4.6 Article

A test house study of pesticides and pesticide degradation products following an indoor application

期刊

INDOOR AIR
卷 24, 期 4, 页码 390-402

出版社

WILEY-BLACKWELL
DOI: 10.1111/ina.12093

关键词

Pyrethroids; Fipronil; Propoxur; Indoor; Degradation

资金

  1. The United States Environmental Protection Agency through its Office of Research and Development

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Preexisting pesticide degradates are a concern for pesticide biomonitoring studies as exposure to them may result in overestimation of pesticide exposure. The purpose of this research was to determine whether there was significant formation and movement, of pesticide degradates over a 5-week period in a controlled indoor setting after insecticide application. Movement of the pesticides during the study was also evaluated. In a simulated crack and crevice application, commercially available formulations of fipronil, propoxur, cis/trans-permethrin, and cypermethrin were applied to a series of wooden slats affixed to the wall in one room of an unoccupied test house. Floor surface samples were collected through 35 days post-application. Concentrations of the pesticides and the following degradates were determined: 2-iso-propoxyphenol, cis/trans 3-(2,2-dichlorovinyl)-3-3-dimethyl-(1-cyclopropane) carboxylic acid, 3-phenoxybenzoic acid, fipronil sulfone, fipronil sulfide, and fipronil desulfinyl. Deltamethrin, which had never been applied, and chlorpyrifos, which had been applied several years earlier, and their degradation products, cis-3-(2,2-dibromovinyl)- 2,2-dimethylcyclopropane-1-carboxylic acid, and, 3,5,6-trichloro- 2-pyridinol, respectively, were also measured. Propoxur was the only insecticide with mass movement away from the application site. There was no measurable formation or movement of the degradates. However, all degradates were present at low levels in the formulated product. These results indicate longitudinal repetitive sampling of indoor degradate levels during short-term studies, is unnecessary.

作者

我是这篇论文的作者
点击您的名字以认领此论文并将其添加到您的个人资料中。

评论

主要评分

4.6
评分不足

次要评分

新颖性
-
重要性
-
科学严谨性
-
评价这篇论文

推荐

暂无数据
暂无数据