Talk:Imidacloprid

Untitled

The 3D image and the 2D in the article do not match: in the 3D there is an hydrogen linked to 1st N of the N=NO2 (as NH=NO2), in the 2D there is an hydrogen linked to the N in the 5-atom ring. According to http://scripts.iucr.org/cgi-bin/paper?S1600536804029824 , https://pubchem.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/compound/Imidacloprid , https://commonchemistry.cas.org/detail?cas_rn=138261-41-3 and https://echa.europa.eu/substance-information/-/substanceinfo/100.102.643 use the structure depicted in the 2D image.

---

— Preceding unsigned comment added by PauloEAbreu (talk • contribs) 11:38, 18 March 2022 (UTC)

At minimum link to the gaucho article

---

It would seem more rational to convert the Gaucho article to a "controversy over Imidacloprid impact on bee populations" and point the various trade names towards that article. The issues raised by the Gaucho article are just as relevant to it under other other trade names.--Shoka 22:50, 19 January 2006 (UTC)

This phrase has been removed from the article as POV. This does not seem to be a reasonable interpretation of POV.

- It is also easier and safer to use for the farmer -

Compared to alternative methods of applying insecticide, such as applying a liquid spray after the crop has germinated it is clearly *easier* since it requires no additional effort over planting the crop, and is also almost certainly safer *to the farmer* since it is a solid coating on the seed and thus avoids handling of toxic sprays with the associated risks of inhailing spray.

In fact removal of the reference to the clear advantages *to the farmer* would appear rather POV in itself. I propose to restore the original information, unless someone can explain why the above statement is POV. Dislike of the product is not sufficient grounds to remove reference to it's merits.--Shoka 22:22, 17 August 2006 (UTC)

Opening of biochemistry section must be wrong and could be improved

The opening read "A chlorinated analog of nicotine, the compound therefore belongs to the class of chloronicotinyl insecticides, and acts on the nicotinic acetylcholine receptor; the chlorination inhibits degradation by acetylcholine-esterase. Imidacloprid is notable for its relatively low toxicity to most animals other than insects due to its specificity for this type of receptor, which is found more often in insect nervous systems and zooplankton than that of other animals"

It Imidacloprid and agonist or antagonist of the Nicotinic acetylcholine receptor?

More importantly, most animals have nicotinic receptors, and most of them rely on the for important functions like breathing. Presumably the real season for specificity is due to some molecular difference between insect and human nicotinic receptors.Bilz0r (talk) 00:12, 18 December 2007 (UTC)

Imidacloprid is an agonist of the nicotinic AChR, and makes it difficult to repolarize the nerve after causing rapid excitation. Toxicity of neonicotinoids is related to their absorption through membranes. Nicotine and neonicotinoids like imidacloprid through membranes more readily when basic.

Insect guts are highly alkaline and so absorption is rapid, whereas mammal guts are acidic and do not promote absorption through ingestion . There is a statement in the imdacloprid article that says imidacloprid acts upon a neural pathway unique to insects and that is just wrong. Sigil VII (talk) 16:37, 27 September 2011 (UTC)

Adding New External Link

Dear Author(s),

I am interested in adding an External Link for this product that directs users to its product information page on the Crop Protection Database (CPD). The CPD is a fact-based, neutral listing of technical information for crop protection products. The CPD listing for this product expands upon the information listed on Wikipedia and would be a valuable addition to the page. This includes experimental code numbers, action group, outside U.S. registration information, safety guidelines, emergency guidelines, and a comprehensive list of suppliers, brand names, premix partners, and discontinued products.

Please strongly consider approving my request. For more information, visit: http://www.farmchemicalsinternational.com/cropprotection/cpd/

Regards, Judygt (talk) 12:45, 8 April 2011 (UTC)

I don't think you need anyone's approval! If it will expand on the Wikipedia article then it should be added. Sigil VII (talk) 23:48, 19 December 2011 (UTC)

Pollination

What is the anticipated effect on vegetable pollination over time? 99.24.223.58 (talk) 01:43, 7 July 2011 (UTC)

Biochemistry and Toxicology Sections

I provided factual information on the biochemistry and toxicology sections based on referenced authoritative documents from regulatory agencies and peer-reviewed journals. The information I provided was deleted and replaced with uncited material that in some places sounded more like advertising for the chemical and less like an encylopedia. If there is a problem with what I wrote, then this needs to be discussed in the talk page rather than deleting the material without a justified rationale. JSimpson55 (talk) 05:43, 17 February 2012 (UTC)

I note that in May 2/11 editor Teprosser deleted info calling it false, etc. and added this unsourced information in its place:

Imidacloprid and other similar neonicotinoid insecticides were banned in France as a result of a study that showed a link to imidacloprid and bee death. However, a report put out by the federal EPA "Pesticide issues in the works: Honeybee colony collapse disorder" names many different potential casues and even goes as far to state that imidacloprid is not likely the cause of this bee dieoff. Depsite Imidacloprid and other neonicotinoids being banned in France for more than 10 years, bee colony collapse disorder has not decreased. In Australia, where imidacloprid is widely used, there are no reports of bee colony collapse disorder.

I think the best way to work this out would be to return the recently deleted information and work with it to find consensus rather than engage in edit warring. Gandydancer (talk) 15:32, 17 February 2012 (UTC)

I think that that's way too much info in the lede. Could some of it be moved down into the body of the article? Gandydancer (talk) 00:30, 18 February 2012 (UTC)

I removed some info from the lede but the lede needs to be reworked. I'll work on it as time permits. Gandydancer (talk) 00:43, 20 February 2012 (UTC)

Deleted/added information problems

I have deleted the information added by an anon editor who rationalized his edit saying:

(WIlling to discuss on talk page - but stop telling stories that have nothing to do with the science. If you look at the spread of the bee collapse - it is obviously an organism that spread. This product is too valuable to be blamed.)

The cause of CCD remains unknown for certain, but there is a lot of information that seems to show that pesticides may be partly responsible. And, while this product is valuable, bees are even more valuable and, unlike this type of pesticides, bees are irreplaceable.

Just to review your first two changes:

Imidacloprid is a nicotine-based, systemic insecticide, which acts as an insect neurotoxin in certain insect species and belongs to a class of chemicals called the neonicotinoids.

The neonicotinoids are a neurotoxin PERIOD. You will need to discuss your suggestions for further changes here on this talk page. Gandydancer (talk) 22:36, 19 February 2012 (UTC)

In the first part of the document, it is important not to use language that sounds like an advertisment for the product. In the biochemistry part: Imidacloprid is persistent and stable in water and is persistent and accumulates in soil according to EPA, Canadian, and European risk assessments. Imidacloprid has been found many times in ground water and surface water monitoring studies, not just once. Some editors are not commenting on the talk page before they make changes. They are deleting well-referenced material, inserting inaccurate information, and then keeping the references for the deleted material, which makes it appear as if the inaccurate information is referenced. How can this be corrected? JSimpson55 (talk) 01:39, 21 February 2012 (UTC)

I have deleted Tcprossor's edit in which he changed half life from "about a year" to "3 hours". The source gives numbers of "83 days to over a year". This one-topic editor with a recently created account is clearly being disruptive and I have reverted his/her edit. Gandydancer (talk) 12:13, 21 February 2012 (UTC)

The referenced sources for the information I added are mostly based on USEPA, Canadian, and European reviews of studies submitted by Bayer CropScience, the primary manufacturer of imidacloprid. I don't understand why this information would be characterized as flagrant lies. JSimpson55 (talk) 19:23, 21 February 2012 (UTC)

This editor continues to be disruptive. The latest edit gave this summary: (Why so interested in lying about this product and not others? Competitive product? Send me an email if you want to talk.) Gandydancer (talk) 00:04, 22 February 2012 (UTC)

This editor continues to be disruptive adding rubbish (such as the completely made up "3 hour half life" claim) with this edit summary: (You edit a lot of items. This is not your expertise. Please tell me on your talk page why you insist on publishing about this. You have many facts wrong.) Gandydancer (talk) 12:46, 22 February 2012 (UTC)

Looks like much more of the information is back to legitimate information. This is all I wanted - Thank you for balancing things out. I will explain any additions or changes - and have cited sources. THey will go here as they go up - I appreciate a respectful dialogue and will assume you are not a competitor to this product trying to destroy its credability for personal gain nor are you a non scientific environmentalist who is creating information to scare people. This material is extremely important to arborists such as myself. Tcprosser (talk) 18:41, 29 February 2012 (UTC)

Just added insect in front of neurotoxin - since it is not a mammal, bird or fish neurotoxin. Just calling it a neurotoxin is not as accurate as we could be. Any objections? Tcprosser (talk) 18:41, 29 February 2012 (UTC)

Yes, it seems that you are correct and I was wrong regarding the neurotoxin issue. Your edits seem appropriate. If we take the changes a little at a time I'm sure we can improve the article. Gandydancer (talk) 22:52, 27 February 2012 (UTC)

Grandy - This article still appears to me to not be neutral. It continues to call things highly toxic and leaves out key information that makes the comments relevent - for instance the EPA says the tolerance for chronic water is 1770 PPB. The california study of groundwater came in a t 1-1.5 PPB. this was right after a major rain event. Becasue the material breaks down so quickly this was not chronic- just a snapshot. - There is no evidence in the real world that this material has ever killed what you call aquatic organisms - what you mean is aquatic invertabraes - Mosquitos, black flies and midge larvae in fresh water. However, because this material breaks down so quickly in this environment, these insect larvae are not necessarily affected. Also - it is not persistant or stable in water - yet you are saying it is. Would you be willing to share with me why you have an interest in this and why it is important to you to describe this compound as being so dangerous? My interest is that I am an Arborist and this material is unique in its ability to save trees from deadly boring insects and it has replaced spraying more toxic compounds. Becasue of articles such as this one that over exagerate its danger, people are choosing not to treat or they are switching to highly invasive injections that cost 6 times more and harm the tree. This is a huge negative environmental consequence as trees that could be treated so inexpensively and saved are now left untreated to die. I am going to make some changes slowely so we can discuss, I want this to tell an accurate story. A good document is at http://npic.orst.edu/factsheets/imidacloprid.pdf that gives a balanced description. What are your thoughts about this language and description. Tcprosser (talk) 18:41, 29 February 2012 (UTC)

Removed reference to it as a neurotoxin (Addressed in first sentance) Took out "several studies have shown that selected metabolites and anolgues of imidacloprid bind tightly to mammalian acetylcholine receptors - I read the citations and did not see this - instead I read how the reason this material is safe for humans is that it does not cross the blood brain barrier and that it does not bind to human neurons. Why is this in there? Am I amissing something? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Tcprosser (talk • contribs) 20:00, 28 February 2012 Tcprosser (talk) 18:41, 29 February 2012 (UTC)

The National Pesticide Information Center seems to be acceptable. The word "neurotoxin" should be used since terms in the lede are expected to be used in the article body. I believe the studies you removed are appropriate - I will make a separate post about them. Gandydancer (talk) 11:22, 29 February 2012 (UTC)

Added this - and added the reference The availability of imidacloprid and its favorable toxicity package as compared to other insecticides on the market in the 1990's, allowed the EPA to cancel and replace far more toxic insecticides including the acetylcholinesterase inhibitors, the organophosphorus compounds and methylcarbamates. http://www.cdpr.ca.gov/docs/risk/rcd/imidacloprid.pdf. Tcprosser (talk) 18:41, 29 February 2012 (UTC)

I will make more changes tomorrow and not do to many at one time so we can all have our opinions and points of view - please let me know what you think and please answer my question on what your "come from" is regarding being an editor on this article so I know and can also speak to your concerns and committments - thanks tcprosser Tcprosser (talk) 18:41, 29 February 2012 (UTC)

It see the ref is messed up right now re advantages to older insecticides. Please don't make any more changes till we get these changes agreed on. Gandydancer (talk) 11:22, 29 February 2012 (UTC)

Fixed the ref -- Please read the document "Frequently asked questions regarding potential side effects of systemic insecticides used to control the Emerald ash borer". Easily found using Google. This is a highly peer reviewed document from 3 different Universities. I intend to begin using portions of this as a highly credible source. But I want to be respectful and do this in an orderly and civilized fashion. Also -Please tell me who you are Gandydancer? What is your expertise? Why interested in theis topic? Thanks Tcprosser (talk) 22:49, 29 February 2012 (UTC)

I did google it and found this [4] which seems helpful, but I did not find the one you speak of - could you please give a link?

Why did you remove this information:

Several studies have shown that selected metabolites and analogues of imidacloprid bind tightly to mammalian acetylcholine receptors Gandydancer (talk) 15:01, 1 March 2012 (UTC)

I read the abstract of the article you sited to backup what you are saying and it did not say that. I have emailed the author and the contact to ask them if they would state their findings the way you did. This article costs $57. If you have a copy let me know so you can send. The study actually starts out saying ---- The favorable selective toxicity of imidacloprid (IMI) to insects versus mammals is attributed to differences in their binding affinity or potency in the nicotinic acetylcholine receptor (nAChR), a proposal tested here by studies on the mechanism of toxicity of IMI metabolites and analogs to mammals. This is talking about the mechanisms of toxicity not the binding ability. If whoever cited this can send me the rest of the article (I am assuming you purchased it and have it to be quoting it)I will read it. I will also let you know what I hear back from the author. Tcprosser (talk) 21:14, 1 March 2012 (UTC)

I added the following to the soil leaching and took it verbatum from the same article being quoted from Canada -- However, there is evidence to suggest that, if used correctly (e.g., at recommended rates, without irrigation, and when heavy rainfall is not predicted), imidacloprid does not characteristically leach into the deeper soil layers despite its high water solubility (Rouchaud et al. 1994; Tomlin 2000; Krohn and Hellpointner 2002). In a series of field trials conducted by Rouchaud et al. (1994, 1996), in which imidacloprid was applied to sugar beet plots, it was consistently demonstrated that no detectable leaching of imidacloprid to the 10-20 cm soil layer occurred. Imidacloprid was applied to a corn field in Minnesota, and no imidacloprid residues were found in sample column segments below the 0 - 15.2 cm depth segment.Tcprosser (talk) 21:23, 1 March 2012 (UTC)

Also added some text directly from the label to complete what was there about the EPAs position and warning about solubility and persistance. Added info from -- Frequently asked questions regarding potential side effects of systemic insecticides used to control the Emerald ash borer. Tcprosser (talk) 21:47, 1 March 2012 (UTC)

You stated, "I read the abstract of the article you sited to backup what you are saying and it did not say that." I did not add the studies, another editor did. In fact, I have never edited this article till a few days ago when I reverted your edits several times because you were making large questionable edits and deleting copy that appeared to be accurate and sourced while refusing to use the talk page to discuss your edits.

Tcprosser, reviewing the edit history I find that you made your first edit here on May 9 using the 71.219 number. In that edit you first removed the existing half life info and replaced it with a 3 hr. half life, which you continued to edit into the article several times. You made several other edits on that date using the name Tcprosser in which you removed large portions of copy, replacing them with unsourced copy that downplayed any toxic effects and replaced them with copy very favorable to this chemical. You have made similar edits using the number 75.149. Gandydancer (talk) 11:44, 2 March 2012 (UTC)

Gandy - You are correct in that I over reacted to what I saw as a disinformation smear of a very valuable tool - and while my unsourced materials were accurate - I am sourcing them now and am diplomatically making changes at a slow pace. If I used a number - it was only becasue I forgot to log in. I am new to this and am learning. You still have not told me why you have an interest and what your agenda is? Why are you hiding?Tcprosser (talk) 17:47, 2 March 2012 (UTC)

Systematic repeated deletion of sourced bee toxicity info

It seems that this article has been subject to a POV campaign to remove information about honey bees and colony collapse disorder: 9 May 2011, 16 February 2012, 19 February 2012, 20 February 2012. 222.165.255.198 (talk) 01:09, 29 February 2012 (UTC)

Altering a direct quote

In this edit, Tcprosser changed a quote of the Starner and Goh study.

The article quote was this:

• "move offsite and contaminates surface water at concentrations that could harm aquatic organisms."

Tcprosser changed it to this:

• "move offsite and contaminates surface water at concentrations that could harm aquatic invertabraes." [sic]

However, the quote is actually this:

• "can move offsite from agricultural fields and contaminate surface water at concentrations that may be harmful to aquatic organisms."

Let's all try to get the direct quotes to exactly represent the source. Binksternet (talk) 15:38, 2 March 2012 (UTC)

You are correct - it does say that - however it is aquatic invertabraes. Which is more accurate a description. Unless you can tell me what other aquatic organisms you they are refferring to - why would you want it broader than it is? Tcprosser (talk) 17:06, 2 March 2012 (UTC)

If the direct quote needs to be interpreted for the reader, do so outside of the quote. Don't change the original wording. Binksternet (talk) 17:11, 2 March 2012 (UTC)

Sounds reasonableTcprosser (talk) 17:49, 2 March 2012 (UTC)

Binksternet - Why did you remove my water quotes from the EPA? Why are you taking that info out of context? Also you removed my quotes from the other scientific article Frequently asked questions -to me that is a violation of protocol and ethics here. Who are you and what is your agenda? Tcprosser (talk) 17:55, 2 March 2012 (UTC)

Added back verbage directly from the label and the EPA about application - also put the conclusion of the canadien water document at the top so as not to mislead people with sub quotes and half quotes intentionally designed to create the impression that this product is more dangerous than it is.Tcprosser (talk) 18:13, 2 March 2012 (UTC)

I am insulted at your accusation that I have an agenda on this topic. You should assume that I am a regular citizen who is concerned with the possible harmful use of pesticides.

Regarding your FAQ cite, it was unverifiable, per WP:V. It was simply this: "Frequently Asked Questions Regarding Potential Side Effects of Systemic Insecticides Used To Control Emerald Ash Borer". There was no date, no author, no journal name and volume, no URL... nothing. Binksternet (talk) 18:29, 2 March 2012 (UTC)

This document can easily be found on the internet - Iam new to this and need to learn what to put in. Can you help? In terms of accusing you - I was just asking so as to know who I am working with. I prefer to collaborate to share the truth and it appears from what you take out and put in that you are more interested in scaring people as you yourself are afraid of pesticidesTcprosser (talk) 18:37, 2 March 2012 (UTC)

Added info you requested - Please do not remove my additions or change the order with out a compelling reason and then list here -- thank you I am very amenable to working together as long as the purpose is the truth, balanced, and in context Tcprosser (talk) 18:38, 2 March 2012 (UTC)

Don't ascribe to me words that I did not use. I did not say I was "afraid of pesticides". Collaboration does not start with a personal attack. Binksternet (talk) 19:49, 2 March 2012 (UTC)

No offence intended sir - I am afraid of pesticides if they are used incorrectly as I would expect any knowledgable person would be. Words only carry a fraction of the communication and if you knew me you would know I meant no offence, but that I am highly committed to this page being accurate, balanced and not "scary". Tcprosser (talk) 20:12, 2 March 2012 (UTC)

Regarding the statement in the article "Several studies have shown that selected metabolites and analogues of imidacloprid bind tightly to mammalian acetylcholine receptors" I sent an email to the author of the document - John Casida ---- I wrote --- "Hello – you published an article with the title -- Interaction of Imidacloprid Metabolites and Analogues with the Nicotinic Acetylcholine Receptors of Mouse Brain in Relation to Toxicity. How true would you say the statement below is regarding your findings? Several studies have shown that selected metabolites and analogues of imidacloprid bind tightly to mammalian acetylcholine receptors." He wrote back "Hello: The statement is so broad that it has little or no relevance to the environmental toxicology of Imidacloprid." John Casida. So I have removed the statement from the article. My question - why was that there?Tcprosser (talk) 00:02, 3 March 2012 (UTC) --Tcprosser (talk) 11:18, 10 March 2012 (UTC)

I agree with the removal--they seemed overly technical and I did not believe that they were beneficial for the article. Gandydancer (talk) 21:22, 3 March 2012 (UTC)

The abstract of Chao and Casida 1997 states: "The most potent compounds were DN-IMI and CH-IMI...with LD50s of 7-24 mg/kg...compared with values for IMI of 39-49 mg/kg". This means DN-IMI is 2-7 times more toxic to mice than imidacloprid. DN-IMI is desnitro-imidacloprid and CH-IMI is the nitromethylene version of imidacloprid. On page 86, the authors state, "Interestingly, DN-IMI is also quite toxic to mice but not flies and is an INI metabolite in mammals, justifying a special interest in this compound." My interpretation of these statements is that imidacloprid is broken down in a mammal's body into compounds including desnitro-imidacloprid, and that, unlike imidacloprid, desnitro-imidacloprid binds strongly and is toxic to mammals. I think this warrants inclusion in the discussion of mammal and human toxicity. – monolemma t – 04:10, 19 April 2012 (UTC)

Environmental fate and other changes made

The following information in this document is a small snippet from the article it was taken from ----- Imidacloprid is persistent and highly soluble in water. At a pH between 5 and 7, it is stable in water, and at pH 9, the half-life is about 1 year. In soil under aerobic conditions, imidacloprid is persistent with half-lives on the order of 1-3 years. I propose we find a way to give a bigger picture and more accurate analysis - any suggestions? I will be looking - using all the verbiage from the source article is too long and not helpful - but the snippet used is to broad a statement and does not give an accurate depiction.Tcprosser (talk) 15:28, 4 March 2012 (UTC)

Removed neurotoxin from first sentence of article. No issue putting "insect neurotoxin" further in. But this description in the first sentence is not appropriate as a description but more as a mode of action and is still incomplete in its assertion which must include more detail about what is meant. It is NOT a human neurotoxin. Tcprosser (talk) 11:13, 10 March 2012 (UTC)

/* Aquatic life */ took out uncited comment and pure fabrication about food chain and fish. Please give the citation and discuss here if this is indeed true which I read is not trueTcprosser (talk) 11:18, 10 March 2012 (UTC)

The sentence about food chain and fish was written by an employee United States Environmental Protection Agency and is now cited. It appears on pages 1 and 20 of the linked document. – monolemma t – 04:13, 19 April 2012 (UTC)

Water stability etc

Made some changes to this section - didn't remove anything - just clarified a few statements. For instance the statement that it is stable in water is not true as this infers it does not break down - it does just slowly and it must be in the dark. In the light especially sunlight - it breaks down rapidly - so rapidly in fact that they rarely detect it in surface water, and then only briefly after rain events, and in minuscule amounts 1/2 - 2 PPB. Tcpro52 (talk) 14:57, 17 March 2012 (UTC)

Calling this a neurotoxin

To call this a neurotoxin may sound correct - but there are no citations that call it this. This is because it is too broad a statement and is not scientifically descriptive. The statement as it reads now is more scientifically accurate and thoroughTcpro4421 (talk) 14:56, 17 March 2012 (UTC)

In late 2005, Michele Anatra-Cordone and Patrick Durkin of Syracuse Environmental Research Associates wrote the following guide for the USDA and the Forest Service: "Imidacloprid - Human Health and Ecological Risk Assessment – Final Report". It begins with an executive summary, "Imidacloprid is a neurotoxin that is selectively toxic to insects relative to vertebrates and most non-insect invertebrates." As you see, the word neurotoxin is in the first sentence, where I think it should be. The Canadian Council of Ministers of the Environment wrote the following in 2007: "Imidacloprid is a nicotinoid neurotoxin that acts by irreversibly blocking acetylcholine receptors." They wrote this in the first sentence of the third paragraph, part of the "Abstract" summarizing the pesticide. The word is used by our sources, it is correct and accurate, and it should stay in the lead section. Binksternet (talk) 15:14, 17 March 2012 (UTC)

OK I will read them - But lets be accurate and call it an insect neurotoxin. It is certainly not a neurotoxin of mammals.Tcpro52 (talk) 15:24, 17 March 2012 (UTC)

Thanks - here is some more from the same article that gives further descriptors - that is selectively toxic to insects relative to vertebrates and most non-insect invertebrates - (Any concerns about adding this?)Tcpro52 (talk) 15:27, 17 March 2012 (UTC)

It is a mild neurotoxin to mammals and a fatal neurotoxin to invertebrates. The word should stay in the article as presented by our sources. Binksternet (talk) 16:31, 17 March 2012 (UTC)

These invertebrates are insect larvae or insects themselves. So yes it is. I disagree with the terminology mildly neurotoxicity to humans. This is what The NPIC says: Mammalian nicotinic receptors are made up of a number of subtypes14 In contrast to insects, these receptors are present at neuromuscular junctions as well as in the central nervous system.14 However, the binding affinity of imidacloprid at the nicotinic receptors in mammals is much less than that of insect nicotinic receptors.15 This appears to be true of other ver- tebrate groups including birds.16,17 • The blood-brain barrier in vertebrates blocks access of imidacloprid to the central nervous system, reducing its toxicity.14Tcpro52 (talk) 02:58, 19 March 2012 (UTC)

I don't understand what you are saying, but whatever it is does not erase the fashion in which Anatra-Cordone/Durkin, and the Canadian government, choose to use the word neurotoxin to describe the pesticide. I guess you'll need to find some reliable source that says it is not a neurotoxin, which I think will be impossible. Binksternet (talk) 03:54, 19 March 2012 (UTC)

Thats because it is a neurotoxin to certain kinds of insects, it sticks to their neural path. However it is not toxic to some kinds of insects and certainly not toxic to mammals, at least without drinking a quart of it. The organophosphates had some evidence of being a neurotoxin to animals. Imidacloprid is less toxic to you then your morning cup of coffee, a person who smokes a cigarette takes in far worse form of nicotine that actually does stick to a human neuron. Does not kill it though. A large dog poo is an ecological disaster compared to imidacloprid.

Thus the most important aspect of this product is not that it is a neurotoxin, but that its the most widely used insecticide in the world. Do you follow my logic? Tcpro52 (talk) 01:57, 20 March 2012 (UTC)

And yet it is a neurotoxin, as said by at least two of our high quality sources, in the first part of their explanations about the insecticide. I'm getting the sense that your main reasoning is that you don't like the word, that it gives the wrong impression about how good the substance can be for what it is intended to do. I don't see why I should be persuaded by you rather than our two very good sources. And what if people who want to buy imidacloprid are reassured that it is a neurotoxin, fatal to insects? You are guessing at the result of the reader seeing the word. I don't want to guess, I want to use the kind of description that the scholarly sources use. Binksternet (talk) 02:50, 20 March 2012 (UTC)

Just because two government employees choose to call it a neurotoxin does not mean it is a neurotoxin. They probably collaborated. What matters is what the scientists say about it when they discuss toxicity modes of action. Neurotoxin is too broad a word to actually describe what this compound is. Yes it disrupts the insects neural net. When I get a little time I will pull some text that may help you look at it from the context I am coming from. It is too easily inferred by the word that it somehow is dangerous to people, while it clearly is no more or even possibly less dangerous then tooth paste or mouthwash. Also - There is no substitute for this material. Not when it comes to trees and protecting them from invasive insects. Or protecting an old age tree from boring insects.Tcpro52 (talk) 00:57, 22 March 2012 (UTC)

I'd suggest that you quit arguing this because you will just be wasting your time and that of other editors. Every site that exists that lists its mode of action calls it a neurotoxin. Gandydancer (talk) 14:48, 22 March 2012 (UTC)

Imidacloprid use with trees

Since the information about the use for trees is very important to Tcprosser, I wonder if we could all work together with info from this site and include a section on this chem's relationship to trees? [5] Gandydancer (talk) 07:00, 20 March 2012 (UTC)

I think that is an excellent idea Gandy. I can work on it in the next few weeks. Check out Emerald ash borer on wikipedia. I am working on that one right now. Tcpro52 (talk) 01:00, 22 March 2012 (UTC)

OK, the way the section reads right now is more like a "how to" section rather than an encyclopedia entry. Gandydancer (talk) 14:41, 22 March 2012 (UTC)

Two new articles in Science implicate neonicotinoids in colony collapse disorder

From Science magazine tomorrow:

"Five years ago, bees made headlines when a mysterious condition called colony collapse disorder decimated honey bee colonies in parts of the United States. Now bees are poised to be in the news again, this time because of evidence that systemic insecticides, a common way to protect crops, indirectly harm these important pollinators. Two field studies reported online this week in Science document problems. In bumble bees, exposure to one such chemical [imidacloprid] leads to a dramatic loss of queens and could help explain the insects' decline. In honey bees, another insecticide [thiamethoxam] interferes with the foragers' ability to find their way back to the hive. Researchers say these findings are cause for concern and will increase pressure to improve pesticide testing and regulation."

More popular treatment summarization is available from the BBC. 70.58.11.42 (talk) 23:38, 29 March 2012 (UTC)

"Use of Common Pesticide, Imidacloprid, Linked to Bee Colony Collapse" in a Harvard School of Public Health study. 71.215.74.243 (talk) 18:27, 6 April 2012 (UTC)

I read the articles and see the potential connection. However it must be noted that the varroa mite is the chief likely culprit as well as the miticides beekeepers use to control by spraying the bees. Also. Imidacloprid was substantially used in the US for over 10 years before this problem emerged. In Europe where imidacloprid and other neonics were banned for more than 10 years, the issue is still a serious problem. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Tcprosser (talk • contribs) 21:18, 7 April 2012 (UTC)

What sources are you using for the varroa mite claim? —ArtifexMayhem (talk) 02:29, 10 April 2012 (UTC)

Google it - its everywhere. If you cannot find the story then let me know.Tcpro52 (talk) 02:52, 11 April 2012 (UTC)

I'm asking. Please. ArtifexMayhem (talk) 03:45, 11 April 2012 (UTC)

The quote you are making and that I removed is not from a journal and is not science. It is from a 4th rate science opinion magazine. You are welcome to find another article that contributes to this topic- but I will not let you use this source and say its neutral.Tcpro52 (talk) 02:52, 11 April 2012 (UTC)

A Science Daily summary that cites the peer reviewed journal article is a valid secondary source. The current citation to this study links directly to the pre-publication corrected proof, as the article will not be published until June 2012. Page 5 of the PDF states: "The loss of imidacloprid-treated hives in this study is also highly unlikely due to pathogen infection since the presence of neither Nosema nor a large number of Varroa mites was observed in hives during the summer and fall seasons." (Lu et al. 2012) – monolemma t – 23:23, 15 April 2012 (UTC)

You do not dispute my point about Europe still having the epidemic even though Imidacloprid was banned. Also, that it was heavily used in the US for 10 years before a problem showed up. If this is true - then what are you arguing about? Also - Trust me on this. CCD is not in Australia and they use a lot of imidacloprid. Tcpro52 (talk) 02:52, 11 April 2012 (UTC)

If you are wondering why I care about you not unfairly trashing this compound is that it is an essential tool in the fight to protect trees against invasive insects and because of its highly favorable toxicity package, it replaced 3 more toxic classes of insecticides. There is no replacement for it. I am glad that most trees do not have nectar and are primarily wind pollinated, because I love bees. This product protects literally a million trees or so right now in the US.Tcpro52 (talk) 02:58, 11 April 2012 (UTC)

Organization of the lede

I'd like to garner some feedback about the organization of the lede. Imidacloprid is showing up in the headlines recently due to increasing numbers of studies that link it to honey bee colony collapse disorder. However, WP:CHEMMOS cautions against spending too much time talking about current events on the page of a chemical, and Imidacloprid effects on bees has a lot of information about the studies and policies. Looking at their example, methyl isocyanate vs Bhopal disaster, shows that the chemical lede has one sentence at the end linking to the page about the disaster.

With the goal of presenting accurate but neutral information, I would like to reach consensus on how to mention CCD in the imidacloprid lede. User:Gandydancer recently added two sentences: [6], and I suggested that it be limited to one sentence. Perhaps "There are growing concerns about harm to non-target insects including bees and other pollinators." In either case, a wikilink to Imidacloprid effects on bees would be an important addition. I'm seeking feedback on wording, length, and positioning. For any arguments that CCD should not be mentioned in the lede, I strongly disagree. – monolemma t – 03:55, 29 May 2012 (UTC)

I agree that the lead section should definitely provide the link to the Imidacloprid effects on bees article. I don't have a problem with one or two sentences about CCD, which is the question posed. Whichever it is, it should come at the end of a few sentences describing the main purpose of Imidacloprid, such as protecting ash trees from death caused by the emerald ash borer, hemlocks from the hemlock woolly adelgid, oaks from oak borers, birches from bronze birch borers, chestnuts from the two-lined chestnut borer, and many trees from the Asian long horned beetle. After all that, the bit about CCD will not seem to have such undue weight. Binksternet (talk) 04:32, 29 May 2012 (UTC)

Thanks for your feedback, Binksternet. I don't have usage statistics to back this up, but I would imagine that imidacloprid use on agricultural crops such as maize and canola comprises a significantly larger proportion of its global use than tree protection. It would be great to have a source that lists the most common uses (by weight of pesticide active ingredient or similar measure). It could be overwhelming to list every possible use. Perhaps: "Imidacloprid is widely used for pest control in agriculture. Other uses include application to foundations to prevent termite damage, treatment of domestic pets to control fleas and ticks, pest control for gardens and turf, and protection of trees from boring insects." I also wonder whether the list of formulations/applications is relevant to an encyclopedia.

I realized why I was concerned that some editors would not like Gandy's addition - the first sentence is about CCD, not imidacloprid, so it is a bit of a non sequitur. Gandy, I don't mean this as a criticism, I am just trying to anticipate future disputes. The current sentences could be rephrased: "Recent research suggests that imidacloprid and other pesticides may be contributing to colony collapse disorder, the decline of bee colonies in Europe and North America observed since 2006." – monolemma t – 18:49, 29 May 2012 (UTC)

Yes, it is my understanding that it is the top-selling insecticide in the world and is widely used in agriculture. (Quote from the Lu study: Since most U.S.-grown corn has been treated with imidacloprid, it's also found in corn syrup.) If I understand the situation correctly, the neonicotinoids actually are much less toxic overall than the insecticides in use till they came along, so they seemed to be a great improvement over previous more dangerous insecticides. The EPA never denied that they were extremely toxic to bees on contact, but it was thought that when used as a seed coating there would be no danger. But recent studies are beginning to show that it seems to be turning up in nectar, pollen, planting dust, and even weeds growing near planted fields. Several sublethal effects have been noted in various studies including disorientation, reduced foraging activity and food consumption, reduced "dancing", reduced immune response and I'm sure many more that don't come to mind. On the other hand, I'm not aware of any studies that connect CCD to its use in tree injection for the emerald ash borer or for use as an orchard spray, so I agree that that should be important to point out. I think that your wording (and most likely any other changes you suggest) would be fine for the lede. Gandydancer (talk) 13:37, 30 May 2012 (UTC)

Agri, trees, buildings... the most significant uses should be summarized in a paragraph in the lead section, one that concludes with problems seen in bees. Binksternet (talk) 16:37, 30 May 2012 (UTC)

Okay, I've edited the second half of the lede. Highlights: I added a citation for it being the most used insecticide. I listed use in agriculture, buildings, pets, gardening, and trees, with citation. I clarified that the CCD concerns are re: the agricultural use (I imagine spraying it on flowers at home is bad for the bees too, but the studies focus on crops). I think the first paragraph of the lede could use some serious rewording, and I hope to get to that soon. – monolemma t – 21:05, 30 May 2012 (UTC)

Also, another long term goal: I'd like to summarize the CCD info on this page and neonicotinoid, making sure all studies are consolidated into Imidacloprid effects on bees. I think it would be easier to read if the general pages to have sentences that summarize several studies, rather than descriptions of each study. – monolemma t – 21:09, 30 May 2012 (UTC)

I'm not sure that I believe that it would be easier to read if the studies were grouped and summarized...it is important for me to be able to read each ref rather than to combine refs at the end of a paragraph or section. But if you mean to summarize here and post in more detail at the Im effect page, I guess that makes sense. I guess I need to say this right out: I had a very bad experience at another insecticide page in which a COI editor attempted to whitewash toxic effects and I have become very paranoid of attempts to remove all the "bad" stuff to another article.

Re the current use of imidacloprid, even though the Lu study stated it is used on almost all corn in the U.S., I am not convinced that it is used more frequently than clothianidin. I note that your ref is from 1999 - do you have anything more recent?

About "spraying on flowers", from my reading orchard spraying is limited to once a year before the trees are in bloom. Of course, no one knows what is actually going on, but I would tend to guess that fruit growers are well aware of the need of importance of keeping bees healthy and would not abuse spraying limits as written per label instructions. As for home gardens, I have no idea what is being sold as my gardens are all organic, but I'll check and see - I'd guess that this product is not one of the many that are used for small gardens. Gandydancer (talk) 23:25, 30 May 2012 (UTC)

I've seen some of the discussions you're referring to; I certainly have no intent to "hide" any bad stuff. My goal would be to write an easily digestible summary of bee studies that would make an interested reader want to click through to Imidacloprid effects on bees to read the details of studies.

From this link, [7] (EPA human health assessment - which I should cite in the article when I get a chance), the section on Residential Exposure (pg 4) says: "Imidacloprid...is registered for use on ornamental plantings (i.e., flowering plants, foliage plants, herbaceous perennial plants, and woody plant, shrubs, and trees)." So it's certainly legal for people to spray it on their sunflowers at home. – monolemma t – 04:37, 31 May 2012 (UTC)

Of course, the EPA is concerned primarily with human health, and stating that imidacloprid is legal to use only means that it it is unlikely to kill or injure people. If only we had a Bee Protection Agency! I bet they would have a different opinion about its "legality". "Who shall speak for the bees??" (I sound like the damn Lorax). KDS4444^Talk 03:53, 14 September 2014 (UTC)

I have a question about the organization of the second paragraph in the lead: shouldn't the information about imidacloprid uses/applications go under its own section (whether the information is put under the existing "Authorized Uses" section or a new one about common applications and uses)? It seems a little out of place in the introduction/overview and I feel that it deserves to be better categorized within the article.--Bumblebee024 (talk) 18:52, 29 January 2017 (UTC)

Solubility

Based on its high water solubility (0.5-0.6 g/L) and persistence

Misleading in the absolute sense. For imidacloprid in acetone the solubility it is 50g/L, and in DMSO is 200g/L. Maybe a relative solubility compared to other pesticides would make more sense. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 97.81.29.81 (talk) 07:30, 28 July 2012 (UTC)

redundant paragraph

Hi everybody. Just letting you know that there were two different summaries of the same exact Lu et. al. study in separate paragraphs under the "Bees and other insects" section. It was redundant so I deleted the paragraph that had a broken link for the source and kept the paragraph that in my opinion was more to the point. A slightly expanded summary of the study is in the article, Imidacloprid effects on bees. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.16.80.223 (talk) 14:43, 22 February 2013 (UTC)

Disputed

This may seem like a small detail, but it is technically important: the lede paragraph, as it currently stands (Aug. 25 2014) contains the statement, "It is effective on contact and via stomach action" with a citation to a web site here. However, that web site indicates the toxic effects when the poison is ingested by rats, not by fleas-- it appears that the information in the citation does not match the claim being made in the article (unless imidacloprid were being used as a rodenticide... which it is not). I have another source, available summarized here, which indicates that the primary action of imidacloprid on fleas is via contact and specifically not via stomach action. Am tempted to be WP:BOLD and rewrite the claim and provide a different reference, but am afraid that might seem heavy handed. Could someone check my work here and verify that I am on target with this? If I can get a green light from some other editors, I will make these changes. If I seem to be misinterpreting something, someone please tell me! Thanks! KDS4444^Talk 12:22, 25 August 2014 (UTC)

Yes, you are misunderstanding the information. The site says:

The chemical works by interfering with the transmission of stimuli in the insect nervous system. Specifically, it causes a blockage in a type of neuronal pathway (nicotinergic) that is more abundant in insects than in warm-blooded animals (making the chemical selectively more toxic to insects than warm-blooded animals). This blockage leads to the accumulation of acetylcholine, an important neurotransmitter, resulting in the insect's paralysis, and eventually death. It is effective on contact and via stomach action.

We know that this is true because imidacloprid is used both as a contact insecticide and as a seed treatment in which the treated plant itself becomes toxic to insects that eat it. As for the pet site you offer, it seems that they say that fleas that eat the blood of an animal that has been surface-treated with imidacloprid do not (apparently) get a dose high enough to kill them. This may or may not be true (that site is not a RS), but at any rate it has little to do with the above quote. I hope I have explained this well... Let me know... Gandydancer (talk) 13:57, 25 August 2014 (UTC)

Yes, now I understand better— what do you think about having a small clarifying bit about exactly where and how it is effective (or at least mentioning that its effectiveness differs somewhat depending on what kinds of insects it is used against and how it is brought into contact with them)? Since its effectiveness as a flea medication is apparently so independent of the flea bites themselves, this seems important, though your example of its toxicity via root uptake in plants is a clear counterpoint, and such insects are not getting it through physical contact with their host plants but only by sucking or eating (or pollinating) them. (And yes, I agree that the site I mentioned above is certainly not an RS— I think the research study it references is, though (the one involving electron microscopy, although this is technically a primary source)). KDS4444^Talk 03:43, 14 September 2014 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Imidacloprid. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20120526200724/http://www.hsph.harvard.edu/faculty/chensheng-lu/files/in-situ-replication-of-honey-bee-colony-collapse-disorder.pdf to http://www.hsph.harvard.edu/faculty/chensheng-lu/files/in-situ-replication-of-honey-bee-colony-collapse-disorder.pdf

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 21:36, 20 July 2016 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Imidacloprid. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20061009223131/http://beekeeping.com:80/articles/us/imidacloprid_bayer.htm to http://www.beekeeping.com/articles/us/imidacloprid_bayer.htm

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 01:37, 11 November 2016 (UTC)

Citations for Brand Name section

This section doesn't have any citations or references, does anyone know where this set of information can be attributed to? Also, this section seems to be extremely brief and non-comprehensive, so perhaps it could be added to the lead/overview as additional introductory information? Thoughts? --Bumblebee024 (talk) 18:59, 29 January 2017 (UTC)

I've gone ahead and removed the section. Normally in pesticide articles, the brand names are so numerous with all the different formulations out there, it becomes undue weight to start mentioning them even with sources just for the sake of a list (i.e., WP:INDISCRIMINATE). I haven't had a chance to review much of this article yet, so I'm not sure if there are other instances like this. Kingofaces43 (talk) 19:15, 29 January 2017 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Imidacloprid. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20130615203559/http://stream.loe.org/images/120406/Lu%20final%20proof.pdf to http://stream.loe.org/images/120406/Lu%20final%20proof.pdf

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 06:57, 12 November 2017 (UTC)

Male reproductive toxicity

"a significant decrease in spermatozoa count, motility and viability associated with a decrease in sexual hormones and severe testis histological damages were reported in rats treated with" imidacloprid.[8] EllenCT (talk) 02:51, 21 January 2020 (UTC)

That's not a WP:MEDRS source and wouldn't be relevant here. Kingofaces43 (talk) 04:53, 21 January 2020 (UTC)

It's a citation of three unopposed independent studies in the literature review section of subsequent work, taken as noncontroversial. Any studies to the contrary? EllenCT (talk) 20:08, 21 January 2020 (UTC)

The relevant guideline is WP:MEDANIMAL, and these studies could be included in a way that makes clear that this not a human health claim.Dialectric (talk) 21:12, 21 January 2020 (UTC)

MEDANIMAL is a part of MEDRS that specifically cautions against cherrypicking single studies like this one. If there is something to discuss on this page, that will be with secondary sources, not primary literature like this. Kingofaces43 (talk) 22:16, 21 January 2020 (UTC)

Nothing secondary yet, but surprising unanimity over the past eight years at [9] including statements about humans, e.g. "neonicotinoid pesticides may pose reproductive risks on human reproductive health, especially in professional populations." EllenCT (talk) 22:35, 21 January 2020 (UTC)

[10] looks like a MEDRS, as does [11]. EllenCT (talk) 22:49, 21 January 2020 (UTC)

Suggested citation for most popular

There's a citation-needed for being the most widely used insecticide in the world. Neonicotinoid has the same claim for imidacloprid but has a cite for it. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2406:1E00:B910:7701:789F:20FE:42A6:3DC7 (talk) 23:38, 25 October 2021 (UTC)

• Done: https://en.wiki.x.io/w/index.php?title=Imidacloprid&action=historysubmit&type=revision&diff=1052143975&oldid=1043361003 There was Yamamoto 1999 already on the page, elsewhere, but I also added cites to take us up to 2018. Invasive Spices (talk) 16:50, 27 October 2021 (UTC)
• Same at neonicotinoid: https://en.wiki.x.io/w/index.php?title=Neonicotinoid&diff=prev&oldid=1052147187 Invasive Spices (talk) 17:09, 27 October 2021 (UTC)

Wiki Education assignment: Toxicology

This article was the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment, between 10 August 2022 and 8 December 2022. Further details are available on the course page. Student editor(s): TrevorDriggers (article contribs).

— Assignment last updated by Nc1018! (talk) 17:23, 19 September 2022 (UTC)