Discovery of Chloronicotinyl Insecticides
The insecticide market has long been dominated, more than 80%, by organophosphates, carbamates, and synthetic pyrethroids. The consequence is the development of resistant strains to these three insecticide classes. For effective crop protection, development of a new insecticide class with a new mode of action has been urgently required Future insecticides, as seen from the retreat of chlorinated hydrocarbons from the primary seat, are required to have not only high insecticidal potentials, but also low toxicity to vertebrates and no damage to the environment. Furthermore, these agents are expected to have sufficient stability under weathering conditions to reduce application times for the decreasing farmer population. The recently developed chloronicotinyl insecticides meet these requirements for the modem pesticides. This article describes how this new insecticide class was found.
KeywordsInsecticidal Activity Mulliken Charge Heteroaromatic Ring Insecticidal Efficacy Insecticide Class
Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.
- Hansch LA, Elkins CD (1971) Partition coefficients and theiruses. ChemRev 71:525–616Google Scholar
- Kashiwada Y (1996) Bestguard (nitenpyram, 11-304)-New systemic insecticide. Agrochemicals Japan 68:18–19.Google Scholar
- Matsuda M, Takahashi H (1996) Mospilan (acetamiprid, NI-25)-New systemic insecticide. Agrochem Jpn 68:20–21Google Scholar
- Moriya K, Shibuya K, Hattori Y, Tsuboi S, Shiokawa K, Kagabu S (1993a) Structural modification of the 6-chloropyridyl moiety in the imidacloprid skeleton: introduction of a five-membered h eteroaromatic ring and the resulting insecticidal activity. Biosci Biotechnol Biochem 57:127–128CrossRefGoogle Scholar
- Shiokawa K, Tsuboi S, Kagabu S, Moriya K(1986) Jpn Pat Showa 61–267575Google Scholar
- Soloway SB, Henry AC, Kollmeyer WD, Padgent WM, Powell JE, Roman SA, Tieman CH, Corey RA, Home CA(1979) Nitromethylene insecticides. In: Geissbuhler H, Brooks GT and Kearney PC (Eds) Advances in pesticide science, part 2. Pergamon, Oxford, pp 206–227Google Scholar