Pesticide Residues

Cook, J. Williams.; Williams, Sidney.

doi:10.1021/ac60224a011

Cited by 8 publications

(3 citation statements)

References 86 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…To detect these very small quantities, much effort has gone into extraction and cleanup prior to GLC determination of the insecticides. 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,.…”

mentioning

confidence: 99%

Extraction and Cleanup of 14C‐Chlorinated Insecticides from Cotton Grown in Treated Soils

Nash¹,

Beall

1970

Agronomy Journal

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Dry cotton hay or seed samples from plants grown in 0.5 ppm 14MC‐DDT, ‐dieldrin, ‐endrin, and ‐heptachlor treated soils were subjected to exhaustive Soxhlet extraction with chloroform/methanol (CM), hexane/acetone (HA), hexane/acetone/methanol (HAM), or hexane/acetone/ methanol/water (HAMW). Extracts further were fractionated by selective elution from Florisil columns and the 14C‐insecticide residues determined. The relative extracting power of the solvents was HAMW>HAM=CM>HA; this applied to all insecticides except DDT, whose residue was too low for reliable comparison. No solution removed all the 14C‐residue from plant tissue. HAM afforded greater simplicity and less time in cleanup compared to CM. One dieldrin degradation product, three endrin degradation products, and three heptachlor degradation products, which includes heptachlor epoxide, were believed extracted from cotton hay with HAMW.

show abstract

mentioning

confidence: 99%

Extraction and Cleanup of 14C‐Chlorinated Insecticides from Cotton Grown in Treated Soils

Nash¹,

Beall

1970

Agronomy Journal

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…In those instances where the common or trade name may be confusing or is not well known, we have tried to include the chemical name as well. Thus the reader should, with the help of Frear's Index, be able to identify almost every compound referred to in this paper, The literature on pesticide residues has maintained its rapid growth in the two years since the previous biannual review (75). Gunther (183) has continued his excellent series of "Residue Reviews" and 15 volumes have now been published.…”

mentioning

confidence: 99%