Talk:Pyrethroid

The introduction section

The introduction section is rather long, providing detailed information that would be better as (a) new section(s). There is also explanation of related substances that could very easily be removed, instead just having the link to the article for more information.

Example: The sodium channel consists of a membrane protein with a hydrophilic interior; this interior is effectively a tiny hole which is shaped exactly right to strip away the partially charged water molecules from a sodium ion and create a thermodynamically favorable way for sodium ions to pass through the membrane, enter the axon, and propagate an action potential.

The previous sentence has a link to the article for sodium channels.

I would make changes but I don't trust my own sense of formatting and descriptive helpfulness. --184.57.79.116 (talk) 08:40, 2 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Allethrin

This article contains a contradiction or error. Allethrin was the first pyrethroid. It was first synthesized in 1949 in the United States by Milton S. Schechter at the Agricultural Research Service in Beltsville, Maryland —Preceding unsigned comment added by Steve8009 (talk • contribs) 19:07, 18 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Also, the first reported use of piperonyl butoxide as a synergist for pyrethrum was in work at U.S. Industrial Chemicals in Baltimore around 1947. Merritt Sarles and Walter E. Dove led that project (http://www.ajtmh.org/cgi/content/abstract/s1-29/1/151). 98.216.78.129 (talk) 21:14, 11 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Toxity to cats

Some internet sources suggest that it may be more toxic to cats than, say, humans or dogs. If this is true, some information on such toxicity should be incorporated as being of general importance (given the popularity of cats as pets) I am not an expert and if anyone has authoritative information on this, please incorporate it in the article. Saurabh.jaywant (talk) 11:40, 8 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Breakdown in sunlight

The statement that pyrethroids breakdown in sunlight after two days is not supported by the citation. Indeed elsewhere the US EPA has stated that pyrethroids have a half life of 30 days in the soil, and there is strong evidence that microbial action is the primary means of breakdown. Recyclotron (talk) 11:28, 16 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Unstable in sunlight are the 1-st generation pyrethroids, developed in the 1960s (bioallethrin, tetramethrin, resmethrin etc.). The other ones are much more stable. Krasss (talk) 19:25, 17 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Orphaned references in Pyrethroid

I check pages listed in Category:Pages with incorrect ref formatting to try to fix reference errors. One of the things I do is look for content for orphaned references in wikilinked articles. I have found content for some of Pyrethroid's orphans, the problem is that I found more than one version. I can't determine which (if any) is correct for this article, so I am asking for a sentient editor to look it over and copy the correct ref content into this article.

Reference named "Kolb2009":

From Bed bug infestation: Kolb A, Needham GR, Neyman KM, High WA (2009). "Bedbugs". Dermatol Ther. 22 (4): 347–52. doi:10.1111/j.1529-8019.2009.01246.x. PMID 19580578.{{cite journal}}: CS1 maint: multiple names: authors list (link)
From Bed bug: Kolb, Adam; Needham, Glen R.; Neyman, Kimberly M.; High, Whitney A. (2009). "Bedbugs". Dermatologic Therapy. 22 (4): 347–52. doi:10.1111/j.1529-8019.2009.01246.x. PMID 19580578.

I apologize if any of the above are effectively identical; I am just a simple computer program, so I can't determine whether minor differences are significant or not. AnomieBOT ⚡ 20:52, 13 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

References

Fazekas A (1992). "[The fundamental method of preventive prosthodontics: complex rehabilitation of the masticatory organ]" (PDF). Fogorv Sz (in Hungarian). 85 (3): 71–9. PMID 1568513.
Crombie, L.; Elliott, M. (1961). "Chemistry of the Natural Pyrethrins": 120–164. doi:10.1007/978-3-7091-7156-1_3. {{cite journal}}: Cite journal requires |journal= (help)
John Casida (2 December 2012). Pyrethrum: The Natural Insecticide. Elsevier Science. pp. 3–. ISBN 978-0-323-15490-1.
Casida, John E.; Quistad, Gary B. (1998). "Golden Age of Insecticide Research: Past, Present, or Future?". Annual Review of Entomology. 43 (1): 1–16. doi:10.1146/annurev.ento.43.1.1. ISSN 0066-4170.

gadflies

Gadlies are listed among beneficial insect, but what is beneficial about them? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 89.43.165.69 (talk) 20:45, 11 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

See Horse-fly#Diet_and_biting_behavior. They are pollinating insects, like many of the others mentioned in the lede here. Clearly, in some circumstances they are also pests. Mike Turnbull (talk) 11:52, 12 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

The specific source backing that up is "Introduction section of Morita et al". from the horsefly article. Mike Turnbull (talk) 18:28, 12 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I removed the bit about beneficials since it wasn't really in the source. The source being cited was this:

. . . researchers detailed how concentrations of pyrethroid-a pesticide chemical used in household insecticides such as Raid-occurred in portions of the American River and San Joaquin River at high enough levels to kill some invertebrates such as gadflies and mayflies.

While concentrations were not nearly high enough to be directly lethal to fish, the effect on invertebrate organisms such as mayflies and gadflies could have a negative effect by killing the organisms fish eat, Weston said.

I'm already wary of just having a primary study and a press release in terms of Wikipedia:Identifying_reliable_sources_(science)#Popular_press. However, in terms of WP:SYNTH or WP:DUE policy, there's really nothing calling out tabanids as beneficial organisms in the context of pyrethroids, and it's not really in due weight territory for the lead either. That pyrethroids are broad-spectrum with a relatively wide-range of non-target effects is definitely lead-worthy. Going into specifics about which insect families, whether they're beneficial or not (a specific question better addressed at Tabanidae), etc., are getting into the weeds for the lead though.

That said, here's just one review on aquatic non-targets if anyone wants to start with a good base for content instead of picking and choosing random primary sources. Kingofaces43 (talk) 19:44, 12 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Clean Up

Bad article because it mentions toxic to cats way in the middle!! I think it may also be very toxic to 🦨 scunks and other outside animals!

This is the first time I have been totally disappointed with an article! It’s not a nice chemical, and the article NEVER mentioned allergy or asthma or HIVES!!!!! Bad people overlooked important facts! — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2601:19B:4202:AE50:8CC0:242:8D42:DB4C (talk) 04:26, 7 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia is not a magazine for cat lovers, it is a compilation of information. A few editors struggle curate a deluge of facts and reports on a vast number of topics. Many articles are deficient in the eyes of some readers inevitably/ Nonetheless, this article provides quite a bit of information.--Smokefoot (talk) 16:46, 7 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]