PB81-:608«8
Hutagenesis Screening of Pesticides "Drosophila1
WARF Inst., Inc.
Madi'son, WI
Prepared for
Health Effects Research Lab.
Research Triangle Park, NC
Feb 81
U5. Depsftmtfrt d Coamtrca
National Technical Information Service
-------
EPA 600/1-31-017
February 1981
MUTAGENESIS SCREENING OF PESTICIDES DROSOPHILA
Ruby Valencia
UARF Institute, Inc.
Madison. Wisconsin
Contract Nuwber 68-01-2474
Project Officer
Michael 0. Waters
Genetic Toxicology Division
Health Effects Research Laboratory
Research Triangle Park, North Carolina 27711
HEALTH EFFECTS RESEARCH LABORATORY
OFFICE OF RESEARCH AND DEVELOPMENT
U. S. ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
RESEARCH TRIANGLE PARK. NORTH CAROLINA 27711
-------
TECHNICAL REPORT DATA
-V
i. »t»C"T so.
EPA-600/1-81-017
OVNO.
EM 1608»
4. TiTLt ANOif«T!T(.l
HUTAGfNESIS SCREENING OF PESTICIDES USING
CBOSOPHILA
». «S»0«T OATl
February 1981 Issuing Date.
«. Ff MFOMMINQ ORGANIZATION COOf
AL.T~OA.SI
Ruby Valencia
ft. f f RFOftUINO O«GASlXA7iCN
NO.
XAUP AMD AOO«CS»
WARF Institute, Inc.
Madison, Wisconsin
1LA6.79
It. CONTRACT GRANT NO.
68-02-2474
12.
AOISC*
ANQ AOO1IS*
Health Effects Research Laboratory
Office of Research and Development
U.S. Environmental Protection Aaency
Research Trl.wnle Park, NC 27/11
RTP.NC
IX TVM ff Kt
Final
AMD M «IOO COVCMO
14. $^OM
-------
DISCLAIMER
i
This report has been reviewed by the Health Effects Research Laboratory,
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, and approved for publication.
Approval does not signify that the contents necessarily reflect the
views and policies of the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, nor does
mention of trade naees or coaoercial products constitute endorseaent or
recoomendation for use.
11
-------
FOREWORD
Tht many benefits of our modern, developing. Industrial :ociety are
accompanied by certain hazards. Careful assessment of the relative risk of
existing and new nan-made environmental hazards 1s necessary tor the estab-
lishment of sound regulatory policy. These regulations serve to enhance
the quality cf our environment in order to promote the public health and
welfare and the productive capacity of our Nation's population.
The Healtrt Effects Research Laboratory, Research Triangle Park,
conducts a coordinated environmental health research program in toxlcoloqy,
epidemiology, ard clinical studies using hucun volunteer subjects. These
studies address probl-»is in air pollution, non-ionizing radUtion. environ-
mental carcinogei-esis and the toxicology of pesticides as well as other
cheaical po~>lut
-------
ABSTRACT
•JrosopMla melanogaMer males were exposed by feeding (plus contact
and r«ssibly '.nhalat'on). The genetic test found most sensitive and
appropriate was t*vt> sec link.*4 recessive lethal test. For this, Bales
cf the Canton-S wUi ty;>e f.tock were exposed. They were mated individually
4nd brooded to sample the entire range of gent cell developmental stages.
Very large number c/f tests (over 7000) were accumulated for each compound
in two or more replicate experiments. Concurrent negative controls were
done with each, and positive controls were run occasionally. Thirty
pesticides and seven other aiscellaneous compounds were tested and four
reference autagens were run through the system, some of the latter st *
series of "doses" (exposure concentrations). Tab!* 1 li;ts them all,
with the results.
Of the IS pesticides (listed first in the table) which could be
tested at adequate concentrations, 4 (Captan, Folpet, Bromacil and
Simuine) were found to be weak mutagens. One (Cavodylic Acid) was
questionable but called negative. The rest of the pesticides wer* so
toxic that only very low concentrations (0.1 - 5 ppm) cou'd be used
(usually for a reduced exposure time), and those are not considered
adequately tested, in view of results obtained with reference mutagens
at these concentrations.
Two of the Biscellaneous compounds ("Tris" and PtCI^} were found to
be potent mutagens. The rest were negative.
iv
-------
CONTENTS
Foreword 111
Abstract 1v
Tables vl
Acknowledgment v111
1. Suuary . . . . '. 1
2. Introduction '. 3
3. Exposure Methods 4
4. Sex-Linked Recessive Lethal Test .
Introduction 6
Stocks and Genetic Sche«e 6
"Cluster" Detection and Handling 7
Nuober of Chro*wso»es Tested 8
Results and Conclusions 9
5. Cnroaosoae Loss. Rearrangement and Non-Disjunction . . 13
6. Dominant Lethals 14
References 71
-------
TABLES
Nuatoer Page
try of compounds tested
2 ChroBosoae Rearrangement, Loss and Non-Disjunction ... 15
3 SuOBary of controls 17
Pesticides:
4 Acephate 20
5 Aspon 21
6 Azinphos-Metnyl 22
7 Brotoacil, low concentrations 23
8 Broaacil. high concentrations 24
9 Broaacil, chronic exposure 25
10 Cacodylic Acid 26
11 Captan 27
12 Carbofuran 28
13 Chlorpyrifos 29
14 Deaeton 30
15 Dicaatoa 31
16 Dinoseb 32
17 Diuethoate 33
1C OJsulfotcn 34
19 OSMA 35
20 FensuUothion 36
21 Fenthi™ 37
22 Folpet 38
23 Halathion 39
24 Methoayl «0
25 Methoxychlor 41
26 Monocrotophos 42
27 Honuron 43
28 MSHA 44
29 Parathion 45
30 PCNB 46
31 Phorate 47
32 Siduron 48
33 Stsiazin* 49
34 Sfnazfne, chronic exposure 50
35 Trichlorfon 51
36 THfluralin 52
Compounds other than pesticides:
37 Benzidine Oihydrochloride . . 54
38 Carcinogens ^ 55
39 Direct Black 38 56
40 PICK 57
41 Tris, 4 and 10 ppm 58
42 Tris, 100 ppn 59
43 Tris, 1000 ppn 60
vl
-------
Reference nutagens:
44
45
46
47
48
49
50
51
52
OBE
El
EMS.
EM?,
EMS.
EMS.
EMS.
EMS.
IMP ,
2 ppa .
4 ppa .
10 ppa .
100 pp»
vapor ar
s canary
>
-------
ACKNOVLEDGDgNT
The WARF Institute personnel Involved with this contract wish to
thank the EPA project officer*. Dr. Robert E. McCoughy, Dr. Ronald L.
Baron and Dr. Michael D. Waters for their guidance and understanding
during the co-trse of this work.
Ve »Uo wish to express our appreciation for the assistance of our
consultant, Dr. Seywxir Abrahaason, Professor of genetics and zoology at
the University of Wisconsin.
-------
SUtfWRY
Drosophila aelanogaster males were exposed by feeding (plus contact
and possibly inhalation). The genetic test found most sensitive and
appropriate was the sex-linked recessive letnal test. For this, males
of the Canton-S wild type stock were exposed. They were mated individually
and brooded to sample the entire range of germ cell developmental stages.
A very large number of tests (over 7000) were accumulated for each
compound in two or more replicate experiments. Concurrent negative
controls were done with each, and positive controls were run occasionally.
Thirty pesticides and seven other miscellaneous compounds were tested
and four reference nutagens were run through the system, some of the
latter at a series of "doses" (exposure concentrations). Table 1 lists
thea all, with the results.
Of the 15 pesticides (listed first in the table) which could be
tested at adequate concentrations, four (captan, folpet, hromacil, and
simazine) were found to be weak nutagens. One (cacodylic acid) was
questionable but called negative. The rest of the pesticides were so
toxic that only very low concentrations (0.1-5 ppm) could be used (usually
for a reduced exposure time), and those are not considered adequately
tested, in view of results obtained with reference mutagens at these
concentrations.
Two of the miscellaneous compounds (Tris and PtCl.) were found to
b« potent autagens. The rest were negative.
This publication is a suoaary of the complete project .-eport which
can be purchased from the National Technical Information Service.
-------
TABLE 1
SUH4ARY OF COMPOUNDS TESTED
Concentration (ppm) Hutagenesis
Pesticide in feeding solution result
Broaacil2, 3, 5, 2000+
Captan 2, 3, 2000 +
Folpet 2, 3, 2000 - +
Slnazine 3, 5, 2000 +
Cacodylic acid 3, 500, 100 •?
Oicanba 3, 2000
OHSA 3, 1500
Methoxychlor 1000
Monuron 4, 1000, 2000
MSMA 2. 3, 4, 1500, 2000
Quintozene (PCNB) 3, 4, 8, 2000
Trifluralin 2, 3, 1000
Siduron 100
Acephate 10
Cartofuran 10
Diaethoate 1, 5, (10)
Kethooyl 4, (10)
Aspon 5
Azlnphos-methyl (Guthion) 0.25-1.0
Chlorpyrifos (Dursban) 0.1
Deocton 1
Oinoseb 0.5, 1.4
Oisulfoton 1
Ethyl parathion 0.25, 0.5
Fenthion 0.1, 0.25
MaiathIon 0.25, 0.5
Monocrotophos (Azodrin) 2, 3
Phorate (lhi»et) 0.5-3
Trichlorfon 1
Miscellaneous Compounds
Safrole 100
1'Hydroxy Safrole 1000
1'Hydroxy Safrole
•2,3 epoxide 1000
Direct Black 38 2000
Tris (2,3-dibrooopropyl
phosphate) 4, 10, 100, 1000 +
Benz1d1ne dlhydrochloride 1000
PtC1« 100, 500 +
Reference Hutagens
EMS (Ethyl methane-
sulfonate) 2, 4, 10, 100, 200, 400 +
El (ethyleninine) 2, 4, 10, 30, 50 +
TMP (trinethyl phosphate) 1000 *
THP (trimethyl phosphate) 100, 300
DBE (1,2-dibromoethane) 5, 10, 50 -?
-------
INTRODUCTION
The mutagenicity tests carried out in this laboratory using Drosophila
V
were part of a larger program involving several test systems in several
laboratories. It was not known how Drosophila systems would compare
with others in terms of sensitivity to detect mutagenicity. Neither was
it known which genetic endpoints (in Orosophila) would be most adequate
in a screening test. It was recognized that pesticides (especially the
insecticides) would pose special problems for genetic tests with fruit
flies. The Drosophila screening system itself was therefore undergoing
definition and simplification during the course of these stuaies.
The original plan was to test each compound in a step-wise manner
as follows:
1. Dominant lethal test (the fastest). Stop if positive.
2. Chromosomal alteration test (a one generation test).
Stop if positive.
3. Sex-linked recessive lethal test.
It became clear, however, that the first 2 tests were not highly
sensitive (thus the lethal test had to be done in all cases) and were
not easy to do. At the same time, evidence was mounting (esp. Vogel &
Scbels, 1976) that the sex-linked recessive lethal test is by far the
most sensitive Drosophila test. It also, of course, includes chromosomal
alterations as well as "point" mutations. It was decided, therefore, to
run only the sex-linked recessive lethal test. The other genetic schemes
were dropped from the progrcm after the first few months and will not be
dealt with in detail in this report.
- 3 -
-------
Many people have been hesitant to accept results with an insect as
relevant to man. It was thought that insect metabolism was probably too
different. These objectives have been considerably reduced by the
discovery (Vogel and Sobels, 1976) that Orosophila has enzymes which
carry out metabolic activation similar to that effected by mammalian
enzyne ext-acts.
The toxicity of many of the compounds did cause serious problems
and resulted in a "no test" conc'usion for some of the compounds. For
those which could be adequately tested, the Orosophila results compared
quite favorably with the other systems, picking up 4 weak mutagens and 1
questionable one. All of these except 1 were picked by at least 1
other system. Two were found positive in all systems.
EXPOSURE METHODS
Initial trials were aade of several other exposure methods (aerosol
spray, contact, injection) but the method chosen as most appropriate was
feeding. Since flies walk on their food, contact is always involved
and, when vaporization occurs, the test substance is also i.thaled. The
method thus seemed more complete and exposure more certain, and it
better mimicked human exposure routes.
It was shown several years ago by Lewis and Backer (1968) that
feeding of autagens in glucose solution is effective. They fed flies in
vials with a bit of soaked tissue (such as Chea-Wipes). We chose to
feed in small disposable petri plates, with a disc of glass fiber filter
in the bottom. This permitted easy observation and counting of dead
flies for toxicity information.
. 4 .,
-------
At first, files were exposed ,toxicity p*m1ttfrKj) for 48 hours.
Later the tiae was extended to 72 hours, to atke ingestfon Bore certain.
Flies cannot survive for aore than 24-36 fxmrt without drinking, but in
72 hours they should be obliged to inges.. ccr*. Contact (and inhalation)
were also thus extended.
Compounds were dissolved, when possible, fn IX glucose. During the
first year. OMSO was used for coapounds net **t«r soluble. At tnat
ti*e, a decision was taken (after warnings vefced at the Fredericicsburg
siettinp) to avoid OMSO if possible. Thus »*«y compounds were used in
suspension rather than in solution.
The concentrations were chosen by tbe following criteria. If toxic
at 2000 pp« or b«low, a concentration giving 41 near as possible to SOX
Mortality at 72 hours was chosen. For very to»lc compounds, the duration
of exposure was reduced as well as the concentration. For non-toxic
coapounds, 2000 ppa was chosen as a reasonable upper Halt.
- 5 -
-------
SEX-LINKED RECESSIVE LETHAL TEST Introduction
This type of mutation is frequent (involving some 800 genes on the
X chromosome) and varied in nature (including both "point" fcutations and
chromosomal alterations). Ihe test has beer, found in comparative studies
(Voget and Solels. 1976) to be aore sensitive in detecting chemical
mutagens thatn other tests in Drosophila. We now feel that the sex-linked
recessive lethal test a*'>.*• should be an adequate probe for mutagenesis.
Stocks and Genetic Scheme
Canton-S wild type Bales were exposed. "CS" stock was used because
it has had a low spontaneous frequency over many years of use. The
frequency averages about 0.15% with variations rarely exceeding 0.IX and
0.3Z.
Treated sales were coated to "FMS" females. The X-chrooosome of
this is marked with yellow, white and Bar and carries a complex of stock
inversions.
Heterozygous F. females were mated individually to FM6 males (brothers
or stock males) and the F. of each was observed for the presence or
absence of "*" males. Any culture having no or less than 5X of the
expected number of males was considered a lethal case and was. confirmed
by repeating the test with four individual heterozygous F. females mated
to FH6 males.
Each treated or control male was transferred to new sets of FM6
females at intervals of 4, 3, 3 and 4 days, to produce 4 broods of
- 6 -
-------
progeny. The different broods swnple genn cells in gradually earlier
stages-of development at the time of exposure. Mature sperm are sampled
in brood 1, spennatids in brood 2, spermatocytes in brood 3 and spenoatogonia
in brood 4. These are n«t "clean" but rather "rough" samples, due to
the length of the mating times- and the fact that chemicals may remain in
the body beyond the external exposure time.
»*
"Cluster" detection and handling
Treated and control mates were numbered, mated and transferred
individually and the F, daughters of each were mated as a "family."
This is done in order to detect cases where more than 1 lethal ic
produced by 1 male. These cases will be referred to as "multiples" (as
opposed to "singles" and "nulls"). A multiple can be due to multiple
individual mutations (HIM) or to a single mutation event in a gonial
cell, which then reduplicates and produces 2 or more sperm cells carrying
the same leti^l (a "cluster"). The distinction (if possible) between
these two circumstances is very important when attempting to detect
low-level mutagenicity. With potent, mutagens the contribution cf clusters
Is insignificant and mass mating; of treated and control males are the
rule. When exposure is simple (as with radiation), and oany flies can
be exposed, the procedure is often to test only 1 daughter of each
treated or control fly, this avoiding both MIMs and clusters. Exposure
is not simple with chemicals and thus otner precautions must be taken.
Although there are pitfalls which we recognize, *e have applied the
following procedure to this data. Whenever a multiple was found, a
-------
statistical sethod (devised by Seymour Abrahamson) was applied, which
yields the probability (binomial expedition) of that nuiber of mutations
arising independently in a single sale given (a) the number of sales in
that particular treated or control group which produced progency, (b)
the average number of F. ffaa'les tested per P. male and (c) thr nutation
frequency.
If the number of lethals in th* multiple greatly exceeded probability
we considered it a cluster and did not count these lethals.
In addition, however, it was often necessary to Bake some subject.ve
judgments on particular compounds. Vfrch the lethals in the replicate
treated groups tended to occur in multiples while those in the concurrent
control group did not, this might indicate "spotty" exposure.
The summarized data are presented with presumed clusters removed,
but the corrections are indicated at the foot of the table.
Number of chromosomes tested
The number of tests needed per compound or "compound equivalent,"
which would be any variant on a compound, such as dose level germ cell
stage or exposure method) depends mostly upon (a) mutagenicity - the
more mutable, the fewer tests needed to prove it, and (b) the increment
in frequency desired to detect.
We have found that when the control rate is 0.1SX, and when it is
desired to detect (and prove statistically) an equal induced frequency
(a doubling of background), then about 8000 treated and 8000 control
chromosomes should be tested. Our aim was therefore numbers of this
magnitude, accumulated in 2 or 3 replicate experiments.
- 8 -
-------
Results and conclusions
The data froa the recessive lethal tests is shown in tables 3
througn 52. These are sundries per compound per variation (i.e..
exposure concentration or variation in expsoure sethod). Each is shown
with its concurrent controls,'which were usually shared with other
experiaents in the saoe "«-ims." Table 3 may be consulted for the cumulative
control value (0.157X) and the control frequenc> variations over time
and from run to run. The suaaary table at the beginning of this report
(table 1) shows the concentrations tested and the conclusions as to
BHjtagenicity.
The pesticide results fall into three categories:
(a) Those whi~h were tested at concentrations above 10 ppm for at
least 24 hours and which yielded results indicating a weak autagenic
effect. These were Captan, Folpet, Broaacil and Simazine plus possible
Cacodylic Acid.
(b) Those which were presumably tested adequately (as above) but
which yielded negative results. These were Qicaofaa through Carbofuran
In table 1.
(c) Those which may not have been adequately tested, since tney
were highly toxic, were used at very low concentrations and gave negative
results.
For the four compounds cal'ed positive, the conclusion was based
upon the experiaents with 2000 ppa. Captan, Sinazine and 6ro«acil were
tested simultaneously in run no. 37. Folpet was tested -in run no. 38.
Both runs had controls with quite low frequencies, but this appeared to
- 9 -••
-------
be a true low period for the stock. See table 3. Run 37 was done with
a newly prepared stock and the control was the first cf a series giving
low values. In all four cases, there were several Multiples in the
treated series, but none in the controls. (See page 7 for explanation
of multiples. ) These Multiples-were:
CapUn - S Mies with 2, 2 Mies vtth 3. 1 M!C with 6
Polpet - 4 Mles.*tth 2, 1 male with 3
BroMctl - 3 Mies with 2. I aale with 3. 1 wle with 4, 1 Hie
with 5
StMzine - 4 Mies with 2, 2 Mies with 3
When the Kastenbaua and BowMn statistical test (Mut. Res. 9 (1970)
527-549) is applied to the data for these compounds (using the SUM of
controls 37 and 38 to provide approximately equivalent nuabers of treated
a>td control tests), the result is as follows.
Captan is significant at the .01 level if the Multiple of 6 is
included. Without the Multiple, it it significant at the .05 level.
BroMCil is significant at the .01 level if the Multiples (one of 4
and one of 5) are Included. It barely Misses significance at .OS without
the*.
SiMZine had no Multiples greater than 3 and is significant at the
.01 level.
Folpet also had no ocrrection factor but is significant only t the
2
.OS level. Using the Chi' test, which is soaewhat less conservative
than the Kastenbau«-Bow»an test, P = < .02. More iaportantly, the
Folpet data shows a peak of nwtagenicity in broods 2 and 3. Using these
broods only, the result is highly significant (Chi2 = 15, P = < .01).
-------
In all these cases, the deduction of multiples of 4, 5V and 6 is
questionable, since there are also several multiples of 2 and 3, while
the controls have almost none.
It is possible that exposure may have been "spotty" - i.e., some
•ales may have ingested or contacted or inhaled BOre than others, in
which case the compounds may be nore mutagenic than the averaged results
indicate.
Cacodylic Acid caused marked sterility of treated males, especially
in brood 3, indicating a cytotoxic effect on peri-meiotic cells. Unfortunatel)
it is not possible to know from these experiments whether or not the
damage is genetic. The recessive lethal frequency obtained in the one
adequate experiment (run 52) was actually 3 times the concurrent control
value. The latter, however, was exceptionally low, and in this case it
was not part of a consistently low control period. (Controls were in
fact somewhat erratic during that time.) There were no multiples in
control 52 and oily 1 multiple of 3 in the treateri males. We thus
called the result negative but questionable.
Data from the tests of miscellaneous compounds is shown in tables
37 through 43. Tris and PtCl. were clearly mutagenic, with peak effects
in brood 2, indicating an effect primarily on spernatids. All others
w«r« clearly negative.
The reference mutagens EMS, El and IMP wera positive when tested at
adequate concentrations. EMS, a very potent mutagen, surprisingly gave
frequencies very near control level when tested at very low concentrations
(2 and 4 ppm). THP was negative at 100 ppm and 300 ppm. QBE was tested
- 11 -
-------
only at low concentrations Arid was negative or questionable. It is
probably that air exposur* technique was inappropriate for this valatile
compound. In all these cav*t, however, there were multiples, indicating
possible spotty exposure. 0«ta for the reference autagens is in tables
44 through 52. •
12
-------
OtfOMOSG»€ LOSS, REARRANGKEWT AHO NON-DISJUNCTION
The selfed consists of treating wles whose Y-chroaosom* has pieces
of X-chromosom* on both arms, one marVert with Y* (the normal allele of
yellow body) and the other with BS (Stone's Bar). The Fj fifes are
observed for loss of either or both markers. The test is relatively
fast, requiring only one generation, and appears to be simple. In use,
however, we found that very large nuabers are required and interpretation
of results was difficult, due to the several different types of variants
and their quite different meanings in terss of cytogenetic events.
Since the recessive lethal test also picks up chromosomal rearrangements,
It was decided that this separate test was not worth the time and effo't
required.
The data that was collected is shown in table 2. The pesticides
gave frequencies varing from.5.31 to 20.29 x 10 , all with confidence
limits overlapping the control frequency. Controls varied from 1.5 to
14.99 x "4. Of the three reference eutagens Usteo, EMS and El gave
clearly positive results, but TOP did not. Evidently it Is not an
efficient chromosome breaker.
A new scheme, devised by Lor Ing Craymer (1974), cam* to our attention
and was tried in a preliminary manner as a possible replacement for the
Y*'Y'BS test. This Is a selectlx* scheme. In which the only survlvirs
are flies resulting from non-disjunction or certain chromosome breakage
events. Since no actual tests were performed for this EPA contract, we
will not dwell on the test here, but only point out that it is a likely
candidate for future screening prograas.
- 13 -
-------
DOKIHANT LETHAIS
Methodology was -lev*loped for dominant lethal screening and tests
were performed (unfortunately using very low concentrations) on Siaazine
and Oicacba. Siaazfne gave possibly positive results. This test,
however, was also abandoned, since it was tiae-consuaing and would
probably rarely help avoid further testing.
- 14 -
-------
Table 2
Chrcinosoa* P.earraagesear, Laaa aad S'on-Dia^-j
Concentration
Ptatieidea
Pborate (TMa«O
Ethyl parathloa
Cap tan
Folpec
Folpet
Quifltor«a« (PC23)
Malathlon
Brctucil
ft A 4 ^«h t%A ^.^.^K^ ^^^B Y
AX12puOSf «C2J^
(Cuthioa)
hoaocrotophoa
Urodrla)
Feathlca
ChlorpTrlfoa
(Durabao)
Olooaeb
TrUluraiia
MSKX
KSHA .
>f5VA
D£U
Cccodyllc A£ld
Dlcaaba
Slaarlc*
KcehrcyL
Mocuron
Slduroo
Actphac*
K4£hox7chlar
R«*«rrcc« MUCI?«SJ
E2S
21
CiP
1
0.25, 0.5
2, 3
3
?oco
3
0.5
2, 3
0.5
3
0.1
0.1
0.25
2, 3
3
1500
20CO
3
3
3
•
«
10
4. 8
100
10
1000
1
400
50
1000
34,347
' 20,721
22,337
16,098
5,753
4,270
11.701
7,125
9,792
15,030
13,155
12,383
3,406
12,013
3,942
6,636
933
8,609
5,937
14,295
15,361
20,206
15,166
8.409
9,073
9,971
1,561
1,302
7,515
Frequency
No. Teata No. Variants Varianta x 10 -4
All Controls
101,520
32
11
22
21
5
5
16
6
17
22
14
13
3
11
8
2
1
8
9
12
15
26
15
5
8
6
27
20
12
80
9.26
5.31
9.83
13.05
8.69
11.71
13.67
8.42
17.36
14.64
10.64
10.50
8.81
9.16
20.29
3.01
10.66
9.29
15.16
8.34
9.46
12.83
9.90
5.90
3.32
6.02
172.97
153.61
15.97
7.S3
-IS -
-------
Table 3
Summary of controls concurrent
with pesticide runs or inter*
apersed with then. In. colusn
headed ":io. lethals", S-single,
M « multiple, T - total. See
explanation of multiples, p.7.
- 16 -
-------
Run
1-6
7-11
12-14
17
18
20
22
24
25
26
27
23(oba.)
28(corr.)
31(ob3.)
3l(corr.)
32
33(oba.)
33(corc.)
35
36
37
3K
3'J
40
41
42
43(obs.)
1
14/12048
7/5682
5/1538
0/783
3/1249
4/2291
0/711
J/1291
0/384
4/1738
2/1272
9/1322
6/1322
4/1739
3/1739
-
ft/1205
4/1295
0/609
6/1591
4/1573
1/1720
3/1567
3/2792
0/2449
3/2882
11/2081
No. testa
2
•
. -
-
0/104
2/543
0/557
2/584
2/630
-
OJ349
2/661
1/362
0/362
2/1091
0/1091
2/552
10/1302
4/1302
2/415
0/419
1/1438
3/1102
0/762
0/793
4/1413
2/1902
10/1708
Table 3
CONTROLS
(I/I"*") jior brood
3
*•
—
1/317
0/270
0/150
0/273
2/781
-
1/613
0/290
3/741
2/741
16/6U1
3/681
0/341
10/1355
4/1355
1/486
.
1/1007
0/803
1/700
1/61 L
3/1U43
0/1197
8/1100
4
«M
-
•*
1/178
1/664
2/717
1/426
0/786
-
0/594
0/610
8/770
0/770
10/748
1/748
3/1091
0/728
0/728
2/564
. »•
0/650
0/1187
0/654
1/U14
1/1076
2/1148
2/1052
Total
Tests
12,062
5689
1543
1384
2732
3721
1997
3495
384
3299
2837
3216
3203
4294
4266
1989
4704
4692
2079
2016
4754
4816
3687
5015
6/89
7136
5972
S
14
5
3
2
2
6
3
5
0
2
4
5
5
5
5
3
3
3
5
2
6
4
2
5
5
7
-»
i
Mo. lethal a
H
0
1(2)
1(2)
0
2(2)
0
0
0
0
1(3)
0
1(3)
1(6) 1(7)
1(3)
1(2)
1(28)
1(2)
1C.)
3(2) 1(3)
1(12)
3(2) 1(3)
0
2(2)
0
0
1(2)
0
1(3)
0
2(2) 2(3)
1(14)
T
14
7
5
2
6
6
3
5
0
5
4
21
8
35
7
5
24
12
5
6
6
4
4
5
8
7
21
Z
lethals
0.116
0.123
0. 324
0.145
0.220
0.161
0.).50
0.143
0
0.152
O.'l41
0.653
0.249
0.815
0.164
0.251
0.510
0.255
0.240
0.298
0.126
0.083
0.108
0.100
0.118
0.098
0.519
(continued)
-------
COHTKOT-S CQOHTTNUEP1
Rim
43(corr.)
44
45
46
47
48
49
52
53
55
56
57
V 58(ob».)
5d(corr.)
5'J
6U
61
-------
Tables 4 through 36
Suoaary of recessive lethal experiments
per pesticide, wit?* the concurrent con-
trols. Ccnpounds in alphabetical order.
Cone, (ppo) - the concentration of the
compound in the 11 glucose exposure
solution. Tise (hrs.) • the duration
of exposure. * Mort. » the percent of
exposed flies who died before the end of
the exporure. When appreciable death.
occurred after natir.g, this is noted in a
fcot'TC':*. R-jr. « a crvv:? cf experi-T.er.ts
sharing ona control and started on a
particular date. These "starts" wer2
nunbered consecutively, t^henevar pre-
sumed "clusters" were corrected for, the
correction is shown in a footnote.
[ Reproduced Irom
b«it •vailabU copy.
- 19 -
-------
IJ
o
Cone. Tina Z
Exp. (ppt») (lira.) Mort.
A 10 48 38
C 10 48 83
Sura experiments
£ letltala pur brood
Controls (concurrent)
1
6
Sun controls
Z letlmls per brood
Table 4
ACP.I'HATE
No. tents (1/1 ) per brood Total No.
Run 1
40 4/2443
57 0/1666
4/4109
0.100
40 3/2792
57 1/1474
4/4266
0.094
2
1/683
0/1490
1/2173
0.046
0/793
1/1502
1/2295
0.044
3
2/207
2/1167
4/1374
0.290
1/611
1/1337
2/1948
0.103
4 tuata lethals
3/1246 4589 10
1/668 4994 3
\
4/1914 9583 13
0.290
1/814 5015 5
0/679 4995 3
1/1493 10.010 8
0.067
Z
lethals
0.2J3
0.060
0.136
0.099
0.06
0.079
-------
Table 6
AZIHPIlOS-KimiYL
Ho. te.stu (1/1 ) per brood
E'r.|> ._ (ppm) Qirs.) Mort.
A 0.25 48 36
0.50 '-0 44
1.0 40 56
C 0.5 48 42
Sum experiments
K)
X luthala per brood
\
Controls (concurrent)
52
5
Sum controls
Z lutlula per brood
Run 1
17 \ 0/1201
I
"J
27 0/1561
0/2762
0.0
17 0/783
27 2/1272
2/205S
0.097
2
1/74&
,
0/720
1/1476
0.067
0/104
2/661
2/765
0.261
3
1/398
0/453
1/851
0.117
1/317
0/290
1/607
0.164
4 • tcbto lethals
1/347 2697 3
4/670 3416 4
5/1017 fil!3 7
0.491
1/178 1384 2
0/610 . 2837 4
1/788 4221 6
0.127
lethal a
0.111
0.117
0.114
C.144
0.140
0.142
-------
Cone. T!M Z
Exp. (pp*) (hra.) More. Run
A 3 8 90 41
b S 2-2-4 12 42
SUM experiment*
\.
Z letlinla pu» brood
Control a (concurrent)
2 41
3 4?
Sun controls
Z Icthula per brood
Table S
ASPUH
No. test* (1/1 ) per brood Total No. Z
1
0/358
0/2553
0/2911
0
•
0/2449
3/2882
3/5331
0.056
2
0/266
3/2031
3/2297
0.130
4/1413
2/1902
6/3315
0.181
3
0/263
3/1288
3/1551
0.193
3/1843
0/1197
3/30/.0
0.009
4 testa lethal* lethal*
0/238 1125 0 0
1/974 6853 1 0.102
1/1212 7978 7 0.088
0.083
1/1076 6789 8 0.117
2/1148 7136 7 0.098
3/2224 13,925 15 0.107
0.135
-------
Cone. TlM Z
Eap. (?p») (lira.) Kort. >un
C 2000 48 2 37
I 2000 72 24 54
\
Z Ictli4l* per brood
Control* (ccnr.iirrent)
1 37
3 54
Sim control*
Z lutholj per brood
1
6/3163
-
6/3163
0.189
4/1573
0/19)4
4/3507
0.114
Table 8
, tROKACIl.
No. teal* (I/
2
5/2166
-
5/2186
0.228
1/1438
0/8',*
1/2294
0.044
1 ) p«.r brood
3
3/1824
1/1595
4/3419
0.117
1/1087
2/1284
3/2371
0.126
Total
4 teat*
3/1327 8517
1596
3/1327 10,113
0.226
0/650 4754
0/606 U82
0/1256 9436
0
Mo. Z
lethal* lethal*
17* O.J99
1 0.063
18 0.178
6 -0.126
2 0.0*2
8 0.084
"Cluutor of 4 and cluster of 5 deducted
-------
I
to
A-C 2.3 48
i) 3 48
Sun expcrlnenta
\
7. lechala per brood
Control a (concurrent)
Sun controla
Z lethala per brood
Table
7
BRtflACIL
Z
Kort.
24-64
18
0-34
0
Run 1
12-14 17/3351
22 1/647
IS/6198
0.290
12-14 3/1338
22 0/711
3/2249
0.222
No. testa
2
_
0/441
0/641
0
2/384
2/584
' 0.341
(l/l*) per brood
3 4
_ _
0/270 2/628
0/270 2/628
0 0.318
0/273 1/426
0/273 1/426
0 0.234
Total No. Z
testa lethala lethala
1568 17 0.305
2109 3 0.137
77S7 20 0.258
1343 3 0.324
1997 3 0.15
3540 8 0.226
-------
K>
U»
Cone. Time Z
Exp. (ppm) jhra.) Mort. Bun
A-C
i)
2.3
3
48
Sun expcrlmenta
7. lethala per brood
1
17/5551
1/647
13/6198
0.290
Table 7
BRI-MACH.
No. tests H/l ) per brood
2 34
- — _
0/641 0/270 2/628
0/641 0/270 2/628
0 0 0.318
Total
tCfltrt
1568
2189
775*
No.
lethala
17
3
20
Z
lethala
0.305
0.137
0.258
Control a (concurrency
Sun controla
Z Idthaia per brood
0-34 12-14 5/1536
0 22 0/711
3/2249
0.222
—
2/584
2/384
0.341
-
0/273
0/273
0
-
1/426
1/426
0.234
1543
1997
3340
5
3
8
0.324
0.15
0.226
-------
Cone. TlM X
Exp. (?p») (hra.) More. tun
C 2000 48 2 37
I 2000 72 24 54
Sim experiment*
Z lethal* per brood
Control* (concurrent)
1 37
3 54
SUM control*
X Initials per brood
1
6/3163
-
6/3163
0.189
4/1373
0/1934
4/3 507
0.114
Table 8
tROHACIl.
Ho. te*(* (1,
2
5/2166
-
5/2186
0.228
1/1438
0/8 ';&
1/2294
0.044
fl ) p*r brood
3
3/1824
1/1595
4/3419
0.117
1/1087
2/1284
.1/2371
0.126
Total
4 tc*ta
3/1327 8517
1596
3/1327 10.113
0.226
0/650 4754
0/C06 \6fl2
0/1256 9436
0
Ho. X
lethal* lethal*
*
17* O.J99
1 0.063
> IB 0.178
6 -0.126
2 0.0(2
8 0.084
t
"Cluutor of 4 and cluster of 5 deducted
-------
BROIIAC1L*
Cone. Tlac X
Exp. (ppm) (lira,) Mort. Run 1
J 5 72 (A) 9 (A) 56 3/632
L 5 72(A) 50(A) 58 2/1217
J,l. 5/1849
K 5 56 0/615
£| M 5 58 0/1409.
1 K.H 0/2024
Sum experiment* 5/3873
X lotltultf per brood 0.129
Controlu (concurrent)
2 56 1/991
0 58 1/1264
Sum controls 2/2255
X lethala per brood 0.089
No. tents
2
2/B51
0/124L
2/2092
1/US6
0/1353
1/2239
3M331
0.069
1/1129
1/936
2/2065
0.097
(l/l*) per brood
3
0/1126
. 4/1C68
4/2794
0/831
1/1848
1/2679
5/5473
0.0'Jl
0/1265
6/1464
6/2729
0.219
4
1/307
1/1173
2/1480
0/399
1/1313
1/1712
3/3192
0.094
1/541
0/927
1/1468
0.068
Total
teata
fl •!• I II
2922
5306
8228
2732
5929
8661
16,889
3929
4599
8528
No.
lethaU
6
7
13
1
6
7
20
3
8**
11
X
lathola
0.205
0.132
0.158
0.037
0.101
0.081
0.118
0.076
0.173
0.128
* J,L; Lnrvue and adults exposed,
** Cluster of 4 deducted
K,M: Larvae only exposed
-------
Table 10
CACODYi.IC ACID
Cone. Tine Z
Exp. (ppai) (hrs.) More.
0 3 48 16
I) 1000 48 55
E 1000 48 60
1 V 500 72 61
o\
Sum experlinenta
I
Z lethala per brood
Controls (concurrent)
-
6
18 .
12
Sun control*
Z Itthula por brood
Bug
24
48
50
52
24
48
SO
52
1
2/2032
0/789
3/1078
6/6036
11/9935
0.110
1/1291
7/1429
3/1705
0/1461
11/5886
0.187
No. ti--sta
2
5/1976
0/12;
0/61
4/2159
9/4322
0.208
2/630
5/1078
2/1250
2/2337
11/5295
0.207
(1/1*) per brood
3
0/1394
0/101
0/55
0/22
0/1572
0.0
2/783
2/842
3/1336
1/1727
8/4688
0.170
4
1/1607
0/24
0/2
0/4
1/1637
0.061
0/786
3/464
3/1170
0/814
6/3234
0.1B5
Total
testa
7,019
1,038
1.199
8.231-'
17.487
3,495
3,8?0
5,472
6,342
19,139
No.
lethala
8
0.
3
10
21
5
17
11
3
36
Z
lethala
4
0.113
0.0
0.250
0.121
0.120
0.143
0.4.43
0.201
• 0.047;
0.188
-------
Table 11
CAFTAN
KiPj
A
' D
D
E
Su*
Cone. T!M • Z
(pp») (lira.) More. Run
2,3 48 10,32 17
3 48 32 27
3 48 4 32
2000 4ft 2 37
oxpurlftonta
Z JuCholB |'cr brood
1
0/1024
4/1031
1/380
7/2866
12/5321
0.223
<
No. l«sia
2
0/971
3/6.' 3
4/1-02
7/11.07
16/5733
0.2/8
i
(l/l"*") per brood
3
0/388
0/296
2/1025
5/2103
7/3012
' 0.18)
4
2/393
1/416
3/2314
2/1333
8/4458
0.179
Total No.
tocta lath*l«
2'82 4*
2395 8
5261 10
8930 21**
19,368 ^ 43
•
Z
lethils
0.144
0.334
0.190
0.235
0.222
Controls (concurrent)
Suet
32 17
3 27
0 32
1 37
controls
Z Ictliala per brood
0/783
2/1272
-
4/1373
6/3628
0.163
0/104
2/6.U
2/5S2
1/1433
5/2/53
0.131
J/317
0/290
0/341
1/1087
2/2035
. 0.098
1/178
0/610
3/1091
0/6SO
4/2529
0.138
1384 2
2837 4
19H9 5
4754 6
10,964 17
0.143
0.141
0.231
0.126
0.135
* Clutter of 5 deducted
** Cluster of 6 deducted
-------
Table 12
CAflBPFURAM
Cone. TlsM Z
E»p. (jipm) (hrs.) Hort. >uo
A 10 24 33 56
1 B 10 24 89 57
CO
SUM experiments
X lethal* pur brood
. . .Controls (concurrent)
2 36
6 37
SUM controls
t lethal* per brood
No. teats (1/1*) per brood Totsl Mo.
1
2/1147
2/2219
4/3366
0.118
1/991
1/1474
2/2463
0.031
2
1/1179
0/1924
1/110?
0.032
1/1129
1/1502
2/^631
0.076
3
3/1351
0/964
3/2513
0.119
0/1265
1/1337
. 1/2602
0.030
4 tests lethal*
0/379 4462 6
1/834 3944 3
1/1413 10,406 9
0.070
1/341 3929 3
0/679 4993 3
1/1220 8924 6
C.082
Z
lethala
0.134
0.050
0.086
0.076
0.060
0.067
-------
T..bl« 13
ail.OHPYRlFOS
Cone .
K)
«o
A 0.1
B 0.1
Svm experiments
Z leiliul* par brood
Tiaa
lira.)
48
48
i
irood
Z
Mort.
32
2
Run 1
18 3/1524
26 1/1346
. 4/2B70
0.139
No. teat* (I/
2
1/1176
i/yjo
4/1906
0.209
1*) per brood
3
2/931
0/474
2/1405
0.142
4
1/1067
0/3U4
1/1451
0.068
Total
4707
2936
. 7643
No.
lethali
*
9*
2
11
I
lethols
0.191
0.068
0.143
Controls (concurrent)
Suu coatrola
Z Ictiiala per brood
* Cluator of 10 deducted
19
26
3/l'49
4/1738
7/2987
0.234
2/543
0/349
2/892
0.224
0/270
1/613
1/843
0.113
1/664 2732 6 0.719
0/594 ' 3299 5 0.151
1/1258 60.n 11 0.182
0.079
-------
u»
o
Cone. Tl»o
Hxp. (pp«) (lira.)
A 1 2
B 1 72
Sun experiments
Z iathaia per brood
Controls (concurrent)
SUB controls
Z lathala per brood
Table 14
DEI1ETON
Z
Mort. Run
46 42
82 51
3 42
12 51
1
1/2255
4/991
5/3246
0.154
3/2882
8/1895
11/4777
0.230
No. te its
2
2/1433
1/794
3/2227
0.134
2/1902
1/1192
3/3094
0.097
(1/1*) per brood
i
1/1338
0/458
1/1796
0.0i5
0/1197
1/1076
1/2273
0.044
Total
4 tests
1/836 5867
0/350 2598
1/1186 0465
0.084
2/1148 7136
1/541 4715
3/1CB9 11,851
0.177
No. Z
lethala lethala
•
^.
5 0.085
, 5 0.192
10 0.118
•7 0.098
11 0.233
18 0.151
-------
Table IS
PICA) in A
!*Cj
0
c
D
Suu
Cone . Tims Z
(ppffl) (lira.) Mort. Run
3 48 42 25
3 48 0 28
2000 72 16 48
experiments
Z lethala per bcood
1
0/256
9/2778
3/1886
12/4920
0.243
No. testa
2
.
5/1002
2/1110
7/2112
0.33!
(1/1*) per brood
3
_
2/1409
3/883
5/2292
0.218
4
_
1/2204 .
0/644
1/2848
0.035
Tot»l
teats
256
7410
4511
12.197
Mo.
lethala
0
17
8
25
Z
lethals
0.0
0.229
0.176
0.204
Ci,'itroln (concurrent)
Siua
4 25
0 28
.6 48
controls
Z lolhala per brood
0/384
6/1322
7/1429
13/3135
0.413
-
0/362
5/1078
5/14/.0
0.346
-
2/741
2/842 .
4/1583
0.252
-
0/770
3/464
3/1234
0.243
384
3203
3830
7417 '
0
8*
17
25
0.0
0.249
0.443
0.337
•* Cluster of 6 and cluster of 7 deducted
-------
TaMe 16
DINOSEB
Cane. Tlaa Z
Exp. (ppe) (hra.) Mort. Bun 1
D 0.5.1 48 28,22 20 4/2007
I
o C 4 48 6 35 1/790
* Sum experiments 5/2797
Z Jctliolu per brood 0.178
Courrolti (concurrent)
20 4/2291
3 35 0/609
Sun controls 4/2900
Z lotlialu per brood 0.138
No. tc-sta
2
1/709
0/1153
1/1862
0.053
0/557
2/415
2/972
0.205
(1/1*) per brood
3
0/150
4/1072
4/1222
0.327
i
0/150
1/486
1/636
0.157
Total Mo. Z
4 ttata lethala lethala
2/786 3659 7 0.191
8/1458 4486 13 0.289
10/2244 8145 20 0.245
0.445
2/717 3721 6 0.161
2/564 7079 5 0.240
4/1281 5800 11 0.189
0.311
-------
10
Cone. Tina Z
Kxo. (ppm) (lira.) Hurt. Bun
A 5 5 40 42
B.C 1,10 72 20,28 51
Sun) experiments
Z Ictlmls per brood
Controls (concurrent)
3 42
12 51
Suia controls
Z Icthalo per brood
S
Table 17
DIHE'llIOATE
No. t»uta (1/1+) per brood Total No. Z
1
4/2840
3/1745
7/4585
0.152
3/2882
7/1895
10/4777
0.209
2
1/1915
0/1914
1/3829
0.026
2/1902
1/1192
3/3094
0-097
3
2/2076
0/1097
2/3173
0.063
0/1197
1/1076
1/2273
0.044
4 testa lethal* lethala
1/1285 3124 8 0.098
1/750 5510 4 0.072
2/2035 13,634 12 0.088
0.098
2/1148 7136 7 0.098
1/541 4715 11 0.233
3/1689 11,851 18 0.151
0.177
-------
Cone . Tina X
Exp. lpi>m) (lira.) Mort. Run 1
A 1 A 16- 61 0/463
i
ta H 1 5 18* 62 3/3146
4*.
i SUM cxpcrlmenta 3/3609
2 )cth3ls per brood • 0.083
Controls (concurrent)
0 61 0/1166
0 62 0/2269
Sum controls 0/3435
Z lotluila per brood 0
Table 18
DTSUF.FOTON
No. testa ()/I+) per brood Total No.
2
0/351
1/919
1/1270
0.070
0/702
0/677
0/1379
0
3
C/306
11} 587
1/1893
0.052
2/887
1/966
3/1853
0.162
4 teata lethals
•
0/182 1302 0
2/1094 6753 7
2/1276 8055 7
0.156
1/546 3J04 3**
1/820 4734 2
2/1366 8038 5
C.I/, 6
I
Ictnala
0.0
0.103
0.086
0.09
0.042
0.062
* 232 note died anon aftor ma cine
** Cluaior of 5 deducted
-------
t>
in
Cone. TlM X
Exp. (pfrgjX (hro.) Mart. |>uo
.A 3 48 32 24
B 1500 48 56 45
Sum experiments
Z leihola per brood
Tuntrolfl (concurrent)
24
2 45
Sun controls
2 Idtlielo per brood
•
1
4/2240
2/1361
6/3601
0.166
1/1291
2/1636
3/2927
0.102
Table 19
DSMA
No. touts (I/
2
1/1537
1/798
2/2335
0.085
2/630
0/635
2/12',5
0.153
I*) per brood
3
2/1666
0/1079
2/2745
0.072
2/733
5/1353
7/2J38
0.226
Total No.
4 tests lethal*
1/1378 68^9 8
0/585 3826 3*
1/1963 10,655 11
0.050
0/786 3595 5
3/507 4143 10
3/1293 7638 15
0.231
X
lethal*
0.117
0.078
0.103
0.143
0.241
0.196
* Cluatdr of 16 deducted
-------
Cone. Tlaa Z
£*JLi. d'P") (hra.) Mort. Run
A 1 24
8 1 48
SUM experiment*
X luthnla pur brood
Controls (concurrent)
0
20*
2
0
56
58
56
58
Table 20
v
PEHSULFOTHIOH
1
1/1321
2/1368
3/2689
0.111
1/991
1/1264
2/2255
0.089
Ho. testa
2
3/1504
2/1202
5/2706
0.1B4
1/1129
1/91»6
2/2065
O.OK7
(1/1*) per brood
3
2/1664
4/1673
6/3337
0.179
0/1265
6/1464
6/2729
0.219
4
0/681
4/1360
4/2041
0.195
1/541
0/927
1/1468
0.068
Total
tc-sta
5177
5615
10,792
3929
4599
0528
No.
lethali
7
12
19
3
8**
11
Z
lethals
0.135
0.213
0.176
0.076
0.173
0,128
Sura controls
£ Icihuls per brood
* 20Z n.ortaliiy at 48 hra. (tlna of mating), 27.5Z of those mated died soon and 1 of 29 remaining was sterile
"* Cluster of 4 deducted
-------
Cone. Time
I*Ei. (PP") (bra.) Mort
A 0.1,0.25 48.48
I C 0.1 48
ui
-•» Sum experiment*
Z lotlials per brood
Control a (concurrent)
Sum controls
Z lothulo per brood
Tablu 21
FEKTII10N
Z
lort. Run • 1
4,20 18 6/1703
4 26 2/1222
8/2925
0.273
18 3/1249
s 26 4/1738
7/2987
0.234
No. tests
2
4/1312
1/638
5/1950
0.256
2/543
0/J49
2/U92
0.224
(1/1*) per brood
3 '
•
1/1051
0/325
1/1376
0.072
0/270
1/613
1/883
0.113
Total No.
4 testa lethals
t
0/1056 5122 11
0/241 2429 3
0/1297 7562 14
0.0
1/664 2732 6
0/594 J299 5
1/1253 6031 11
0.079
Z
lethals
0.214
0.123
0.185
0.219
0.151
0.182
-------
FOI.ITT
Cone. Tina X
Exp. (PI«») (lira.) Kort. tun
A 2.3 48.48 18,46 20
C 3 48 0 32
0 2000 72 0 38
. • • . •
Sum uxperlftenta
I
0 Z Iciliulu par brood
U)
1
Control a (concurrent)
20
0 32
4 38
Sun control*
Z Iriliala par brood
1
1/1876
1/422
4/2837
6/3133
0.116
4/2291
-
1/1720
3/4011
0.123
Ha. t«ara fl/1
2
l/i«7
1/6/1
7/1160
9/2U18
0.319
0/557
2/552
3/1 101
5/2211
0.226
*) per brood
3
0/443
1/1302
6/1449
7/3194
0.219
0/130
0/341
0/803
0/1294
0
4
1/438
5/1670
3/1719
9/3827
C.235
2/717
3/1091
0/1187
5/2995
0.167
Total
teat*.
334 7
4273
7405
13,023
3721
1969
4816
10.326
Ho.
letlula
3
b"
20
31
6
5
4
15
Z
lethal*
0.090
0.187
0.270
0.206
0.161
0.231
0.083 '
0.142
* Cluster of 4 and clutter of 11 dsdu
-------
U»
vo
Table 23
, MALATIIIO:*
KXD
A
C
Sum
Cone. Tine Z
(ppm) (lira.) Hort. Run
0.25^ 48 8 17
0.5J
0.5 48 40 27
experiments
Z letliala pur brood
I •
2/1040
2/1553
4/2593
0.154
No. teai a
2
3/866
1/918
4/1784
0.224
(l/l*) per brood
3
1/399
0/555
1/954
0.104
Total No.
4 tents lethala
0/471 2782 6*
1/800 3830 4
1/1271 6612 10
0.078
X
lethala
0.214
0.104
0.151
Controls (concurrent) •
Sun
52 17
5 27
controls
X lechalu pur brood
0/783
2/1272
2/2C55
0.097
0/104
2/661
2/765
0.261
1/317
0/290
1/607
0.164
1/178 1364 2
0/610 2837 4
1/788 4221 6
0.127
0.144
0.140
0.142
Cluster of 21 deducted
-------
I
4.
O
7fl
Cone. Timo X
Qra.) More.
Cl 10 48
C* 4 40
Sum exporlnenta
Cunt rota (concurrent)
•
X lethald per brood
* Cluster of 28 deducted
Run
31
31
1
1
0/543
3/1762
3/2305
Tablo 24
HETIIOMYI.
Mo. tc;t« (I/I"*) par brood
^34
1/615 2/308 0/149
1/1701 2/1408 1/955
2/2116 4/1716 1/nn/.
31
3/1739
0/1091
3/681
0.439
1/748
0.134
Total No. x
l£«2. lethal! lethals
l«l» 3 0.211
5"3 7 0.120
7251 10 0.137
4266
7*
0.164
-------
Cone. Tlaa
Exp. (ppa) (hra.)
A 1000 72
B 1000 72
SUM experiment*
Z letliolu por brootl
Controls (concurrent)
Sum control*
Z lethala pur brood
* Cluator of 17 deducted
Table 25
MET1IOXYCW.OR
Z
Mart. Bun 1
7 40 3/2501
18 41 2/1943
5/444
0.112
t
*
1 40 3/2792
2 41 0/2449
3/5241
0.057
No. te:;ta
'I
1//36
2/U41
3/1577
0.19
0/793
4/1413
4/2206
0.181
(1/1+) per brood
3
*
0/734
3/938
3/1672
0.179
•
1/611
3/1843
4/2454
0.163
Total No.
4 tcata lethala
0/714 4689 4
3/859 4591 10*
\
3/1573 9280 14
0.19
1/814 5015 S
1/1076 6739 8
2/1690 11.804 13
0.106
Z
lethala
0.085
0.217
0.150
0.099
0.117
0.110
-------
A 2 48
, C 3 48
to Sum experiments
Z lethala por brood
Controla (concurrent)
Sun controla
X lethala pjr brood
4
4
TabU 26
MOHOCIIOTOPIIOS
iun
18
26
18
26
No.
1
4/17S3
3/1368
7/3121
0.224
3/1249
4/1738
7/2f.37
0.234
te.ita (1/J
2
0/1267
2.052
2/2119
0.094
2/543
0/349
2/892
0.224
I ) por brood
3
0/831
3/734
3/1565
0.191
0/270
1/613
1/883
0.113
4
0/943
2/518
2/1461
0.137
1/664
0/594
1/1258
0.079
Total
teata
4794
348?
8276
2732
3299
6031
No.
lethala
4
v 10
14
6
5
11
Z
lethala
0.083
0.287
0.169
0.219
0.151
0.182
-------
Cone. Tlaa X
Exp . (pprc) (lira.) Mprt. Bun
C 4 48 4 31
^
U 1000 72 66 I 48
,. 2000 72 68*ly
c» •
I Sura expci'lroonta
X lotlialo per brood
.
r
i
3/3055
1/1556
6/4611
0.13
Tublc 27
jiommnM
la. leata (l/l''*) per brood Total No. X
234 testa lethal* lethala
0/1639 4/852 0/1610 7165 9* 0.125
6/1051 1/573 0/469 3657 8 0.218
6/2690 5/1425 0/2079 10,822 17 0.157
0.223 0.35 0.0
Controla (concurrent)
Sum controls
X lothalo par brood
* Cluutar of 4 deducted
** Clualcr of 28 deducted
(1) Host diud noon after muting
31
48
3/1739
7/1429
10/3168
0.315-
0/1091
5/1078
5/2169
0.230
3/681
2/842
5/1523
0.327
1/748
3/464
4/l?12
0.329
4266 7**
3830 17
8096 24
0.164
0.443
0.296
-------
TibU 28
HSMA
Cone. Ti»a Z
£2£i. If fj«i (hrn.) More. Bun 1
A 2.3 /,8,48 18.14 20 2/2224
D 4 48 7 35 2/602
E 2000 48 91 38 1/498
F 1500 24 47 39 5/1775
4. Sum experiment* 10/5099
I 7. Icthala per brood 0.196
Controls (concurrent)
- 20 4/2291
3 35 0/609
* 38 1/1720
0 39 3/1567
.Sum control* 8/618?
2 lotnalfl por brood . 0.129
No. tent. O/1+) per hrood
0/409
1/929
2/99
1/821
4/2158
0.185
•
0/557
2/415
3/1102
0/762
5/2836
0.176
j
0/57
2/1094
0/145
1/1023
3/2324
0.129
0/150
1/486
0/803
1/700
2/2139
0.093
4
0/728
1/726
0/125
1/812
2/2391
0.084
2/717
2/564
0/1187
0/654
4/3122
0.128
, Total No.
. IfiSt.! l«thala
3420 2
3262 6
870 3
4439 8
11,991 19
3721 6
2079 ' i
4316 4
3687 4
14.303 19
I
Uthala
0.058
0.183
0.344
0.180
0.158
0.161
0.240
0.083
0.103
0.132
-------
TabU 29
PAK.VmiON
Cone. TXwa Z
(hra. Mort. Run
No. tcata (1/1 ) per brood
Total No. X
testa lotlialo lethal*
A-E 0.25,0.5*8 0-72 7-11 16/11.914
11,930 16
0.134
in-
. i Controls (concurrent)
0-8 7-11 7/5682
5689
0.123
-------
rctm
Cone . Tt»«
Hxp. (ppa) (hra.)
A 8 48
B 3 48
C ,48
1) 2000 24
A .Sum experiments
01
\ 7. lethala per brood
Controls (concurrent)
•
Sun controls
X lethulo pur brood
X
Horr.. Run
20 17
10 22
2 35
39
52 17
0 22
3 35
0 39
1
0/751
2/726
1/749
6/1587
9/3813
0.236
0/783
0/711
0/609
3/1567
3/3670
0.082
Ho. te«t6_(l/l
2
*
1/553
1/336
1/780
3/1524
6/3401
0.176
0/104
2/584
2/415
0/762
4/1665
0.214
) per brood
3
1/254
1/264
3/1347
2/1706
7/3571
0.196
1/317
0/273
1/486
1/700
3/1/76
0.169
4
0/233
2/621
3/789
1/1339
6/2982
0.201
1/178
1/426
2/564
0/654
4/1822
0.219
Total
tcots
•mm^M*«
1793
2153
3681
0168
13,795
1384
1997
2079
3687
9147
Ho.
lethala
2
6
8
12
28
'
2
3
5
4
14
X
lethala
0.111
0.278
0.217
0.194
0.202
0.144
0.150
0.240
0.108
0.153
-------
A-F
Cone .
(PP°)
0.5
1
2
3
Tlaa
(hra.)
48
48
24,48
48
Table 31
MIGRATE
Z
Mort. Run
6 X
4-94
28,66 1-6
88
Mo. tcata (1/1*) par brood
1234
•
23.13.4SO _ _ ...
Total No. Z
teaca lethnla lethala
15.473 23
0.148
Controls (concurrent)
0-6 1-6 14/12.048
12,062
14
0.116
-------
Cone. Time
Exp. (ppm) (hra.)
A 100 72
B 100 72
C 100 72
U 100 72
*: Sum experiments
*
' Z lethala peri brood
Controla (concurrent)
Sum control*
2 lethala per brood
* Cluster of 4 deducted
z
More. Run
0 40
2 41
13 SO
6 SO
•
1 40
2 41
18 SO
1
5/2198
1/2487
1/444
2/1363
9/7492
0.120
3/2792
0/2449
3/1705
6/69'.6
0.086
Table 32
SltrtJROH
Mo. te.-»ta (1/1+)
2
C/604
0/1022
2/1092
3/1142
S/J860
0.129
0/793
4/1413
2 /mo
6/3456
0.173
per brood
3
1/466
1/1203
3/1268
2/1090
6/4027
0.148
1/611
3/1843
3/1336
7/3790
O.JtU
4
0/1020
2/815
1/912
0/661
3/3408
0.038
1/814
1/1076
3/1170
5/3060
0.163
Total
testa
«P^MH«M»
4294
5530
4723
4263
18,810
5015
6789
5472
17,276
Ho.
lethala
6
3*
7
7
23
5
8
11
24
Z
lethala
0.139
0.054
0.148
0.164
0.122
0.099
0.117
0.201
0.138
-------
Tabla 33
£IMA/Jrf£
Cone . Time Z
Exp. (|>I>») (lira.) More. Run 1
b 3 48 4 25 7/2029
C 3 48 11 28 9/1893
K 2000 48 3 37 10/3106
Sum experiment a 26/7028
% Z Icthala per brood 0.369
I
Controls {concurrent)
4 25 0/384
•
0 28 6/1322
1 37 4/1573
Sum. controls 10/3279
Z lotltala par brood 0.304
Mo. tests
2
_
5/9-J9
B/2212
13/3211
0.403
0/362
1/1430
1/J800
0.056
(1/1"*} per brood
3
_
4/1868
4/17*2
8/3620
0.221
2/741
1/1087
3/1828
0.164
4
..
0/1680
3/1133
3/2913
0.107
0/770
0/650
0/1420
0
Total
teata
•••^•••^M
20 J6
6458
8228
16,722
384
3203
4754
5341
No.
letliala
0*
18
25
43
\
0
8**
6
14
Z
lethala
0
0.279
0.304
0.257
0
0.249
0.126
OJ68
* Cluator of 7 dedu tod
** dilator ot 6 and cluster of 7 deducted
-------
I/I
o
Tal.la 34
SIHAZINB n Clir.ONIC" KXPOSURK
Ct Larva and adulta expoaad
Ill Larva only uxpoaed
Cone. Tt»« Z
Exp. ^ppj»}. (hrs.) Mort. Run
C 5 72 (A) 2 (A) 60
11 5 6u
Sum experliacnta
Z lothdls pec brood
Controls (concurrent)
0 60
Z lethals per brood
1
4/1674
4/1647
8/3321
0.240
1/134*
0.074
No. tootn
2
3/750
0/788
3/1546
0.194
0/738
0
(I/ I4) per brood
3
3/1443
0/1357
3/2800
0.107
3/1427
0.210
Total No.
4 teats lothalt.
0/999 4884 10*
0/940 4736 4
0/1939 9620 14
V
0
1/909 4424 ;
0.110
X
Icthala
0.204
0.084
0.146
0.113
* Cluster of 18 deducted.
-------
I
in
Cone. Time
1*11:. (l'p"') (lira.j
A 1 2
B 1. 3
Sum experiments
I Icthals.pec brood
Control a (concurrent)
Z
Mort. Run
0 61
12(l) 62
0 61
0 62
1
1/861
4/2436
5/3297
0.151
0/1166
0/2269
0/3435
0
Table 35
TRICIILORFON
No. tvvta (I/
•j
0//37
2/1059
2/1796
0.111
0/702
0/677
0/1379
0
l^por brood
3
1/948
1/1418
2/2366
O.OR4
2/807
1/966
3/1853
0.162
4
1/653
6/1514
7/2167
0.323
1/546
1/820
2/1366
0.146
Total No. Z
testa lethals lethals
1202 3 0.093
6440 13 0.201
9642 16 0.165
3304 3* 0,09
4734 2 0.042
6038 5 0.062
Sun controln
Z lethaltt per brood
* Cluster ot 5 deducted
. (1) 121 at 3 houro, 301 next day at mating tine, pluu 7 of 50 mated died ioon after and 2 ware sterile.
-------
Table 36
THIMJIRALIH
ISP. t£o MO« » , ""• rcjlt" (1/1^ p'r broo')
i£i!i iHTJSz. *lir*Ll. More. Run 1
A 2,3 48.48 20,18 18 2/1637
B 3 48 4 26 1/1190
C 1000 72 12 45 1/1523
D 100° » 72 50 3/2194
Su« experiments 9/6544
2 lutliulu per brood 0.137
Controls (concurrent)
. 18 3/1249
»
* 26 4/1738
2 45 2/1636
t
" 50 3/1705
Su« controls 12/6328
* ifftlidla per brood . 0.189
2
3/8*5
3/666
3/783
l/17fcl
10/40'JS
0.2V,
2/541
0/349
0/635
2/1250
4/2777
O.U4
3
0/.103
1/308
4/1527
6/1713
11/4551
0.241
0/270
1/613
5/1355
3/1366
9/3574
0.213
4
2/1015
1/407
3/806
1/1450
7/1678
0.190
1/664
0/594
3/507
3/1170
7/2935
0.238
Total No.
tjtats_ Itthols
4327 7*
2777 6
4650 11 '
7151 13
10,905 37
2732 6
3299 3
4143 10
3472 11
15,646 32
Z
1 at Mini •
AVI natm
0.161
0.216
0.236
0.181
0.195
0.219
0.151
0.241
0.201
0,204
» Cluster -of 3 deducted
-------
Tables 37 through 43
Sicocary of recessive lethal
experiments testing cocpour.ds
other than pesticides.
- 53 -
-------
Table 37
BCNZIDINE
Cone. Tine Z
E«p. (PPM) (lira.) Hort. Run
A 1000 72 50 63
1 U 1000 72 32 64
ill'
Su.a experiments
T letliulu per brood
Controls (concurrent)
4 63
1 . 64
Sum controlo
Z lethal a per brood
Ho. testa (1/1*) pur brood Total
1
3/2015
2/1610
5/3625
0.130
3/2193
3/1535
6/3730
0.061
2
2/1062
1/944
3/2006
0.149
1/1097
3/1124
4/2221
0.180
3
2/578
1/1147
3/1725
0.174
1/753
1/608
2/1561
0.128
4 tests
1/085 4548
1/633 4341
?/1520 8889
0.131
2/825 4877
1/572 *047
3/1397 8924
0.214
No. Z
lethal* lethals
8* 0.176
5 0.115
13 0.146
7 0.144
8 0.198
15 0.168
Cluster of 4 deducted
-------
in
Ui
Exp.
*^— »^™^
A
B
C
Cone. Tlao
(ppni) (lira )
«**^^**»^»^» ^k " *• 9 • M
100 72
1000 72
1000 72
Table 38
CAHCtHOCEMS*
* ?fo- teoto (l/l-h ner hroo^ »....
J1°rc^ Hun x
10 59 2/2262
«9 59 0/2358
* 59 3/2293
2_
2/2134
3/1U02
3/1/48
3
2/1040
1/406
3/650
4
1/994
1/770
2/870
• wfcM A
teata^
6437
5431
\
5572
no.
lethala
7
5
11
, lethal
0.109
0.092
0.197
Controla (concurrent)
S.,to,. Cl
4/1681 1/974
S.,tolo . 2. 3
l/,23
5672
0.141
-------
Cone. Tlaa
i*Ei iL'EH). (bra.) Mort.
A 2000 72
B 2000 72
Sum exporlacnta
Z Ictluila par brood
I
in
tn
Control a (concurrent)
Sum controls
Z letliali pur brood
* Cluuter of 9 deducted
Tahiti 39
PIRECTj-.UCK 38
•
Z • M
"
?rt. Run i
4 63 0/2034
2 64 1/1574
1/3628
0.028
* «3 3/2193
L 64 3/1535
6/3730
0.161
lo. teat a {j
1/887
3/1165
4/2052
0.1'JS
1/1097
%
3/1124
4/21'21
0.1UO
» • * *
1/1+) Dcr braorf
3/1158
0/1034
3/2192
0.137
1/753
1/808
2/1561
0.128
Total HO. x
* teata lathala l*th»i
0/880 A983 4 Q.080
1/630 4408 5* 0.113
1/1510 9400 , 9 0.096
0.066
2/825 4877 7 0.144
1/572 /,047 8 0.198
3/1397 8924 » Q.168
0.214
-------
in
E*p.
A
C
A.C
B
U
U,D
Cone.
iccsi
100
100
500
500
Tlea Z
(hra.) Hort. Run
72 36 65
72 73 66
48 60 65
48 55 66
Sum experiments
2 letliala per
brood
Table 40
£?«*
No. tout* (1/1*) per brood
1
3/1030
3/1085
6/2115
1/952
6/943
7/1095
13/4010
0.323
•»
20/1060
10/528
30/1 5B8
13/1125
10/090
23/1815
53/1403
1.S3
3
4/746
2/119
6/865
12/760
2/527
14/1287
20/2152
0.921
4
2/756
2/445
4/1201
0/547
2/704
2/1251
6/2452
0.244
Tocal
testa
3721
2194
5915
3410
2884
62Q4
12,209
V
No.
lethala
29
17
46
26
20
46
92
X
lethala
0.779
0.775
0.778
0.762
0.693
0.731
0.
754
Controla (concurrent)
Sum controls
Z lethala per brood
3
3
•
65
66
0/1160
0/998
0/2118
0
0/-J61
1/862
1/1823
O.OS5
2/1256
0/452
2/1708
0.117
0/617
0/407
0/1024
0
3994
2709
6703
2
1
3
0.050
0.037
0.043
-------
Cone.
Co
I
C 4
K 4
C,l'
D 10
C 10
Sun of experluenta
Z lethals per brood
Tablu 41
Tln« Z
hra.) Mort. Run
72 15 68
72 24 69
72 21 68
72 31 69
nta
rood
1
4/1241
4/1312
8/7573
2/1224
2/1565
4/2789
12/5362
0.223
"Tgia"
No. testa
2
0/543
2/1109
2/1652
2/821
1/1125
3/1946
5/3598
0.139
/l/l*) por brood
3
0/637
2/457
2/1094
5/552
0/616
5/1168
7/2262
0.309
4
0/059
0/689
0/1548
1/807
0/8'i4
1/1651
1/3199
0.031
Total
testa
3284
J595
6679
3414
4153
7567
14,446
No.
letltala
4
8
12
10 ,
13
25
Z
lathala
0.121
0.223
0.174
0.292
0.072
0.172
0.173
Controls (concurrent)
JJua controls
% letluila por brood
17
40
68
69
4/1375
0/1520
4/2895
0.138
1/780
2/1173
3/1*53
0.1M
1/600
2/433
3/1033
0.097
0/443
0/545
0/988
0
3204
3675
6S7S
6
4
10
0.187
0.109
0.145
-------
in
•a
^•^
Cone. Time Z
illi, (Pl'"») (lira.) Hort. Run
li 100 72 20 68
II 100 72 31 69
Sum experiments
Z
lothala per brood
.
1
6/1301
5/1446
11/2747
0.399
Toll a 42
"THIS"
No. torjta (I/
2
4/660
9/9tt9
13/J649
0.782
1"*") per brood
3
2/592
1/560
3/1152
0.260
Total No.
4 tests lethals
1/646 3212 13
1/694 3705 16
2/1340 6917 29
0.149
Z
lathflls
0.405
0.431
0.419
Controls (concurrent)
17 68
40 69
Sun controlo
Z
le dials per brood
4/1373
0/1520
4/2893
0.138
1/780
2/1173
3/1953
0.153
1/600
2/433
3/1033
0.097
0/443 3204 6
0/545 3673 4
0/908 6879 10
0
0.187
0.109
0.145
-------
a\
o
Table 43
"rail"
Cone. Time Z
Exp. (ppm) (hrs.) Mort.
A 1000 72 16
B 1000 72 14
Sun experiments
X lotliala per brood
Controla (concurrent)
4
1
Sun controla
Z lethala per brood
No. testa (1/1*) per brood
Run 1
63 26/2046
64 27/1738
53/3784
1.33
63 3/2195
64 3/1535
6/3730
0.161
2
30/494
57/631
87/1125
7.18
1/1097
3/1124
4/2221
0.180
3 •
2/391
15/879
17/1270
1.32
1/753
1/808
2/1561
- 0.128
4
18/1061
5/1157
23/2218
1.03
2/825
1/572
3/1397
0.214
Total Ho. Z
testa lethala lethala
4068 76 1.87
4509 104 2.31
8577 180 2.10
\
4877 7 0.144
'047 8 0.198
8924 15 0.168
-------
Tables 44 through 32
Summaries of errperinenrs wj.th
reference rsutagens. "Cluster"
corrections were made onlv for
controls and for the lew nuta-
genicity runs (DBS and TM?).
- 61 -
-------
Tflbla 44
QBE; 1.2- IHBHOMOETHANE.
Exp •
A
D
U
li
C
v
1 Sum
Ol
Cone.
(ppre)
5
5
10
10
50
50
Tina Z
(hrs.) Hort.
72 8
72 0'
72 8
72 0
72 4
72 9
expor Juente
Z Ictliala por
I
brood
Ho
Run 1
54 2/2102
55 3/1491
54 4/2330
55 4/1541
54 3/2504
55 0/2041
16/12009
0.133
. teats (1/1*) per brood
2
1/1335
1/662
2/1143
1/1056 ,
2/1256
2/033
9/6305
0.143
3
2/1255
0/1376
1/1235
1/1530
4/1568
1/1113
11/0077
0.116
4
1/700
0/643
1/528
1/956
0/709
2/911
5/4447
0.112
Total
teuts
5398
4176
5244
5090
6046
4925
30,879
x
No.
lethalfl
6
4*
8»*
7
9***
7
41
Z
lethal*
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
.111
.096
.153
.138
.149
.142
.133
(0.334)
(0.381)
(0.231)
(0.220)
Controls (concurrent)
Sum
controls
Z Icthola por
3
4
•
brood
34 0/1934
55 6/1480
6/3414
0.175
0/856
1/435
i/im
0.0/7
2/1284
0/853
2/2137
0.094
0/606
1/409
1/1015
0.098
4602
3185
7867
2
8
10
0
0
0
.043
.251
.127
* Cluster oil 10 deducted
** Cluster of 12 deducted
*** Clutter of 5 deducted
Numbers la parcntheao* are Z lethal* without removal of cluitere
-------
Table «5
ETHYLgKIMIMg (El) .
Cone. Tine Z
Ex p. (ppm) (l»r«.) Mort.
D 50 72 20
K 30 72 9
V 10 72 8
C 4 72 12
I
o II 2 72 12
Ul
I . .
Controls (concurrent)
48
3
12
*
No. testa (1/1 ) per brood
L Hun
47
49
53
53
53
47
49
53
1
21/137
280/2302
51/2494
11/2340
10/2956
2/1946
3/1310
3/1809
2 3
0/0 8/310
79/940 15/1204
** J 2/1482
** 12/1474
** 6/2135
0/912 1/910
2/1357 3/1116
** 2/1447
4
8/534
20/2362
2/1036
9/966
4/1401
0/510
1/700
0/912
Total
toata
1018
7202
5077
4812
6512
\
4281
4492
4173
No.
lethala*
37
394
65
32
20
3
9
5
Z
lethaii
3.63
5.47
1.28
0.665
0.307
0.070
0.200
0.120
* Clusters not identifiable duo to high nutation frequency.
** Dioodo 1 and 2 war* combined.
-------
Table 46
ETHYL MF.THAHHSULFOHATg
Cone. TitJa 2
i££x SWSL (hra.) More. tun i *^S^i-U
" 2 72 0 43 14/1845
1 U •» —^
^ P 2 « 8 44 14/2416
1" Sum experiment- 2a/A26l
2 Icchala per brood 0.653
Controls (concurrent)
0 43 3/2081
10 44 8/2622
Sum controla 11/47M
X lethala per brood 0.233
11/1337
7/1164
10/2501
0.715
5/1708
3/1359
8/3067
0.260
...... M.QJf
/!+) per bro
7/947
2/903
9/1850
0.404
7/1100
1/1236
C/2336
0.341
2* = Total
4 testa
2/604 4767
1/756 5461
3/1360 10,228
0.220
2/1052 5958
1/767 5997
3/1819 11,955
0.165
No.
lethala
34
24
58
17*
13
30
I
lethala
0.173
0.439
0.567
0.285
0.217
0.251
Cluator of 14 deducted
-------
7a!»lo 47
ETIKI. METllAdESULFOHATE (EHS)
Cone. Time Z
Exp. (ppm) (lira.) More. Run 1
A 4 48 1 33 8/1508
N 4 72 0 43 20/1875
Q 4 72 8 44 10/2467
Sun experiments 38/5850
1
ot Z lolhals per brood 0.645
in
1
Controls (concurrent)
3 33 4/1295
0 43 3/2081
10 44 8/2622
Sum controls 15/5998
Z Icthals per brood 0.249 '
Kn. tc.-itc
2
3/1024
0/1411
6/1265
18/J700
0.484
4/1302
5/1708
3/1359
12/4369
0.274
(1/1."*} per brood
3
2/1077
4/975
2/808
8/2860
0.?79
4/1355
7/1100
J/1236
12/3691
0.324
4
0/427
1/580
0/733
1/1740
0.057
0/728
2/1052
1/767
3/2547
0.118
Total
testa
4049
4875
5291
14,215
\
4692
5958
59)7
16,647
Ho. •
lethal*
13
34
18
65
12*
17*»
13
42
Z
lethals
0.321
0.697
0.340
0.457
0.235
0.285
0.217
0.252
* Cluster of 12 deducted .
** Cluuter of 14 deducted
-------
Tnhle 48
ETHYL HETUANF.:;UI.FOMATE (EMS)
Core. Tine Z
E*P« (PP») (lira.) Hort.
K 10 48 0
0 10 72 0
R 10 72 10
Sum experiment*
I
_ Z lethalu per brood
\t\ *
a>
1
Control a (concurrent)
1
0
10
Sun controla
3 lethala per brood
No. te-iti (1/1"*") per brood
Run 1
36 18/2597
43 33/2002
44 20/2366
71/6965
1.009
36 6/1591
43 3/2081
44 8/2622
17/6294
0.269
2
4/50'.
36/1488
9/1212
49/J204
1.S06
0/419
5/1708
3/1359
8/3486
0.229
3
*.
14/986
6/877
20/1863
1.062
•
7/1100
1/1236
8/2336
0.341
4
_
3/701
3/832
6/1533
0.390
2/1052
1/767
3/1819
0.165
Total
testa
^^^•^•^•^^v
3123
5263
5325
13.711
\
2016
5958
5997
13,971
No.
lethala
• 22
86
38 '
146
6
17*
13
36
Z
lethala
0.704
1.634
0.714
1.065
0.298
0.285
0.217
0.258
Cluiiter of 14 deducted
-------
Tabl. 49
BTKYL METIIANK.-iULyONATB (EMS)
Cone. TiM Z
E«p. d'pm) (hra . ) Mort. Run
F 100 48 1 16
I V 100 48 46 49
5 w 100 48 2 49
•
Sum experiments
Z lothala per brood
Controls (concurrent)
1 36
3 49
Sun control*
Z letliuli per brood
1
130/2014
35/1222
59/1078
224/4314
4.936
6/1591
3/1310
9/2901
0.309
Mo. tots
>
27/222
36/1065
51/029
114/2116
5.112
0/419
2/1357
2/1776
0.112
(1/r1) per brood
3
«.
7/469
2/402
9/871
1.023
3/1116
3/1116
0.268
4
_
1/363
2/470
3/838
0.3S7
1/700
1/700
0.143
Total
tests
•V^BM^KM^
2393
3203
2893
8469
2016
4492
6508
No.
lethala
157
79
114
350
6
9
15
Z
lethalaf
6.561
2.466
3.941
4.123
0.298
0.200
0.230
•
-------
Tibia SO
ETinfL METIIMIESULVONATE (EMS)*
Cone. Tina X
t'xp. (ppm) (lira.) More.
T 400 72 12
X 400 72 28
U 100 5 20
Sum experiments T,X
I
o\ X lethal* per brood
CO
Controls (concurrent)
48
12
3
Sum controls 47,51
3 lethuls per brood
Run 1
47 103/1508
51 41/1670
49 12/1128
144/3178
4.335
47 2/1946
51 8/1895
49 3/1310
• 10/3841
0.260
Ho. testa (1
2
l«>/537
27/1182
-
46/1719
2.606
0/911
1/1192
2/1357
1/2104
0.048
/!+) nor brood
3
5/921
9/909
-
14/1830
0.759.
1/910
1/1076
3/1116
2/1986
0.101
4
4/876
1/668
-
5/1544
0.323
0/510
1/541
1/700
1/1051
0.095
Total
tOfctS
3973
4507
1140
8480
4281
4715
4492
8996
Ho.
lethals
132
78
12
210
3
11
9
14
Z .
lethals
3.322
1.731
1.053
2.476
0.070
0.233
0.200
0.156
* Experiments T and Xi File* exposed to vapor only
Experiment Ui Flies exposed in regular feeding plates but with proboscis removed, to prevent feeding
-------
at
u>
Tabis 51
ETHYL KETHAMESULFONAT8 (HHS) SUMMARY OP COMPARABLE EXPERIMENTS
Cone . Tlao
Z
E«p. (ppa) (hrs.) Hort. IUm
M.P 2 72
A.N.Q 4 48.72
E.O.R 10 48.72
K.V.U 100 48
C 200 48
C 400 48
X luthala per brood, axp
Control u (concurrent)
••
Sum controls
Z lothala per brood
43,44
33,43
44
36.43
44
36.49
0 36
2 33
. C
43,44
- 33.43,44
- 36,43,44
36,49
1 36
3 33
No. tei.ta (1/1+) per brood
1
28/4261
38/5850
71/6965
224/4314
199/1439
353/1586
18.2
11/4703
15/5998
17/6294
9/2901
6/1591
4/1295
62/22782
0.271
2
18/^501
18/3700
49/3204
114/1*116
83/531
267/1073
19. •*
8/1067
12/4369
8/3486
2/1776
0/&19
4/1302
34/14419
0.235
3
9/1850
8/2860
20/1863
9/871
-
107/511
17.3
8/2336
12/3691
8/2336
3/1116
-
4/1355
35/10834
0.322
4
3/1360
1/1740
6/1533
3/838
-
18/783
2.25
3/1819
3/2547
3/1819
1/700
-
0/728
10/7613
0.131
Total
testa
10.228
14,215
13,711
8489
2252
4648
*
11,955
16,647
13,971
6508
2016
/o92
55,789
No.
lathala
58
65
146 '
350
282
620
30*
42* •
36*
15
6
12*
141*
Z
letliala
0.567
0.457
1.065
4.123
12.522
13.197
0.251
0.252
0.258
0.230
0.298
0.255
0.253
Cluster of 12 deducted fro* run 33 and cluster of 14 froai run 43
-------
-a
o
Table 52
TMP TRIMK7IIVL PHOSPHATE
Cone. Tiam Z
-------
REFERENCES
Crayoer, L. A new genetic testing procedure for potential nutagens.
Ores. Infor. Serv. 51 (1974) 62.
Lewis, E. B. and F. Bacher. Method of feeding ethyl methanesulfonate
(EMS) to Orosophila males". Dros. Infor. Serv. 43 (1968) 193.
Vogel, E. and F. H. Sobels. The function of Orosophila in gervjtic
toxicology testing. In: "Chemical Mutagens1' Vol. 4 (1976). ed. A.
Hollaender, Plenum Pubi. Corp., New York, 93-141.
Kastenbaun, H. A. ar.d K. 0. Bauoan. Tables for determining the statistical
significance of mutation frequencies. Hut. Res. 9 (1970) 527-549.
71 -
------- |