The biological effect of cage design corrected for reductions in spray penetration
More details
Hide details
USDA-ARS-Aerial Application Technology Research Unit, 3103 F&B Road, College Station, TX 77845, USA
Bonds Consulting Group, 3900 Wasp Street, Panama City, FL 32408, USA
Central Life Sciences, 12111 Ford Road, Dallas, TX 75234, USA
Poznań University of Life Sciences, Wojska Polskiego 28, 60-637 Poznań, Poland
Zbigniew Czaczyk
Poznań University of Life Sciences, Wojska Polskiego 28, 60-637 Poznań, Poland
Submission date: 2014-06-09
Acceptance date: 2014-11-07
Journal of Plant Protection Research 2014;54(4):395–400
In-field measures of physical spray concentration do not tend to correlate well with caged insect mortality data. This is partly due to the reduced penetration of the spray into the cage. Spray penetration is hindered by the structure of the cage. Wind tunnel studies were conducted to investigate the accuracy of those calculations developed to correct for filtration levels in caged mosquito bioassays. Zenivex E20 (Etofenprox) was applied at rates ranging from an LD 10 to an LD 90. Three cage types were used, each with different penetration levels. The dose approaching the cage was converted to the dose entering the cage using cage penetration data from previous research. The penetration conversion factor returned a data set that directly correlated dose with mosquito mortality (R 2 = 0.918). The mortality percent was a function of the dose within the cage. The mesh type acted as a regulator. Although the conversion factor was effective, the differences between cages was not always significant due to within-group variation.
The authors have declared that no conflict of interests exist.
Abbott W.S. 1925. A method of computing the effectiveness of an insecticide. J. Econ. Entomol. 18: 265–267.
ANSI/ASAE S572.1. 2009. Spray Nozzle Classification by Droplet Spectra. American Society of Agricultural Engineers, St. Joseph, Minnesota, USA, 4 pp.
ASTM 2003. Standard E 1260: standard test method for determining liquid drop size characteristics in a spray using optical nonimaging light-scattering instruments. Annual Book of American Society for Testing and Materials (ASTM) Standards. West Conshohocken, PA: American Society for Testing and Materials International, 6 pp.
Barber J.A.S., Greer M., Coughlin J. 2006. The effect of pesticide residue on caged mosquito bioassays. J. Am. Mosq. Control Assoc. 22 (3): 469–477.
Boobar L.R., Dobson S.E., Perich M.J., Darby W.M., Nelson J.H. 1988. Effects of screen materials on droplet size frequency distribution of aerosols entering sentinel mosquito tubes. Med. Vet. Entomol. 2 (4): 379–384.
Breeland S.G. 1970. The effect of test cage materials on ULV Malathion evaluations. Mosq. News 30 (3): 338–342.
Bunner B.L., Posa F.G., Dobson S.E., Broski F.H., Boobar L.R. 1989. Aerosol penetration relative to sentinel cage configuration and orientation. J. Am. Mosq. Control Assoc. 5 (4): 547–551.
Fox R.D., Derksen R.C., Zhu H., Downer R.A., Brazee R.D. 2004. Airborne spray collection efficiency of nylon screen. Appl. Eng. Agric. 20 (2): 147–152.
Fritz B.K., Hoffmann W.C. 2008a. Collection efficiency of various airborne spray flux samplers used in aerial application research. J. ASTM Int. 5 (1): 1–10.
Fritz B.K., Hoffmann W.C. 2008b. Development of a system for determining collection efficiency of spray samplers. Appl. Eng. Agric. 24 (3): 285–293.
Fritz B.K., Hoffmann W.C., Farooq M., Walker T., Bonds J. 2010. Filtration effects due to bioassay cage design and screen type. J. Am. Mosq. Control Assoc. 26 (4): 411–421.
Hoffmann W.C., Fritz B.K., Farooq M., Cooperband M.F. 2008. Effects of wind speed on aerosol spray penetration in adult mosquito bioassay cages. J. Am. Mosq. Control Assoc. 24 (3): 419–426.
May K.R., Clifford R. 1967. The impaction of aerosol particles on cylinders, spheres, ribbons, and discs. Ann. Occup. Hyg. 10 (2): 63–95.
Morgan P.H., Mercer L.P., Flodin N.W. 1975. General model for nutritional responses of higher organisms. Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. USA 72 (11): 4327–4331.