1966
DOI: 10.1126/science.152.3721.530
|View full text |Cite
|
Sign up to set email alerts
|

Dieldrin: Extraction of Accumulations by Root Uptake

Abstract: Certain forage crops can absorb and translocate the chlorinated hydrocarbon insecticide dieldrin from soil or sand. An extraction technique routinely used for analyses of residues does not quantitatively remove this internal chemical, but a method employing chloroform-methanol extraction leads to essentially quantitative recovery.

Help me understand this report

Search citation statements

Order By: Relevance

Paper Sections

Select...
1
1
1
1

Citation Types

0
13
0

Year Published

1966
1966
1970
1970

Publication Types

Select...
5
4

Relationship

0
9

Authors

Journals

citations
Cited by 36 publications
(13 citation statements)
references
References 4 publications
0
13
0
Order By: Relevance
“…The cotton samples were extracted with hexane/acetone/ mehanol (8:1:1 by volume [Nash and Beall,17]) similar to the Mumma et a!. (15) procedure. After extraction the sample volume was reduced to about 10 ml by placing a 3-ball Snyder column on the extraction flask.…”
Section: Analyticalmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…The cotton samples were extracted with hexane/acetone/ mehanol (8:1:1 by volume [Nash and Beall,17]) similar to the Mumma et a!. (15) procedure. After extraction the sample volume was reduced to about 10 ml by placing a 3-ball Snyder column on the extraction flask.…”
Section: Analyticalmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…Control samples were used for background, which was subtracted out. Table 1 gives the values from the initial comparative HAM extraction with that of the CM extraction (Mumma et al, 1966). Florisil column cleanup of extracts prior to counting consisted of 200 ml 6 + 94 for DDT and heptachlor residues and 200 ml 15 + 85 for dieldrin and endrin residues.…”
Section: Determinationmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…Several reviews and evaluations of these procedures exist (Cooke and Williams, 1965; Burke and Porter, 1966;Sans, 1967;Stoherr et al, 1967;Ware and Dee, 1968;Wheeler and Frear, 1966;and Williams, 1968). Mumma et al (1966) observed that dieldrin-3 6CI (1,2,3,4,10,10-hexachloro-6, 7 -epoxy-1, 4, 4a, 5, 6, 7, 8, 8a-octahydro-l,. 4-e!ldo, exo-5,8-dimethanonaphthalene) was not quantitatively removed from plants, grown in sand treated with _the labeled dieldrin, when extracted by the standard Mills, Onley, and Gaither (1963) procedure.…”
mentioning
confidence: 99%
“…After removing samples for quantitative ana:.ysis through combustion, the remaining plant shoots from the four replications were bulked and extracted for 12 hours in a Soxhlet apparatus with 100 ml chloroform-methanol (1:1 v/v), similar to the method of Mumma et a!. (15), for finely ground dry hay. As a check on the extraction and cleanup procedure, samples from plants grown in non-treated soil were fortified with the appropriate 14 C-labeled insecticides and subjected to the identical procedure.…”
Section: Residue Analysismentioning
confidence: 99%