Biorational Pest Control Agents. Formulation and Delivery

306 Pages·1995·29.7 MB·English

by  Franklin R. Hall and John W. Barry (Eds.)

ACS SYMPOSIUM SERIES 595
Biorational Pest Control Agents
Formulation and Delivery
Franklin R. Hall, EDITOR
1
0
w0 Ohio State University
5.f
9
5
0
95- John W. Barry, EDITOR
9
1
k- Forest Service, U.S. Department of Agriculture
b
1/
2
0
1
0.
1
oi:
org 5 | d
cs.99
a1
bs.5, Developed from a symposium sponsored
12 | http://pun Date: May obfy at htth ethe A eD m2iv0eri7sitcihoan nN oCafth ioeAnmgarilco acMlh Seemeotciiniceagtly s,
0o
2, 2cati San Diego, California,
uly 2Publi March 13-17, 1994
J
American Chemical Society/ Washington, DC 1995
In Biorational Pest Control Agents; Hall, F., et al.;
ACS Symposium Series; American Chemical Society: Washington, DC, 1995.
Library of Congress Cataloging-in-Publication Data
Biorational pest control agents: formulation and delivery / Franklin R.
Hall, John w. Barry, editor[s].
p. cm.—(ACS symposium series; 595)
"Developed from a symposium sponsored by the Division of Agro-
chemicals at the 207th National Meeting of the American Chemical
Society, San Diego, California, March 13-17,1994."
Includes bibliographical references and indexes.
1
0 ISBN 0-8412-3226-1
0
w
5.f 1. Biological agents for pest control—Congresses. 2. Pests—Bio
59 logical control—Congresses. I. Hall, Franklin R. II. Barry, John
5-0 Williard, 1934- . III. American Chemical Society. Division of Agro-
9 chemicals. IV. American Chemical Society. Meeting (207th: 1994:
9
1 San Diego, Calif.) V. Series.
k-
b
1/ SB975.B59 1995
2
0 668'.65—dc20 95-13986
1
0. CIP
1
oi:
org 5 | d
cs.99 This book is printed on acid-free, recycled paper.
a1
bs.5,
012 | http://puon Date: May AACloml peRyrriiicggahhntts C©Rh ee1sm9e9ri5vc eadl .S oTchieet ya ppearance of the code at the bottom of the first page of each
July 22, 2 Publicati ccspMphheAeaar-c ppci0ttfoeei1pcrr9 y2ci mn3lfi ,aeet yenhfo itssbrt .h e vcr oToomluphugyiamshid n ceego ti hnfnboesdee ryi ncCotpa noteeidprsss y ogtrthinihgvaaeehtl n tc p ooCoerpnrl mye itarnhiirtgteatehe nrdctcn o eoanb wl dyCnui eteSsinreoe'ts cne tor,ic ,orho nonIfswnso cere1n. v,0t te 7h2rt2 e,h o 2tarh pt Ra e1rtr0oe stp8soher neoowa gfclo r otoahoppderih eDiUric nr p.itScave.oyr epn,C tiaheoDlse pa uyonssrtfveia ge ttherhosdetf,
Law. This consent does not extend to copying or transmission by any means—graphic or
electronic—for any other purpose, such as for general distribution, for advertising or
promotional purposes, for creating a new collective work, for resale, or for information
storage and retrieval systems. The copying fee for each chapter is indicated in the code at the
bottom of the first page of the chapter.
The citation of trade names and/or names of manufacturers in this publication is not to be
construed as an endorsement or as approval by ACS of the commercial products or services
referenced herein; nor should the mere reference herein to any drawing, specification,
chemical process, or other data be regarded as a license or as a conveyance of any right or
permission to the holder, reader, or any other person or corporation, to manufacture,
reproduce, use, or sell any patented invention or copyrighted work that may in any way be
related thereto. Registered names, trademarks, etc., used in this publication, even without
specific indication thereof, are not to be considered unprotected by law.
PRINTED IN THE UNITED STATES OF AMERICA
In Biorational Pest Control Agents; Hall, F., et al.;
ACS Symposium Series; American Chemical Society: Washington, DC, 1995.
1995 Advisory Board
ACS Symposium Series
M. Joan Comstock, Series Editor
Robert J. Alaimo Cynthia A. Maryanoff
Procter & Gamble Pharmaceuticals R. W. Johnson Pharmaceutical
Research Institute
Mark Arnold
University of Iowa Roger A. Minear
University of Illinois
01 David Baker at Urbana-Champaign
0
w University of Tennessee
5.f Omkaram Nalamasu
9
05 Arindam Bose AT&T Bell Laboratories
95- Pfizer Central Research
9
1 Vincent Pecoraro
k-
1/b Robert F. Brady, Jr. University of Michigan
02 Naval Research Laboratory
0.1 George W. Roberts
oi: 1 Mary E. Castellion North Carolina State University
org 5 | d ChemEdit Company John R. Shapley
acs.199 Margaret A. Cavanaugh University of Illinois
12 | http://pubs.n Date: May 5, ANUanrtitvihoenurasrilt yBS co.i feE nWlcleiiss Fc oonusninda atito Mn adison DCooanuct ugUrlarrebsna tAn Ta. -eSCcmhhnaiomtlhopg aiiegsn C orporation
0o
2, 2cati Gunda I. Georg L. Somasundaram
uly 2Publi University of Kansas DuPont
J
Madeleine M. Joullie Michael D. Taylor
University of Pennsylvania Parke-Davis Pharmaceutical Research
Lawrence P. Klemann William C. Walker
Nabisco Foods Group DuPont
Douglas R. Lloyd Peter Willett
The University of Texas at Austin University of Sheffield (England)
In Biorational Pest Control Agents; Hall, F., et al.;
ACS Symposium Series; American Chemical Society: Washington, DC, 1995.
Foreword
±HE ACS SYMPOSIUM SERIES was first published in 1974 to
provide a mechanism for publishing symposia quickly in book
form. The purpose of this series is to publish comprehensive
books developed from symposia, which are usually "snapshots
in time" of the current research being done on a topic, plus
some review material on the topic. For this reason, it is neces­
1 sary that the papers be published as quickly as possible.
0
0
w Before a symposium-based book is put under contract, the
95.f proposed table of contents is reviewed for appropriateness to
5
5-0 the topic and for comprehensiveness of the collection. Some
9
9 papers are excluded at this point, and others are added to
1
bk- round out the scope of the volume. In addition, a draft of each
21/ paper is peer-reviewed prior to final acceptance or rejection.
0
0.1 This anonymous review process is supervised by the organiz­
1
oi: er^) of the symposium, who become the editor(s) of the book.
org 5 | d The authors then revise their papers according to the recom­
cs.99 mendations of both the reviewers and the editors, prepare
a1
bs.5, camera-ready copy, and submit the final papers to the editors,
012 | http://puon Date: May wvtiiohenwos cApohsafe pcpaekr r erstvuh iaaloertu, e sa olliynln lnpcyleu ucbodelrseisisdgah ireniynda lrpt heraveepi sseeviroaosnrl ucashm rhe ea pnsva.oe pt e bVraeesce rcnbae npamttdieam ddo. re ri.e gpinroadl urec­­
2, 2cati
July 2 Publi M. Joan Comstock
Series Editor
In Biorational Pest Control Agents; Hall, F., et al.;
ACS Symposium Series; American Chemical Society: Washington, DC, 1995.
Preface
As THE PUBLICS AND RESOURCE MANAGERS' DEMAND for safer pes­
ticides increases and legislative constraints continue to reduce the
amounts of pesticide used in North American agriculture and forestry,
there is increased opportunity for developing and improving environmen­
tally friendly control agents and strategies. Improvements in field efficacy
are a key feature of those technologies, but new advancements in formu­
lation and delivery are critical to achieve successful commercialization of
1
0
0 such agents. This book was designed to identify those critical needs of
pr
5. formulation and novel delivery systems for the baculoviruses, bacteria,
9
5
0 fungi, pheromones, hormones, and nematodes being advocated for agri­
5-
9 cultural and forest pest-management strategies of the 1990s. Biorational
9
1
k- pest control materials engender a very wide group of agents with an
b
1/ equally wide range of specific formulation and delivery needs. We sought
2
0
1 to include this information in the symposium upon which this book is
0.
oi: 1 based, and it is presented herein.
ubs.acs.org y 5, 1995 | d baciriaoelr Tadrhtieiseogc niusbastsrolesaod.t ki.o I nniDs toahdftei av tf ihrdireeeqssdtue si irenbectimtooior eansnit,txi osr nesfageocilrs t taireogaxneptniseo trnisinm nd eaeifnedfdtedarsilt iasouonnsmde t edoawan htadaan tfr uefolqrvl uoecimrorvemi metmhweone srotes­f
pa
12 | http://n Date: M brcehioqoluiocigreie cdha al sfo pare sltacircogindeve e inmtpiporaoncdatul cotnc h fteohmre i cdadalet vaep lenospetcmicesiedsnaert yp artsoo d siutuc ptspr.eo lraFtt eoasr mptauorl atitUciuo.Slna. r
0o
2, 2cati Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) regulatory requirements. EPA
uly 2Publi assessments for the biorational agents include an analysis of effects on
J nontarget species. As for chemical pesticides, these analyses are based on

single-species testing, but allowances are made for the unique characteris­
tics of biological pesticides. Canadian counterparts envision a buffer-zone
guide for use patterns of biologicals that highlights the need for product
specificity information when developing drift mitigation options in the
registration process.
As discussed in Chapters 4 and 5, fundamental information needs
mean that the use of "biorational" agents, such as entomopathogens for
pest control, must be firmly based in ecological principles. Aspects of
environmental release, such as timing and placement, must be based on
ix
In Biorational Pest Control Agents; Hall, F., et al.;
ACS Symposium Series; American Chemical Society: Washington, DC, 1995.
ecological considerations for entomopathogens to be efficacious. Timing
and placement depend on entomopathogen species characteristics, its
population parameters, and the interacting ecosystem parameters and
delivery requirements. Modeling these very dynamic sequences has signi­
ficant appeal in that the process can aid the identification of fundamental
gaps and requires scientists to revisit our knowledge about specific
interactions and conventional paradigms associated with toxin placement.
The third section discusses delivery of biorationals, which is princi­
pally accomplished with existing technology, although specific needs, tac­
tics, and inadequacies are noteworthy. Forest Service efforts that have
used an aerial application model have merit in demonstrating potential
solutions to the questions of environmental fate issues, and hence, risks
and hazards of biorationals. An overview of factors affecting Bacillus
thuringiensis (Bt) foliar deposition, rainfastness coverage, and persistence
1
00 is followed by two specific efforts in active-ingredient rainwashing (as
pr
5. affected by formulation) and some recent research on baculoviruses and
9
05 UV radiation losses modified by a viral enhancement factor and fluores­
5-
9 cent brighteners.
9
1
k- Soil biorationals are discussed in Chapters 11, 12, and 13. Soil biora­
b
1/ tionals include several examples of industry efforts on Metarhizium to
2
0
1 explore the reason for field inconsistencies. The myriad of interacting
0.
org 5 | doi: 1 fsloapgceticociarfislc w cflioetrhamr aluy pl adrteeimodnioc tnaasnbtrdlae td feeisel ilvdteh rpeye rncferoeirtdme rfaioanr cn eve.ee drUyed .Sc l.to oDs eem pdaaeritntemtrameinnin ta ao tvfiio aAnbg loreif cb utihol­­e
acs.199 ture (USDA) research scientists have delineated the lack of sufficient
ubs.y 5, effort on formulations and delivery of microbials for soil pathogens,
pa
12 | http://n Date: M takolnt hoawo suleegrdhige ecs o oionfp esthuracect ienvseeswf urlyel s epeamrrocedrhug ciwntsigt h ut esiicnnhdgnu osslptoregycy ihf.i acs N fsoeimrgmnaitfuoicldaaetni otrlnyes- deaaedrlvicvahen rchyead cs o tlhnede­
0o
2, 2cati ditions for each nematode species and is leading to requirements for less
July 2 Publi prodAusc td iinsc luasrsgeed-a rinea t ahpep fliicftahti osnecst. ion, foliar uses of biorationals remain

predominant, encompassing semiochemicals, which although not a large
commercialization area, have demonstrated successful introductions using
sex pheromones. Sprayable formulations offer quick application advan­
tages but have shorter durations. Efficacy is the primary goal in the
design of all semiochemical products, but optimizing formulations to
minimize cost is the key to increasing their use in integrated pest-
management programs, that is, making their use economically compelling
rather than just economically competitive with conventional insecticides.
Specific examples are given about formulation and delivery parameters of
x
In Biorational Pest Control Agents; Hall, F., et al.;
ACS Symposium Series; American Chemical Society: Washington, DC, 1995.
Metarhizium and Beauveria, which require both a systematic examination
of how fungi can be manipulated and an integration into the knowledge
base of insect behavior and location. Viral biopesticides show promise,
especially genetically engineered isolates of several viruses. Integration of
formulations and delivery parameters to demonstrate reliable field perfor­
mance for co-occlusion and preoccluded virus releases are critical for suc­
cessful commercialization. Microbials can also be formulated as granules
(with starch) to enable greater residual activity. These encapsulation
technologies show promise for conditions of extreme moisture. The use
of plant pathogenic microbes to control unwanted plants provides an
environmentally friendly approach to weed management. Effective use of
microbes as bioherbicides is dependent on developing formulation and
delivery systems that support consistent performance.
Finally, in the last section, forest researchers report on upcoming
1
00 strategies to use semiochemicals and microbials for management of forest
5.pr pests. Pheromones of lepidopteran pests, such as gypsy moth and tip
9
5 moths, saturate the air space and thereby inhibit mate location. This is
0
95- commonly referred to as the "confusion" strategy. Pheromones of bark
9
k-1 beetles, the other major group of forest insect pests, use the aggregation
1/b and antiaggregation pheromones in "trap-out" and "dispersion" stra­
2
0 tegies, respectively. Forest researchers also must blend the development
1
10. of aerial application technology for microbial insecticides with the reduc­
oi: tion of impacts to nontarget species. A five-year strategic plan will be
org 5 | d prepared for a prototype effort with Bt var. kurstaki. A literature search
acs.199 of documented Bt impacts on nontarget arthropod species is completed
ubs.y 5, and will be published by the Forest Service to aid the effective evaluation
pa
12 | http://n Date: M oofp ppAoort terunentviiiateilew hs aotzofa rtadhcseh t ioecv hneao pntthtearers g gesohta oslwp oescf itephsra oitnd w uthceie n hfgoa srvaeefse tnr e ecpeodess,yt isrcteiedsmoeus. rctoes ,m aenedt
0o
2, 2cati the demands of the public, the resource managers, and the USDA. Use
uly 2Publi eonf trfoernmchueldat ifoonr atnhde dimelimveerdyia kten ofwulteudrgee ifno rt hteh ec obniovreanttiioonnaalls wstiisldl oremm aainnds
J

experiences of chemical pesticides. Genetic engineering of Bt in plants
might be an effective delivery, but it remains unclear whether it is sustain­
able. We support the efforts of industry to fill the requests for more
environmentally acceptable technologies and pest management. We urge
that the fast-track registration goals from government be fulfilled in a
harmonized global approach so that these more specific biorational pest
control agents can be rapidly integrated into successful use patterns in
place of more hazardous materials. We applaud these efforts, and we
urge greater attention to detailed studies of formulation, delivery, and
xi
In Biorational Pest Control Agents; Hall, F., et al.;
ACS Symposium Series; American Chemical Society: Washington, DC, 1995.
ecologically based parameters so that the potential goal of reducing pesti­
cide use may become a reality. The questions and data gaps addressed in
this book should be of value to those who wish to take on the opportuni­
ties presented by this vast assay of biorationals for crop and forest protec­
tion.
FRANKLIN R. HALL
Laboratory for Pest Control Application Technology
Ohio Agricultural Research and Development Center
Ohio State University
1680 Madison Avenue
Wooster, OH 44691
1 JOHN W. BARRY
0
0 Forest Health Protection
pr
5. Forest Service
9
05 U.S. Department of Agriculture
5-
9 2121-C Second Street
9
1
k- Davis, CA 95616
b
1/
2
0
1 February 2, 1995
0.
1
oi:
org 5 | d
acs.199
ubs.y 5,
pa
12 | http://n Date: M
0o
2, 2cati
uly 2Publi
J

xii
In Biorational Pest Control Agents; Hall, F., et al.;
ACS Symposium Series; American Chemical Society: Washington, DC, 1995.
Chapter 1
An Overview of Biorational Pest Control
Agents
Franklin R. Hall1 and John W. Barry2
1Laboratory for Pest Control Application Technology, Ohio Agricultural
Research and Development Center, Ohio State University,
1680 Madison Avenue, Wooster, OH 44691
2Forest Health Protection, Forest Service, U.S. Department
of Agriculture, 2121-C Second Street, Davis, CA 95616
1
0
0
h
c
5.
9
5
0
95- The last American Chemical Society (ACS) sponsored Symposium on Formulation
9
1 Technology was held in New Orleans in 1987. Since then, we have had numerous
k-
1/b developments in more sophisticated active ingredients (AI's) and formulations, including
02 controlled release [T° and pH mechanisms (1), as well as U.S. Environmental Protection
1
0. Agency (EPA) mandates on eliminating many of the conventional solvents. Pesticides
1
oi: are under increased review by EPA and increased scrutiny by the press and the public
org 5 | d it serves. Concerns focus on pesticides in food, air and water and the resulting impact
cs.99 on man and other organisms. The United States has established a goal of implementing
a1
pubs.ay 5, hinatse gara gteoda lp teost rmedauncaeg empeesntitc i(dIeP Mus) eo na n7d5% to o ufs aell saagferirc upletustriacli dlaensd. s bIny tahded yiteioanr ,2 t0h0e0r,e aanrde
12 | http://n Date: M bmyyeaa nrudss.a itneIgdn lmSewgoiresedl aetanicv, teifv oaecr teihvxeiartmibeipsc liiedn,e Esth ue(rlo erpsesde ,u Acet.Iig/oh.n,a )ri,en q iaundisdruiinrtaigon ncaea 5 l 0sep%drau ryceiadntiugoc nhti aoosn f bo etfeh nAe Iaf'csah riimnev in1egd0
0o
2, 2cati community, improved risk-benefit analyses, mandatory and voluntary testing of sprayers,
uly 2Publi phaevste fobreeecna stpianigd rfeosera brcyh raenddir egcetninegra lg oinvcerrenamseesn ti nr easdovuirscoersy, searnvdic eass sewshsiincgh , sionm gee neferaels,.
J
However, the general net impact on the Swedish farmer economy, for example, has been
minimal (A. Emmerman, personal communication).
These pesticide policy shifts, occurring across the globe suggest that there is a need to
revisit how formulations and delivery can aid the efficiency and reduction aspect of
pesticide use. More active compounds mean less AI/A, but an increased attention to
delivery parameters. As the shift is made to "safer" products, the use of biorational
materials, which encompass an implication of added safety to either man or the
environment than the current arsenal of registered products seems to be an increased
opportunity. Discussions persist over the semantics of whether a biorational is also a
0097-6156/95/0595-0001S12.00/0
© 1995 American Chemical Society
In Biorational Pest Control Agents; Hall, F., et al.;
ACS Symposium Series; American Chemical Society: Washington, DC, 1995.
2 BIORATIONAL PEST CONTROL AGENTS
biopesticide, is natural, or contains only living organisms, etc.,(2). The purpose of this
book was to explore the knowledge status of the formulation and delivery questions
associated with this broad range of crop control agents, identified as being quite distinct
from conventional synthetic diversity. For purposes of clarity in this chapter, we thus
have elected to call these control agents biorationals. The following chapters illustrate
the wide range of these crop protection agent (CPA) opportunities.
The events leading the industry towards the biorationals in general are summarized as
follows. EPA's Safer Pesticide Policy and goals for new pesticides for the period of
1993-1996 include:
• Safer materials
• Less persistence
1 • Less toxic to non-target species
0
0
h • Less likely to contaminate groundwater
c
95. • Lower exposure (man and environment)
5
0 • More practical disposal technology
5-
9
9
1
k- This set of goals follows the accepted paradigm that prevention of environment
b
1/ contamination is more effective and efficient than any cleanup protocol, as indicated by
2
10 the general lack of successes in the broad ranging EPA Super-Fund Programs.
10. If one reviews the history of agricultural use of pesticides, we are faced with the question
oi: of why are pesticides utilized so heavily; Reichelderfer (3) and Barry summarize this
org 5 | d (Table l,a,b) which are appropriate for both agriculture and forestry.
cs.99
a1
ubs.y 5, Trends in both pesticides and adjuvants (Table 2 and 3) suggest that there are
012 | http://pon Date: Ma dco1oep9vmp7eo0plro'lsteup.x nmiitteTyine hwtse i oflelof c rbbo etinh ohoerima gtcihiroceo,nr p ae alpnsnrv doci rotpoenecntrtimhinoauenpen s ti atnnold o uaitn snatddrsiy cig an(ete4enx) e.tpr haeaHln ts opitvhweeeset yiav csewi drwi,e lli i ttphb oi estl h icocolyfse eaiin rno cfftrlh eutahaetesn itcne1egc9s h6 in0ono'ntsel orateghnsyedt
2, 2cati to pesticide manufacturers (2). The dependency upon specific types of pesticides or
uly 2Publi CPA's is now modified by EPA's goals for "new" pesticides. However, paradigm for
J the development of pesticides in the crop protection industry (Table 4) shows the current
economic rationale and opportunities for crop protection agents.
Nevertheless, biorationals in general are viewed favorably by registration authorities,
have less stringent registration requirements and may cost considerably less to bring to
market. Recent data show the rather slow registration pace of biorationals into the
conventional markets. On the other hand, biorationals are projected to be significant
components of the crop protection arsenal by the year 2000. For example, these
projections are conservatively placed at a rate of growth of ca. 10%/yr to reach $130
million by 2000 (5). The biorational agent product mix is currently at $75 million with
ca. 80% in Bt products, nematodes at 13% and all others at 7%.
In Biorational Pest Control Agents; Hall, F., et al.;
ACS Symposium Series; American Chemical Society: Washington, DC, 1995.