Two Butoxypolypropylene Glycol Compounds as Fly Repellents for Livestock1

Granett, Philip; Haynes, Harry L.; Connola, D. P.; Bowery, T. G.; Barber, George W.

doi:10.1093/jee/42.2.281

Cited by 7 publications

(5 citation statements)

References 0 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…The earliest studies on repelling stable flies from cattle suggested the use of crank case oil and oil of tar as being the most promising results in terms of cost effectiveness and practicality [120]. Repellents specific to stable flies were reported in several studies in the 1940s and 1950s [121][122][123][124]. Most repellent formulations, however, have only demonstrated at best 1 to 2 d reprieve for animals [32,125], and with many less than 12 h of measurable reduction in stable flies [126].…”

Section: Repellents On Livestockmentioning

confidence: 99%

A Historical Review of Management Options Used against the Stable Fly (Diptera: Muscidae)

Cook

2020

Insects

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

The stable fly, Stomoxys calcitrans (L.) (Diptera: Muscidae), remains a significant economic pest globally in situations where intensive animal production or horticultural production provide a suitable developmental medium. Stable flies have been recorded as pests of livestock and humans since the late 1800s to early 1900s. Over 100 years of research has seen numerous methodologies used to control this fly, in particular to protect cattle from flies to minimise production losses. Reduced milk production in dairy cows and decreased weight gain in beef cattle account for losses in the US alone of > $2000 million annually. Rural lifestyles and recreation are also seriously affected. Progress has been made on many control strategies against stable fly over a range of chemical, biological, physical and cultural options. This paper reviews management options from both a historical and a technical perspective for controlling this pest. These include the use of different classes of insecticides applied to affected animals as toxicants or repellents (livestock and humans), as well as to substrates where stable fly larvae develop. Arthropod predators of stable flies are listed, from which potential biological control agents (e.g., wasps, mites, and beetles) are identified. Biopesticides (e.g., fungi, bacteria and plant-derived products) are also discussed along with Integrated Pest Management (IPM) against stable flies for several animal industries. A review of cultural and physical management options including trapping, trap types and methodologies, farm hygiene, scheduled sanitation, physical barriers to fly emergence, livestock protection and amendments added to animal manures and bedding are covered. This paper presents a comprehensive review of all management options used against stable flies from both a historical and a technical perspective for use by any entomologist, livestock producer or horticulturalist with an interest in reducing the negative impact of this pest fly.

show abstract

Section: Repellents On Livestockmentioning

confidence: 99%

A Historical Review of Management Options Used against the Stable Fly (Diptera: Muscidae)

Cook

2020

Insects

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…The volatility of two PPGs Butyl Ether (PPG BE400 and PPG BE800) were low; the vapor pressure of each was <0.1 mm Hg at 20 ± C. The speci c gravity of the lower molecular weight compound was 0.973 at 20 ± C, and was soluble in water "to an extent of about 0.2% at 20 ± C." The larger molecular weight compound had a speci c gravity of 0.99 and a water solubility of »0.1% at the same temperature. Both compounds were soluble in most organic solvents, which included alcohols, ketones, toluene, and gasoline, and were miscible in petroleum distillates and methylated naphthalene (Granett et al 1949;Carpenter et al 1951Carpenter et al , 1959.…”

Section: Figurementioning

confidence: 99%

“…PPG BE400 and PPG BE800 are used as y repellents for livestock (Granett et al 1949(Granett et al , 1951Carpenter et al 1951Carpenter et al , 1959. The repellents are applied at a concentration of »5% to dairy cattle in the form of water emulsions or solutions in petroleum base oils (i.e., kerosene).…”

Section: Noncosmeticmentioning

confidence: 99%

Amended Final Report on the Safety Assessment of PPG-40 Butyl Ether with an Addendum to Include PPG-2, -4, -5, -9, -12, -14, -15, -16, -17, -18, -20, -22, -24, -26, -30, -33, -52, and-53 Butyl Ethers

2001

UITO

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

The Polypropylene Glycol (PPG) Butyl Ethers function as skin-and hair-conditioning agents in cosmetics. Intestinal absorption of the PPG Butyl Ethers was inversely proportional to the molecular weight. In general, the toxicity of the PPG Butyl Ethers decreased as the molecular weight increased. In acute studies, moderate intraperitoneal(IP) doses of various PPG Butyl Ethers caused convulsive seizures in mice and anesthetized dogs, and large oral doses caused decreased activity, anuria, renal tubular swelling and necrosis, and hepatic swelling and necrosis. PPG-2 Butyl Ether vapors were nontoxic by the inhalation route. PPG-2 Butyl Ether was non-toxic in short-term feeding and dermal exposure studies in rats. In animal irritation studies, PPG-2 Butyl Ether caused minor, transient erythema and desquamation; in addition, erythema, edema, ecchymosis, necrosis, and other changes were observed during an acute percutaneous study. PPG-2 Butyl Ether also caused minor to moderate conjunctival irritation and minor corneal injury. PPG-2 Butyl Ether when dermally applied was nontoxic to pregnant rats and was nonteratogenic at doses up to 1.0 ml/kg/day. PPG BE800 at concentrations of 0.001% to 0.26% in feed was noncarcinogenic to rats after 2 years of treatment. In clinical studies, PPG BE800 was nonirritating and nonsensitizing to the skin when tested using 200 subjects. PPG-40 Butyl Ether was neither an irritant nor a sensitizer in a repeat-insult patch test using 112 subjects. Although clinical testing did not indicate significant skin irritation is produced by these ingredients, the animal test data did indicate the potential that these ingredients can be irritating. Therefore, it was concluded that the PPG Butyl Ethers can be used safely in cosmetic products if they are formulated to avoid irritation. Data on the component ingredients, Propylene Glycol, PPG, and n-Butyl Alcohol, from previous cosmetic ingredient safety assessments were also considered and found to support the safety of PPG Butyl Ethers.

show abstract

“…For the purpose of this study, butyl 3-methylcinchoninate (BMC) has been compared in a series of paired tests with the repellents listed in Table 1. Granett et al, 1949Granett et al, , 1951 di-n-propyl isocinchomeronate DPC Goodhue & Stansbury, 1953;Goodhue & Howell, 1960;Moore, 1962N,N-diethyl-m-toluamide DET Altaian & Smith, 1955McCabe et al, 1954;Gilbert et al, 1955Gilbert et al, , 1957aSmith, 1958 2,3,4,5-bis (A ! butenylene)-tetrahydrofurfural BTF Howell & Goodhue, 1955;Goodhue & Howell, 1960;Moore, 1962dibutyl succinate DBS Bruce & Decker, 1957Goodhue & Howell, 1960 2-hydroxyethyl n-octyl sulphide HOS Goodhue & Howell, 1960N-benzoyl piperidine NBP Almazova, 1962Bataev et al, 1963 tThese symbols are used for convenience throughout this paper; except for DMP and DET they are not generally recognised.…”

Section: Ooc + H 9 Ch3mentioning

confidence: 99%

Repellents forStomoxys calcitrans(L.), the stable fly: techniques and a comparative laboratory assessment of butyl methylcinchoninate

Yeoman¹,

Warren²

1970

Bull. Entomol. Res.

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

An in vitro test, based on the molasses sandwich-bait test, for mass screening of new compounds for general insect repellency is described. This is followed by a detailed account of a laboratory technique for comparing the initial potency of contact repellents for the stable fly Stomoxys calcitrans (L.).Methods for rearing S. calcitrans of standardised aggressiveness and making comparative assessments of contact repellents against this fly are described. For initial potency, a standard area of the treated close-clipped abdominal skin of mice lying outside the cage was exposed through an orifice to standardised flies. A treated 0·5-cm-wide screen was incorporated as a border round the exposed area of treated skin so that flies biting the mouse were obliged to make tarsal contact with repellent. Using this method, and the organdie bag x human hand method for determining persistence on an inert substrate, each of the following repellents was compared with butyl 3-methylcinchoninate, a new repellent for S. calcitrans:dimethylphthalate; 2-ethyl-1, 3-hexanediol; butoxypolypropylene glycol; dibutyl succinate; N,N-diethyl-m-toluamide; di-n-propyl isocinchomeronate; 2,3,4,5-bis (Δ2-butenylene)-tetrahydrofurfural; 2-hydroxyethyl n-octyl sulphide and N-benzoyl piperidine.In each case butyl 3-methylcinchoninate was found to be superior. In the initial potency tests, the 50% repellency application rate was found to lie between 0·002 and 0·007 mg/cm2, while on organdie, rates of 0·2, 0·4, 0·8 mg/cm2 gave mean protection periods of 9, 19 and 34 days, respectively.

show abstract

Two Butoxypolypropylene Glycol Compounds as Fly Repellents for Livestock1

Cited by 7 publications

References 0 publications

A Historical Review of Management Options Used against the Stable Fly (Diptera: Muscidae)

A Historical Review of Management Options Used against the Stable Fly (Diptera: Muscidae)

Amended Final Report on the Safety Assessment of PPG-40 Butyl Ether with an Addendum to Include PPG-2, -4, -5, -9, -12, -14, -15, -16, -17, -18, -20, -22, -24, -26, -30, -33, -52, and-53 Butyl Ethers

Repellents forStomoxys calcitrans(L.), the stable fly: techniques and a comparative laboratory assessment of butyl methylcinchoninate

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About