Some insect larvae have a remarkable ability to digest and utilise keratin, i.e. highly cross-linked protein material. Extensiue investigations about the digestive mechanism of these insects have already been carried out but the actual course of keratin digestion by the insect pests is still under discussion. Inuestigations of moth and beetle excreta by amino acid analysis and polyac ylamide gel electrophoresis should shed more light on this subject. The present paper describes such comparative studies of larval faeces excreted afterfeeding with non-mothproofed and mothproofed wool, using low concentrations of two stomach poisons as moth-and beetle-proofing agents. It has been found by amino acid analysis that all excreta examined contained a mixture ofpeptides and free amino acids. Most ofthe moth excreta were rich in free cystine and histidine whereas the beetle excreta contained much free cystine and arginine. Only the brown house moth (Hofmannophila) proved exceptional in this respect. Gel electrophoretic analysis of excreta proteins showed a different pattern of breakdown of wool proteins by the principal wool pests. The electrophoretic patterns permitted a differentiation between the types of larvae.
As a consequence of the restrictions imposed on the use of dieldrin, a world‐wide effort is being made to find an appropriate successor to protect keratinous materials from textile pests, in particular the larvae of the common clothes moth (Tineola bisselliella H.), the black carpet beetle (Attagenus piceus Oliv.) and the furniture carpet beetle (Anthrenus vorax Waterh.) Extensive investigations of permethrin (NRDC 143, FMC 33297, chemical name: 3phenoxybenzyl‐(±) c\s, trans‐2‐(2′,2′‐dichlorovinyl)‐3,3‐dimethylcyclopropane‐1‐carboxylate) have led to the marketing of this pyrethroid. The present paper evaluates different classes of 2‐substituted 3,3‐dimethylcyclopropane‐1‐carboxylates for their mothproofing efficacy. It has been found that the pyrethroids offer good protection against larval damage by the common clothes moth but as a general rule, are less effective in their activity to the Anthrenus species, a textile pest that is acquiring increasing importance as a major source of damage. This disadvantage is found even in otherwise highly active pyrethroids such as permethrin and deltamethrin. Cypermethrin was found to offer slightly better protection than permethrin against larval damage by Attagenus piceus.
Pyrethroids, considered as a general class of compounds, have been shown to provide effective protection from the larvae of the keratin‐digesting insects Tineola bisselliella H., Tinea pellionella Linn., Hofmannophila pseudo‐spretella Station and Attagenus piceus Oliv. The position regarding the susceptibility of the furniture carpet beetle to pyrethroids is less clear, however. It has been reported that both deltamethrin and permethrin are effective against Anthrenus flavipes Le Conte, whilst permethrin is also reported elsewhere to be effective against the same species. Results obtained in our laboratory, however, have indicated that pyrethroids may offer inadequate protection against Anthrenus vorax Waterh. [1, 2]. This latter species is identical to Anthrenus flavipes var. seminiveus Casey, a colour variety of Anthrenus flavipes Le Conte. The 1,3‐disubstituted5‐phenylcarbamoyl‐2,4,6‐trioxo‐ and 4,6‐dioxo‐2‐thione‐hexahydropyrimidine derivatives described in this paper exhibit a surprisingly high and selective toxicity to the Anthrenus species. Thus, a combination of an appropriate hexahydropyrimidine with a suitable pyrethroid, e.g. permethrin, provides complete control of a wide range of commonly encountered textile insect pests. The influence of substituents on the mothproofing activity is discussed.
scite is a Brooklyn-based organization that helps researchers better discover and understand research articles through Smart Citations–citations that display the context of the citation and describe whether the article provides supporting or contrasting evidence. scite is used by students and researchers from around the world and is funded in part by the National Science Foundation and the National Institute on Drug Abuse of the National Institutes of Health.