Pete...what IS the "chemistry of it"? The link I sent was a research study...they show that binding properties of the sulfoxaflor are similar to, but less "irreversible" than, IMI. They say that sulfoxaflor is a less strong agonist for AChR than IMI is...meaning it might be an improvement over IMI, I would think. However, they say it *is* a neonic because it binds to the same place and has the same effect as neonics, specifically IMI. Did you look at that study, published May 2013 in Pest Management Science by Syngenta scientists?
There is another study:
Trent Perry, Janice Q. Chan, Phil Batterham, Gerald B. Watson, Chaoxian Geng, Thomas C. Sparks,
Effects of mutations in Drosophila nicotinic acetylcholine receptor subunits on sensitivity to insecticides targeting nicotinic acetylcholine receptors, Pesticide Biochemistry and Physiology, Volume 102, Issue 1, January 2012, Pages 56-60, ISSN 0048-3575, http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.pestbp.2011.10.010.
(http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0048357511001660)
These people (some of the authors are Dow scientists) claim sulfoxaflor is *not* a neonic, just as you do.
However, since it binds to the AChR, thus it behaves like a neonic, I wondered what the definition of "neonicotinoid" is.
According to the medical dictionary, "neonicotinoids" are "a class of insecticides which act selectively on nicotinic acetylcholine
receptors of insects, but have low affinity for vertebrates; used as antiparasitic agents."
This is a sufficiently vague definition to easily include sulfoxaflor.
So we need to find out why some claim that sulfoxaflor is not a neonicotinoid.
Are there any chemists reading this who can help us?
Is this confusion, as I suspect, an attempt to avoid the bad press associated with the label "neonicotinoid"?
Christina
Christina
***********************************************
The BEE-L mailing list is powered by L-Soft's renowned
LISTSERV(R) list management software. For more information, go to:
http://www.lsoft.com/LISTSERV-powered.html
|
