) Insecticides et pollinisateurs: une dérive de la chimie? Science 2:42–46Google Scholar
  5. Bonmatin J-M, Moineau I, Colin M-E, Bengsch ER, Lecoublet S and Fleché C (2000a) Effets des produits phytosanitaires sur les abeilles. Programmes 1999–2000 AFSSA-CNRS-INRA. In: Rapport de résultats No3 au Ministère de l’Agriculture et de la PêcheGoogle Scholar
  6. Bonmatin J-M, Moineau I, Colin M-E, Fleché C, Bengsch ER (2000b) Insecticide imidacloprid: availability in soils and plants, toxicity and risk for honeybees. EPRW 2000. Pesticides in Food and drink. p 134Google Scholar
  7. Bonmatin J-M, Moineau I, Colin M-E, Fléché C, Bengsch ER (2000c) L’insecticide imidaclopride: Biodisponibilité dans les sols et les plantes, toxicité et risque pour les abeilles. Revue Française d’Apiculture 609:360–361Google Scholar
  8. Bonmatin J-M, Moineau I, Lecoublet S, Colin M-E, Fléché C, Bengsch ER (2001) Neurotoxiques systémiques: biodisponibilité, toxicité et risque pour les insectes pollinisateurs — le cas de l’imidaclopride-, Produits Phytosanitaires. Eds. Presse Universitaires, Reims, France, pp 175–181Google Scholar
  9. Colin M-E (2001) Influence des insecticides systémiques sur l’apprentissage spatio-temporel de l’abeille, Public conférence INRA/UAPV, 22 May 2001, Avignon, FranceGoogle Scholar
  10. Colin M-E, Bonmatin J-M (2000) Effets de très faibles concentrations d’imidaclopride et dérivés sur le butinage des abeilles en conditions semi-contrôlées. In: Rapport au Ministère de l’agriculture et de la pêcheGoogle Scholar
  11. Directive 96/23/CE (1996) (Revision of commission decision 93/256/EC) Commission decision laying down analytical methods to be used for detecting certain substances and residues there of in live animals and animal products according to Council Directive 96/23/ECGoogle Scholar
  12. Guez D, Suchail S, Gauthier M, Maleszka R, Belzunces L (2001) Contrasting effects of imidacloprid on habituation in 7 and 8 d old honeybees (Apis mellifera). Neurobiol Learning Memory 76:183–191CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. Journal Officiel de la République Française (1999) Avis aux détenteurs et aux utilisateurs de semences de tournesol. Ministère de l’agriculture et de la pêche, 14 février 1999, p 2413Google Scholar
  14. Lancashire PD, Bleiholder H (1991) A uniform decimal code for growth stages of crops and weeds. Ann Appl Biol 119:561–601Google Scholar
  15. Laurent F, Scalla R (2000) Transport et métabolisme de l’imidaclopride chez le tournesol. 3ème Programme Communautaire pour l’apiculture. Année 1999–2000. In: Rapport au Ministère de l’Agriculture et de la PêcheGoogle Scholar
  16. MacDonald L, Meyer TJ (1998) Determination of imidacloprid and triadimefon in white pine by gas chromatography/mass spectrometry. Agric Food Chem 46:3133–3138CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. Martinez-Galera M, Garrido-Frenich A, Martinez-Vidal JL, Parrilla-Vasquez P (1998) Resolution of imidacloprid pesticide and its metabolite 6-chloronicotinic acid using cross-sections of spectrochromatograms obtained by high-performance liquid chromatography with diode-array detection. J Chromatogr A 799:149–154CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. Nauen R, Hungenberg H, Tollo B, Tietjen K, Elbert A (1998) Antifeedant effect, biological efficacy and high affinity binding of imidacloprid to acetylcholine receptors in Myzus persicae and Myzus nicotianae. Pest Managem Sci 53:133–140Google Scholar
  19. Nauen R, Ebbinghaus-Kintscher U, Schmuck R (2001) Toxicity and nicotinic acetylcholine receptor interaction of imidacloprid and its metabolites in Apis mellifera (Hymenoptera: Apidae). Pest Managem Sci 57:577–586CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. Okazawa A, Akamatsu M, Ohoka A, Nishiwaki H, Cho WJ, Nakagawa N, Ueno T (1998) Prediction of the binding mode of imidacloprid and related compounds to house-fly head acetylcholine receptors using three-dimensional QSAR analysis. Pestic Sci 54:134–144CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. Oliveira RS, Koskinen WC, Werdin NR, Yen PY (2000) Sorption of imidacloprid and its metabolites on tropical soils. J Environ Sci Health B35:39–49Google Scholar
  22. Pham-Delegue MH, Cluzeau S (1999) Effets des produits phytosanitaires sur l’abeille; incidence du traitement des semences de tournesol par Gaucho sur les disparitions de butineuses. Rapport final de synthèse au Ministère de l’Agriculture et de la PêcheGoogle Scholar
  23. Placke FJ, Weber E (1993) Method for determination of imidacloprid residues in plant materials. Pflanzenschutz-Nachrichten Bayer 46/1993, p 2Google Scholar
  24. Pous X, Ruiz M, Pico Y, Font G (2001) Determination of imidacloprid, metalaxyl, myclobutanil, propham, and thiabendazole in fruits and vegetables by liquid chromatography-atmospheric pressure chemical ionization-mass spectrometry. Fresenius J Anal Chem 371:182–189CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  25. Schmuck R, Schöning R, Stork A, Schramel O (2001) Risk posed to honeybees (Apis mellifera L., Hymenoptera) by an imidacloprid seed dressing of sunflowers. Pest Managem Sci 57:225–238CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. Suchail S (2001) Etude pharmacocinétique et pharmacodynamique de la létalité induite par l’imidaclopride et ses métabolites chez l’abeille domestique (Apis mellifera L.). Thèse, Université Claude Bernard-Lyon I, No04-2001Google Scholar
  27. Suchail S, Guez D, Belzunces LP (2001) Discrepancy between acute and chronic toxicity induced by imidacloprid and its metabolites in Apis mellifera. Environ Toxicol Chem 20:2482–2486CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  28. Uroz FJ, Arrebola FJ, Egea-Gonzales FJ, Martinez-Vidal JL (2001) Monitoring of 6-chloronicotinic acid in human urine by gas chromatography-tandem mass spectrometry as indicator of exposure to the pesticide imidacloprid. Analyst 126:1355–1358CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  29. Yih-Fen M, Powley CR (2000) LC/MS/MS: The method of choice in residue analysis. EPRW 2000. Pesticides in Food and Drink, p 102Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer-Verlag Berlin Heidelberg 2005

Authors and Affiliations

  • J. M. Bonmatin
  • I. Moineau
  • R. Charvet
  • M. E. Colin
  • C. Fleche
  • E. R. Bengsch

There are no affiliations available

Personalised recommendations