<%BANNER%>

Testing Vapor Toxicity of Formate, Acetate, and Heterobicyclic Compounds to Aedes aegypti and Musca domestica

Permanent Link: http://ufdc.ufl.edu/UFE0021338/00001

Material Information

Title: Testing Vapor Toxicity of Formate, Acetate, and Heterobicyclic Compounds to Aedes aegypti and Musca domestica
Physical Description: 1 online resource (100 p.)
Language: english
Creator: Chaskopoulou, Alexandra
Publisher: University of Florida
Place of Publication: Gainesville, Fla.
Publication Date: 2007

Subjects

Subjects / Keywords: acetates, esters, flies, formates, heterobicyclics, insecticides, mosquitoes
Entomology and Nematology -- Dissertations, Academic -- UF
Genre: Entomology and Nematology thesis, M.S.
bibliography   ( marcgt )
theses   ( marcgt )
government publication (state, provincial, terriorial, dependent)   ( marcgt )
born-digital   ( sobekcm )
Electronic Thesis or Dissertation

Notes

Abstract: Volatile insecticides, commonly known as fumigants, have been widely used for the management of structural pests and for the protection of stored agricultural commodities. However, they have been mostly overlooked for the control of medically important pests such as mosquitoes and flies. Dichlorvos (DDVP) is the one volatile insecticide mostly studied on mosquitoes and flies. DDVP has been characterized by the Environmental Protection Agency of the United States as a ?probable human carcinogen? and because of its implications in human health, in 2006 its use was restricted to confined spaces such as wardrobes and closets. Therefore, there is need to replace DDVP with friendlier and less toxic chemistries. For my research I evaluated vapor toxicity of a series of new, promising, highly volatile chemicals with insecticidal activity, low mammalian toxicity, pleasant odors, and potentially novel modes of action on mosquitoes, using Aedes aegypti (L.), and on filth flies, using Musca domestica (L.). A total of 16 insecticidal compounds, 7 formates, 4 acetates, 4 heterobicyclics, and the organophosphate DDVP were tested on mosquitoes. DDVP was by far the most toxic compound, and specifically it was 54.4 times more toxic than the second best performing compound, the formate ester methyl formate. Within the novel compounds, overall, formate esters were the most toxic family, followed by the heterobicyclics, and last by the acetate esters. The seven best performing novel compounds with vapor toxicity on mosquitoes were methyl formate > butyl formate > propyl formate=ethyl formate > hexyl formate > coumaran > benzothiophene. There were several structure-activity relationships observed. The most striking one involved the length of the aliphatic chain of the formate esters; as the length of the aliphatic chain increased, toxicity in general decreased. Also, the formate group within the aliphatic chain was correlated with higher toxicity than the acetate group. A total of 4 compounds, the formate esters heptyl formate and ethylene glycol di-formate (EGDF), the heterobicyclic menthofuran, and the organophosphate DDVP were tested on house flies. DDVP was 25 times more toxic compared to the second best compound, the heterobicyclic menthofuran. Menthofuran was followed by EGDF, and last by heptyl formate. Also, ceramic porous rods were embedded with heptyl formate in order to evaluate the effectiveness of controlled vapor release of heptyl formate in killing house flies over time. It was shown that controlled vapor release of heptyl formate can be used successfully to provide house fly mortality over time. Three of the novel compounds, heptyl formate, EGDF, and menthofuran were synergized with the insecticide synergists SSS-tributyl-phosphorotrithioate (DEF), and piperonyl butoxide (PBO), which are esterase and P450 inhibitors, respectively. For both mosquitoes and house flies, when EGDF and heptyl formate were co-applied with DEF their toxicities decreased, supporting esterase based activation of formate esters. Also, when menthofuran was synergized with PBO its toxicity increased, supporting P450 based deactivation of heterobicyclics.
General Note: In the series University of Florida Digital Collections.
General Note: Includes vita.
Bibliography: Includes bibliographical references.
Source of Description: Description based on online resource; title from PDF title page.
Source of Description: This bibliographic record is available under the Creative Commons CC0 public domain dedication. The University of Florida Libraries, as creator of this bibliographic record, has waived all rights to it worldwide under copyright law, including all related and neighboring rights, to the extent allowed by law.
Statement of Responsibility: by Alexandra Chaskopoulou.
Thesis: Thesis (M.S.)--University of Florida, 2007.
Local: Adviser: Koehler, Philip G.

Record Information

Source Institution: UFRGP
Rights Management: Applicable rights reserved.
Classification: lcc - LD1780 2007
System ID: UFE0021338:00001

Permanent Link: http://ufdc.ufl.edu/UFE0021338/00001

Material Information

Title: Testing Vapor Toxicity of Formate, Acetate, and Heterobicyclic Compounds to Aedes aegypti and Musca domestica
Physical Description: 1 online resource (100 p.)
Language: english
Creator: Chaskopoulou, Alexandra
Publisher: University of Florida
Place of Publication: Gainesville, Fla.
Publication Date: 2007

Subjects

Subjects / Keywords: acetates, esters, flies, formates, heterobicyclics, insecticides, mosquitoes
Entomology and Nematology -- Dissertations, Academic -- UF
Genre: Entomology and Nematology thesis, M.S.
bibliography   ( marcgt )
theses   ( marcgt )
government publication (state, provincial, terriorial, dependent)   ( marcgt )
born-digital   ( sobekcm )
Electronic Thesis or Dissertation

Notes

Abstract: Volatile insecticides, commonly known as fumigants, have been widely used for the management of structural pests and for the protection of stored agricultural commodities. However, they have been mostly overlooked for the control of medically important pests such as mosquitoes and flies. Dichlorvos (DDVP) is the one volatile insecticide mostly studied on mosquitoes and flies. DDVP has been characterized by the Environmental Protection Agency of the United States as a ?probable human carcinogen? and because of its implications in human health, in 2006 its use was restricted to confined spaces such as wardrobes and closets. Therefore, there is need to replace DDVP with friendlier and less toxic chemistries. For my research I evaluated vapor toxicity of a series of new, promising, highly volatile chemicals with insecticidal activity, low mammalian toxicity, pleasant odors, and potentially novel modes of action on mosquitoes, using Aedes aegypti (L.), and on filth flies, using Musca domestica (L.). A total of 16 insecticidal compounds, 7 formates, 4 acetates, 4 heterobicyclics, and the organophosphate DDVP were tested on mosquitoes. DDVP was by far the most toxic compound, and specifically it was 54.4 times more toxic than the second best performing compound, the formate ester methyl formate. Within the novel compounds, overall, formate esters were the most toxic family, followed by the heterobicyclics, and last by the acetate esters. The seven best performing novel compounds with vapor toxicity on mosquitoes were methyl formate > butyl formate > propyl formate=ethyl formate > hexyl formate > coumaran > benzothiophene. There were several structure-activity relationships observed. The most striking one involved the length of the aliphatic chain of the formate esters; as the length of the aliphatic chain increased, toxicity in general decreased. Also, the formate group within the aliphatic chain was correlated with higher toxicity than the acetate group. A total of 4 compounds, the formate esters heptyl formate and ethylene glycol di-formate (EGDF), the heterobicyclic menthofuran, and the organophosphate DDVP were tested on house flies. DDVP was 25 times more toxic compared to the second best compound, the heterobicyclic menthofuran. Menthofuran was followed by EGDF, and last by heptyl formate. Also, ceramic porous rods were embedded with heptyl formate in order to evaluate the effectiveness of controlled vapor release of heptyl formate in killing house flies over time. It was shown that controlled vapor release of heptyl formate can be used successfully to provide house fly mortality over time. Three of the novel compounds, heptyl formate, EGDF, and menthofuran were synergized with the insecticide synergists SSS-tributyl-phosphorotrithioate (DEF), and piperonyl butoxide (PBO), which are esterase and P450 inhibitors, respectively. For both mosquitoes and house flies, when EGDF and heptyl formate were co-applied with DEF their toxicities decreased, supporting esterase based activation of formate esters. Also, when menthofuran was synergized with PBO its toxicity increased, supporting P450 based deactivation of heterobicyclics.
General Note: In the series University of Florida Digital Collections.
General Note: Includes vita.
Bibliography: Includes bibliographical references.
Source of Description: Description based on online resource; title from PDF title page.
Source of Description: This bibliographic record is available under the Creative Commons CC0 public domain dedication. The University of Florida Libraries, as creator of this bibliographic record, has waived all rights to it worldwide under copyright law, including all related and neighboring rights, to the extent allowed by law.
Statement of Responsibility: by Alexandra Chaskopoulou.
Thesis: Thesis (M.S.)--University of Florida, 2007.
Local: Adviser: Koehler, Philip G.

Record Information

Source Institution: UFRGP
Rights Management: Applicable rights reserved.
Classification: lcc - LD1780 2007
System ID: UFE0021338:00001


This item has the following downloads:


Full Text





TESTING VAPOR TOXICITY OF FORMAT, ACETATE, AND HETEROBICYCLIC
COMPOUNDS TO Aedes aegypti AND M~usca domestic


















By

ALEXANDRA CHASKOPOULOU


A THESIS PRESENTED TO THE GRADUATE SCHOOL
OF THE UNIVERSITY OF FLORIDA IN PARTIAL FULFILLMENT
OF THE REQUIREMENTS FOR THE DEGREE OF
MASTER OF SCIENCE

UNIVERSITY OF FLORIDA

2007

































O 2007 Alexandra Chaskopoulou









ACKNOWLEDGMENTS

I thank my supervisory committee chair, Dr. Philip Koehler, and members, Dr. Michael

Scharf, and Dr. Jane Barber, for their constant and valuable help and guidance. Their knowledge

and expertise on experimental design, statistical analysis, and scientific writing helped me

tremendously.

I thank Debbie Hall and Josh Crews for always being there for me and helping me with

any paper work problems that appeared. I thank all the people in the Urban Laboratory for

making these last 2 years of my life as a graduate student enj oyable. It has been a pleasure to

have known and worked with each one of them. Last, but not least, I thank my friends and

family, those near me, and those far away, for their loving support, encouragement, and

understanding.












TABLE OF CONTENTS



ACKNOWLEDGMENTS .............. ...............3.....


LIST OF TABLES ................ ...............7............ ....


LIST OF FIGURES .............. ...............8.....


AB S TRAC T ......_ ................. ............_........9


CHAPTER


1 INTRODUCTION ................. ...............11.......... ......


2 LITERATURE REVIEW: THE YELLOW FEVER MO SQUITO ................. ................ ..1 6


Classification and Distribution ................. ...............16................

Morphology .............. ...............17....
The Egg .............. ...............17....
The Larva ................. ...............17.................

The Pupa ................. ...............17.................
The Adult ................. ...............17.................

Life Cycle .............. ...............18....
The Egg .............. ...............18....
The Larva ................. ...............18.................

The Pupa ................. ...............19.................
The Adult ................. ...............19.................

E mer gence ................. ................. 19..............
M ating .............. ............... 19....
Feeding ................ ...............20.......... ......

Flight range .............. ...............20....
Resting behavior............... ...............21

Longevity .............. ...............21....
Fecundity ............... .... ........ .... ............ ............2
Public Health Importance of the Yellow Fever Mosquito ................. .......... ...............21
Control Methods of the Yellow Fever Mosquito ................. ...............23........... ..
Surveillance ................. .. .......... .... ......... .............2

Methods for Controlling Immature Mosquitoes ................. .............. ......... .....24
Methods for Controlling Adult Mosquitoes .............. ...............26....


3 LITERATURE REVIEW: THE HOUSE FLY .............. ...............29....


Classification and Distribution .............. ...............29....

Morphology .............. ...............29....
T he Eg g .............. ...............29....
The Larva ................. ...............29.................

The Pupa ................. ...............30.................












The Adult ................. ...............30.................
Life Cycle .............. ...............30....
The Egg .............. ...............30....
The Larva ................. ...............3.. 1..............

T he Pupa ................. ...............3.. 1..............
T he A dult ................. ...............3.. 1..............

E m er gence ................. ...............3.. 1..............
M ating .............. ...............3 2....

Oviposition ................. ............... 2...............
Feeding ................ ............... 3...............

Longevity .............. ...............3 3....
Fecundity ................ ...............33.......... ......

Flight-range ............... ..... .... .............3
Public Health Importance of the House Fly ................. ...............34........... ..
Control Methods of the House Fly ................. ...............35..............
S urveill ance Method s .............. ...............3 5....
Control M ethod s ................. ...............3.. 5..............
S anitati on ................. ...............35........... ....
Chemical control .............. ...............36....


4 LITERATURE REVIEW: NOVEL VOLATILE COMPOUNDS AND INSECTICIDE
SELEC TIVITY ........._. ....... .__ ...............41....


Novel Volatile Compounds .............. ...............41....
Insecticide S el activity ........._ ....... ...............42...


5 EVALUATION OF VAPOR TOXICITY OF NOVEL LOW MOLECULAR WEIGHT
COMPOUND S ON MO SQUITOE S............. ..... ._ ...............45..


Introducti on ............. ..... .. ...............45...
Materials and Methods .............. ...............46....
Chem ical s .............. ...............46....
Insects ............. ..... __ ...............47...
Bioassay ............. ..... ...............48...
Data Analysis............... ...............49
Re sults.............. ....... ...._.. ..... .. ...........5

Toxicity Evaluation of Novel Compounds ............... ........... ..._ ............_ .......5
Toxicity Evaluation of Novel Compounds with the Synergistic Effect of DEF and
PB O ................ ...... .. ........... .......5
Evaluation of the Role of Volatility in Toxicity ......._.._.. .... ...._. ............... ....5
D discussion ..........._..... ... .. ... ._ ... ..._ .... ... .. .. ... ........5

Comparing Toxicities of Novel Compounds Among Mosquitoes and Drosophila ........52
Implications of the Synergistic Effects of PBO and DEF on the Toxicity of the
Novel Compounds on Mosquitoes ............... ... ... ... ... ....__ .. ..........5
Structure-activity Relationships of the Three Families of Novel Compounds. ...............56












6 EVALUATION OF VAPOR TOXICITY OF NOVEL LOW MOLECULAR WEIGHT
COMPOUNDS ON HOUSE FLIES .............. ...............73....


Introducti on ................. ...............73.................
Materials and Methods .............. ...............74....
Chem ical s .............. ...............74....
Ceramic Rods .............. ...............75....
Insects ................ ...............75.................
Bioassay ................. ...............75.................
Data Analysis............... ...............77
R e sults................ ....... ........ .......... .. ...........7
Toxicity Evaluation of Novel Compounds .................. .... ............ .... .............. .......7
Toxicity Evaluation of Novel Compounds with the Synergistic Effect of DEF and
PB O .................. .......... ... ... ...... .. ... .......7
Effectiveness of Controlled Vapor Release of Heptyl Formate in Killing House
Flies............... ...............79.
Discussion ........._._.... ... .. .._ ._ ._ ......__ .... ... .. .. .... ........7

Comparing Toxicities of Novel Compounds Among House Flies and Drosophila.........79
Implications of the Synergistic Effects of PBO and DEF on the Toxicity of the
Novel Compounds on House Flies .............. ...............82....
Structure-activity Relationships .............. ...............82...
Controlled Vapor Release of Heptyl Formate ................. ...............83...............


7 SUMMARY ................. ...............88.................


LIST OF REFERENCES ................. ...............90........... ....


BIOGRAPHICAL SKETCH ................. ...............100......... ......










LIST OF TABLES


Table page

5-1. Physical and chemical properties of format esters ................. ...............59...........

5-2. Physical and chemical properties of heterobicyclics ................. ...............60........... ..

5-3. Physical and chemical properties of acetate esters ................. ...............61.............

5-4. Vapor toxicities of 15 novel, low molecular weight, volatile compounds and the
organophosphate DDVP to mosquitoes Aedes aegypti (L.)............... ...............62..

5-5. Vapor toxicity of EGDF, heptyl format & menthofuran with and without the
synergistic effect of DEF and PBO to mosquitoes Aedes aegytpi (L.) ...........................63

5-6. Body-weight corrected vapor toxicities of 15 novel, low molecular weight, volatile
compounds and the organophosphate DDVP to mosquitoes Aedes aegytpi (L.) and
Drosophila melan2oga~ster Mei g. .............. ...............64....

6-1. Vapor toxicity of EGDF, heptyl format, and menthofuran with and without the
synergistic effect of DEF and PBO and the organophosphate DDVP to house flies
M~usca domestic (L.)............... ...............84..

6-2. Body-weight corrected vapor toxicities of EGDF, heptyl format, menthofuran and the
organophosphate DDVP to house flies M~usca domestic (L.) and Drosophila
melan2oga~ster M eig. ............. ...............85.....

6-3. Percent mortality of controlled vapor release of heptyl format on house flies Musca
domestic (L.) over 9 days among 3 different treatments and a blank control .................. 87










LIST OF FIGURES


Figure page

5-1. The LC5o values of mosquitoes Aedes aegypti (L.) when exposed on vapors of 15,
novel, low molecular weight compounds. ............. ...............65.....

5-2. The LC5o values of mosquitoes Aedes aegypti (L.) when exposed on the vapors of
EGDF, heptyl format, and menthofuran with and without the synergistic effect of
DEF and PBO. ............. ...............66.....

5-3. Regression analyses of the LCso versus the physical properties of each of the 7 format
esters .......... ................ ...............67.......

5-4. Regression analyses of the LCso versus the physical properties of each of the 4
heterobicyclics.. ................ ...............68.......... .....

5-5. Regression analyses of the LCso versus the physical properties of each of the 4 acetates....69

5-6. Regression analyses of the LC5o versus the physical properties of all the 15 novel
compounds (formates, acetates, and heterobicyclics) ................. ......... ................70

5-7. Body-weight corrected LC5o values for mosquiotes Aedes aegypti & Drosophila when
exposed to the vapors of the 15 low molecular weight esters and the
organophosphate DDVP. ............. ...............71.....

5-8. M ain bioassay set-up. ............. ...............72.....

6-1.Vapor toxicity of EGDF, heptyl format, and menthofuran with and without the
synergistic effect of DEF and PBO to the house flies M~usca domestic (L.). .................. 86









Abstract of Thesis Presented to the Graduate School
of the University of Florida in Partial Fulfillment of the
Requirements for the Degree of Master of Science

TESTING VAPOR TOXICITY OF FORMAT, ACETATE, AND HETEROBICYCLIC
COMPOUNDS TO Aedes aegypti AND M~usca domestic

By

Alexandra Chaskopoulou

August 2007

Chair: Philip Koehler
Maj or: Entomology and Nematology

Volatile insecticides, commonly known as fumigants, have been widely used for the

management of structural pests and for the protection of stored agricultural commodities.

However, they have been mostly overlooked for the control of medically important pests such as

mosquitoes and flies. Dichlorvos (DDVP) is the one volatile insecticide mostly studied on

mosquitoes and flies. DDVP has been characterized by the Environmental Protection Agency of

the United States as a "probable human carcinogen" and because of its implications in human

health, in 2006 its use was restricted to confined spaces such as wardrobes and closets.

Therefore, there is need to replace DDVP with friendlier and less toxic chemistries.

For my research I evaluated vapor toxicity of a series of new, promising, highly volatile

chemicals with insecticidal activity, low mammalian toxicity, pleasant odors, and potentially

novel modes of action on mosquitoes, using Aedes aegypti (L.), and on filth flies, using M~usca

domestic (L.). A total of 16 insecticidal compounds, 7 formates, 4 acetates, 4 heterobicyclics,

and the organophosphate DDVP were tested on mosquitoes. DDVP was by far the most toxic

compound, and specifically it was 54.4 times more toxic than the second best performing

compound, the format ester methyl format. Within the novel compounds, overall, format

esters were the most toxic family, followed by the heterobicyclics, and last by the acetate esters.









The seven best performing novel compounds with vapor toxicity on mosquitoes were methyl

formate>butyl formate>propyl formate=ethyl formate>hexyl

formate>coumaran>benzothiophene. There were several structure-activity relationships

observed. The most striking one involved the length of the aliphatic chain of the format esters;

as the length of the aliphatic chain increased, toxicity in general decreased. Also, the format

group within the aliphatic chain was correlated with higher toxicity than the acetate group.

A total of 4 compounds, the format esters heptyl format and ethylene glycol di-formate

(EGDF), the heterobicyclic menthofuran, and the organophosphate DDVP were tested on house

flies. DDVP was 25 times more toxic compared to the second best compound, the heterobicyclic

menthofuran. Menthofuran was followed by EGDF, and last by heptyl format. Also, ceramic

porous rods were embedded with heptyl format in order to evaluate the effectiveness of

controlled vapor release of heptyl format in killing house flies over time. It was shown that

controlled vapor release of heptyl format can be used successfully to provide house fly

mortality over time.

Three of the novel compounds, heptyl format, EGDF, and menthofuran were synergized

with the insecticide synergists SSS-tributyl-phosphorotrithioate (DEF), and piperonyl butoxide

(PBO), which are esterase and P450 inhibitors, respectively. For both mosquitoes and house

flies, when EGDF and heptyl format were co-applied with DEF their toxicities decreased,

supporting esterase based activation of format esters. Also, when menthofuran was synergized

with PBO its toxicity increased, supporting P450 based deactivation of heterobicyclics.









CHAPTER 1
INTTRODUCTION

It would be impossible to refer to all those times that insects affected the course of human

history. Just to name a few, the death of great warriors like Alexander the Great was attributed to

malaria, a disease transmitted by mosquitoes. Great empires like the Roman Empire were

brought to decline because of the Bubonic plague, a disease transmitted by fleas. Of course not to

forget that Bubonic plague, also referred to as the Black Death, was responsible for causing 25 to

75 million deaths in Europe alone. A vast number of deaths during wars is attributed to insect

borne diseases; in the American civil war an estimate of 40,000 to 100,000 deaths were

attributed to dysentery, a disease transmitted by filth-flies (Capinera 2004).

Because of the maj or impact insects can have on people's lives, people have had an

ongoing battle with them since the very early years in the pages of history. The first human

attempt to control insects was documented during the early years of ancient Greece. Homer

described how Odysseus fumigated a house with burning sulfur to control insect pests (Homer,

800 B.C.E). Since then, there has been a lot of improvement in the development of chemical

compounds with effective insecticidal activities. The first successful compound with phenomenal

insecticidal activity was the chlorinated hydrocarbon, DDT dichlorodiphenyltrichloroethanee)

(Casida & Quistad 1998). DDT was brought into the insecticide market in 1939, and it was

effective against a wide range of insects and most notably against mosquitoes. Paul Muller

received a Nobel Prize in 1949 for discovering the insecticidal activities of DDT (Capinera

2004). After the development of the chlorinated hydrocarbons other successful insecticidal

groups followed, such as the organophosphates parathionn (1946), malathion (1952), chlorpyrifos

(1965)], the methyl carbamates [carbaryl (1957), alanycarb (1984)], and the pyrethroids

[allethrin (1949), resmethrin (1967), permethrin (1973), deltamethrin (1974)] (Casida & Quistad









1998). Some more recent insecticidal groups are the insect growth regulators such as juvenoids

and chitin synthesis inhibitors [methoprene (1973), fenoxycarb (1981),] the chloronicotinyls

[imidacloprid (1990)], the phenylpyrazoles [Hipronil (1992)], and the avermectins [abamectin

(1981)] (Casida & Quistad 1998).

All these insecticides have had a wide application spectrum targeting various insect pests,

including agricultural and public health pests. My research will specifically focus on two of the

most important categories of public health pests: the mosquitoes (Diptera: Culicidae) and the

filth flies (Diptera: Muscidae). Each one of these pests has its own life history, unique behavioral

and morphological traits, and different potential for disease transmission. Mosquitoes, despite

their miniature size, and their delicate, vulnerable Eigure have managed successfully to survive

on planet earth for more than 170 million years. With their unique adaptation mechanisms they

have managed to thrive in almost all kinds of water habitats, from crab-holes and leaf-axils, to

subzero tundra wetlands in Arctic. Mosquitoes are vectors of serious and deadly diseases such as

malaria, yellow fever, dengue and the different types of encephalitis. A total number of

approximately 320 million human cases of mosquito borne diseases with 2 million deaths occur

every year (Tabachnick 2004). There are approximately 3,200 recognized mosquito species

worldwide and the largest number of them still remains to be discovered (Rutledge 2004). The

mosquito species that was studied in this research was the yellow fever mosquito Aedes aegypti

(L). Like all dipterans, mosquitoes exhibit holometabolous development. Their life cycle is

completed in two different environments: one aquatic and one terrestrial. The first three stages of

their life cycle, the egg, the larva, and the pupa, are adapted to survive in aquatic environments,

whereas the last stage, the winged adult inhabits terrestrial environments. Their life-cycle lasts

from 7 to 14 days depending on the mosquito species. A more detailed description of the species'










morphology, behavior, biology and a review of the current control methods will be given in

Chapter 2.

Filth flies have been in close association with humans since humans showed up on planet

Earth. They have been a nuisance with their painful bites and a plague due to the serious, life

threatening diseases they transmit. Some of the diseases they transmit are typhoid fever,

dysentery and diarrhea. Flies are also known to infect human and animal flesh, a condition

known as myiasis. There are approximately 87,000 species of flies worldwide (not including

mosquitoes) (Scott & Littig 1964) and 9,000 of them belong to the family Muscidae (Mullen &

Durden 2002). The fi1th fly species that was studied in this research was the common house fly

M~usca domsestica (L.). Houseflies have complete metamorphosis, and their life cycle is divided

into 4 stages: the egg, the larva, the pupa, and the winged adult. The time necessary for the

completion of the cycle depends on the species and on the environmental conditions such as

temperature and moisture. A more detailed description of the species' morphology, behavior,

biology, and a review of current control methods will be given in Chapter 3.

A maj or problem that emerged from the use of insecticides is the development of

resistance. It was Melander (1914) that first reported insecticide resistance. Since then the

number of insects and mites worldwide that have developed resistance to one or more pesticides

has increased to 504 and continues to increase (Becker 2003). Specifically, the number of public

health pests that developed insecticide resistance has increased from 2 in 1946, to 198 in 1990

(Oppenoorth 1985, Georghiou 1990). Both mosquitoes and houseflies developed resistance

rapidly to various insecticides. Hemingway and Ranson (2000) gave a very nice review of

insecticide resistance on mosquitoes that vector diseases. In 1947 the first case of DDT

resistance was documented in Aedes tritaeniorhynchus and Aedes solicitans. Since then more










than 100 mosquito species have developed resistance to one or more of the insecticides discussed

above. A broad-spectrum of organophosphate resistance or malathion-specific resistance has

been documented in the maj or malaria vectors (Anopheles group) such as Anopheles culicifacies,

Anopheles stephensi, Anopheles albimanus, Anopheles arabiensis, Anopheles sacharovi. Al so,

pyrethroid resistance has occurred in Anopheles albimanus, Anopheles stephensi, and Anopheles

gamnbiae among others, not to neglect the carbamate resistance in Anopheles sacharovi and

Anopheles albimanus. Widespread resistance to organophosphates has occurred in the Culex

group as well, and pyrethroid resistance was recorded in Culex quienquefa~sciatus. Widespread

resistance to pyrethroids has occurred in Aedes aegypti, and additionally many cases of

carbamate and organophosphate resistance have been recorded as well. Things do not look any

better for house flies. It was again in the year of 1947 that the first case of house fly resistance to

DDT was recorded (Georghiou 1972). Keiding 1999 prepared a very nice review of the global

status of insecticide resistance in field populations of the housefly, M~usca domestic (L.).

According to his review, when the organochlorines failed to control flies (1950), they were

replaced by the organophosphorous compouds, and it wasn't long afterwards that

organophosphorous resistance was recorded (1955, Denmark). It didn't take long to spread to

different parts of the world (North America 1966, United Kingdom 1977, Germany 1979, Japan

1979, Belgium 1981, West Africa 1979, Australia 1989 to name a few). Widespread resistance to

carbamates was also seen, with an early Czechoslovakian report in 1983. Resistance on

pyrethroids was first recorded in Denmark in the 1970's. It is, also, worth mentioning that in the

USA, the first pyrethroid resistance case was observed in 1984 in Georgia after only 2 years of

permethrin use.









Considering the limited number of insecticides registered for management of public health

insect pests and the increasing incidents of resistance documented, it is essential that already

existing insecticides must be used wisely and that new insecticides with novel modes of action

must be discovered. The main obj ective of this study is to evaluate a series of new promising

chemicals with insecticidal activity and potentially novel modes of action on mosquitoes, using

Aedes aegypti (L.), and on filth flies, using M~usca domestic (L.). These new insecticides have

high vapor pressures, and, as a result they show potential to act as vapor toxicants. The

experiments presented in this paper evaluated vapor toxicity of the novel insecticidal chemistries.









CHAPTER 2
LITERATURE REVIEW: THE YELLOW FEVER MOSQUITO

No animal on earth has touched so directly and profoundly the lives of so many human
beings. For all of history, and all over the globe, she has been a nuisance, a pain, and an
angel of death. The mosquito has killed great leaders, decimated armies, and decided the
fate of nations. All this, and she is roughly the size and weight of a grape seed. (Spielman
and D'Antonio 2001, p. 15 from The Preface to Mosquito)

Classification and Distribution

Aedes aegytpi (L.) is a mosquito species in the family Culicidae, subfamily Culicinae, and

tribe Aedini. There are three types of this species: the typical form Ae. aegypti aegytpi, Ae.

aegytpi queenslan2densis, and the smallest type Ae. aegytpi formosus which is a forest species

(Nelson 1986). Only the first two types are found in the USA.

World distribution. Ae. aegypti is thought to have originated from Africa (Gratz 1993). It

has been introduced to many parts of the world through ships and therefore ports are the first

areas to be invaded. Currently this species is distributed in most tropical and subtropical world

regions, with a range extending from 40 degrees N to 40 degrees S latitude (Womack 1993).

USA distribution. Ae. aegypti occurs in 21 states, which are Alabama, Mississippi,

Florida, Georgia, Tennessee, Kentucky, North Carolina, South Carolina, Virginia, New York,

Delaware, Maryland, Kansas, District of Columbia, Illinois, Arkansas, Louisiana, Missouri,

Oklahoma, Texas, and New Mexico (Womack 1993, Darsie and Ward 2005).

Florida distribution. Ae. aegypti used to be widely distributed through the entire state of

Florida (Tinker and Hayes 1959, Morlan and Tinker 1965). However, since the introduction of

Ae. albopictus in 1986 (Peacock et al. 1988), a significant decline of the Ae. aegytpi population

has been detected (O'Meara et al. 1992a, O'Meara et al. 1995).












The Egg

The eggs are black in color, cigar shaped and one millimeter in length.

The Larva

The body of the larva is divided into 3 distinct segments; the head, the thorax and the

abdomen. The head and thorax have an ovoid shape and the abdomen is divided into nine

segments. The posterior segment of the abdomen has four specially modified gills for osmotic

regulation and a siphon specialized for breathing (Mullen and Durden 2002). The siphon of the

Aedes mosquitoes is distinctively shorter than other mosquitoes and plays an important role in

distinguishing them from others. Also, the position of the Aedes larvae in water is almost vertical

to the water surface (Nelson 1986).

Two distinctive characteristics set Ae. aegytpi apart from other Aedes larvae. The first one

is the two prominent lateral hooks (spines) on each side of the thorax. The second one is the row

of seven to twelve comb scales on the eighth abdominal segment. Each one of these scales has

two lateral teeth and a medial spine that gives it a 'pitchfork' appearance (Nelson 1986, Darsie

and Ward 2005).

The Pupa

Pupae in the genus of Aedes have a distinct short hair at the tip of each swimming paddle

and short breathing tubes known as air trumpets (Nelson 1986).

The Adult

Aedes aegypti is a medium sized black colored mosquito with a distinctive lyre-shaped

design on the mesonotum. It also has white bands at the bases of the tarsal segments. Another

key characteristic is the white segments on the palpi and the clypeus (Christophers 1960, Darsie

and Ward 2005).


Morphology









Life Cycle


The Egg

Aedes aegypti were originally tree-hole breeders (Soper 1967), but as they evolved and

adapted in environments near and around human dwellings they became container breeders. A

unique characteristic of their biology is that they attach their eggs on the sides of artificial as well

as natural containers (Pratt and Littig 1967, Nelson 1986, Mullen and Darden 2002, Becker

2003, Rutledge and Evans. 2004). The eggs are fertilized at the moment of oviposition and it

takes from 48 hours up to 5 days for embryonic development to be completed depending on the

environmental temperature (Nelson 1986). The eggs have the ability to withstand long

desiccation periods for up to one year and sometimes even more. Temperature and humidity play

a significant role in the viability of the eggs. It was shown that at relative humidities from 91% to

95% Ae. aegypti embryos can survive for up to 15th months (Christophers 1960). Also,

temperatures ranging from 42o to 53o F were shown to be lethal to the embryo when the eggs

were exposed to them for more than 2 weeks. Flooding is the necessary stimulus for the eggs to

hatch. It takes 15 minutes of flooding for some eggs to hatch. On the other hand some eggs need

to be inundated several times prior to hatching (Nelson 1986).

The Larva

The larval development is divided into 4 instars. The first three instars develop fast and are

more sensitive whereas the last instar takes longer to develop and increases more in size and

weight (Nelson 1986, Mullen and Durden 2002). The duration of the development depends on

several factors such as food availability, environmental temperature and larval density

(Cristophers 1960, Gerberg et al. 1994). It can vary from as short as 5 days at optimal conditions

up to 14 days. At a constant temperature of 21-250 C the larvae are expected to pupate at 10-12

days (Geberg et al. 1994). Under unfavorable conditions the duration of the last instar can last for










up to several weeks before pupation takes place (Nelson 1986). The male larvae develop faster

than the female larvae, and as a result they pupate one day earlier (Mullen and Durden 2002).

The Pupa

The pupae are the least active stage. They do not feed and their main function is

metamorphosis into the mature adult stage (Nelson 1986, Mullen and Durden 2002). The pupae

have the ability to react to external stimuli such as vibrations and light, and thus actively move

away. The pupae are buoyant, and therefore they have the ability to float on the water. This

property allows them to emerge as adults. The duration of the pupal stage lasts 2 to 3 days

(Nelson 1986, Mullen and Durden 2002). The male pupae develop faster than the female pupae.

The Adult

Emergence

At the early stages of brood emergence males are most abundant (Christophers 1960).

When emergence is completed, the adult rests at the sides of the container for a few hours until

the wings and the exoskeleton harden and darken (Nelson 1986). Additionally, the males have to

rotate their genitalia 180o into the right position (Nelson 1986, Becker 2003). This may last up to

24 hours.

Mating

Approximately 24 hours after emergence, mating takes place. Mating takes place with the

female at rest or in flight (Schoof 1967). The males are attracted to the females due to the sound

that is made by their wing beat. Females can begin to produce the desirable wing beat 2.5 hours

after emergence (Roth 1948, Nelson 1968). The attracted male clasps the tip of the female

abdomen with his genitalia and inserts his aedeagus into the female genital chamber. The

duration of the copulation is brief and lasts less than a minute (Roth 1948). Females mate once

since one insemination is enough to fertilize all the eggs that a female will develop in her









lifetime. Males on the other hand were shown to mate up to 10 and 15 times (Schoof 1967).

After mating is complete the female searches for a blood meal. Once blood fed the female no

longer emanates the wing beat tone (Roth 1948, Nelson 1968).

Feeding

The male mouthparts are not adapted for blood feeding. They meet their energy

requirements by feeding on flower nectar. Females also feed on flower nectar to satisfy their

carbohydrate needs. The female requires additionally a protein rich blood meal in order to be

able to develop viable eggs (Magnarelli 1979, Clements 1992). The females ofAedes aegpti

show preference in feeding on humans, a behavior known as "anthropophilic" (Carpenter and

LaCasse 1955); however, they will feed on most vertebrates when available. Female mosquitoes

use several stimuli to detect and reach their host. Carbon dioxide, octenol and lactic acid are

some of the most documented host attractants (Acree et. al 1968, Takken and Kline 1989,

Mboera and Takken 1997). Female mosquitoes fly upwind following the odors and other

attractants released by the host. Once they are in close proximity to the host they use visual cues

to locate the host. It was shown that Ae. aegytz are more attracted to black surfaces (Brett 193 8)

and to black-white interfaced surfaces (Brown 1966). As they approach even closer, temperature

and other skin emissions guide them to the proper feeding site. Blood feeding usually takes place

during daylight (Nelson 1986).

Flight range

Males fly less than the females (Nelson 1986). A female Aedes aegpti more commonly

remains at the location where it emerged. In an experiment done by Trips and Hausermann

(1986) it was shown that most marked Ae. aegytz were caught in the house in which they were

released. When needed, a female can fly up to 2.5 kilometers in search of breeding sites










(Wolfinsohn and Galun 1953). It has been estimated than on average one female does not exceed

50 meters of flying during its life time (Nelson 1986).

Resting behavior

The most suitable resting place is a dark, quiet place. They mostly prefer to rest beneath

and inside structures and rarely choose to rest outdoors on vegetation (Schoof 1967, Nelson

1986). They generally show preference resting on vertical surfaces.

Longevity

Aedes aegytpi adults in a laboratory setting can live for several months varying from 131

up to 225 days (Christophers 1960). However, in nature they usually survive for only a few

weeks. Previous work has shown an average life-spam of 15 d for female mosquitoes outdoors

(Nelson 1986). It is estimated that, when a population emerges, 50% of the adults die on average

during the first week and 95% of the population dies after the first month. However, if the

beginning emerging population is large, the subsequent older population will be adequately large

to transmit disease and initiate an epidemic (Nelson 1986).

Fecundity

After a complete blood meal (2-3 mg), a female will produce and oviposit ~100 eggs

(Nelson 1986). Smaller meals result in the production of small batches of eggs. It takes three

days between blood engorgement and egg oviposition. It is also worth mentioning that a female

can feed again the same day that oviposition took place. A single female can produce several egg

batches in its life-time.

Public Health Importance of the Yellow Fever Mosquito

Aedes aegytpi is the main vector of 2 serious and life-threatening diseases, yellow fever,

and the two forms of dengue, dengue fever (DF) and dengue hemorrhagic fever (DHF). Both

diseases are caused by viruses in the family Flaviridae (Mullen and Durden 2002).









Yellow fever. It is caused by the YF virus. The relationship between Ae. aegytpi and YF

virus was confirmed through the work of Carlos Finley (1881) and Walter Reed (1900). This

discovery was of great importance, and it was the initiation of serious mosquito control measures

to eradicate the mosquito vector, which brought great results and decrease significantly the

vector populations. Currently, yellow fever is a serious threat in Central America, South America

and lowland equatorial Africa. Yellow fever is the cause of approximately 30,000 deaths every

year (Tabachnick 2004). The latest epidemic in the United States was in 1905 in New Orleans,

where there were 3,402 cases and 452 deaths (Mullen and Durden 2002). Yellow fever is a

hemorrhagic disease. Symptoms start to appear 3-6 days after infection. There are several cases

of yellow fever with mild or no symptoms at all (Shroyer 2004).

Dengue fever (DF) and dengue hemorrhagic fever (DHF). Dengue is caused by the

DEN virus that exists in 4 different and distinct serotypes (DEN-1, DEN-2, DEN-3, DEN-4).

There are two forms of disease, the classic dengue fever and the most severe form the dengue

hemorrhagic fever. Some of the symptoms of dengue are fever, headache, rash, and pain in the

muscles and j points (Mullen and Durden 2002). The symptoms of the disease can vary from mild

to fatal. The severity of the symptoms depends on the age as well as the infection history of the

patient. Children show higher fatalities (CDC 2005). The first epidemic of DF that was reported

occurred in 1779-1780 in three different continents simultaneously: Asia, Africa, and North

America (CDC 2005). Dengue is responsible for hundreds of thousands of cases every year

(CDC 2005). Specifically, from 1956 to 1980 there were 715,238 cases of DF and 21,345 deaths

reported, and from 1986 to 1990 there were 1,263,321 cases and 15,940 deaths (Rigau-Perez et

al. 1994).Currently, this disease is a problem to all tropical and subtropical areas of the world.










Indigenous transmission of the disease in the USA was reported in the years of 1980, 1986, and

1995 in Texas (Rigau-Perez et al. 1994, Mullen and Durden 2002).

Control Methods of the Yellow Fever Mosquito

Every organized mosquito control program is composed of 3 main components:

surveillance of the mosquito target, methods for controlling the immature mosquito stages and

methods for controlling the adult mosquitoes.

Surveillance

Surveillance is the basis of every pest control program. Constant knowledge of the

distribution and composition of mosquito populations is the key to a well organized and effective

control program. Also, pre- and post-treatment surveillance is necessary in order to evaluate the

success of every control method implemented. There are various tools and methods available to

monitor mosquito populations. When still in the immature stages the most common monitoring

method is the dipping technique using a standard dipper, a dipper with a screened bottom or a

cooking buster (Schreiber 2004). There are some monitoring techniques modified specifically for

monitoring Ae. aegypti larvae. Harrison et al. (1982) and Undeen & Becnel (1994) developed 2

different types of floating traps specialized for collecting Ae. aegytpi larvae. When in the adult

stage the surveillance of the mosquito populations is accomplished in two main ways: through

the human landing rate technique and through the use of trapping devices. The most commonly

used trap is the dry ice baited CDC trap with or without ice (Schreiber 2004). The New Jersey

light trap is also used; however, when used in urban settings where Ae. aegypti are

predominantly found, the lights from the houses will compete with the trap light source resulting

in smaller numbers of mosquitoes captured (Schreiber 2004). Fay (1968) designed a trap, called

the Fay trap, for specifically collecting Ae. aegypti adults. The Fay trap is similar to the CDC

trap except that it is painted shiny black with the light source replaced by a glossy black board.










Methods for Controlling Immature Mosquitoes

The different methods available for controlling the immature mosquito stages are applied

directly in the water and they can have larviciding action, pupiciding action, or they can even kill

the adult mosquito while it is emerging. Some common methods for controlling immature

mosquitoes are source reduction, use of the mosquito fish, Gamnbusia affinis, which is a form of

biological control, use of bacterial insecticides such as Bacilhts thrn iingir'nti\ israelensis (B.t.i.)

and Bacilhts sphaericus (B.sph.), use of insect growth regulators (IGR' s) such as chitin synthesis

inhibitors and juvenile hormone analogues, use of surface control agents such as oils and

monomolecular films, and use of insecticides such as the organophosphate insecticide temephos.

Source reduction is one of the most effective methods for controlling container breeding

mosquitoes such as Ae. aegytpi. Gubler et al. (1991) pointed out that "the only truly effective

way to control mosquito vectors of dengue is source reduction". The mosquito fish was used in

Malaysia in water containers for the control ofAe. aegypti (Becker et al. 2003). B.t.i. and B.sph.

are two different species of naturally occurring soil bacteria capable of producing, during their

sporulation, proteins that are toxic to mosquito larvae. The larvae need to be actively feeding on

the bacterial spores in order for the product to be effective. B.t.i and B.sph. are available in

different formulations such as liquids, powders, granules, tablets and briquets. B.t.i. is more

effective in controlling Aedes and Psorophora species (Weinzierl et al 2005). B.sph. is effective

in controlling Culex, Psorophora and Culiseta species (Weinzierl et al 2005). Its effectiveness in

controlling Aedes species varies, for example it is not as effective in controlling Ae. aegypti

populations. It was shown that Ae. aegypti larvae were 100 times less susceptible to B.sph.

compared to other mosquito species (Becker 2003). A distinct difference between B.t.i. and

B.sph. is environmental persistence. B.sph. can persist in the environment whereas B.t.i. has little

residual activity. A new tablet formulation of B.t.i. and B.sph. was successfully used to control










Cx. p. pipiens and Ae. aegypti (Becker et al. 1991, Kroeger et al. 1995). Timing of application for

both bacterial species is very critical, because early first and late fourth instar larvae do not feed

and thus they will not receive the chemical. Diflubenzuron, a chitin synthesis inhibitor, interferes

with the molting process of the larva and prevents the normal development of the cuticle (Becker

et al. 2003). Methoprene is an analog of a naturally occurring insect hormone called juvenile

hormone. Methoprene works by interfering with the mosquito's life-cycle. By doing so it

prevents the insect's metamorphosis from an immature to an adult and causes adult sterility.

Methoprene gets absorbed on contact through the larval integument, thus larvae don't need to be

feeding in order for methoprene to act effectively. Methoprene is commercially available with

the name Altosid. Altosid products come in different formulations such as liquids, powders,

granules and briquets. Altosid formulations are known for their long residual activity for up to

150 days (Florida Coordinating Council on Mosquito Control 1998). Some commonly used

surface agents are the Golden Bear oil and the monomolecular films Arosurf MSF and Agnique

MMF. Surface oils cause mortality to mosquito larvae and pupae through suffocation because the

oily surface prevents the insects from obtaining air through their siphon. On the other hand the

monomolecular films prevent the insects from remaining on the surface of the water by reducing

the tension of the water surface. Under these conditions larvae and pupae die from exhaustion as

they use up their energy reserves trying to stay at the surface. Temephos is a heterocyclic

organophosphate and is widely known with the commercial name Abate. It is available in

different formulations such as liquids and granules. Temephos is very effective against all

mosquito species and has a very low mammalian toxicity with an LD50 of 2030 mg/kg. It acts by

inhibiting the activity of acetylcholinesterase enzyme in the Central Nervous System (CNS)

synapses resulting in the accumulation of acetylcholine at its post-synaptic receptor. The excess









of acetylcholine causes neuroexcitation, rapid twitching of the muscles, and final paralysis of the

insect. Temephos has been used successfully to control Ae. aegytpi. For example, in Thailand an

up to 95.4% reduction of adult density was achieved after applying temephos 1% granule

formulation on the bodies of water containing larvae (Gratz 1993, Becker et al. 2003). However,

resistance to temephos has been reported (Grandes and Sagrado 1988) and is a serious concern.

Methods for Controlling Adult Mosquitoes

Chemical control of adult mosquitoes, commonly known as "adulticiding", is divided in

two main categories based on behavioral traits of the mosquito: Control of the resting adults,

which are residual applications referred to as barrier or surface sprays, and control of the flying

adults, which are Ultra Low Volume applications referred to as space sprays. These two

categories differ in the type of insecticides that are utilized as well in the application techniques

that are used to distribute the insecticides on the target insect. Additionally, there is also one less

popular approach available for controlling adult mosquitoes, which involves the use of vapor

toxicants.

For the control of the resting adults, also, known as barrier treatment applications, residual

insecticides are applied to perimeters around private residencies and recreational areas where

mosquitoes are anticipated to rest. Some of the commonly used insecticides are deltamethrin,

bifenthrin, betacyfluthrin, and lambda-cyhalothrin. Barrier treatments are large droplet

applications, commonly applied during daylight hours, and are anticipated to last from a week up

to two months depending on the insecticide used. Reiter (1991) pointed out that resting behavior

of Ae.aegytpi plays a key role on the control of the insect, because unlikely most mosquito

species, Ae. aegytpi prefer to rest inside (endophilic behavior) or around houses, and therefore

they are hard to target through space-spraying applications. In agreement to Reiter' s theory,









Chadee (1990) found that residual house spraying, a surface spray, was more effective for

controlling Ae. aegytpi compared to ULV (ultra low volume applications) space spray.

The control of the flying adults is the most visible type of treatment with immediate

results, and is the method of choice when there is a need for rapid reduction of mosquito

populations like in the case of a disease outbreak. For this type of treatment the target is the

flying adult mosquito and therefore the timing of spraying must coincide with mosquito flight

activity. The treatments can be applied either aerially or by ground. The application technique is

called Ultra Low Volume (ULV). ULV technology; as defined by the Environmental Protection

Agency, is a method of dispensing insecticide in volumes less than 5 liters per hectare. Within

mosquito control concentrate insecticide is often applied, therefore the output volume can be

even lower < 1 liter per hectar. In other words ULV is a technique that applies the minimum

amount of liquid of insecticides per unit area. The size of the droplets within the insecticidal

cloud plays a very important role in determining the effectiveness of every spraying mission.

Previous research has shown that the optimum droplet size for adult mosquito control is 5-10

microns (volume median diameter) for ground applications and 10-25 microns (volume median

diameter) for aerial applications (Mount 1970). The size of the droplet determines the number of

droplets per unit volume of insecticide, the time of which a droplet remains airborne, and the

chances of the droplet penetrating through obstacles such as vegetation to reach the mosquito

target (Becker 2003). Some common insecticides that have been used for controlling adult

mosquitoes are fenthion, malathion and naled of the organophosphate family, sumithrin and

resmethrin of the first generation synthetic pyrethroids and permethrin of the second generation

synthetic pyrethroids (Florida Coordinating Council on Mosquito Control 1998). There has been

a certain degree of failure of space spraying applications in controlling Ae. aegypti adults (Fox










1980, Perich et al. 1990, Gratz 1993) and a suggested explanation to that is their tendency to rest

indoors (Becker 2003).

One last approach for adult mosquito control involves the use of slow release vapor

toxicants. This is one of the least popular control methods and there has only been little research

conducted to test the effectiveness of such applications. This could likely be attributed to the lack

of insecticidal compounds with effective vapor toxicities. Dichlorvos (DDVP) is the one

insecticide that has been most studied as a vapor toxicant against mosquitoes and other medically

important pests (Maddock et al. 1963, Brooks & Schoof 1964, Brooks et al. 1965). Dichlorvos is

an organophosphate insecticide and for the first time it was registered to be used as an insecticide

in 1948 (EPA Pesticide Fact Sheet, 1978). A very common slow vapor release formulation of

dichlorvos is resin strips. Slow release formulations of dichlorvos were shown to work

effectively as an additional mosquito control method in occupied houses for malaria eradication

programs (Mathis et al. 1959, Quarterman et al. 1963). However, the high acute mammalian

toxicity of dichlorvos, in combination to reported resistance incidents has limited the use of

dichlorvos as a widespread mosquito control method. Therefore, there is a need for new

insecticidal compounds, with good vapor toxicities and novel modes of action that will replace

dichlorvos. This research evaluated vapor toxicity of novel, low molecular weight, highly

volatile format, acetate, and heterobicyclic compounds on mosquitoes.









CHAPTER 3
LITERATURE REVIEW: THE HOUSE FLY

And there came a grievous swarm of flies into the house of Pharaoh, and into his servant' s
houses, and into all the land of Egypt, and the land was corrupted by this kind of flies. (The
Bible, Exodus 8 : 24, p 74 )

Classification and Distribution

The house fly M~usca domestic (L.) belongs to the class Insecta, the order Diptera,

suborder Cyclorrapha, and family Muscidae. It is commonly named house fly due to its close

association to human settlements and activities. It is the most common fly in and around the

home and it is a nuisance in every place where domestic animals are kept and waste accumulates.

It is distributed around the world (West 195 1) with the only exception of the Arctic, the

Antarctic and areas of extreme high altitudes (Scott & Littig 1964). There are four different

subspecies: M~d. domestic Linnaeus, M~d. vicina Macqvart, M~d. nebula Fabricius, and M~d.

curviforceps Sacca & Rivosecchi. The first three subspecies are found in temperate zones all

over the world including subarctic and subtropical areas where as the fourth subspecies is limited

to Africa (Keiding 1986).

Morphology

The Egg

They are 1-1.2 mm in length, banana shaped and creamy in color (West 1951, Keiding

1986).

The Larva

The larval stage is divided in three instars, from which the third one or else known as

prepupa can reach up to 13 mm in length (Keiding 1986). Each instar is characterized by a

cylindrical body divided in 13 well-defined segments with no appendages (West 1951). The

larval head has no eyes and is located on the anterior, conical-shaped end of the larval body. For









feeding and for locomotion the larva has one strong and one small interior mouth hook located at

the head. The posterior end of its body is rounded and consists of a pair of sclerotized structures,

the spiracles, which are essential for breathing.

The Pupa

When the fly is ready for pupation, the integument of the third larval instar contracts and

hardens to form a barrel shaped puparium (West 1951, Keiding 1986). The size of an average

puparium is 6.3 mm in length (West 1951). For the first couple of hours the puparium is soft

with a whitish, creamy coloration. As the cuticle hardens the color gradually darkens into a dark

brown coloration.

The Adult

An adult house fly is approximately 6-9 mm in length and has a grayish coloration (West

195 1, Mullen & Durden 2002). It has a pair of wings longer than the abdomen and when in rest

they are directed posteriorly giving a triangular appearance to the fly (West 1951). The house

fly's body is divided into three well defined regions: the head, the thorax, and the abdomen. The

head has a pair of prominent eyes, where in the case of males are j oined together (holoptic), and

in the case of females are divided (dichoptic) (Mullen & Durden 2002). Adults have a pair of

sucking mouthparts called the proboscis, which is composed of the labium that encloses the

labrum and the hypopharynx and terminates in a two lobed labella (West 1951). The thorax is

usually characterized by 4 dark, longitudinal stripes called vitae (Mullen & Durden 2002).

Life Cycle

The Egg

The eggs are laid in clusters in moist substrates of decaying, fermenting or putrefying

organic matter (Schoof et al. 1954). One house fly can lay approximately 100-150 eggs (West

1951). The most favorable breeding sites are human waste and animal manure (Keiding 1986).









The eggs are very dependent upon moisture. It was shown that below 90% RH egg mortality

increases (Keidingl986). Also, temperature plays an important role in the egg development. At

350C it takes 6-8 hours from oviposition to hatching. Below 130C and above 420C the eggs die

before hatching (West 1951).

The Larva

The larval stage is divided into three instars. The first, second, and part of the third instar

are called the feeding stages. They mainly feed on bacteria and their decomposition products.

Odors attract the feeding stages to the breeding media. The larval stages tend to avoid light and

prefer to occur in humid environments with a temperature around 350C (Keiding 1986). The late

third instar is called prepupa and does not feed. In this stage the prepupae migrate to cooler and

less humid environments where pupation takes place. There are several factors that affect the

duration of the larval development such as nutrition, moisture, and temperature. Under optimal

conditions it takes a minimum of 3-4 days for the completion of the larval development (Keiding

1986, Hogsette 1995).

The Pupa

The duration of this stage depends on humidity and temperature and lasts minimum of 3-4

days under optimal conditions (35-40C, 90% RH). The pupae have the ability to withstand lower

humidity than the larvae. It has been shown that below 75% some pupae die and below 40% few

survive (Keiding 1986).

The Adult

Emergence

When the development of the adult is completed within the pupal case, the adult brakes

through the puparium and emerges quickly. The newly emerged adults are light grey and soft in

appearance. Also, they have no wings. Before the newly emerged adults become fully capable of









flying they go through a phase that lasts several hours during which the cuticle hardens and the

wings unfold (Keiding 1986). The young adults are ready for feeding 2-24 hours after

emergence.

Mating

Males and females are ready for mating approximately 24 and 30 h, respectively, after

emergence at optimal environmental conditions (Keiding 1986). Visual and olfactory stimulants

are involved in the attraction between male and female adult flies (Colwell & Shorey 1977,

Keiding 1986). A sex pheromone, (Z)-9- tricosene (muscalure), is produced by the females to

attract the males (Carlson et al. 1971, Carlson & Leibold 1981). Also, another pheromone

produced by the males is known to attract virgin females (Schlein & Galun 1984). Last, the wing

beat frequency of the males was shown to have an effect on the mating behavior of the females

(Colwell & Shorey 1976). Females usually mate once during their lifetime (monogamous) and

store the sperm into the spermatheca (Keiding 1986), as opposed to males that can mate multiple

times (polygamous).

Oviposition

Oviposition is closely dependent on air temperature. Below 150C no oviposition occurs

(Keiding 1986, West 1951). Ammonia, carbon dioxide and other odors of rotting and fermenting

materials attract the gravid females to their breeding medium (West 1956, Keiding 1986).

Favorable breeding media include dung (Haines 1955), garbage and waste from food processing

facilities (Schoof et al. 1954), sewage and accumulation of plant material (Silverly & Schoof

1955). The eggs are very sensitive to moisture and in order to be protected from desiccation are

laid beneath the surface, within cracks and crevices. On average a female oviposits 120 eggs per

batch (West 1951).









Feeding

House flies are considered to be polyphagous species, which means that they can feed on a

wide variety of food material and they do not depend on particular types of proteins like other

members of the family Muscidae (West 195 1). Both male and female houseflies need water and

sugars in order to survive. It is only the female flies that need additional protein in order to be

able to develop viable eggs. They acquire their nutrients mostly from animal dung, human food

and garbage. They are attracted to the food source mostly by visual cues. Odorous stimulants

play some role when the food source is in close proximity (Keiding 1965). Flies are attracted to

smells of fermenting and decomposing materials. When in contact with the food the fly uses

special receptors on the legs and antennae to taste the food.

Longevity

Under laboratory conditions adult house flies can live up to a month (Keiding 1986).

However, in field conditions the life span is considered to be less, approximately 2 weeks under

ordinary conditions (West 1951).

Fecundity

A single female house fly produces approximately 120 eggs per cycle. The number of

generations per year varies depending on the environmental conditions. At temperate climates

house flies can produce up to 30 generations per year whereas in tropical climates the number of

generations decreases to 10 per year (Keiding 1986). Theoretically, if a female fly laid 120 eggs

in the middle of April, she would be responsible for the emergence of 5,598,720,000,000 flies in

the middle of July (West 1951)!

Flight-range

House flies are strong fliers, can move forward at a rate of 6-8 km per hour, and don't tend

to migrate (Keiding 1986). Provided that food and breeding medium is available they will remain









within a radius of 100-500 m from their breeding site. However, they have been shown to

migrate up to 5-20 km from their breeding site (Schoof 1959, Keiding 1986, Nazni et al. 2005).

Public Health Importance of the House Fly

House flies, because of their behavior and biology can act as very effective disease vectors.

They prefer to spend most of their life time on animal manure, human excrements, garbage and

any type of decaying organic matter. However, they will eagerly utilize any other food source on

any type of human facility that is available to them, and when that happens they will transfer

pathogens from one substrate to the other. Houseflies are capable of transmitting pathogenic

microorganisms through different modes of transmission. They can mechanically transfer them

on the hair of their body (West 1951i, Graczyk et al. 2005). They regurgitate them in their vomit,

and they can also transfer them in feces through their alimentary track (Sulaiman et al. 2000).

The pathogens transferred on the surface of the fly do not multiply, and they can only survive for

a few hours. On the other hand, the pathogens in the alimentary track can multiply and survive

longer for up to several days (West 1951i). Therefore this mode of transmission is the most

important and dangerous one.

The diseases that house flies transmit are intestinal diseases, eye diseases, and skin and

wound diseases. Some examples of intestinal diseases are bacterial infections (shingellosis,

salmonelosis, cholera), protozoan infections, and viral infections (poliomyelitis) (Levine &

Levine 1991, Healing 1995, Mian et al. 2002, Graczyk et al. 2005). Outbreaks of diarrheal

diseases in predominantly developing countries have been associated with the seasonal increase

in abundance of filth flies (Graczyk et al. 2001). For example, in Thailand the seasonal peak in

fly populations coincides with outbreaks of cholera (Echeverria et al. 1983). Examples of eye

diseases that can be transmitted by houseflies are trachoma and conjunctivitis (Forsey &

Darougar 1981). Last, an example of a skin disease is habronemiasis, a horse disease (Foil &









Foil 1988). This disease involves the deposition of infective house fly larvae onto mucous

membranes of preexisting skin lesions on the stomach of horses.

Control Methods of the House Fly

Surveillance Methods

For every successful pest control approach it is vital to obtain information on the density

and species composition of the pest population prior to any treatment. Post-treatment

surveillance is necessary as well in order to evaluate the success of the control measures that

have been implemented. There are several devices available for housefly surveillance that are

commonly known as fly-traps. Fly-traps utilize visual stimuli and/or chemical attractants to lure

flies. These could be ultra violet (UV) light traps which act as electrocutors, sugar/pheromone

(sex pheromone-muscalure) baited traps, as well as cards or strips coated with sticky material to

capture flies. Traps will not measure the absolute number of flies in a population, rather they will

give an index and, also, the effectiveness of these traps to capture flies depends on their location

within a certain area, temperature, and the physiological condition of the flies (Keiding 1986).

Traps besides being a monitoring tool are also used for control operations.

Control Methods

Sanitation

A very old English quote says "Kill a fly in July, you've just killed one fly. Kill a fly in

June, they'll be scarced soon. Kill a fly in May, you've kept thousands away" (retrieved from

West 1951). Within these 2 lines lies the very essence of a successful fly control plan. Due to

their high reproduction rates, housefly populations can increase rapidly within a small period of

time. Preventing the population from building up would be the best approach for effective and

long-term fly control. The way to achieve prevention is to eliminate the conditions that allow

flies to breed and multiply. Some examples of ideal housefly breeding media, as has been









discussed above, are animal manure, human feces, and garbage. Proper disposal of animal

manure, human feces, and garbage is the primary and most effective method to control

houseflies. Pickens et al. (1967) recommended frequent, if not daily, removal of animal manure.

Barnard (2003) suggests collecting and storing manure in cone-shape piles to reduce the

available surface area to flies. He also suggests proper composting or covering the organic matter

with plastic to minimize fly attractiveness. West (1951) suggests storage of manure, when

frequent disposal is not feasible, within concrete pits that will be fly-tight. Regarding disposal of

human feces a properly operating sewage processing plant is necessary for each city and town

(West 1951). Last, regarding garbage handling and disposal, open dumps must be replaced with

sanitary landfills. In these landfills garbage will be compacted daily and covered with 24 inches

of soil to effectively eliminate fly breeding (Keiding 1986). Another approach for treating

garbage in large cities is complete combustion at temperatures of 1,400 OF to 2,000 OF, which

would completely destroy organic material and prevent flies form breeding (Scott & Littig 1964).

In conclusion, environmental sanitation is the best, long-term solution to every housefly

problem.

Chemical control

For those situations where the fly population has already increased dramatically and

immediate control is required there are several chemical based approaches that one could follow,

which involve the usage of insecticides. There are, mainly, six different types of insecticide

applications for the control of houseflies: direct insecticide application to the breeding sites for

larval control larvicidess), application of residual sprays on housefly resting sites, introducing

toxic man-made resting sites (impregnated cords/strips), applying toxic baits, applying space

sprays directly to fly aggregations, and, last applying vapor toxicants (Keidig 1986, Barnard

2003).









Larvicides are applied as spot treatments on a regular basis in those areas where fly larvae

are breeding. Some insecticides that have been used as larvicides include the organophosphates

diazinon, trichlorfon, and fenthion, and several pyrethroids such as cypermethrin, deltamethrin,

and permethrin. The insecticides are applied in different formulations such as emulsions or

suspensions to thoroughly wet the upper 10-15 cm of the breeding medium (Barnard 2003). This

method of control, however, should only be considered as an alternative to sanitation, and most

of the times as a poor alternative. One of the problems that appear from the use of larvicides is

the mortality of natural predators and parasites of houseflies (Keiding 1986, Scott et al. 1991). It

has been suggested that even if larvicides offer temporary control they may result in increase of

the fly population by disrupting the biological regulation by naturally occurring predators. Two

products that have been used for fly larvae control and don't appear to have any important

adverse effects on non-target organisms are the insect growth regulators diflubenzuron and

cyromazine (Keiding 1986).

Treating naturally occurring resting areas of houseflies with residual insecticides or even

introducing insecticide treated resting sites (such as toxicant impregnated strips and cords) is

another popular approach for fly control. These are low-pressure, spot treatments of residual

insecticides on those surfaces that flies are anticipated to land and rest. Several examples of

insecticides that have been used for this type of application are the organophosphates

(dimethoate, trichlorfon and naled), and the pyrethroids (cypermethrin, permethrin, and

deltamethrin) (Barnard 2003). The effectiveness of this method depends on the type of the

insecticide used, the environmental conditions like sunlight exposure which accelerates the

insecticide degradation, but mostly it depends on the right location of the treatment in time and

space according to the resting behavior of the fly (Keiding 1965). Keiding (1965) in his review









on observations of the housefly behavior in relation to its control concluded firstly, that

houseflies show preference for resting indoors at lower night temperatures (below 15-20 OC) and

outdoors in warmer nights, secondly the upward movement of flies to the ceiling or branches of

trees after sunset, and last the general preference of flies to rest on narrow obj ects, edges, and

anything protruding from large surfaces. He suggested that since houseflies tend to have an

aggregated night time distribution, control efforts should be mostly directed against the night

resting sites.

Insecticides in the form of baits came into prominence in the early 1950's (Gahan et al.

1953). The first form of baits that were initially used for fly control contained simple sugar water

or some other type of attractant combined with poisons such as sodium arsenite and

formaldehyde. Since the development of modern insecticides, newer baits have been developed

that can be divided into three main categories: dry scatter baits, liquid baits, and paint-on baits

(Keiding 1986, Barnard 2003). The newer baits utilize a variety of organophosphate (i.e.

dimethoate, malathion, naled, diazinon) and carbamate (i.e. propoxur, bendiocarb, methomyl)

insecticides as active ingredients. The effectiveness of the baits to attract flies can be enhanced

by the addition of attractants, such as the sex pheromone, muscalure. Baits can provide

satisfactory control and reduce fly populations in short periods of time. However, they must be

applied one to six times per week (Barnard 2003) in order to be effective. Also, they have the

advantage that development of resistance is generally less compared to residual sprays. They

must be kept, however, away from animals and children.

Both outdoor and indoor space treatments for housefly control involve the usage of mists

or aerosols of insecticide solutions or emulsions that directly target aggregations of resting or

flying adults. Space treatments do not provide long-term fly control but instead they provide a










temporary relief from housefly nuisance. Therefore they should be applied in those situations

where excessive housefly nuisance is being observed, and they should be used as an additional

tool and not as the main approach technique for controlling houseflies. For indoor applications,

hand and power sprayers are used to apply the material. For the outdoor applications mist

sprayers, thermal foggers, or even Ultra Low Volume (ULV) application methods can be used to

disperse the material. For indoor treatments natural pyrethrins or synthetic pyrethroids would be

the insecticide of choice, due to their ability to provide quick knockdown without presenting any

toxic hazards (Schmidtmann 1981). Also, indoors space treatments must be applied during those

times when most flies are aggregated indoors. For the outdoor treatments the application can take

place both by ground and air (Mount, 1985) and has as ultimate goal to eliminate fly populations

around those areas with high human activity such as recreational areas and food markets. For the

outdoor treatments, in addition to the pyrethroids, several organophosphate compounds are used

as well (i.e. malathion, naled, diazinon).

One last approach for fly control involves the use of slow release vapor toxicants. This has

been one of the least popular control methods and there has been little research conducted to test

the effectiveness of such an application. This could be attributed to the lack of insecticidal

compounds with effective vapor toxicities. Dichlorvos (DDVP) is the one insecticide mostly

studied as a vapor toxicant against house flies (Miles et al. 1962, Matthysse & McClain 1972).

Dichlorvos is an organophosphate insecticide and for the first time it was registered to be used as

an insecticide in 1948 (EPA 2006). A very common formulation of dichlorvos is in resin strips.

The resin strips were shown to work effectively against adult flies in enclosed spaces. Resin

strips were, also, proven effective for fly control within garbage cans or other similar receptacles

that may not be fly-tight. The high mammalian toxicity of dichlorvos, in combination to reported










resistance incidents (Bailey et al. 1971) has limited the use of dichlorvos as a fly control

approach. Therefore, there is a need for new insecticidal compounds, with good vapor toxicities

and novel modes of action that will replace dichlorvos. This research evaluated vapor toxicity of

novel, low molecular weight, highly volatile format, acetate, and heterobicyclic compounds on

house flies.









CHAPTER 4
LITERATURE REVIEW: NOVEL VOLATILE COMPOUNDS AND INSECTICIDE
SELECTIVITY

Novel Volatile Compounds

Insecticides are divided into Hyve categories according to their mode of action: physical

poisons, protoplasmic poisons, metabolic inhibitors, neuroactive agents and stomach poisons

(Matsumura 1980). Some insecticides have multiple modes of actions, as that seems to be the

case with the novel compounds studied in this thesis project. Nguyen et al. (2007) studied

toxicity, synergism and neurological effects of the novel formates, acetates, and heterobicyclics

on Drosophila. Drosophila was chosen as representative of the order Diptera. According to their

Endings, the compounds possess a diverse range of activities and modes of actions, as they seem

to act as both metabolic inhibitors and neuroactive agents. They were able to identify a role for

cytochrome P450-based metabolism in activation and/or deactivation of the various

heterobicyclics, esterase-based activation of some format esters, and Einally neurological action

at chloride and sodium channels by the novel compounds.

Also, Haritos & Doj chinov (2003) studied a range of alkyl esters on beetles, in an attempt

to discover the toxic agent of the alkyl esters within the insects. Their intentions were to

determine whether it was the intact ester or one or more of its break down products that were

responsible for the toxic effects. Their Eindings revealed esterase-based activation of the format

esters, which comes in agreement with Nguyen et al (2007). Haritos & Doj chinov (2003) showed

that volatile format esters were more toxic than other alkyl esters due to their hydrolysis to

formic acid and its inhibition of cytochrome c oxidase. The process involves 3 main steps. First,

a wide variety of many esterases hydrolyse the format esters into formic acid and their

corresponding alcohols. Then, formic acid binds to cytochrome a3 and inhibits cytochrome c

oxidase activity (Nicholls 1975). Last, the inhibition of cytochrome c oxidase prevents the









utilization of molecular oxygen by cells, leading to loss of cell function and subsequently cell

death.

This research evaluated the vapor toxicity effects of the novel volatile compounds on two

different insect species: the yellow fever mosquito and the common house fly. There is no work

published to my knowledge regarding the mode of action of the novel volatile esters and

heterobicyclcis on mosquitoes and house flies. This paper constitutes the first publication on the

toxicity of the novel volatile compounds on mosquitoes and house flies.

It is very often that insecticides exhibit different toxicities among different insect species

(Camp at al. 1969, Coats 1979, Mallipudi & Fukuto 1979). Understanding how various

insecticides exhibit different toxicities among different insect species (insecticide selectivity)

will be necessary in order to appropriately explain and discuss the results presented in Chapters 5

& 6 of this paper.

Insecticide Selectivity

Once the insecticide enters the insect body it is recognized as a foreign substance or

"xenobiotic", and is metabolized to a less toxic and more polar substance that will eventually be

removed from the body. This metabolic process is called "detoxicification". However, it has

been shown that insecticides can also be converted into more toxic substances once within the

insect body. This process is known as "activation" (Feyereisen 2005). By far the two most

significant reactions involving the metabolism of insecticides are the NADPH-requiring

cytochrome P450 mono-oxygenases and the esterases or hydrolases (Feyereisen 2005, Oakeshott

et al. 2005). The first system is also known as the "mixed function oxidase" (MFO) system and it

performs the first oxidative enzymatic attack on xenobiotic compounds. These enzymes are quite

versatile and accept most xenobiotic copmpounds as their substrate. They require NADPH to

deliver the electrons down an electron transport system with cytochrome P450 as the terminal









oxidase of the electron transport chain. The final product of this reaction is the oxidized form of

the xenobiotic compound. The second reaction is a hydrolysis reaction and it involves the action

of several hydrolases, such as carboxylesterases, amidases, type A-esterases, which split esteratic

insecticide substrates with the addition of water to yield alcohols and acids as the final products.

The activity of these two enzymatic systems varies among different insect species,

potentially resulting in species differences in susceptibility to various insecticidal compounds.

Also, both enzymatic systems have been involved in insecticide resistance mechanisms.

Following I have several examples that demonstrate how the activities of these 2 enzymatic

systems vary among different insects and can affect the insect responses on various insecticides.

Casida et al. (1976) reported different ability of esterases to hydrolize pyrethroid insecticides

among 5 different insect species. Brooks (1986) reported esterases to be more important enzymes

for pyrethroid detoxification in Spodoptera littoralis (the Egyptian cotton leafworm),

Trichoplusia ni (cabbage looper) and Chrysoperla carnea (common green lacewing) larvae, and

oxidases more important in Tribolium ca~staneum (red flour beetle) larvae. Claudianos et al.

(2006) reported that honeybee shows much greater susceptibility to insecticides compared to

Anopheles gamnbiae and Drosophila due to a deficit of detoxification enzymes: there are only

about half as many cytochrome P450 monooxygenases and carboxyl/cholinesterases in the

honeybee compared to Anopheles gambiae and Drosophila. Phillips at al. (1990) and Benedict et

al. (1994) showed that genetically transformed Drosophila (op degrading gene) with high levels

of organophosphate hydrolases shows over 20-fold greater paraoxon resistance compared to

untransformed controls. Chang & Whalon (1987) showed that in resistant strains of predatory

mites some esterase isozymes demonstrated higher rates of synthetic pyrethroid hydrolysis

compared to the non-resistant strains. Also, P450 over expression was shown to various









insecticide resistant strains. For example Kasai et al. (1998) showed that the metabolism of

permethrin to 4-hydroxypermethrin was higher in microsomes from Culex mosquito larvae

resistant to permethrin than from the susceptible strain. Last, conversion of flpronil to its sulfone

by P450 has a marginal effect on the toxicity of the parent chemical in Diabrotica virgifera

(Scharf et al. 2000). However, in Blattela germanica it was shown that the oxidation of fipronil

to its sulfone constitutes an activation step (Valles et al. 1997).









CHAPTER 5
EVALUATION OF VAPOR TOXICITY OF NOVEL LOW MOLECULAR WEIGHT
COMPOUNDS ON MOSQUITOES

Introduction

Volatile insecticides have been commonly used as fumigants for the control of structural

pests and the protection of agricultural commodities. However, they have been mostly ignored

for the control of medical importance pests such as mosquitoes and flies. Dichlorvos (DDVP) is

the one volatile insecticide studied mostly on mosquitoes and flies. Dichlorvos is an

organophosphate insecticide and was registered in 1948 (EPA 2006). One very common

formulation of dichlorvos is resin strips. Resin strips were initially registered for use in areas

where flies, mosquitoes and other nuisance pests occur. Dichlorvos has been classified by the

Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) as a "probable human carcinogen", and because of its

implications in human health in 2006, its use in homes was restricted to confined spaces such as

wardrobes, cupboards and closets (EPA Offce 2006). Therefore, there is a need for replacement

of dichlorvos with friendlier, less toxic chemistries. Highly volatile, low molecular weight

formates, acetates, and heterobicyclics may be potential replacements for dichlorvos, and in their

own right may offer a new class of chemistry.

Thirty novel, low molecular weight compounds with insecticidal activity were tested on

Drosophila melan2oga~ster Meig. (Scharf et al. 2006). The compounds belonged to six different

families: heterobicyclics, formates, acetates, propionates, butyrates and valerates. Drosophila

was used as a model to assess potential efficacy of these novel chemistries against mosquitoes

and flies. Findings showed 7 highly effective compounds with vapor toxicity: four format esters

and three heterobicyclics. The reaction of an organic acid and an alcohol is called esterifieation,

where the end products are always ester and water. Formate esters are organic compounds

composed of formic acid and a corresponding alcohol. Acetate esters, similarly to format esters,










are composed of acetic acid and a corresponding alcohol. On the other hand the structure of

heterobicyclics is made from fused 5, 6-membered rings.

For my research I investigated the vapor toxicity effect of 4 heterobicyclic compounds, 7

format, and 4 acetate esters directly on mosquitoes. Most of the compounds that I evaluated in

the work presented here are naturally occurring products. They are found on fruits such as

apples, bananas, strawberries, oranges, kumquats, and coconuts just to name a few. They are

commercially used as flavoring agents in products such as coffee, chocolate, fruity drinks, rum,

wine, and tobacco. Most of the compounds have a rather strong and fruity odor, and therefore

they have many uses as odor agents. Another interesting characteristic of these products is that

they are part of the chemical structure of some pharmaceutical drugs, responsible for treating

insomnia, osteoporosis, and asthma. In Tables 5-1, 5-2, and 5-3 the chemical structures of each

individual chemical can be seen. Information such as molecular weight, boiling point, density,

natural occurrence and other physical properties are included in the same table as well.

Materials and Methods

Chemicals

Fifteen novel insecticides (Sigma Aldrich Chemical, Milwaukee, WI) were tested; 7

format esters [ethylene glycol di-formate (EGDF), methyl format, ethyl format, propyl

format, butyl format, hexyl format and heptyl formate, 4 heterobicyclic esters (menthofuran,

benzothiophene, coumaran and dimethyl-coumarone) and 4 acetate esters propyll acetate, butyl

acetate, pentyl acetate and hexyl acetate). Dichlorvos (DDVP) was tested as a positive control

(Chem Service, West Chester, PA). All insecticides were >99% pure and in liquid form except

for thiophene that came in a crystalline solid form. Insecticide stock solutions were prepared in

acetone at concentrations of 2, 100, 150, 200, 300 and 400 Clg/Cl. All compounds and stock









solutions were held at -20oC in glass vials with rubber lined caps to prevent vapor escape, until

placed in experiments.

The insecticide synergists SSS-tributyl-phosphorotrithioate (DEF) and piperonyl butoxide

(PBO), which are esterase and cytochrome P450 inhibitors respectively, were used (Mobay

Chemical Co., Kansas City, MO and MGK Inc., Minneapolis, MN). DEF and PBO were >95%

pure. DEF and PBO stock solutions were prepared at 100 Clg/ml in acetone.

Insects

Mosquitoes [USDA-CMAVE Orlando strain of Aedes aegypti (L.)] reared at the

University of Florida in Gainesville were used. Mosquitoes were reared on a 12:12 (L: D)

photoperiod, at 25oC and ~50% RH. Mosquito larvae were fed on a powder diet consisting of 2

parts liver (MB Biomedicals LLC, Aurora, OH) and 3 parts yeast (Modern Products Inc.,

Thiensville, WI). The diet was diluted in deionized water to a 40 g/liter concentration.

Approximately 1,500 larvae were reared in plastic trays (53.3 by 40.6 cm) containing 3 liters of

water. The quantity of the diluted diet varied depending on the larval instar. Mosquito larvae

were not fed for 24 h after hatching. Second and third instars were fed 30 ml of the diluted

medium per day; whereas, the diet of the fourth instars was decreased to 20 ml per day. When

maj ority of pupation had occurred no more food was provided. Pupae were removed and placed

into deli cups filled with deionized water. The deli cups were then placed into screened rearing

cages (39.4 by 26.7 by 26.7 cm) for adult emergence. Mosquito adults were maintained on a 10%

[w/v] solution of sugar water.

Prior to each treatment 3 to 5-d-old adult mosquitoes were aspirated from their cages and

placed into plastic deli cups on ice until their activity was reduced. Ten females were removed

from the deli cups using a feather tip forceps. A minimum of 300 mosquitoes were selected for

exposure to each insecticide.









Bionssay

Main bionssay set-up. This bioassay was adapted from Scharf et al. (2006) and Nguyen et

al. (2007) (Fig. 5-8). Ten females were transferred from the deli caps into 125 ml plastic vials.

Caps with an opening of~-2.6 cm in diameter, covered with common fiberglass window

screening (~1.55 mm mesh), were used to close the vials. The screening prevented insect escape

while allowing for gas exchange. Along with the mosquitoes a cotton wick (~1.5 cm in length)

dipped in 10% w/v solution of sugar water was placed in the vials. A toothpick (~6.3 cm in

length) was used to support the wick. The wick was provided as the nutrient and moisture source.

The mosquitoes were given 1 h to recover from the chilling effects of the ice prior to the

treatment, and then every vial was placed into a Mason 1 liter (1 quart) glass jar along with an

untreated filter paper (55 mm in diameter). Prior to closing the glass jar the filter paper was

treated with the proper quantity of insecticidal solution using an eppendorf pipette. The

concentrations of the insecticide solutions varied depending on the insecticide tested. Methyl and

propyl format were applied at a 100 Clg/C1l concentration and in a range from 1.2-1.8 mg.

Coumaran, butyl format, and hexyl format were applied at a 150 Clg/C1l concentration and in a

range from 0.75-3 mg, 1.05-1.95 mg, and 1.05-1.95 mg, respectively. Menthofuran,

benzothiophene, ethyl format, heptyl format, EGDF, propyl acetate and butyl acetate were

applied at a 200 Clg/C1l concentration and in a range from 2-4 mg, 1.6-4 mg, 1.4-2.6 mg, 1.6-4

mg, 2-4 mg, 2.8-4 mg and 2.8-4 mg, respectively. Dimethyl-coumarone and hexyl acetate were

applied at a 400 Clg/C1l concentration and in a range from 2-8 mg. DDVP was applied at a 2 Clg/C1l

concentration and in a range from 0.016-0.04 mg. There was, also, a blank control where the

filter paper received no chemical at all, and a solvent control, which received a volume of

acetone identical to the highest insecticide solution volume (up to 20 Cl). The j ars were closed

rapidly and tightly to prevent vapor escape and after a 24 h exposure mortality was recorded. In









order to determine mortality the jars were shaken for a minimum of 15 sec before mosquito

movement was observed. A mosquito was recorded dead when there was no movement

observed.

Synergist (DEF and PBO) bionssay set-up. The effect of the synergists PBO and DEF

for toxicity was investigated on three of the fifteen insecticides tested above: ethylene glycol di-

formate, heptyl format and menthofuran. The synergist bioassays were conducted in the same

way described above except that an extra step was added. That extra step involved the exposure

of the mosquitoes to the synergist, prior to their exposure to the insecticides (Nguyen et al.

2007). For the synergist bioassay the plastic vials were replaced with 125 ml glass vials to

prevent absorption of the synergist into the plastic. Synergist stock solutions at 100 Cll were

pipetted to every glass vial, using an eppendorf pipette, so that every vial would contain 10 Clg of

the synergist. Previous studies have shown that this synergist quantity causes no mortality in

Drosophila after 24 h of exposure (Nguyen et al. 2007). After treating the vials with the synergist

the vials were rolled on their sides under a fume hood to ensure equal distribution of the

synergist on the inner surfaces while the acetone evaporated. Once acetone evaporated, 10

mosquitoes were added in every glass vial along with a moist cotton wick, and were held for an

hour to allow for the synergist to take effect. Along with the blank and the solvent control, a

synergist control was added where the mosquitoes were only exposed to the synergist.

Data Analysis

In those cases where control mortality was observed data was adjusted using the Abbott's

formula (Abbott 1925). When control mortality exceeded 10% that rep was discarded. Probit

analysis was performed and the LCso and LC90 Of each insecticide with and without the synergist

were estimated (SAS Institute 2003). The data reported in Tables 5-4, and 5-5 include slope,

goodness of fit characteristics (chi-square, P-value) and LCso and LC90 OStimates with 95%









confidence limits. LC estimates with non overlapping 95% confidence limits were considered

significantly different.

Body-weight corrected LCsos of each insecticide for mosquitoes and Drosophila were

calculated (Table 5-6, Fig. 5-7). One hundred individuals from both species were weighed and

that weight was recorded. That number was then divided by 10 to give the average weight of 10

mosquitoes and 10 Drosophila (0.0153 and 0.006 g, respectively). The average weight of the 10

insects was used to adjust the LCso from mg/liter into mg/ g of insect body weight/liter.

PoloPlus 2.0 (2005) was used to calculate the potency ratios of the LC50s with & without

the synergist. The program calculated 95% confidence limits for every ratio. The 95% CI were

used to determine whether there were significant differences in the LC50s due to the effect of the

synergists (Table 5-5).

Linear regression analyses were performed (SAS Institute 2003) that compared LCso

estimates versus molecular weight, density and boiling point of the seven format esters, the four

heterobicyclics and the four acetate esters (Figs. 5-3, 5-4, 5-5, and 5-6).

Results

Toxicity Evaluation of Novel Compounds

DDVP was by far the most toxic compound tested on mosquitoes. Specifically, it was 54.4

times more toxic compared to the second best compound, the format ester methyl format.

Within the novel compounds, overall, format esters were the most toxic family followed by the

heterobicyclics and, last, by the acetate esters (Table 5-4, Fig. 5-1).

Formate esters. Methyl format was the most toxic ester (LCso estimate 1.36 mg/liter),

followed by butyl, propyl, ethyl, hexyl format, EGDF, and heptyl format. The toxicities of

propyl and ethyl format were not significantly different and there was no maj or difference

between them and butyl format. EGDF and heptyl format (LCso estimates 2.99 and 3.17










mg/liter, respectively) were the least toxic format esters with toxicities in the same range as the

heterobicyclics, the second best performing family of esters.

Heterobicyclics. Coumaran was the most toxic heterobicyclic (LCso estimate 2.03

mg/liter), followed by benzothiophene, dimethyl-coumarone and menthofuran. Benzothiophene

and dimethyl-coumarone were not significantly different. There were significant differences in

the slopes among the 4 heterobicyclic compounds. Coumaran, the best performing

heterobicyclic, had the smallest slope, which suggests that there is a lot of heterogeneity on the

response of the insects to the insecticide. On the other hand, menthofuran, the heterobicyclic

with the poorest performance, had the biggest slope, which suggests a lot of homogeneity on the

response of the insects towards the insecticide.

Acetate esters. Hexyl acetate was the least toxic compound (LCso estimate 5.09 mg/liter).

The toxicities of propyl, butyl and pentyl acetate were not significantly different.

Toxicity Evaluation of Novel Compounds with the Synergistic Effect of DEF and PBO

Whne heptyl format and EGDF were cotreated with DEF their toxicities decreased

significantly (Table 5-5, Fig. 5-2). The toxicity of heptyl format decreased by 1.35 times, where

as the toxicity of EGDF decreased by 2.56 times. Also, when menthofuran was combined with

PBO, its toxicity increased significantly.

Evaluation of the Role of Volatility in Toxicity

Molecular weight, density, and boiling point were investigated as predictors of volatility. A

chemical with lower molecular weight (lighter chemical), lower boiling point and lower density

volatilizes faster compared with a chemical having higher molecular weight (heavier chemical),

higher boiling point and higher density. Regression analysis between toxicity and volatility

predictors was performed for each of the three families separately and for all three families

together (Figs. 5-3, 5-4, 5-5, and 5-6). For the format esters the regressions of LCso versus









molecular weight, boiling point, and density were correlated with R2 0.57, 0.69, and 0.19,

respectively. For the heterobicyclics the regression of LCso versus molecular weight was

correlated with R2 0.88. On the other hand, the regressions of LCso versus density and boiling

point were weak (R2 < 0.25). Last, for the acetate esters the regressions of LCso versus molecular

weight, density and boiling point were weak (R2 = 0.24, R2 = 0.20, R2 = 0.24 respectively). When

combined families regression was performed there was a poor correlation between toxicity and

all 3 volatility predictors, except maybe with molecular weight (R2 = 0.5).

Discussion

Comparing Toxicities of Novel Compounds Among Mosquitoes and Drosophila

My study is the first report of the toxic effects of the novel volatile format, heterobicyclic,

and acetate compounds on mosquitoes. Scharf et al. (2006) reported the toxicity of these novel

compounds on D. melan2oga~ster Meig. Drospophila was used as a model to assess potential

efficacy of these compounds on mosquitoes and flies. Body-weight corrected LCso values (in mg

per g of insect per liter) of the 15 volatile compounds and the organophosphate DDVP on

mosquitoes and Drosophila can be seen in Table 5-6 and Fig. 5-7. There were significant

differences among the toxicities of the compounds on mosquitoes and Drosophila. DDVP was

by far the most toxic insecticide for both insects and was significantly more toxic to mosquitoes

than Drosophila. DDVP has been known as a very effective insecticide against various insects

for many years. Maddock and Sedlack (1961) gave one of the earliest reports regarding the

toxicity of DDVP on mosquitoes. They reported that 0.015 Clg of DDVP per liter of air will give

100% kill of Anopheles mosquitoes. All compounds, except for menthofuran, were significantly

more toxic to mosquitoes than Drosophila. On average the 14 compounds were approximately

3.5 times more toxic to mosquitoes, whereas menthofuran was 1.7 times more toxic to

Drosophila. On mosquitoes there was a toxicity trend observed among the three families, with









formates showing overall higher toxicity, followed by heterobicyclics and last by acetates.

However, there was not an apparent trend on toxicity among the three ester families on

Drosophila. Some of the best performing compounds and some of the poorest ones belonged to

the same chemical families. It was only the acetate esters that consistently showed poor toxicity.

The best 7 performing insecticides with vapor toxicity on Drosophila were the two

heterobicyclics menthofuran and benzothiophene. These two compounds were followed by the

format esters butyl, hexyl, heptyl format, the heterobicyclic coumaran and the format ester

ethyl format. The best 7 performing compounds on mosquitoes were the format esters methyl,

butyl, propyl and ethyl format. These compounds were followed by the format ester hexyl

format, the heterobicyclics coumaran, and benzothiophene. What is interesting is that the most

toxic compound on Drosophila, menthofuran, is one of the least toxic compounds when tested on

mosquitoes. Conversely, the most toxic compound on mosquitoes, methyl format, is one of two

least toxic compounds when tested on Drosophila.

There are several possible explanations as to why the compounds performed differently on

mosquitoes than Drosophila. A first explanation could be differences on the insect handling

techniques during the experimentation. Scharf et al. (2006) used CO2 to knock down Drosophila

prior to exposing them on the insecticides, whereas I used ice for knocking down mosquitoes.

Another explanation could be physiological differences in acquiring and metabolizing

insecticides. The lethal effects of insecticidal compounds depend upon the amount of insecticide

that reaches the target site (site of action). The amount of insecticide that reaches the target site is

controlled by certain processes such as penetration through the insect cuticle, diffusion through

the insect spiracles, bioactivation/biodegradation within the insect body, travel distance to the

site of action and finally excretion just to name a few (Quraishi 1977, Matsumura 1980, Yu










2006). Different insect species can differ greatly in susceptibility to insecticidal compounds due

to distinct differences in the physical and physiological processes mentioned above. Insecticides

with high vapor pressures, such as the insecticides studied in this paper, show the tendency to

enter the insect body through the spiracles (Matsumura 1980). Therefore, the susceptibility of an

insect to a vapor toxicant is believed to be correlated with its rate of respiration (Vincent &

Lindgren 1965). In general, different insects exhibit different patterns of gas exchange when at

rest (Lighton 1988, 1990, Lighton & Berrigan 1995). The most familiar and well studied pattern

is the Discontinuous Gas Exchange Cycle (DGC) (Kestler 1985, Lighton 1994), where the

spiracles remain closed for lengthy periods of time allowing for no gas exchange. This closed-

spiracle phase is followed by a fluttering-spiracle phase and finally an open-spiracle phase where

the accumulated CO2 eScapes form the tracheal system to the surrounding environment. Little

information, however, is available on the respiratory pattern of small insects (body weight ~ 1

mg) such as Drosophila (Williams et al. 1997, Williams and Bradley 1998, Lehman et al. 2000,

Fielden et al. 2001), and even less information is available on mosquitoes (Diarra et al. 1999,

Gray & Bradley 2003, Gray & Bradley 2006). What is known so far is that both mosquitoes &

Drosophila have the ability to control gas release from their tracheal system. There is some

evidence to support that both insects perform DGC, however further research is needed to

conclusively test this hypothesis. Due to the absence of evidence one should consider that

mosquitoes and Drosophila may follow a different breathing pattern. If this is true, the insects

may be allowing different amounts of insecticide to enter their body and this may be one of the

factors responsible for the different responses they show to the various insecticides tested.

Another explanation could be differences in the detoxification systems among mosquitoes

and Drosophila. Once an insecticide enters the insect body it is perceived as a foreign substance









or xenobiotic, and is metabolized by different metabolical processes with the ultimate goal to be

converted into a less toxic polar substance that will eventually be removed form the body. This

metabolic process is called "detoxification". By far the two most significant reactions involving

the metabolism of insecticides are the NADPH-requiring general oxidation system and the

hydrolysis of esters (Matsumura 1980). The activity of these two enzymatic systems varies

among different insect species, resulting in species differences in susceptibility to various

insecticidal compounds (Casida et al. 1976. Brooks 1986, Valles et al. 1997, Scharf et al. 2000).

Implications of the Synergistic Effects of PBO and DEF on the Toxicity of the Novel
Compounds on Mosquitoes

The modes of action of the novel format, acetate, and heterobicyclic compounds on

mosquitoes so far remain undefined. According to the results presented in this study there seems

to be a significant effect of cytochrome P450 enzymes on menthofuran detoxification. Also,

there was evidence supporting esterase-based activation of both heptyl format and ethylene

glycol di-formate. When heptyl format and ethylene glycol di-formate were synergized with the

esterase inhibitor DEF their toxicities decreased by 1.35 and 2.56 times, respectively. The first

finding comes in agreement with Nguyen (2007), who showed in Drosophila that P450 enzymes

play a significant role in menthofuran detoxification and activation, depending on the fly strain.

The second finding comes in agreement with both Haritos & Doj chinov (2003), and Nguyen

(2007), who supported esterase based activation of some format esters. In order for more

legitimate conclusions to be made more extensive and complete research needs to be conducted

where all of the esters will be tested in combination with both synergists on susceptible and even

resistant mosquito species.









Structure-activity Relationships of the Three Families of Novel Compounds

As one might expect the tendency of a chemical to volatilize should play an important role

in its vapor-phase toxicity. However, this did not always seem to be the case with the novel,

volatile compounds studied in this research. Scharf et al (2006) did a combined ester and

heterobicyclic regression analysis between toxicity and the three volatility predictors: molecular

weight, boiling point, and density. According to their findings there was a statistically weak

correlation between toxicity and all three volatility predictors. I performed regression analyses

for each of the three families separately and for all of them combined together. When studied

each family separately I was able to show reasonable correlation between toxicity and volatility

predictors for some of the families. For the format esters the regression analysis demonstrated a

reasonable correlation between toxicity and the volatility predictors: molecular weight, and

boiling point. However, there was a weak correlation between toxicity and density. For the

heterobicyclics there was a strong correlation between toxicity and molecular weight, and a weak

correlation between toxicity and the rest two volatility predictors (boiling point, density). For the

acetate esters there was overall a weak correlation between the three volatility predictors and

toxicity. When I evaluated all the compounds together there was overall a statistically weak

correlation between toxicity and volatility. My findings, as well as Scharf s et al. (2006)

findings, showed that high ester volatility did not necessarily coincide with high ester toxicity.

What that implies is that there should be other factors, such as structure dependent factors,

affecting the widely varying toxicity of the volatile esters.

With respect to the heterobicyclics 2 structure-activity relationship trends are apparent.

First, when no peripheral methyl groups are present, oxygen in the first position of the furan ring

is associated with greater toxicity than if sulfur is in this position (i.e. coumaran >

benzothiophene). However, that contradicts Scharf s et al (2006) findings, where they showed









that sulfur in the first position of the furan ring is associated with higher toxicity. Second, when

oxygen is in the first position of the furan ring and peripheral methyl branches are present,

adj acent methyl branches are associated with greater toxicity than opposing methyl branches (i.e.

dimethyl-coumarone > menthofuran). This finding comes in disagreement with Scharf et al.

(2006), who showed that opposing methyl branches are associated with higher toxicity than

adj acent methyl branches. The compounds showed different structure-activity relationships

between mosquitoes and Drosophila, which suggests that the compounds may follow different

metabolic pathways and may exhibit different modes of action within the two insect species.

With respect to the format and acetate esters some structure activity relationships are

apparent as well. First, as the aliphatic chain length on the acid group increases toxicity

decreases for the maj ority of the formates (i.e. methyl formate>ethyl formate=propyl

formate>hexyl formate>heptyl formate. On the other hand, there was a different activity-

structure trend for formates when tested on Drosophila (Scharf et al. 2006). They showed that

esters of intermediate chain length demonstrated greater toxicity (i.e butyl format, hexyl

formate, with lower toxicity for methyl and ethyl formates. Also, formates elicited higher

toxicity than acetates implying that the format group within the aliphatic chain is correlated

with higher toxicity than the acetate group. This comes in agreement with Scharf et al. (2006),

who showed that acetate esters were a less toxic family compared to format esters.

In conclusion, DDVP was by far the most toxic insecticide for both insects and was

significantly more toxic to mosquitoes than Drosophila. All insecticidal compounds, except for

menthofuran, were significantly more toxic to mosquitoes than Drosophila. On mosquitoes there

was a toxicity trend observed among the three families, with formates showing overall higher









toxicity, followed by heterobicyclics and last by acetates. The novel compound with the highest

insecticide activity on mosquitoes was methyl format.










Table 5-1. Physical and chemical properties of format esters

Mol. bp Density Natural Other
Formate Esters Used as
Weight (OC) (g/ml) occurrence Properties

Methyl formate-Qikdyn

B finishes Clear liquid
~-Alternative to with an
60.05 33 0.974
CH 3 sulfur dioxide ethereal
t~Cb-CH3in domestic odor
refrigerators
Ethyl format
Flavoring
Characteristi
7408 53 0.921 aetc smell of
raspberriess m


Propyl format Colorless
O Apple, Flavoring
liquid with a
88.11 805 0.904 Pineapple, agent(brandy swe
Plum, & rum
Currant products) fut/er

Butyl format
0 Flavoring/odor Colorless
agent (rum, liquid with a
II102.13 106.5 0.892 Pear
pear, plum fruity/green
0 H products) odor

Hexyl format
Flavoring/odor
0~CC C agent (apple, Colorless
H- --C--C-CC-C3 10.18 1555 0.79 earbanana, 1emon, liquid with
H,H, H, H2 H, strawberry, medium
orange fruity odor
products)


Heptyl format Flavoring/odor
agent (apple, Colorless
O apricot, liquid with a
11 144.21 178 0.882 Kumquat coconut, medium
H -C-O -C, H. kumquat,peach green/floral/
< 1 rose, wine apple scent
products)
Ethylene glycol di-
formate Colorless,

~00O 0 18.09 176 1.226 odorless
O^ N liquid












Table 5-2. Physical and chemical properties of heterobicyclics

Mol. bp Density Natural Other
Heterobicyclic Esters .Used as
Weight ("C) (g/ml) occurrence Properties
Menthofuran


Flavoring/odor Bluish clear
agent liquid with a
150.22 205 0.97 Peppermint (chocolate, musty
/ oilcoffee, nuttv/coffee
peppermint) odor



benzothiophene Found in the
chemical
Constituent structure of Solid
of pharmaceutical crystalline
petroleum drugs for form with an
\ 13420 21.5 .149 related treating odor similar
deposits osteoporosis & to
S (lignite tar) asthma naphthalene
(raloxifen,
zileuton)
Found in the
Coumaran
chemical

structure
~ ~ Ca 120.15 188.5 1.065 1 pharmaceuticalsrcu o
(insommia
treatments)
Dimethyl-coumarone
Flavoring/odor
CH, agent Pale yellow
r Cade oil (chocolate, liquid with a
I146.19 101.5 1.034 Tobacco coffee, strong
Coffee tobacco, phenolic
CHvanilla, leather odor
products)











Table 5-3. Physical and chemical properties of acetate esters
Mol. bp Density Natural Other
Acetate Esters Used as
Weight ("C) (g/ml) occurrence Properties

Propdl acetate Clear
O colorless

agent
an odor of
.K 1023 102 .888 Favorin/odorpearsliudwt


Butdl acetate Several
fuit (eg Flavoring
Agent (candy, Colorless
116.16 125 0.88 Apptsles i ice-cream,gos liquid with a
the Red
cheeses, baked fruity odor
Delicious
variety)


Pentvl acetate Colorless
liquid with
130.18 146 0.876 ba a a ooan odor
similar to




Hexdl acetate
Colorless
144.21 169 0.87Flavoring andfrgac
liquid with a
fnuitv/pear
agent oo





















































0.24

0.03

0.24

0.63


0.88

0.98

0.88

0.42


Insecticide Familie


s Slope + SE LC50 mg/liter LC90 mg/liter X2 P
(95% CI) (95% CI)


I


Table 5-4. Vapor toxicities of 15 novel, low molecular weight, volatile compounds and the
organophosphate DDVP to mosquitoes Aedes aegypti (L.)


Insecticides
Organophosphates

DDVPa
Formate esters


Methyl format

Ethyl format

Propyl format

Butyl format

Hexyl format

Heptyl format

EGDF
Heterobicyclics


4.84 f 0.51 0.025 (0.023-0.027)


0.047 (0.042-0.056)



1.83 (1.74-1.98)

2.37 (2.25-2.54)

2.45 (2.15-3.38)

2.25 (2.08-2.50)

2.76 (2.47-3.29)

5.88 (4.99-7.54)

4.14 (3.90-4.48)



4.66 (4.37-5.21)

5.33 (4.70-6.42)

4.35 (4.13-4.62)

5.19 (4.22-7.05)



7.11 (5.73-11.8)

5.70 (5.04-7.16)

5.49 (4.91-6.72)

8.23 (7.52-9.38)


4.50 0.11


9.84 f 1.10

9.12 f 0.82

7.87 f 1.70

7.79 f 0.76

7.52 f 0.90

4.79 f 0.55

9.12 f 0.81



11.66 f 1.72

4.83 f 0.50

7.86 f 0.49

3.14 f 0.34



5.89 f 1.22

7.83 f 1.22

8.04 f 1.21

6.15 f 0.69


1.36 (1.311-1.40)

1.7 (1.64-1.78)

1.69 (1.62-1.80)

1.54 (1.48-1.60)

1.86 (1.77-2.00)

3.17 (2.92-3.51)

2.99 (2.89-3.11)



3.62 (3.51-3.73)

2.89 (2.71-3.10)

2.98 (2.88-3.09)

2.03 (1.84-2.26)



4.31 (3.98-5.11)

3.91 (3.73-4.21)

3.80 (3.65-4.05)

5.09 (4.75-5.41)


4.09

3.06

2.66

4.50

4.00

4.56

1.98



2.36

1.20

4.94


0.13

0.22

0.10

0.10

0.13

0.33

0.96



0.49

0.54

0.55


Menthofu~ran

Benzothiophene

Dimethyl-coumarone


Coumaran
Acetate esters


2.57 0.27


Propyl acetate

Butyl acetate

Pentvl acetate

Hexyl acetate
a Positive Control.










Table 5-5. Vapor toxicity of EGDF, heptyl format & menthofuran with and without the
synergistic effect of DEF and PBO to mosquitoes Aedes aegytpi (L.)
Insecticides Slope + LC50 LC90 X2 P Potency
SE mg/liter mg/liter ratio a
(95%CI) (95% CI)
EGDF 9.12 f 2.99 4.14 1.98 0.96
0.81 (2.89-3.11) (3.90-4.48)
2.56
EGDF + DEF 6.36 & 7.67 12.19 0.34 0.98 (2.39-2.73)
0.69 (7.23-8.08) (11.19-13.80)

Heptyl format 4.79 f 3.17 5.88 4.56 0.33
0.55 (2.92-3.51) (4.99-7.54)
1.35
Heptyl format + 8.33 & 4.29 6.12 2.20 0.69 (1.23-1.49)
DEF 0.82 (4. 12-4.47) (5.74-6.70)

Menthofuran 11.66 f 3.62 4.66 2.37 0.49
1.72 (3.51-3.73) (4.37-5.21)
0.932 (0.89-
Menthofuran + 8.47 & 3.37 4.77 5.37 0.14 0.98)
PBO 0.96 (3.24-3.52) (4.39-5.42)

a LCso+synergist / LCso.










Table 5-6. Body-weight corrected vapor toxicities of 15 novel, low molecular weight, volatile
compounds and the organophosphate DDVP to mosquitoes Aedes aegytpi (L.) and
Drosophila melan2oga~ster Mei g.
Insecticide Families Mosquito LC50 mg/gr of Drosophila LC50 mg/gr of
insect/liter (95%CI) insect/1iter (95%CI) c
Insecticides
Organophosphates


I


DDVPa 1.68
Formates esters

Methyl format 88 (1

Ethyl format 112

Propyl format 110

Butyl format 100

Hexyl format 130

Heptyl format 206
EGDF 194
Heterobicyclics

Menthofuran 230

Benzothiophene 190

Dimethyl coumarone 194
Coumaran 132
Acetate esters

Propyl acetate 282

Butyl acetate 256

Pentyl acetate 248

Hexyl acetate 333
a Positive control.
b Not determined.
" Drosophila data Scharf et al. 2006.


(1.5-1.76)


85.68-91.5)

(107.2-116.3)

(105.8-117.6)

(96.7-104.5)

(115.6-130.7)

(190.8-229.4)

(188.8-203.3)


(229.4-243.7)

(177.1-202.6)

(188.2-201.9)

(120.3-147.7)


(260.1-333.9)

(243.8-275.2)

(238.5-264.7)

(310.4-353.6)


3.7 (3.2-4.3)


824 (636.6-1,776)

550 (493.3-636.6)

610 (593-626.6)

304 (266.6-332)

380 (356.6-400)

450 (420-475.3)

834 (676.6-1,846)


136 (120-150)

266 (236.6-293.3)

654 (513.3-817.3)

490 (446.6-553.3)


683 (ND)b

607 (576.6-643.3)

597 (550-660)

553 (526.6-583.3)







Acetates

Heterobicyclics
4.31v 5.09
Formates 4.-

3.62 3.9 3.8


m


(7 l1.86
0 1.7 1.69
1.54

1.3 :E


2.89 2.98 ~

~2.03


2.99


1

0


~:,~" Gs",d" Q .di*",fi"~s~~ 88" q~S OI~~ ~9~ B B ~P~
~s~ t~s"i QPiC ~ ~e~S.~2~ ~pt~ ~ 9~8~ ~f~i


Figure 5-1. The LCso values of mosquitoes Aedes aegypti (L.) when exposed on vapors of 15, novel, low molecular weight
compounds.


4 -


2 _















9
8
7

,6

E 5
54


2
1
0


7.67


4.29


3.62


3.17


3.37


2.99


EGDF + DEF Heptyl format Heptyl format + Menthofuran Menthofuran +
DEF PBO


EGDF


Figure 5-2. The LC5o values of mosquitoes Aedes aegypti (L.) when exposed on the vapors of
EGDF, heptyl format, and menthofuran with and without the synergistic effect of
DEF and PBO.



















y = 31.849x + 37.298
R2 = 0.5763



1 1.5 2 2.5 3 3.5
LC50 (mglL)


200
180
160
140
120
100
80
60
40
20
0


y =68.026x -27.28
R2 =0.6939


LC50 (mg/L)


1.2

1.15


1.1

1.05



0.95 y =0.0748x + 0.801
R2 =0.1912
0.9 *


0.85
1.2 1.7 2.2 2.7 3.2
LC50 (mg/L)



Figure 5-3. Regression analyses of the LCso versus the physical properties of each of the 7
format esters. A) LC5o versus molecular weight. B) LC5o versus boiling point. C)
LCso versus density.













150

145

g 140
S135

130

125

120


y = 19.525x + 81.457
R2 = 0.8889


1.8 2.3 2.8
LC50 (mg/L)


cc170

150


m 130


y =2.9995x +170.49
R2 =0.0013


1.8 2.3 2.8
LC60 (mg/L)


3.3 3.8


1.16
1.14
1.12
1.1
1.08
1.06
1.04
1.02
1
0.98
0.96


y = -0.0567x + 1.2177
R2 = 0.2477


1.8 2.3 2.8

C LC50 (mg/L)


3.3 3.8


Figure 5-4. Regression analyses of the LCso versus the physical properties of each of the 4
heterobicyclics. A) LCso versus molecular weight. B) LCso versus boiling point. C)
LC5o versus density.















150

145

140

,135

S130

~125


115

110

105

100


y =15.275x +57.874
R = 0.2447









4.2 4.7 5.2
LC50 (mg/L)


y =24.383x + 31.201
R = 0.247


3.7 3.9 4.1 4.3 4.5 4.7 4.9 5.1
LC50 (mg/L)


0.89
0.888
0.886
-0.884

S0.882
0.88
'a0.878
$ 0.876
0.874
0.872
0.87
0.868
3.7


y =-0.0058x + 0.9034
R = 0.2025

r


LC50 (mg/L)


Figure 5-5. Regression analyses of the LCso versus the physical properties of each of the 4
acetates. A) LCso versus molecular weight. B) LCso versus boiling point. C) LCso
versus density.





















y =56.999x + 44.153
R2 = 0.5004


LC50s (mg/L)


S200




.

m 50


*~y = 21.076x +75.734
~R2 =0.1847


2 4 6
LC50s (mg/0.5L)


y =-0.0144x + 1.002
R2 =0.022


1 2 3 4 5 6

C LC50s (mglL)



Figure 5-6. Regression analyses of the LC5o versus the physical properties of all the 15 novel
compounds (formates, acetates, and heterobicyclics). A) LCso versus molecular
weight. B) LC5o versus boiling point. C) LC5o versus density.









M Mosquito
I Drosophila


Comparing toxicities of novel volatile esters on
mosquitoes and Drosophila


Fo rmaates


Heter bicyclics Acqtates


900
800
700
600
500
400
300
200
100
0


Figure 5-7. Body-weight corrected LCso values for mosquiotes Aedes aegypti & Drosophila when exposed to the vapors of the 15 low
molecular weight esters and the organophosphate DDVP.











































Figure 5-8. Main bioassay set-up.









CHAPTER 6
EVALUATION OF VAPOR TOXICITY OF NOVEL LOW MOLECULAR WEIGHT
COMPOUNDS ON HOUSE FLIES

Introduction

Volatile insecticides have been commonly used as fumigants for the control of structural

pests and the protection of agricultural properties. However, they have been mostly ignored for

the control of medical importance pests such as mosquitoes and flies. Dichlorvos (DDVP) is the

one volatile insecticide mostly studied on mosquitoes and flies. Dichlorvos is an

organophosphate insecticide and was registered in 1948 (EPA 2006). One very common

formulation of dichlorvos is resin strips. Resin strips were initially registered for use in areas

where flies, mosquitoes and other nuisance pests occur. Dichlorvos has been classified by the

Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) as a "probable human carcinogen", and because of its

implications in human health in 2006, its use in homes was restricted to confined spaces such as

wardrobes, cupboards and closets (EPA Offce 2006). Therefore, there is a need for replacement

of dichlorvos with friendlier, less toxic chemistries. Low molecular weight, highly volatile

formates, acetates, and heterobicyclics may be potential replacement for dichlorvos.

Thirty novel, low molecular weight compounds with insecticidal activity were tested on

Drosophila melan2oga~ster Meig. (Scharf et al. 2006). The compounds belonged to six different

families: heterobicyclics, formates, acetates, propionates, butyrates and valerates. Drosophila

was used as a model to assess potential efficacy of these novel chemistries against mosquitoes

and flies. Findings showed 7 highly effective compounds with vapor toxicity: four format esters

and three heterobicyclics. The reaction of an organic acid and an alcohol is called esterifieation,

where the end products are always ester and water. Formate esters are organic compounds

composed of formic acid and a corresponding alcohol. Acetate esters, similarly to format esters,









are composed of acetic acid and a corresponding alcohol. On the other hand the structure of

heterobicyclics is made from fused 5, 6-membered rings.

For my research I investigated the vapor toxicity effect of three of those compounds, one

heterobicyclic (menthofuran) and two format esters (ethylene glycol diformate, heptyl format)

directly on house flies. Both heptyl format and menthofuran are naturally occurring compounds.

Heptyl format is naturally found in kumquats and has a floral, apple scent. It is commercially

used as a flavoring agent in apple, apricot, kumquat, and wine products to name a few.

Menthofuran is naturally found in peppermint oil. It has a musty, nutty odor and is used as a

flavoring/odor agent in coffee and chocolate products. In Table 5-1 the chemical structures of the

three chemicals can be seen. Information such as molecular weight, boiling point, density,

natural occurrence and other physical properties are included in the same table as well.

Materials and Methods

Chemicals

Three novel insecticides (Sigma Aldrich Chemical, Milwaukee, WI) were tested; one

heterobicyclic (menthofuran) and 2 format esters [heptyl-formate and ethylene glycol di-

formate (EGDF)]. Dichlorvos (DDVP) was tested as a positive control (Chem Service, West

Chester, PA). All insecticides were >99% pure and in a liquid form. Insecticide stock solutions

were prepared in acetone at concentrations of 200 or 10 Clg/C1l. All compounds and stock

solutions were held at -20oC in glass vials with rubber lined caps to prevent vapor escape until

placed in experiments.

The insecticide synergists SSS-tributyl-phosphorotrithioate (DEF) and piperonyl butoxide

(PBO), which are esterase and cytochrome P450 inhibitors respectively, were used (Mobay

Chemical Co., Kansas City, MO and MGK Inc., Minneapolis, MN). DEF and PBO were >95%

pure. DEF and PBO stock solutions were prepared at 100Clg/ml in acetone.









Ceramic Rods

Hydrophilic, ceramic, porous rods (Small Parts, Inc., Miami, FL) were used to provide

controlled vapor release of the volatile compound heptyl format. The rods were 7.5 cm in length

and 1.3 cm in diameter. The porous size of the ceramic rods was 2.5 microns and 3 8% of each

rod was void volume. In order to decrease insecticidal release rate, the rods were covered tightly

with aluminum foil leaving one end exposed, prior to being treated with insecticide.

Insects

Flies [Horse-Teaching-Unit (HTU) strain of2~usca domestic (L.)] reared at the University

of Florida in Gainesville were used. Flies were reared on a 12: 12 (L:D) photoperiod at 26oC and

~55% RH. Fly larvae were fed on a medium containing 3 liters wheat bran, 1.5 liters water, and

250 ml of dairy calf feed (Calf Manna; Manna Pro. Corp., St. Louis, MO) pellets. Fly pupae

were separated from the medium and placed into screened rearing cages (40.6 by 26.7 by 26.7

cm) for emergence. Fly adults were maintained on a 2 parts granulated sugar and 1 part

powdered milk diet with water a~d libitum.

Prior to each treatment 3 to 5-d-old adult flies were aspirated from their cages and placed

into plastic deli cups on ice until their activity was reduced. Ten females were removed from the

deli cups using a feather tip forceps. A minimum of 300 flies were selected for exposure to each

insecticide.

Bionssay

Main bionssay set-up. Ten females were transferred from the deli caps into 125 ml plastic

vials. Caps with an opening of~-2.6 cm in diameter, covered with common fiberglass window

screening (~1.55 mm mesh), were used to close the vials. The screening prevented insect escape

while allowing for gas exchange. Along with the house flies a cotton wick (~1.5 cm in length)

dipped in 10% w/v solution of sugar water was placed in the vials. A toothpick (~6.3 cm in










length) was used to support the wick. The wick was provided as the nutrient and moisture source.

The flies were given 1 h to recover from the chilling effects of the ice prior to the treatment, and

then every vial was placed into a Mason 1 liter (1 quart) glass jar along with an untreated filter

paper (55mm in diameter). Prior to closing the glass jar the filter paper was treated with the

proper quantity of insecticidal solution using an eppendorf pipette. The concentration of the

insecticidal solution varied depending on the insecticide tested. Menthofuran was applied at a

200 Clg/C1l concentration and in a range from 1-4 mg. Pure heptyl format and pure EGDF were

applied in a range from 18-44 mg and 2.5-15 mg, respectively. DDVP was applied at a

concentration of 10 Clg/C1l and in a range from 0.1-0.2 mg. There was also a blank control where

the filter paper received no chemical at all, and a solvent control, which received a volume of

acetone identical to the highest insecticide solution volume (up to 20 Cl). In order to determine

mortality the j ars were shaken for a minimum of 15 sec before fly movement was observed. A

fly was recorded dead when there was no movement observed.

Synergist (DEF and PBO) bionssay set-up. The effect of synergists on the toxicity of the

three insecticides tested above was investigated. The synergist bioassay was conducted in the

same way described above except that an extra step was added. That extra step involved the

exposure of the house flies to the synergist, prior to their exposure on the insecticides. For the

synergist bioassay the plastic vials were replaced with 125 ml glass vials to prevent absorption of

the synergist into the plastic. Synergist stock solutions at 100 Cll were pipetted to every glass vial

using an eppendorf pipette, so that every vial would contain 10 Clg of the synergist. Previous

studies have shown that this synergist quantity causes no insect mortality after 24 h of exposure

(Nguyen et al. 2007). After treating the vials with the synergist, the vials were rolled on their

sides under a fume hood to ensure equal distribution of the synergist on the inner surfaces while









the acetone evaporated. Once acetone evaporated, 10 house flies were added in every glass vial

along with the moist cotton wick and were held for an hour to allow for the synergist to take

effect. Along with the blank and the solvent control, a synergist control was added where the

flies were only exposed to the synergist.

Controlled vapor release of heptyl format. Ceramic rods were used to determine

effectiveness of heptyl format in killing house flies over time. For the rod bioassay the house

flies were handled the exact same way as described before. Three different treatments were

tested and one blank control. In the first treatment flies within the glass jars were exposed to a

single rod embedded with 3.81 g of heptyl format. This treatment was replicated Hyve times. In

the second treatment flies were exposed to a filter paper embedded with 0.95 g of heptyl format,

which is the amount of heptyl format that a single rod is anticipated to release within 24 hrs. In

the third and Einal treatment the insects were exposed to a filter paper embedded with the same

amount of heptyl format as the rods. Mortality was determined every 24 hrs after which the Hyve

rods and the treated fi1ter papers were removed to new j ars with new insects. The process was

repeated over a 9 day period.

Data Analysis

In those cases where control mortality was observed data was adjusted using the Abbott's

formula (Abbott 1925). When control mortality exceeded 10% that rep was discarded. Probit

analysis was performed and the LCso and LC90 Of each insecticide with and without the synergist

were estimated (SAS Institute 2003). The data reported in Tables 6-1, and 6-2 include slope,

goodness of fit characteristics (chi-square, P-value) and LCso and LC90 OStimates with 95%

confidence limits. LC estimates with non overlapping 95% confidence limits were considered

significantly different.










Body-weight corrected LCso of each insecticide for house flies and Drosophila were

calculated. One hundred individuals from both species were weighed and that weight was

recorded. That number was then divided by 10 to give the average weight of 10 house flies and

10 Drosophila (0.2126 and 0.006 g, respectively). The average weight of the 10 insects was used

to adjust the LCso from mg/liter into mg/ g of insect body weight/liter. The Drosophila data were

retrieved from Scharf et al. (2006).

PoloPlus 2.0 (2005) was used to calculate the potency ratios of the LC50s with & without

the synergist. The program calculated 95% confidence limits for every ratio. The 95% CI were

used to determine whether there were significant differences in the LC50s due to the effect of the

synergi sts.

In order to determine heptyl format release rate form each rod regression analysis was

performed (SAS Institute 2003) that showed the relationship between release of heptyl format

vapors and time. The rods were weighed before and after being embedded with heptyl format.

The decrease in the rod weight was recorded through time and the release of heptyl format was

estimated. According to the regression equation [y=0.0006x-0.0003 and R2= 0.9994, where y

represents heptyl format weight in grams and x represents time of release in minutes] it would

require at least 1 11.1 1 hours for 4 g of heptyl format to be released. Also, SNK (Student-

Newman-Keuls) test was performed to determine the day when significant decrease in house fly

mortality for the rod (3.81 g) treatment was seen (SAS Institute 2003).

Results

Toxicity Evaluation of Novel Compounds

DDVP was by far the most toxic compound tested on house flies. Specifically, it was 25

times more toxic compared to the second best compound, the heterobicyclic menthofuran.

Menthofuran was the most toxic compound among the three compounds tested on house flies










(LCso estimate 3.70 mg/liter). EGDF was the second most toxic compound and heptyl format

was the least toxic compound among the three (LCso estimates 9.27 and 32.62 mg/liter,

respectively) (Table 6-1, Table 6-2, Fig. 6-1).

Toxicity Evaluation of Novel Compounds with the Synergistic Effect of DEF and PBO

For heptyl format and EGDF, when co-applied with DEF, their toxicities decreased

significantly. The toxicity of heptyl format decreased by 1.5 times, whereas the toxicity of

EGDF decreased by 2 times. Also, the toxicity of menthofuran increased by 1.5 times, when it

was synergized with PBO. All synergist effects were significant at the LC5o level.

Effectiveness of Controlled Vapor Release of Heptyl Formate in Killing House Flies

The mortality data among the different treatments are shown in Table 6-3. The control

treatment caused no mortality throughout the duration of the experiment, which lasted for 9 days.

The fi1ter paper treated with 0.95 g of heptyl format caused 100% mortality for the first day.

The fi1ter paper treated with 3.81 g of heptyl format caused mortality for days 1, 2, and 3. The

rod embedded with 3.81 g of heptyl format caused mortality throughout the duration of the

experiment. Also, it was on the 9th day when significant decrease in house fly mortality was seen.

Discussion

Comparing Toxicities of Novel Compounds Among House Flies and Drosophila

This study is the first report of the toxic effects of the novel volatile compounds heptyl

format, EGDF, and menthofuran on house flies. Scharf et al. (2006) reported toxicity of these

novel compounds on D. melan2oga~ster Meig. They used Drospophila as a model to assess

potential efficacy of these compounds on mosquitoes and flies. There were significant

differences among the toxicities of the compounds on house flies and Drosophila (Table 6-2).

Overall, all the compounds were more toxic to house flies than Drosophila. DDVP was by far

the most toxic insecticide for both insects and was significantly more toxic to house flies than









Drosophila. Specifically, DDVP was 5.2 times more toxic to Drosophila than house flies. DDVP

has been known as a very effective insecticide against various insects for many years. Ihnidris

and Sullivan (1956) gave one of the earliest reports regarding the toxicity of DDVP against

house flies. They reported 100 % knock down of house flies after 2 hours exposure to DDVP

vapors. On average the compounds were approximately by 10 times more toxic to house flies

than Drosophila. Menthofuran was the most toxic compound when tested on both insects.

However, heptyl format was more toxic than EGDF to Drosophila and less toxic than EGDF to

house flies.

There are several possible explanations as to why the compounds performed differently on

house flies and Drosophila. A first explanation could be differences on the insect handling

techniques during the experimentation. Scharf et al. (2006) used CO2 to knock down Drosophila

prior to exposing them on the insecticides, whereas I used ice for knocking down house flies.

Another explanation could be species differences on acquiring and metabolizing insecticides.

The lethal effects of insecticidal compounds depend upon the amount of insecticide that reaches

the target site (site of action). The amount of insecticide that reaches the target site is controlled

by certain processes such as penetration through the insect cuticle, diffusion through the insect

spiracles, bioactivation/biodegradation within the insect body, travel distance to the site of action

and finally excretion just to name a few (Quraishi 1977, Matsumura 1980, Yu 2006). Different

insect species can differ greatly in susceptibility to insecticidal compounds due to distinct

differences in the physical and physiological processes mentioned above. Insecticides with high

vapor pressures, such as the insecticides studied in this paper, show the tendency to enter the

insect body through the spiracles (Matsumura 1980). Therefore, the susceptibility of an insect to

a vapor toxicant is believed to be correlated with its rate of respiration (Vincent & Lindgren










1965). In general, different insects exhibit different patterns of gas exchange when at rest

(Lighton 1988, 1990, Lighton & Berrigan 1995). The most familiar and well studied pattern is

the Discontinuous Gas Exchange Cycle (DGC) (Kestler 1985, Lighton 1994), where the spiracles

remain close for lengthy periods of time allowing for no gas exchange. This close-spiracle phase

is followed by a fluttering-spiracle phase and Einally an open-spiracle phase where the

accumulated CO2 eScapes form the tracheal system to the surrounding environment. Little

information, however, is available on the respiratory pattern of small insects (body weight ~ 1

mg) such as Drosophila (Williams et al.1997, Williams and Bradley 1998, Lehman et al. 2000,

Fielden et al. 2001). What is known so far is that Drosophila has the ability to control gas release

from its tracheal system. There is some evidence to support that Drosophila performs DGC,

however further research is needed for more legitimate results. Not much research has been done

on the respiratory pattern of houseflies. Due to the absence of evidence one should consider that

house flies and Drosophila may follow a different breathing pattern. If this is true, the insects

may be allowing different amounts of insecticide to enter their body and that may be one of the

factors responsible for the different responses they show to the various insecticides tested.

Another explanation could be differences in the detoxification systems among house flies

and Drosophila. Once the insecticide enters the insect body it is perceived as a foreign substance

or xenobiotic, and is metabolized by different metabolical processes with the ultimate goal to be

converted into a less toxic polar substance that will eventually be removed form the body. This

metabolic process is called detoxificationn". By far the two most significant reactions involving

the metabolism of insecticides are the NADPH-requiring general oxidation system and the

hydrolysis of esters (Matsumura 1980). The activity of these two enzymatic systems varies










among different insect species, resulting in species differences in susceptibility to various

insecticidal compounds ( Casida et al. 1976. Brooks 1986, Valles et al. 1997, Scharf et al. 2000).

Implications of the Synergistic Effects of PBO and DEF on the Toxicity of the Novel
Compounds on House Flies

The modes of action of menthofuran, EGDF, and heptyl format on house flies so far

remain undefined. According to the work presented in this paper there seems to be a significant

effect of cytochrome P450 enzymes on the metabolism of menthofuran. When cytochrome P450

enzymes were inhibited by the action of PBO the toxicity of menthofuran increased by 1.5 times.

This finding is in agreement with Nguyen et al. (2007), who showed that P450 plays an

important role in methofuran detoxification. They, also, showed evidence supporting P450-based

activation of menthofuran.

Also, there was evidence supporting esterase-based activation of both heptyl format and

EGDF. When heptyl format and EGDF were co-applied with the esterase inhibitor DEF their

toxicity decreased by 1.5 and 2 times, respectively. The second finding comes in agreement with

both Haritos & Dojchinov (2003) and Nguyen et al. (2007), who supported esterase-based

activation of some format esters. In order for more legitimate conclusions to be made more

extensive and complete research needs to be conducted where all of the compounds will be

tested in combination with both synergists on susceptible and even resistant fly species.

Structure-activity Relationships

Among the two format esters EGDF and heptyl format, the first is significantly more

toxic to houseflies than the second by 3.5 times. When looking at their chemical structures there

is one difference that stands out; EGDF is composed by two molecules of formic acid, where as

heptyl format is composed by only one. According to Haritos & Doj chinov (2003) findings on

alkyl ester mode of action, format esters were more toxic than other alkyl esters. That was










partially due to their hydrolysis to formic acid. Based on their Eindings one might say that EGDF

was more toxic than heptyl format because it contains two molecules of formic acid in its

structure, and therefore the esterases would release 2 molecules of formic acid when hydrolysing

EGDF, as opposed to 1 molecule of formic acid when hydrolyzing heptyl format.

Controlled Vapor Release of Heptyl Formate

Controlled vapor release of heptyl format can provide effective house fly mortality over

time. In the future these compounds should be embedded in specialized plastic polymers, similar

to the DDVP resin strips, that would provide prolonged release of vapors and, therefore, result in

prolonged insect mortality.

In conclusion, DDVP was by far the most toxic insecticide for both insects and was

significantly more toxic to house flies than Drosophila. All three novel compounds were

significantly more toxic to house flies than Drosophila. Menthofuran was the most toxic

compound among the three tested on house flies (LC5o estimate 3.70 mg/liter). EGDF was the

second most toxic compound and heptyl format was the least toxic compound.










Table 6-1. Vapor toxicity of EGDF, heptyl format, and menthofuran with and without the
synergistic effect of DEF and PBO and the organophosphate DDVP to house flies
M~usca domestic (L.)
Insecticide Slope LC50 mg/liter LC90 mg/liter X2 P Potency
+ SE (95%CI) (95%CI) Ratio b

DDVPa 9.6 f 1 0.148 (0.14-0.15) 0.202 (0.19-0.22) 2.35 0.67

EGDF 7.4 f 0.8 9.27 (8.75-9.75) 13.81 (12.81-15.36) 9.76 0.14
2 (1.87-
EGDF + DEF 7.9 f 0.67 18.56 (17.76-19.33) 26.88 (25.34-29.02) 8.10 0.23 2.14)

Heptyl format 4.1 f 0.6 32.62 (30.21-35.44) 66.89 (55.88-91.58) 3.87 0.79
1.5 (1.36-
Heptyl format 6.9 & 1.19 48.70 (46.20-51.63) 74.45 (65.94-94.29) 3.76 0.29 1.64)
+ DEF
Menthofuran 10.6 f 1.13 3.70 (3.58-3.83) 4.88 (4.61-5.32) 4.29 0.12
0.65 (0.56-
Menthofuran + 4.8 & 1.22 2.43 (1.85-2.69) 4.49 (3.90-6.59) 0.49 0.48 0.76)
PBO

a Positive control
b LCso+synergist / LCso









Table 6-2. Body-weight corrected vapor toxicities of EGDF, heptyl format, menthofuran and
the organophosphate DDVP to house flies M~usca domestic (L.) and Drosophila
melan2oga~ster Meig.
Treatment Housefly LC5o Drosophila LC5o
(mg/g of insect/1iter) (mg/g of insect/1iter)b
DDVPa 0.7 (0.67-0.72) 3.7 (3.2-4.3)

EGDF 44 (41.15-45.8 6) 834 (676.6-1,846)


Heptyl format 153 (142.1-166.7) 450 (420-475)

Menthofuran 17.4 (16.83-18) 136 (120-150)


a Positive control
b Drosophila data Scharf et al. 2006























I


48.7


30

- 20


32.62


18.56


10 -


3.7


2.43


9.27



EGDF


EGDF + DEF Heptyl format Heptyl format + Menthofuran
DEF


Menthofuran +
PBO


Figure 6-1.Vapor toxicity of EGDF, heptyl format, and menthofuran with and without the synergistic effect of DEF and PBO to the
house flies M~usca domestic (L.).










Table 6-3. Percent mortality of controlled vapor release of heptyl format on house flies Musca domestic (L.) over 9 days among 3
different treatments and a blank control
Time Percent Mortality of Heptyl Formate on House Flies
(days) Control Filter Paper Filter Paper Ceramic Rod
(3.81g) (0.95 g) (3.81 g)
Day 1 0 100 100 100a
Day 2 0 100 0 100a
Day 3 0 100 0 98 f 2a
Day 4 0 0 0 96 f 4a
Day 5 0 0 0 88 f 5.8ab
Day 6 0 0 0 84 f 6.8ab
Day 7 0 0 0 82 f 5.8ab
Day 8 0 0 0 74 f 10.3ab
Day 9 0 0 0 64 f 14.7b
Percentages followed by the same letter are not significantly different (SNK test, SAS Institute, 2003)









CHAPTER 7
SUMMARY

The main obj ective of my research was to evaluate vapor toxicity of novel, low molecular

weight compounds with insecticidal activities on mosquitoes and house flies. The results of the

experiments have shown that all compounds demonstrated vapor toxicity to both mosquitoes and

house flies. However, the organophosphate DDVP was by far the most toxic compound to both

mosquitoes and house flies.

A total of 16 insecticidal compounds were tested on mosquitoes: 15 novel compounds (7

formates, 4 acetates, and 4 heterobicyclics) and the organophosphate DDVP. DDVP was 54.4

times more toxic compared to the second best compound, the format ester methyl format.

Within the novel compounds, overall, format esters were the most toxic family followed by the

heterobicyclics and, last, by the acetate esters. Within the format group, methyl format was the

most toxic ester (LCso estimate 1.36 mg/liter), followed by butyl, propyl, ethyl, hexyl format,

EGDF, and heptyl format. The toxicities of propyl and ethyl format were not significantly

different and there was no maj or significance between them and butyl format. EGDF and heptyl

format (LCso estimates 2.99 and 3.17 mg/liter, respectively) were the least toxic format esters

with toxicities in the same range as the heterobicyclics, the second best performing family of

compounds. Within the heterobicyclic group, coumaran was most toxic (LCso estimate 2.03

mg/liter), followed by benzothiophene, dimethyl-coumarone and menthofuran. Benzothiophene

and dimethyl-coumarone were not significantly different. Within the acetate group, hexyl acetate

was the least toxic compound (LCso estimate 5.09 mg/liter). The toxicities of propyl, butyl and

pentyl acetate were not significantly different.

A total of 4 insecticidal compounds were tested on house flies: two formates, one

heterobicyclic, and the organophosphate DDVP. DDVP was 25 times more toxic compared to










the second best compound, the heterobicyclic menthofuran (LCso estimates 3.70). Menthofuran

was followed by the format esters EGDF and heptyl format (LCso estimates 9.27 and 32.62

mg/liter, respectively).

DDVP has been characterized by EPA as a "probable human carcinogen" and because of

its implications in human health its use in 2006 was restricted to confined spaces such as

wardrobes, cupboards and closets where no human activity takes place (EPA 2006). Even though

the novel compounds did not demonstrate the high vapor toxicity demonstrated by DDVP, they

showed good potential to be used as alternative vapor toxicants against mosquitoes and house

flies for those situations where the use of DDVP is banned. Their low mammalian toxicities in

combination with their pleasant, fruity odors make them very good DDVP replacement

candidates. Also, the potential of the novel compounds as contact toxicants should be

investigated in the future as they might exhibit good toxicities as contact insecticides, and thus

provide an additional tool for the control of public health pests such as mosquitoes and house

flies.










LIST OF REFERENCES

Abbott, W.E. 1925. A method of computing the effectiveness of an insecticide. J. Econ.
Entomol. 18: 265-267.

Acree, J., R.B Turner, H.K. Gouck, M. Beroza, and N. Smith. 1968. L-Lactic acid a mosquito
attractant isolated form humans. Science. 161: 1346-1347.

Bailey, D.L., G.C. LaBreque, and T.L. Whitfield. 1971. Resistance of house flies in Florida to
trichlorfon and dichlorvos formulated in sugar baits. Can. Entomol. 103: 853-856.

Barnard, D.R. 2003. Control of fly-borne diseases. Pest. Outl. 10: 222-228.

Becker, N., S. Djakaria, A. Kaiser, O. Zulhasril, and H.W. Ludwig. 1991. Efficacy of a new
tablet formulation of an asporogenous strain of B.t.i against larvae of Aedes aegypti. Bull.
Soc. Vector Ecol. 16(1): 176-182.

Becker, N., D. Petric, M. Zgomba, C. Boase, C. Dahl, J. Lane, and A. Kaiser. 2003.
Mosquitoes and their control. Kluwer Academic/Plenum Publishers, New York, NY

Benedict, M.Q., J.A. Scott, and A.F. Cockburn. 1994. High level expression of the bacterial
opd gene in Drosophila melan2oga~ster: improved inducible insecticide resistance. Insect
Mol. Biol. 3: 247-252

Brett, G.A. 1938. On the relative attractiveness to Aedes aegytpi of certain coloured clothes.
Trans. Roy. Soc. Trop. Med. Hyg. 32: 113-124.

Brooks, G.T. 1986. Insecticide metabolism and selective toxicity. Xenobiotica. 16(10): 989-
1002.

Brooks, G.D., and H.F. Schoof. 1964. Effectiveness of various dosages of dichlorvos resin
against Culex pipiens quinquefasciatus. Mosq. News. 24(2): 141-143.

Brooks, G.D., H.F. Schoof, and E.A. Smith. 1965. Effectiveness of various dosages of
dichlorvos against Aedes aegypti in cisterns, St. Thomas. 1965. Mosq. News. 25(3): 334-
338.

Brown, A.W.A. 1966. The attraction of mosquitoes to hosts. J. Am. Mosq. Control Assoc.
196(3): 249-252.

Camp, H.B., T.R. Fukuto, and R.L. Metcalf. 1969. Selective toxicity of isopropyl parathion. J.
Agr. Food Chem. 17(2): 243-248.

Capinera, L.J. 2004. Encyclopedia of entomology. Kluwer Academic Publishers, London,
Great Britain.

Carlson, D.A, and C.M. Leibold. 1981. Field trials of pheromone toxicant devices containing
muscalure for house flies (Diptera: Muscidae). J. Med. Entomol. 18: 73-77.










Carlson, D.A., D.L. Silhacek, J.D. James, and M. Beroza. 1971. Sex attractant of the house
fly: isolation, identification, and synthesis. Science. 174: 76-78

Carpenter, S.J., and W.J. LaCasse. 1955. Mosquitoes of North America (north of Mexico).
University of California Press, Los Angeles, CA

Casida, J.E., and G.B. Quistad. 1998. Golden age of insecticide research: past, present, or
future? Annu. Rev. Entomol. 43: 1-16.

Casida, J.E., K. Ueda, L.C. Gaughan, L.T. Jao, and D.M. Soderlund. 1976. Structure
biodegradability relationships in pyrethroid insecticides. Arch. Environ. Contam. Toxicol.
3: 491-500.

Center of Disease Control. 2005. Dengue Fever Fact Sheet.
http://www. cdc.gov/nci dod/dvbi d/dengue/index. htm

Chadee, D.D. 1985. An evaluation of malathion ULV spraying against caged and natural
populations of Aedes aegytpi in Trinidad, West Indies. Ser. Entomol. Med. Parasitol. 23:
71-740.

Chang, C.K., and M.E. Whalon. 1987. Substrate specificities and multiple forms of esterases in
the brown plant hopper. Pestic. Biochem. Physiol. 27: 30-35.

Christophers, S.R. 1960. Aedes aegypti (L.), the yellow fever mosquito. Cambridge University
Press, Cambridge, Great Britain

Claudianos, C., H. Ranson, R.M. Johnson, S. Biswas, M.A. Schuler, M.R. Berenbaum, R.
Feyereisen, and J.G. Oakeshott. 2006. A deficit in detoxification enzymes: pesticide
sensitivity and environmental response in the honey bee. Insect Mol. Biol. 15(5): 615-636.

Clements, A.N. 1992. The biology of mosquitoes, Volume 2. CABI Publishing, New York, NY

Coats, S.A., J.R. Coats, and C.R. Ellis. 1979. Selective toxicity of three synthetic pyrethroids
to eight Coccinellids, a eulophid parasitoid, and two pest Chrysomelids. Environ. Entomol.
8: 720-722.

Colwell, A.E., and H.H. Shorey. 1977. Female produced stimuli influencing courtship of male
house flies (Musca domestica. Ann. Entomol. Soc. Am. 70: 303-308.

Darsie, R.F., and R.A. Ward. 2005. Identification and geographical distribution of the
mosquitoes of North America, North of Mexico. University Press of Florida, Gainesville,
FL.

Diarra, G.M, T.W. Roberts, and B.M. Christensen. 1999. Automated measurement of oxygen
consumption by the yellow fever mosquito, Aedes aegypti. Am. J. Trop. Med. Hyg. 60(5):
859-864.










Echeverria, P., B.A. Harrison, C. Tirapat, and A. McFarland. 1983. Flies as a source of
enteric pathogens in a rural village in Thailand. Appl. Environ. Microbiol. 46: 32-36.

Fay, R.W. 1968. A trap based on visual responses of adult mosquitoes. Mosq. News. 28: 1-7.

Feyereisen, R. 2005. Insect cytochrome P450, pp. 1-58. In L.I Gilbert, K. Iatrou, and S.S. Gill
(eds.), Comprehensive molecular insect science, vol. 4. Elsevier Science Ltd, Atlanta, GA.

Fielden, L.J., B. Krasnov, and I. Khokhlova. 2001. Respiratory gas exchange in the flea
Xenopsylla conformis (Siphonaptera: Pulicidae). J. Med. Entomol. 38: 735-739.

Florida Coordinating Council on Mosquito Control. 1998. Florida Mosquito Control: The
state of the mission as defined by mosquito controllers, regulators, and environmental
managers. University of Florida, Vero Beach, FL.

Foil, L., and C. Foil. 1988. Dipteran parasites of horses. Equine Pract. 10(4): 21-38.

Forsey, T., and S. Darougar. 1981. Transmission of chlamydiae by the house fly. Brit. J.
Ophthalmol. 65: 147-150.

Fox, I. 1980. Evaluation of ultra-low volume aerial and ground applications of malathion against
natural populations for Aedes aegypti in Puerto Rico. Mosq. News. 40(2): 280-283.

Gahan, J.B., R.S. Anders, H. Highland, and H.G. Wilson. 1953. Baits for the control of
resistant flies. J. Econ. Entomol. 46: 965-969.

Georghiou, G.P. 1972. The evolution of resistance to pesticides. Annu. Rev. Ecol. System. 3:
133-168.

Georghiou, G.P. 1990. Overview of insecticide resistance, pp 18-41. In M.B Green, H.M.
LeBaron, and W.K. Moberg (eds.), Managing resistance to agrochemicals-from
fundamental research to practical strategies, Am. Chem. Soc. Symp. Ser. 421, Washington,
DC.

Georghiou, G.P., M. Wirth, H. Tran, F. Saume, and A.B. Knudsen. 1987. Potential for
organophosphate resistance in Aedes aegytpi (Diptera: Culicidae) in the Caribbean area
and neighboring countries. J. Med. Entomol. 24(3): 290-294.

Gerberg, E.J., D.R. Barnard, and R.A. Ward. Manual for mosquito rearing and experimental
techniques. American Mosquito Control Association, Inc., Lake Charles, LA.

Graczyk, T.K., R. Knight, and L. Tamang. 2005. Mechanical transmission of human
protozoan parasites by insects. Clinic. Microbiol. Rev. 18(1): 128-132.

Graczyk, T.H., R. Knight, R.H. Gilman, and M.R. Cranfield. 2001. The role of non-biting
flies in the epidemiology of human infectious diseases. Microb. Infect. 3: 23 1-23 5.










Grandes, A.E., and E.A. Sagrado. 1988. The susceptibility of mosquitoes to insecticides in
Salamanca province, Spain. J. Am. Mosq. Control Assoc. 4(2): 168-172.

Gratz, N.G. 1993a. Lesson of Aedes aegytpi control in Thailand. Med. Vet. Entomol. 7: 1-10.

Gratz, N.G. 1993b. What must we do to effectively to control Aedes aegypti. Trop. Med. 35(4):
243-251.

Gray, E.M., and T.J. Bradley. 2003. Metabolic rate in female Culex tarsalis (Diptera:
Culicidae) : Age, size, activity, and feeding effects. J. Med. Entomol. 40(6): 903-911.

Gray, E.M., and T.J. Bradley. 2006. Evidence form mosquitoes suggests that cyclic gas
exchange and discontinuous gas exchange are two manifestations of a single respiratory
pattern. J. Exp. Biol. 209: 1603-1611.

Gubler, D.J. 1991. The resurgence of vector borne diseases with emphasis on dengue
hemorrhagic fever. Vector Ecol. Newslett. 22: 5-6.

Haines, T.W. 1955. Breeding media of common flies. In rural areas. Am. J. Trop. Med. Hyg. 4:
1125-1130.

Haritos, V.S., and G. Dojchinov. 2003. Cytochrome c oxidase inhibition in the rice weevil
Sitophihts oryzae (L.) by format, the toxic metabolite of volatile alkyl formates. Comp.
Biochem. Physiol. 136: 135-143.

Harrison, B.A., M.C. Callahan, D.M. Watts, and L. Panthursi. 1982. An efficient floating
larval trap for sampling Aedes aegypti populations (Diptera: Culicidae). J. Med. Entomol.
19: 722-727.

Healing, T.D. 1995. Arthropod pests as disease vectors. Rev. Med. Vet. Entomol. 83(5): 225-
234.

Hemingway J., and H. Ranson. 2000. Insecticide resistance in insect vectors of human disease.
Annu. Rev. Entomol. 45: 371-391.

Hogsette, J.A. 1995. The house fly: Basic biology and ecology. USDA Medical and Veterinary
Entomology Res. Lab., Gainesville, FL.

Homer. 800 B.C.E. The Odyssey. http://www. online-literature.com/homer/odyssey/22/

Kasai, S., T. Shono, and M. Yamakawa. 1998. Molecular cloning and nucleotide sequence of a
cytochrome P450 cDNA from a pyrethroid resistant mosquito, Culex quinquefasciatus
Say. Insect Mol. Biol. 7: 185-190.

Keiding, J. 1965. Observations on the behavior of the house fly in relation to its control. Rivista
di Parassitologia. 26: 46-60.










Keiding, J. 1986. The house fly Biology and control. WHO Vector Control Series 63, World
Health Organization, Geneva, Switzerland.

Keiding, J. 1999. Review of the global status and recent development of insecticide resistance in
field populations of the house fly, M~usca domestic (Diptera: Muscidae). CABI
Publishing, New York, NY.

Kestler, P. 1985. Respiration and respiratory water loss, pp. 137-183. In Hoffmann K.H. (ed.),
Environmental physiology and biochemistry of insects. Springer, Berlin.

Kroeger, A., U. Dehlinger, G. Burkhardt, H. Anaya, and N. Becker. 1995. Community based
dengue control in Columbia: people's knowledge and practice and the potential
contribution of the biological larvicide B.t.i. Trop. Med. Parasitol. 46: 241-246.

Lehmann, F., M.H. Dickinson, and J. Staunton. 2000. The scaling of carbon dioxide release
and respiratory water loss in flying fruit flies (Drosophila spp.). J. Exp. Entomol. 203:
1613-1624.

Levine, O.S, and M.M Levine. 1991. House flies as mechanical vectors of shigellosis. Rev.
Infect. Diseases. 13: 688-696.

Lighten, J.R.B. 1988. Simultaneous measurement of oxygen uptake and carbon dioxide
emission during discontinuous ventilation in the tok-tok beetle, Psamnmodes striatus. J.
Insect Physiol. 34: 361-367.

Lighten, J.R.B. 1990. Slow discontinuous ventilation in the Namib dune-sea ant Camnponotus
detritus (Hymenotera: Formicidae). J. Exp. Biol. 151: 71-82.

Lighten, J.R.B. 1994. Discontinuous ventilation in terrestrial insects. Physiol. Zool. 67: 142-
162.

Lighten, J.R.B., and D. Berrigan. 1995. Questioning paradigms: caste-specific ventilation in
harvester ants, M~essorpergan2dei and M. julianus (Hymenoptera: Formicidae). J. Exp.
Biol. 198: (521-530).

Maddock, D.R, and V.A. Sedlack. 1961. Dosage-mortality response ofAnopheles
quadrimaculatus exposed to DDVP vapor. Bull. Wrld. Hlth. Org. 24: 644-646.

Maddock, D.R., C.M. Elmore, and H.F. Schoof. 1963. Preliminary tests with DDVP vapor for
the control of Culex pipiens quinquefasciatus in catch basins. Mosq. News. 23(2): 69-74.

Magnarelli, L.A. 1979. Diurnal nectar-feeding of Aedes cantator and A. sollicitans (Diptera:
Culicidae). Environ. Entomol. 8: 949-955.

Mallipudi, N.M., and T.R. Fukuto. 1979. Toxicity of N-sulfenylated derivatives of insecticidal
methylcarbamate esters to honeybee. J. Agr. Food Chem. 27: 261-265.










Mathis, W., W. Richard, H.F. Schoof, and K.D. Quarterman. 1959. Residual fumigants.
Their potential in malaria eradication. Pu. Hlth. Rep. 74(5); 379-381.

Matsumura, F. 1980. Toxicology of insecticides. Plenum Press, New York, NY.

Matthysse, J.G, and D. McClain. 1973. House fly control in climate-controlled caged-hen layer
houses. J. Econ. Entomol. 66(4): 927-933.

Mboera, L.E.G., and W. Takken. 1997. Carbon dioxide in mosquitoes (Diptera :Culicidae) and
its potential in vector surveillance and management. Rev. Med. Vet. Entomol. 85: 355-368.

Melander, A.L. 1914. Can insects become resistant to sprays? J. Econ. Entomol. 7: 167-173.

Meola, R. 1964. The influence of temperature and humidity on embryonic longevity in Aedes
aegytpi. Annals of the Ent. Soc. ofAm. 57: 468-472.

Mian, L.S., H. Maag, and J.V. Tacal. 2002. Isolation of Salmonella from muscoid flies at
commercial animal establishments in San Bernardino County, California. J. Vec. Ecol.
27(1): 82-85.

Miles, J.W., G.W. Pearce, and J.E. Woehst. 1962. Stable formulations for sustained release of
DDVP. Agric. Food Chem. 10: 240-244.

Morlan, H.B., and M.E. Tinker. 1965. Distribution ofAedes aegytpi infestations in United
States. Am. J. Trop. Med. Hyg. 14:892-899.

Mount, G.A. 1970. Optimum droplet size for adult mosquito control with space sprays or
aerosols of insecticides. Mosq. News. 30(1): 70-75.

Mount, G.A. 1985. Ultra low volume application of insecticides for vector control. WHO Vector
Control Series 31, World Health Organization, Geneva, Switzerland.

Mullen, G., and L. Durden. 2002. Medical and veterinary entomology. Academic Press, San
Diego, CA.

Nazni, W.A., H. Luke, W.M. Wan Rozita, A.G. Abdullah, I. Sa'diyah, A.H. Azahari, I.
Zamree, S.B. Tan, H.L. Lee, and M.A. Sofian. 2005. Determination of the flight range
and dispersal of the house fly, M~usca domestic (L.) using mark release recapture
technique. Trop. Biomed. 22(1): 53-61.

Nelson, M.J. 1986. Aedes aegytpi biology and control. Pan American Health Organization,
Washington, DC.

Nguyen, S.N., S. Cheol, and M.E. Scharf. 2007. Toxicity, synergism, and neurological effects
of novel, volatile insecticides in insecticide-susceptible and -resistant Drosophila strains. J.
Econ. Entomol. 100(2): 534-544.










Nicholls, P. 1975. Formate as an inhibitor of cytochrome c oxidase. Biochem. Biophys. Res.
Commun. 67: 610-616.

Oakeshott, J.G., C. Claudianos, P.M. Campbell, R.D. Newcomb, and R.J. Russell. 2005.
Biochemical genetics and genomics of insect esterases, pp. 309-361. In L.I Gilbert, K.
Iatrou, and S.S. Gill (eds.), Comprehensive molecular insect science, vol. 5. Elsevier
Science Ltd, Atlanta, GA.

O'Meara, G.F., A.D. Gettman, L.F. Evans, and F.D. Scheel. 1992a. Invasion of cemeteries in
Florida by Aedes albopictus. J. Am. Mosq. Control Assoc. 8:1-10.

O'Meara, G.F., L.F. Evans, A.D. Gettman and J.P. Cuda. 1995. Spread of Aedes albopictus
and Decline of Ae. Aegypti (Diptera: Culicidae) in Florida. J. Med. Entomol. 32(4): 554-
562.

Oppenoorth, F.J. 1985. Biochemistry of genetics of insecticides, 73 1-775. In G.A Kerkut, and
L.I. Gilbert (eds.), Comprehensive insect physiology, biochemistry, and pharmacology.
Pergamon Press, Oxford, Great Britain.

Peacock, B.E., J.P. Smith, P.G. Gregory, T.M. Loyless, J.A Mulrennen, P.R. Simmonds, L.
Padgett, E.K. Cook, and T.R. Eddins. 1988. Aedes albopictus in Florida. J. Am. Mosq.
Control Assoc. 4: 380.

Perich, M.J., M.A. Tidwell, D.C. Williams, M.R. Sardelis, C.J. Pena, D. Mandeville, and
L.R. Boobar. 1990. Comparison of ground and aerial ULV applications of malathion
against Aedes aegytpi in Santo Domingo, Dominican Republic. J. Am. Mosq. Control
Assoc. 6(1): 1-6.

Phillips, J.P., J.H. Kirby, K. Milne, and C.P. Krell. 1990. Transfer and expression of an
organophosphate insecticide-degrading gene from Pseudomona~s in Drosophila
melan2oga~ster. Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. USA. 87: 8155-8159.

Pickens, L.G., L.O. Morgan, and R.W. Miller. 1972. Comparison of traps and other methods
for surveying density of populations of flies in dairy barns. J. Econ. Entomol. 65: 144-145.

Polo Plus Probit and Logit Analysis. 2005. LeOra Software, version 2.0. Berkeley, CA.

Pratt, H.D., and K.S. Littig. 1967. Handbook of general information on Aedes aegypti. U. S
Department of Health, Eduaction, and Welfare. Atlanta, Georgia.

Quarterman, K.D., M. Lotte, and H.F. Schoof. 1963. Initial field studies in Upper Volta with
dichlorvos residual fumigant as a malaria eradication technique. Bull. Wld. Hlth. Org. 29:
231-235.

Quraishi, M.S. 1977. Biochemical insect control, its impact on economy, environment, and
natural selection. Wiley/Interscience Publication, New York, NY.

Reiter, P. 1991a. Comments on Aedes aegypti control. Vect. Ecol. Newslett. 22: 3-4.










Reiter, P. 1991b. Architecture, ventilation, Aedes aegytpi and ULV spraying. J. Am. Mosq.
Control Assoc. 7: 642-743.

Rigau-Perez, J.G., D.J. Gubler, A.V. Vorndam, and G.G. Clark. 1994. Dengue surveillance-
United States, 1986-1992. Morb. Mort. Week. Rep. 43(SS-2): 7-19.

Roth, L.M., 1948. A study of mosquito behavior. An epxerimental laboratory study of the sexual
behavior of Aedes aegytpi. Am. Midl. Natural. 40: 265-352.

Rutledge, C.R. 2004. Overview of mosquito biology, pp. BOV 1-2. In Evans, H.T., C.D. Morris,
R.H. Baker, and W.R. Opp (eds.), Florida mosquito control handbook. Florida Mosquito
Control Association, Gainesville, FL.

Rutledge, C.R., and H.T. Evans. 2004. Mosquito eggs, pp. BEG 1-8. In Evans, H.T., C.D.
Morris, R.H. Baker, and W.R. Opp (eds.), Florida mosquito control handbook. Florida
Mosquito Control Association, Gainesville, FL.

Scharf, M.E., S.N. Nguyen, and C. Song. 2006. Evaluation of volatile low molecular weight
insecticides using Drosophila melan2oga~ster as a model. Pest Manag. Sci. 62: 655-663.

Scharf, M., B.D. Siegrfried, L.J. Meinke, and L.D. Chandler. 2000. Firponyl metabolism,
oxidative sulfone formation and toxicity among organophosphate- and carbamate- resistant
and susceptible western corn rootworm populations. Pest Manag. Sci. 56: 757-766.

Schlein, Y., and R. Galun. 1984. Male housefly genital system as a source of mating
pheromone. J. Insect Physiol. 30: 175-177.

Schmidtmann, E.T. 1981. Water-base and aerosol concentrate application of permethrin for
house fly control in New York dairy housing. J. Econ. Entomol. 74: 404-408.

Schoof, H.F. 1959. How far do flies fly? And what effect does flight pattern have on their
control. Pest Control. 27(4): 16-24.

Schoof, H.F. 1967. Mating, resting habits and dispersal of Aedes aegypti_ Bull. World Health
Org. 36: 600-601.

Schoof, H.F., G.A. Mail, and E.P. Savage. 1954. Fly production sources in urban communities.
J. Econ. Entomol. 47: 245-253.

Schreiber, E.T. 2004. Artificial container inhabiting mosquitoes, pp. BAC 1-13. In Evans, H.T.,
C.D. Morris, R.H. Baker, and W.R. Opp (eds.), Florida mosquito control handbook.
Florida Mosquito Control Association, Gainesville, FL.

Scott, H.G., and K.S. Littig. 1964. Flies of public health importance and their control. U. S.
Department of Health, Education, and Welfare, Atlanta, GA.










Scott, J.G., C.J. Geden, D.A. Rutz, and N. Liu. 1991. Comparative toxicity of seven
insecticides to immature stages of2~usca domestic (Diptera: Muscidae) and two of its
important biological control agents, M~uscidifurax raptor and Spalangia camneroni
(Hymenoptera: Pteromalidae). J. Econ. Entomol. 849(3): 776-779.

Service, M.W. 1992. Importance of ecology in Aed'es aegytpi control. Sombeasltl~ Asean J of
Trop. & M~ed. Public Health. 23: 68 1-690

Shroyer, D.A. 2004. Dengue and yellow fever, pp. DDY 1-4. In Evans, H.T., C.D. Morris, R.H.
Baker, and W.R. Opp (eds.), Florida mosquito control handbook. Florida Mosquito Control
Association, Gainesville, FL.

Silverly, R.E., and H.F. Schoof. 1955. Utilization of various production media by muscoid flies
in a metropolitan area. Adaptability of different flies for infestation of prevalent media.
Ann. Entomol. Soc. Am. 48: 258-262.

Soper, F.L. 1967a. Dynamics ofAed'es aegytpi distribution and density. Bull. Wld. Hlth. Org.
36: 536-538.

Soper, F.L. 1967b. Aed'es aegypti and yellow fever. Bull. World Health. Org. 36: 521-527.

Spielman, A., and M. D'Antonio. 2001. A natural history of our most persistent and deadly foe.
Hyperion, New York, NY.

Statistical Analysis Software Institute (SAS). 2003. Statistical analysis software computer
program, version 8.01. Institute, S. A. S., Cary, NC.

Sulaiman, S., M.Z. Othoman, and A.H. Aziz. 2000. Isolation of enteric pathogens from
synanthropic flies trapped in down town Kuala Lumpur. J. Vector Ecol. 25: 90-93.

Tabachnick, W.J. 2004. Overview of mosquito transmitted diseases, pp. DOV 1-3. In Evans,
H.T., C.D. Morris, R.H. Baker, and W.R. Opp (eds.), Florida mosquito control handbook.
Florida Mosquito Control Association, Gainesville, FL.

Takken, W., and D.L. Kline. 1989. Carbon dioxide and 1-octenol-3-ol as mosquito attractants.
J. Am. Mosq. Control Assoc. 5(3): 311-316.

The Bible: Authorized King James Version with Apocrypha. 1997. Oxford University Press,
Inc., New York, NY.

Tinker, M.E., and G.R. Hayes. 1959. The 1958 Aed'es aegytpi distribution in the United States.
Mosq. News. 19:73-78.

Trips, M., and W. Hausermann. 1986. Dispersal and other population parameters ofAed'es
aegytpi in an African village and their possible significance in epidemiology of vector-
borne diseases. Am. J. Trop. Med. Hyg. 35: 1263-79.










Undeen, A.H., and J.J. Becnel. 1994. A device for monitoring populations of larval mosquitoes
in container habitats. J. Am. Mosq. Control. 10: 101-103.

U.S Environmental Protection Agency. 2006. Interim re-registration eligibility decision
Document for dichlorvos (DDVP).
http ://www.epa.gov/oppsrrd l/reregistration/REDs/ddvp~ired.pdf

Valles, S.M., P.G. Koehler, and R.J. Brenner. 1997. Antagonism of fipronil toxicity by
piperonyl butoxide and S, S, S-tributyl phosphorotrithioate in the German cockroach
(Dictyoptera: Blattelliidae). J. Econ. Entomol. 90: 1254-1258.

Vincent, L.E., and D.L. Lindgren. 1965. Influence of fumigation and age on carbon dioxide
production of some stored-product insects. J. Econ. Entomol. 58(4): 660-664.

Weinzierl, T.H., P.G. Koehler, and C.L. Tucker. 2005. Microbial insecticides.
http://edis.ifas.ufl .edu/INO81

West, L.S. 1951. The house fly. Its natural history, medical importance, and control. Comstock
Publishing Company, Inc., Ithaca, NY.

Williams, A.E., and T. J. Bradley. 1998. The effect of respiratory pattern on water loss in
desiccation resistant Drosophila melan2oga~ster. J. Exp. Biol. 201: 2953-2959.

Williams, A.E., M.R. Rose, and T.J. Bradley. 1997. CO2 release patterns in Drosophila
melan2oga~ster: the effect of selection for desiccation resistance. J. Exp. Biol. 200: 615-624.

Wolfinsohn, M., and R. Galun. 1953. A method of determining the flight range ofAedes
aegypti. Bull. Res. Council Israel. 2: 433-436.

Womack, M. 1993. The yellow fever mosquito, Aedes aegytpi. Wing Beats. 5(4): 4.

Yu, S.J. 2007. The toxicology and biochemistry of insecticides. University of Florida,
Gainesville, FL.









BIOGRAPHICAL SKETCH

Alexandra Chaskopoulou was born on June 3, 1981 in Thessaloniki, Greece, to Efthimios

and Kalliopi Chaskopoulos. She has one sister and one brother. She and her family have spent

most of their lives in Greece. Upon completion of her high school education in Greece, she

decided to come to the United States in order to pursue her college education as an entomologist.

She arrived at the United States in 2003, and within a year she earned her minor in biology

from St. Andrews University of Michigan. In 2004 she moved in Gainesville, Florida where she

earned her Bachelor of Science degree in entomology from the University of Florida and

graduated in 2005. She remained at the University of Florida since 2007, when she completed

her master' s degree in medical and veterinary entomology.





PAGE 1

1 TESTING VAPOR TOXICITY OF FORMA TE, ACETATE, AND HETEROBICYCLIC COMPOUNDS TO Aedes aegypti AND Musca domestica By ALEXANDRA CHASKOPOULOU A THESIS PRESENTED TO THE GRADUATE SCHOOL OF THE UNIVERSITY OF FLOR IDA IN PARTIAL FULFILLMENT OF THE REQUIREMENTS FOR THE DEGREE OF MASTER OF SCIENCE UNIVERSITY OF FLORIDA 2007

PAGE 2

2 2007 Alexandra Chaskopoulou

PAGE 3

3 ACKNOWLEDGMENTS I thank my supervisory committee chair, Dr. Philip Koehler, and members, Dr. Michael Scharf, and Dr. Jane Barber, for their constant and valuable help and guidance. Their knowledge and expertise on experimental design, statistica l analysis, and scientific writing helped me tremendously. I thank Debbie Hall and Josh Crews for always being there for me and helping me with any paper work problems that appeared. I tha nk all the people in the Urban Laboratory for making these last 2 years of my life as a graduate student enjoyable. It has been a pleasure to have known and worked with each one of them. Last, but not least, I thank my friends and family, those near me, and those far away, for their loving support, encouragement, and understanding.

PAGE 4

4 TABLE OF CONTENTS ACKNOWLEDGMENTS...............................................................................................................3 LIST OF TABLES................................................................................................................. ..........7 LIST OF FIGURES................................................................................................................ .........8 ABSTRACT....................................................................................................................... ..............9 CHAPTER 1 INTRODUCTION..................................................................................................................1 1 2 LITERATURE REVIEW: THE YELLOW FEVER MOSQUITO........................................16 Classification and Distribution...............................................................................................1 6 Morphology..................................................................................................................... .......17 The Egg........................................................................................................................ ...17 The Larva...................................................................................................................... ...17 The Pupa....................................................................................................................... ...17 The Adult...................................................................................................................... ...17 Life Cycle..................................................................................................................... ..........18 The Egg........................................................................................................................ ...18 The Larva...................................................................................................................... ...18 The Pupa....................................................................................................................... ...19 The Adult...................................................................................................................... ...19 Emergence................................................................................................................19 Mating......................................................................................................................19 Feeding.....................................................................................................................20 Flight range..............................................................................................................20 Resting behavior.......................................................................................................21 Longevity.................................................................................................................21 Fecundity..................................................................................................................21 Public Health Importance of the Yellow Fever Mosquito......................................................21 Control Methods of the Yellow Fever Mosquito....................................................................23 Surveillance................................................................................................................... ..23 Methods for Controlling Immature Mosquitoes..............................................................24 Methods for Controlling Adult Mosquitoes....................................................................26 3 LITERATURE REVIEW : THE HOUSE FLY......................................................................29 Classification and Distribution...............................................................................................2 9 Morphology..................................................................................................................... .......29 The Egg........................................................................................................................ ...29 The Larva...................................................................................................................... ...29 The Pupa....................................................................................................................... ...30

PAGE 5

5 The Adult...................................................................................................................... ...30 Life Cycle..................................................................................................................... ..........30 The Egg........................................................................................................................ ...30 The Larva...................................................................................................................... ...31 The Pupa....................................................................................................................... ...31 The Adult...................................................................................................................... ...31 Emergence................................................................................................................31 Mating......................................................................................................................32 Oviposition...............................................................................................................32 Feeding.....................................................................................................................33 Longevity.................................................................................................................33 Fecundity..................................................................................................................33 Flight-range..............................................................................................................33 Public Health Importance of the House Fly...........................................................................34 Control Methods of the House Fly.........................................................................................35 Surveillance Methods......................................................................................................35 Control Methods..............................................................................................................35 Sanitation..................................................................................................................35 Chemical control......................................................................................................36 4 LITERATURE REVIEW: NOVEL VOLATILE COMPOUNDS AND INSECTICIDE SELECTIVITY.................................................................................................................... ...41 Novel Volatile Compounds....................................................................................................41 Insecticide Selectivity........................................................................................................ .....42 5 EVALUATION OF VAPOR TOXICITY OF NOVEL LOW MOLECULAR WEIGHT COMPOUNDS ON MOSQUITOES......................................................................................45 Introduction................................................................................................................... ..........45 Materials and Methods.......................................................................................................... .46 Chemicals...................................................................................................................... ..46 Insects........................................................................................................................ ......47 Bioassay....................................................................................................................... ....48 Data Analysis.................................................................................................................. ........49 Results........................................................................................................................ .............50 Toxicity Evaluation of Novel Compounds......................................................................50 Toxicity Evaluation of Novel Compounds w ith the Synergistic Effect of DEF and PBO............................................................................................................................ ..51 Evaluation of the Role of Volatility in Toxicity..............................................................51 Discussion..................................................................................................................... ..........52 Comparing Toxicities of Nove l Compounds Among Mosquitoes and Drosophila ........52 Implications of the Synergistic Effects of PBO and DEF on the Toxicity of the Novel Compounds on Mosquitoes...............................................................................55 Structure-activity Relationships of th e Three Families of Novel Compounds................56

PAGE 6

6 6 EVALUATION OF VAPOR TOXICITY OF NOVEL LOW MOLECULAR WEIGHT COMPOUNDS ON HOUSE FLIES......................................................................................73 Introduction................................................................................................................... ..........73 Materials and Methods.......................................................................................................... .74 Chemicals...................................................................................................................... ..74 Ceramic Rods..................................................................................................................7 5 Insects........................................................................................................................ ......75 Bioassay....................................................................................................................... ....75 Data Analysis.................................................................................................................. ........77 Results........................................................................................................................ .............78 Toxicity Evaluation of Novel Compounds......................................................................78 Toxicity Evaluation of Novel Compounds w ith the Synergistic Effect of DEF and PBO............................................................................................................................ ..79 Effectiveness of Controlled Vapor Releas e of Heptyl Formate in Killing House Flies.......................................................................................................................... ....79 Discussion..................................................................................................................... ..........79 Comparing Toxicities of Nove l Compounds Among House Flies and Drosophila ........79 Implications of the Synergistic Effects of PBO and DEF on the Toxicity of the Novel Compounds on House Flies..............................................................................82 Structure-activity Relationships......................................................................................82 Controlled Vapor Release of Heptyl Formate.................................................................83 7 SUMMARY...................................................................................................................... ......88 LIST OF REFERENCES............................................................................................................. ..90 BIOGRAPHICAL SKETCH.......................................................................................................100

PAGE 7

7 LIST OF TABLES Table page 5-1. Physical and chemical properties of formate esters................................................................59 5-2. Physical and chemical pr operties of heterobicyclics..............................................................60 5-3. Physical and chemical properties of acetate esters.................................................................61 5-4. Vapor toxicities of 15 novel, low mol ecular weight, volatile compounds and the organophosphate DDVP to mosquitoes Aedes aegypti (L.)...............................................62 5-5. Vapor toxicity of EGDF, heptyl form ate & menthofuran with and without the synergistic effect of DE F and PBO to mosquitoes Aedes aegytpi (L.)..............................63 5-6. Body-weight corrected vapor toxicities of 15 novel, low molecular weight, volatile compounds and the organophosphate DDVP to mosquitoes Aedes aegytpi (L.) and Drosophila melanogaster Meig.........................................................................................64 6-1. Vapor toxicity of EGDF, heptyl format e, and menthofuran with and without the synergistic effect of DEF and PBO and the organophosphate DDVP to house flies Musca domestica (L.).........................................................................................................84 6-2. Body-weight corrected vapor toxicities of EGDF, heptyl formate, menthofuran and the organophosphate DDVP to house flies Musca domestica (L.) and Drosophila melanogaster Meig............................................................................................................85 6-3. Percent mortality of cont rolled vapor release of heptyl formate on house flies Musca domestica (L.) over 9 days among 3 differe nt treatments and a blank control..................87

PAGE 8

8 LIST OF FIGURES Figure page 5-1. The LC50 values of mosquitoes Aedes aegypti (L.) when exposed on vapors of 15, novel, low molecular weight compounds..........................................................................65 5-2. The LC50 values of mosquitoes Aedes aegypti (L.) when exposed on the vapors of EGDF, heptyl formate, and menthofuran with and without the syne rgistic effect of DEF and PBO.................................................................................................................... 66 5-3. Regression analyses of the LC50 versus the physical properti es of each of the 7 formate esters......................................................................................................................... .........67 5-4. Regression analyses of the LC50 versus the physical prop erties of each of the 4 heterobicyclics................................................................................................................ ...68 5-5. Regression analyses of the LC50 versus the physical properties of each of the 4 acetates.....69 5-6. Regression analyses of the LC50 versus the physical prop erties of all the 15 novel compounds (formates, acetates, and heterobicyclics)........................................................70 5-7. Body-weight corrected LC50 values for mosquiotes Aedes aegypti & Drosophila when exposed to the vapors of the 15 low molecular weight esters and the organophosphate DDVP....................................................................................................71 5-8. Main bioassay set-up...................................................................................................... ........72 6-1.Vapor toxicity of EGDF, heptyl format e, and menthofuran with and without the synergistic effect of DEF and PBO to the house flies Musca domestica (L.)...................86

PAGE 9

9 Abstract of Thesis Presen ted to the Graduate School of the University of Florida in Partial Fulfillment of the Requirements for the Degree of Master of Science TESTING VAPOR TOXICITY OF FORMA TE, ACETATE, AND HETEROBICYCLIC COMPOUNDS TO Aedes aegypti AND Musca domestica By Alexandra Chaskopoulou August 2007 Chair: Philip Koehler Major: Entomology and Nematology Volatile insecticides, commonly known as fu migants, have been widely used for the management of structural pests and for the protection of stored agricultural commodities. However, they have been mostly overlooked for th e control of medically im portant pests such as mosquitoes and flies. Dichlorvos (DDVP) is the one volatile insectic ide mostly studied on mosquitoes and flies. DDVP has been characteri zed by the Environmental Protection Agency of the United States as a “probable human carcinogen” and because of its im plications in human health, in 2006 its use was restricted to conf ined spaces such as wardrobes and closets. Therefore, there is need to replace DDVP with friendlier and less toxic chemistries. For my research I evaluated vapor toxicity of a series of new, promising, highly volatile chemicals with insecticidal activity, low mamm alian toxicity, pleasant odors, and potentially novel modes of action on mosquitoes, using Aedes aegypti (L.), and on filth flies, using Musca domestica (L.). A total of 16 insecticidal compounds, 7 formates, 4 acetates, 4 heterobicyclics, and the organophosphate DDVP were tested on mo squitoes. DDVP was by far the most toxic compound, and specifically it was 54.4 times more toxic than the second best performing compound, the formate ester methyl formate. Within the novel compounds, overall, formate esters were the most toxic family, followed by the heterobicyclics, and last by the acetate esters.

PAGE 10

10 The seven best performing novel compounds with vapor toxicity on mosquitoes were methyl formate>butyl formate>propyl formate=ethyl formate>hexyl formate>coumaran>benzothiophene. There were several structure-acti vity relationships observed. The most striking one involved the length of the aliphatic chain of the formate esters; as the length of the aliphatic chain increased, t oxicity in general decreased. Also, the formate group within the aliphatic chain was correlated with higher toxicity than the acetate group. A total of 4 compounds, the formate esters hept yl formate and ethylene glycol di-formate (EGDF), the heterobicyclic menthofuran, a nd the organophosphate DDVP were tested on house flies. DDVP was 25 times more toxic compared to the second best compound, the heterobicyclic menthofuran. Menthofuran was followed by EGDF, and last by heptyl formate. Also, ceramic porous rods were embedded with heptyl format e in order to evaluate the effectiveness of controlled vapor release of heptyl formate in killing house flies over time. It was shown that controlled vapor release of heptyl formate can be used successfully to provide house fly mortality over time. Three of the novel compounds, heptyl formate, EGDF, and menthofuran were synergized with the insecticide s ynergists SSS-tributyl-phosphorotrithio ate (DEF), and piperonyl butoxide (PBO), which are esterase and P450 inhibito rs, respectively. For both mosquitoes and house flies, when EGDF and heptyl formate were co -applied with DEF their toxicities decreased, supporting esterase based activati on of formate esters. Also, when menthofuran was synergized with PBO its toxicity increased, supporting P4 50 based deactivation of heterobicyclics.

PAGE 11

11 CHAPTER 1 INTRODUCTION It would be impossible to refer to all those times that insects affected the course of human history. Just to name a few, the death of great warriors like Alexa nder the Great was attributed to malaria, a disease transmitted by mosquitoes. Great empires like the Roman Empire were brought to decline because of the Bubonic plague, a disease transmitted by fleas. Of course not to forget that Bubonic plague, also referred to as the Black Death, was responsible for causing 25 to 75 million deaths in Europe alone. A vast number of deaths during wars is attributed to insect borne diseases; in the American civil war an estimate of 40,000 to 100,000 deaths were attributed to dysentery, a disease tr ansmitted by filth-flies (Capinera 2004). Because of the major impact insects can have on people’s lives, people have had an ongoing battle with them since the very early years in the page s of history. The first human attempt to control insects was documented duri ng the early years of ancient Greece. Homer described how Odysseus fumigated a house with bu rning sulfur to control insect pests (Homer, 800 B.C.E). Since then, there has been a lot of improvement in the deve lopment of chemical compounds with effective in secticidal activities. The first su ccessful compound with phenomenal insecticidal activity was the chlorinated hydrocarbon, DDT (dichl orodiphenyltrichloroethane) (Casida & Quistad 1998). DDT was brought into the insecticide market in 1939, and it was effective against a wide range of insects and most notably against mosquitoes. Paul Muller received a Nobel Prize in 1949 for discovering th e insecticidal activit ies of DDT (Capinera 2004). After the development of the chlorinate d hydrocarbons other succ essful insecticidal groups followed, such as the organophosphates [par athion (1946), malathion (1952), chlorpyrifos (1965)], the methyl carbamates [carbaryl (1957 ), alanycarb (1984)], and the pyrethroids [allethrin (1949), resmethrin (1967 ), permethrin (1973), deltamet hrin (1974)] (Casida & Quistad

PAGE 12

12 1998). Some more recent insecticidal groups are th e insect growth regulators such as juvenoids and chitin synthesis inhibitors [methoprene (1973), fenoxycarb (1981),] the chloronicotinyls [imidacloprid (1990)], the phenylpyrazoles [fipron il (1992)], and the avermectins [abamectin (1981)] (Casida & Quistad 1998). All these insecticides have had a wide appli cation spectrum targeting various insect pests, including agricultural and public health pests. My research will specifically focus on two of the most important categories of public health pest s: the mosquitoes (Diptera: Culicidae) and the filth flies (Diptera: Muscidae). Each one of thes e pests has its own life hi story, unique behavioral and morphological traits, and di fferent potential for disease transmission. Mosquitoes, despite their miniature size, and their delicate, vulnera ble figure have managed successfully to survive on planet earth for more than 170 million years. With their unique adaptation mechanisms they have managed to thrive in almost all kinds of water habitats, from crab-holes and leaf-axils, to subzero tundra wetlands in Arctic. Mosquitoes are vectors of serious and deadly diseases such as malaria, yellow fever, dengue and the differe nt types of encephali tis. A total number of approximately 320 million human cases of mosquito borne diseases with 2 million deaths occur every year (Tabachnick 2004). There are appr oximately 3,200 recognized mosquito species worldwide and the largest number of them still remains to be discovered (Rutledge 2004). The mosquito species that was studied in this research was the yellow fever mosquito Aedes aegypti (L). Like all dipterans, mosquitoes exhibit holometabolous development. Their life cycle is completed in two different environments: one aquatic and one terrestrial. The first three stages of their life cycle, the egg, the larv a, and the pupa, are adapted to su rvive in aquatic environments, whereas the last stage, the winged adult inhabits terrestrial environments. Their life-cycle lasts from 7 to 14 days depending on the mosquito speci es. A more detailed description of the species’

PAGE 13

13 morphology, behavior, biology and a review of the current control methods will be given in Chapter 2. Filth flies have been in close association with humans since humans showed up on planet Earth. They have been a nuisance with their pain ful bites and a plague due to the serious, life threatening diseases they transmit. Some of the diseases they transmit are typhoid fever, dysentery and diarrhea. Flies are also known to infect human and animal flesh, a condition known as myiasis. There are approximately 87,000 species of flies worldwide (not including mosquitoes) (Scott & Littig 1964) and 9,000 of them belong to th e family Muscidae (Mullen & Durden 2002). The filth fly species that was stud ied in this research was the common house fly Musca domsestica (L.). Houseflies have complete metamorp hosis, and their life cycle is divided into 4 stages: the egg, the larva, the pupa, and the winged adult. The ti me necessary for the completion of the cycle depends on the species and on the environmental conditions such as temperature and moisture. A more detailed de scription of the species’ morphology, behavior, biology, and a review of current control methods will be given in Chapter 3. A major problem that emerged from the use of insecticides is the development of resistance. It was Melander (1914) that first reported insecticide resistance. Since then the number of insects and mites worldwide that have developed resistance to one or more pesticides has increased to 504 and continues to increase (Becker 2003). Specifically, the number of public health pests that developed insecticide resi stance has increased from 2 in 1946, to 198 in 1990 (Oppenoorth 1985, Georghiou 1990). Both mosquitoes and houseflies developed resistance rapidly to various insecticides. Hemingway a nd Ranson (2000) gave a very nice review of insecticide resistance on mosquitoes that vect or diseases. In 1947 th e first case of DDT resistance was documented in Aedes tritaeniorhynchus and Aedes solicitans Since then more

PAGE 14

14 than 100 mosquito species have developed resistance to one or more of the insecticides discussed above. A broad-spectrum of organophosphate resi stance or malathion-specific resistance has been documented in the major malaria vectors ( Anopheles group) such as Anopheles culicifacies, Anopheles stephensi, Anopheles albimanus, A nopheles arabiensis, Anopheles sacharovi. Also, pyrethroid resistance has occurred in Anopheles albimanus, Anopheles stephensi and Anopheles gambiae among others, not to neglect the carbamate resistance in Anopheles sacharovi and Anopheles albimanus Widespread resistance to or ganophosphates has occurred in the Culex group as well, and pyrethroid resistance was recorded in Culex quienquefasciatus Widespread resistance to pyrethroi ds has occurred in Aedes aegypti and additionally many cases of carbamate and organophosphate resistance have been recorded as well. Things do not look any better for house flies. It was agai n in the year of 1947 that the firs t case of house fly resistance to DDT was recorded (Georghiou 1972). Keiding 1999 prepared a very nice review of the global status of insecticide resistance in field populations of the housefly, Musca domestica (L.). According to his review, when the organochlorin es failed to control flies (1950), they were replaced by the organophosphorous compouds, and it wasn’t long afterwards that organophosphorous resistance was reco rded (1955, Denmark). It didn’ t take long to spread to different parts of the world (North Amer ica 1966, United Kingdom 1977, Germany 1979, Japan 1979, Belgium 1981, West Africa 1979, Au stralia 1989 to name a few). Widespread resistance to carbamates was also seen, with an early C zechoslovakian report in 1983. Resistance on pyrethroids was first recorded in Denmark in the 1970’s. It is, also, worth mentioning that in the USA, the first pyrethroid resistan ce case was observed in 1984 in Georgia after only 2 years of permethrin use.

PAGE 15

15 Considering the limited number of insecticides registered for management of public health insect pests and the increasing in cidents of resistance documented, it is essential that already existing insecticides must be used wisely and th at new insecticides with novel modes of action must be discovered. The main objective of this st udy is to evaluate a series of new promising chemicals with insecticidal activity and potenti ally novel modes of action on mosquitoes, using Aedes aegypti (L.), and on filth flies, using Musca domestica (L.). These new insecticides have high vapor pressures, and, as a result they s how potential to act as vapor toxicants. The experiments presented in this paper evaluated vapo r toxicity of the novel insecticidal chemistries.

PAGE 16

16 CHAPTER 2 LITERATURE REVIEW: TH E YELLOW FEVE R MOSQUITO No animal on earth has touched so direct ly and profoundly the lives of so many human beings. For all of history, and all over the globe, she has been a nuisance, a pain, and an angel of death. The mosquito has killed grea t leaders, decimated armies, and decided the fate of nations. All this, and she is roughly the size and wei ght of a grape seed. (Spielman and D’Antonio 2001, p. 15 from The Preface to Mosquito) Classification and Distribution Aedes aegytpi (L.) is a mosquito species in the family Culicidae, subfamily Culicinae, and tribe Aedini. There are three types of this species: the typical form Ae. aegypti aegytpi Ae. aegytpi queenslandensis and the smallest type Ae. aegytpi formosus which is a forest species (Nelson 1986). Only the first two types are found in the USA. World distribution Ae. aegypti is thought to have originated from Africa (Gratz 1993). It has been introduced to many parts of the world through ships and therefor e ports are the first areas to be invaded. Currently this species is di stributed in most tropic al and subtropical world regions, with a range extending from 40 degree s N to 40 degrees S latitude (Womack 1993). USA distribution. Ae. aegypti occurs in 21 states, whic h are Alabama, Mississippi, Florida, Georgia, Tennessee, Kentucky, North Ca rolina, South Carolina, Virginia, New York, Delaware, Maryland, Kansas, District of Columb ia, Illinois, Arkansas, Louisiana, Missouri, Oklahoma, Texas, and New Mexico (Womack 1993, Darsie and Ward 2005). Florida distribution. Ae. aegypti used to be widely distribu ted through the entire state of Florida (Tinker and Hayes 1959, Morlan and Tink er 1965). However, since the introduction of Ae. albopictus in 1986 (Peacock et al. 1988), a significant decline of the Ae. aegytpi population has been detected (O’Meara et al. 1992a, O’Meara et al. 1995).

PAGE 17

17 Morphology The Egg The eggs are black in color, cigar shaped and one millimeter in length. The Larva The body of the larva is divided into 3 distin ct segments; the hea d, the thorax and the abdomen. The head and thorax have an ovoid sh ape and the abdomen is divided into nine segments. The posterior segment of the abdomen has four specially modified gills for osmotic regulation and a siphon sp ecialized for breathing (Mullen an d Durden 2002). The siphon of the Aedes mosquitoes is distinctively sh orter than other mosquitoes and plays an important role in distinguishing them from othe rs. Also, the position of the Aedes larvae in water is almost vertical to the water surface (Nelson 1986). Two distinctive characteristics set Ae. aegytpi apart from other Aedes larvae. The first one is the two prominent late ral hooks (spines) on each side of th e thorax. The second one is the row of seven to twelve comb scales on the eighth a bdominal segment. Each one of these scales has two lateral teeth and a medial spine that gives it a ‘pitchfork ’ appearance (Nelson 1986, Darsie and Ward 2005). The Pupa Pupae in the genus of Aedes have a distinct short hair at the tip of each swimming paddle and short breathing tubes known as air trumpets (Nelson 1986). The Adult Aedes aegypti is a medium sized black colored mos quito with a distinctive lyre-shaped design on the mesonotum. It also has white bands at the bases of the ta rsal segments. Another key characteristic is the white segments on the palpi and the clypeus (Christophers 1960, Darsie and Ward 2005).

PAGE 18

18 Life Cycle The Egg Aedes aegypti were originally tree-hole breeders (Soper 1967), but as they evolved and adapted in environments near and around human dwellings they became container breeders. A unique characteristic of thei r biology is that they attach their e ggs on the sides of artificial as well as natural containers (Pra tt and Littig 1967, Nelson 1986, Mullen and Darden 2002, Becker 2003, Rutledge and Evans. 2004). The eggs are fertilized at the moment of oviposition and it takes from 48 hours up to 5 days for embryonic development to be completed depending on the environmental temperature (Nelson 1986). The eggs have the ability to withstand long desiccation periods for up to one year and some times even more. Temperature and humidity play a significant role in the viability of the eggs. It was shown that at relative humidities from 91% to 95% Ae. aegypti embryos can survive for up to 15t h months (Christophers 1960). Also, temperatures ranging from 42o to 53o F were shown to be lethal to the embryo when the eggs were exposed to them for more than 2 weeks. Flooding is the necessary stimulus for the eggs to hatch. It takes 15 minutes of flooding for some eggs to hatch. On the other hand some eggs need to be inundated several times prior to hatching (Nelson 1986). The Larva The larval development is divided into 4 instar s. The first three instars develop fast and are more sensitive whereas the last instar takes longer to develop a nd increases more in size and weight (Nelson 1986, Mullen and Durden 2002). The duration of the development depends on several factors such as food availability, e nvironmental temperatur e and larval density (Cristophers 1960, Gerberg et al. 1994) It can vary from as short as 5 days at optimal conditions up to 14 days. At a constant temperature of 21-25o C the larvae are expected to pupate at 10-12 days (Geberg et al. 1994). Under unfavorable conditi ons the duration of the la st instar can last for

PAGE 19

19 up to several weeks before pupation takes place (Nelson 1986). The male larvae develop faster than the female larvae, and as a result they pupate one day earlier (Mullen and Durden 2002). The Pupa The pupae are the least active stage. They do not feed and their main function is metamorphosis into the mature adult stag e (Nelson 1986, Mullen and Durden 2002). The pupae have the ability to react to external stimuli such as vibrations and light and thus actively move away. The pupae are buoyant, and th erefore they have the ability to float on the water. This property allows them to emerge as adults. Th e duration of the pupal stage lasts 2 to 3 days (Nelson 1986, Mullen and Durden 2002). The male pupae develop faster than the female pupae. The Adult Emergence At the early stages of brood emergence males are most abundant (Christophers 1960). When emergence is completed, the adult rests at the sides of the container for a few hours until the wings and the exoskeleton harden and darken (Nelson 1986). Additionally, the males have to rotate their genitalia 180o into the right position (Nelson 1986, B ecker 2003). This may last up to 24 hours. Mating Approximately 24 hours after emergence, mati ng takes place. Mating takes place with the female at rest or in flight (Schoof 1967). The males are attracted to the females due to the sound that is made by their wing beat. Females can begin to produce the desirable wing beat 2.5 hours after emergence (Roth 1948, Nelson 1968). The attr acted male clasps the tip of the female abdomen with his genitalia and inserts his aedeagus into the female genital chamber. The duration of the copulation is br ief and lasts less than a minute (Roth 1948). Females mate once since one insemination is enough to fertilize all the eggs that a female will develop in her

PAGE 20

20 lifetime. Males on the other hand were shown to mate up to 10 and 15 times (Schoof 1967). After mating is complete the female searches for a blood meal. Once blood fed the female no longer emanates the wing beat tone (Roth 1948, Nelson 1968). Feeding The male mouthparts are not adapted fo r blood feeding. They meet their energy requirements by feeding on flower nectar. Females also feed on flower n ectar to satisfy their carbohydrate needs. The female requires additiona lly a protein rich blood meal in order to be able to develop viable eggs (Magna relli 1979, Clements 1992). The females of Aedes aegypti show preference in feeding on humans, a beha vior known as “anthropophilic” (Carpenter and LaCasse 1955); however, they will feed on most vert ebrates when available. Female mosquitoes use several stimuli to detect a nd reach their host. Carbon dioxid e, octenol and lactic acid are some of the most documente d host attractants (Acree et. al 1968, Takken and Kline 1989, Mboera and Takken 1997). Female mosquitoes fly upwind following the odors and other attractants released by the host. Once they are in close proximity to the hos t they use visual cues to locate the host. It was shown that Ae. aegypti are more attracted to black surfaces (Brett 1938) and to black-white interfaced su rfaces (Brown 1966). As they approach even closer, temperature and other skin emissions guide them to the prope r feeding site. Blood feeding usually takes place during daylight (Nelson 1986). Flight range Males fly less than the females (Nelson 1986). A female Aedes aegypti more commonly remains at the location where it emerged. In an experiment done by Trips and Hausermann (1986) it was shown that most marked Ae. aegypti were caught in the house in which they were released. When needed, a female can fly up to 2.5 kilometers in search of breeding sites

PAGE 21

21 (Wolfinsohn and Galun 1953). It has been estimate d than on average one female does not exceed 50 meters of flying during its life time (Nelson 1986). Resting behavior The most suitable resting place is a dark, quiet place. They mostly prefer to rest beneath and inside structures and rarely choose to rest outdoors on vege tation (Schoof 1967, Nelson 1986). They generally show preferen ce resting on vertical surfaces. Longevity Aedes aegytpi adults in a laboratory se tting can live for several months varying from 131 up to 225 days (Christophers 1960). However, in nature they usually survive for only a few weeks. Previous work has shown an average lif e-spam of 15 d for female mosquitoes outdoors (Nelson 1986). It is estimated th at, when a population emerges, 50% of the adults die on average during the first week and 95% of the population dies after the first month. However, if the beginning emerging population is large, the subse quent older population will be adequately large to transmit disease and initiat e an epidemic (Nelson 1986). Fecundity After a complete blood meal (2-3 mg), a female will produce and oviposit ~100 eggs (Nelson 1986). Smaller meals result in the produc tion of small batches of eggs. It takes three days between blood engorgement and egg oviposition. It is also worth mentioning that a female can feed again the same day that oviposition to ok place. A single female can produce several egg batches in its life-time. Public Health Importance of the Yellow Fever Mosquito Aedes aegytpi is the main vector of 2 serious and life-threatening diseases, yellow fever, and the two forms of dengue, dengue fever (DF) and dengue hemorrhagic fever (DHF). Both diseases are caused by viruses in the fa mily Flaviridae (Mullen and Durden 2002).

PAGE 22

22 Yellow fever. It is caused by the YF virus. The rela tionship between Ae. aegytpi and YF virus was confirmed through the work of Carlos Finley (1881) and Walter Reed (1900). This discovery was of great importance, and it was the initiation of serious mosquito control measures to eradicate the mosquito vect or, which brought great results and decrease significantly the vector populations. Currently, yellow fever is a seri ous threat in Central America, South America and lowland equatorial Africa. Yellow fever is the cause of approximately 30,000 deaths every year (Tabachnick 2004). The latest epidemic in the United States was in 1905 in New Orleans, where there were 3,402 cases and 452 deaths (Mullen and Durden 2002). Yellow fever is a hemorrhagic disease. Symptoms start to appear 3-6 days after infection. There are several cases of yellow fever with mild or no symptoms at all (Shroyer 2004). Dengue fever (DF) and dengue hemorrhagic fever (DHF). Dengue is caused by the DEN virus that exists in 4 di fferent and distinct serotype s (DEN-1, DEN-2, DEN-3, DEN-4). There are two forms of disease, the classic de ngue fever and the most severe form the dengue hemorrhagic fever. Some of the symptoms of de ngue are fever, headache, rash, and pain in the muscles and joints (Mullen and Durden 2002). The symptoms of the diseas e can vary from mild to fatal. The severity of the symptoms depends on the age as well as the infection history of the patient. Children show higher fatalities (CDC 2005) The first epidemic of DF that was reported occurred in 1779-1780 in three different contin ents simultaneously: Asia, Africa, and North America (CDC 2005). Dengue is responsible for hundreds of thousands of cases every year (CDC 2005). Specifically, from 1956 to 1980 ther e were 715,238 cases of DF and 21,345 deaths reported, and from 1986 to 1990 there were 1,26 3,321 cases and 15,940 deaths (Rigau-Perez et al. 1994).Currently, this di sease is a problem to all tropical and subtropical areas of the world.

PAGE 23

23 Indigenous transmission of the disease in th e USA was reported in the years of 1980, 1986, and 1995 in Texas (Rigau-Perez et al. 1994, Mullen and Durden 2002). Control Methods of the Yellow Fever Mosquito Every organized mosquito control program is composed of 3 main components: surveillance of the mosquito target, methods fo r controlling the immature mosquito stages and methods for controlling the adult mosquitoes. Surveillance Surveillance is the basis of every pest control program. Constant knowledge of the distribution and composition of mo squito populations is the key to a well organized and effective control program. Also, preand post-treatment surveillance is nece ssary in order to evaluate the success of every control method implemented. Ther e are various tools and methods available to monitor mosquito populations. Wh en still in the immature stages the most common monitoring method is the dipping technique us ing a standard dipper, a dipper with a screened bottom or a cooking buster (Schreiber 2004). There are some monitoring tec hniques modified specifically for monitoring Ae. aegypti larvae. Harrison et al. (1982) and Undeen & Becnel (1994) developed 2 different types of floating tr aps specialized for collecting Ae. aegytpi larvae. When in the adult stage the surveillance of the mosquito populatio ns is accomplished in two main ways: through the human landing rate technique and through the use of trapping devices. The most commonly used trap is the dry ice baited CDC trap with or without ice (Schreiber 2004). The New Jersey light trap is also used; however, when used in urban settings where Ae. aegypti are predominantly found, the lights from the houses will compete with the trap light source resulting in smaller numbers of mosquitoes captured (S chreiber 2004). Fay (1968) designed a trap, called the Fay trap, for specifically collecting Ae. aegypti adults. The Fay trap is similar to the CDC trap except that it is painted shiny black with the light source replaced by a glossy black board.

PAGE 24

24 Methods for Controlling Immature Mosquitoes The different methods available for controlli ng the immature mosquito stages are applied directly in the water and they can have larviciding action, pupicidi ng action, or they can even kill the adult mosquito while it is emerging. So me common methods for controlling immature mosquitoes are source reduction, use of the mosquito fish, Gambusia affinis, which is a form of biological control, use of bact erial insecticides such as Bacillus thuringiensis israelensis (B.t.i.) and Bacillus sphaericus (B.sph.), use of insect growth regulat ors (IGR’s) such as chitin synthesis inhibitors and juvenile hormone analogues, use of surface control agents such as oils and monomolecular films, and use of insecticides such as the organophosphate insecticide temephos. Source reduction is one of th e most effective methods for controlling container breeding mosquitoes such as Ae. aegytpi Gubler et al. (1991) pointed out that “the only truly effective way to control mosquito vectors of dengue is source reduction”. The mosquito fish was used in Malaysia in water containers for the control of Ae. aegypti (Becker et al. 2003). B.t.i. and B.sph. are two different species of natu rally occurring soil bacteria cap able of producing, during their sporulation, proteins that are to xic to mosquito larvae. The larv ae need to be actively feeding on the bacterial spores in order for the product to be effective. B.t.i and B.sph. are available in different formulations such as liquids, powders, granules, tablets and briq uets. B.t.i. is more effective in controlling Aedes and Psorophora species (Weinzierl et al 2005). B.sph. is effective in controlling Culex Psorophora and Culiseta species (Weinzierl et al 2005). Its effectiveness in controlling Aedes species varies, for example it is not as effective in controlling Ae. aegypti populations. It was shown that Ae. aegypti larvae were 100 times less susceptible to B.sph. compared to other mosquito species (Becker 200 3). A distinct difference between B.t.i. and B.sph. is environmental persistence. B.sph. can persist in the envir onment whereas B.t.i. has little residual activity. A new tablet formulation of B. t.i. and B.sph. was successfully used to control

PAGE 25

25 Cx. p. pipiens and Ae. aegypti (Becker et al. 1991, Kroeger et al. 1995). Timing of application for both bacterial species is ve ry critical, because early first and late fourth instar larvae do not feed and thus they will not receive the chemical. Diflube nzuron, a chitin synthesis inhibitor, interferes with the molting process of the la rva and prevents the normal deve lopment of the cuticle (Becker et al. 2003). Methoprene is an analog of a naturally occurring insect hormone called juvenile hormone. Methoprene works by interfering with the mosquito’s life-cycle. By doing so it prevents the insect’s metamorphosis from an im mature to an adult and causes adult sterility. Methoprene gets absorbed on contac t through the larval integument, t hus larvae don’t need to be feeding in order for methoprene to act effectively. Me thoprene is commercially available with the name Altosid. Altosid products come in diffe rent formulations such as liquids, powders, granules and briquets. Altosid fo rmulations are known for their long residual activity for up to 150 days (Florida Coordinating Council on Mo squito Control 1998). Some commonly used surface agents are the Golden Bear oil and th e monomolecular films Arosurf MSF and Agnique MMF. Surface oils cause mortality to mosquito larvae and pupae through suffocation because the oily surface prevents the inse cts from obtaining air through th eir siphon. On the other hand the monomolecular films prevent the insects from remaining on the surface of the water by reducing the tension of the water surface. Under these co nditions larvae and pupae die from exhaustion as they use up their energy reserves trying to st ay at the surface. Teme phos is a heterocyclic organophosphate and is widely kno wn with the commercial name Abate. It is available in different formulations such as liquids and gr anules. Temephos is very effective against all mosquito species and has a very low mammalian t oxicity with an LD50 of 2030 mg/kg. It acts by inhibiting the activity of acetylc holinesterase enzyme in the Central Nervous System (CNS) synapses resulting in the accumulation of acetylcho line at its post-synaptic receptor. The excess

PAGE 26

26 of acetylcholine causes neuroexcita tion, rapid twitching of the muscle s, and final paralysis of the insect. Temephos has been used successfully to control Ae. aegytpi For example, in Thailand an up to 95.4% reduction of adult density was ach ieved after applying temephos 1% granule formulation on the bodies of wate r containing larvae (Gratz 1993, B ecker et al. 2003). However, resistance to temephos has been reported (Gra ndes and Sagrado 1988) and is a serious concern. Methods for Controlling Adult Mosquitoes Chemical control of adult mosquitoes, comm only known as “adulticiding”, is divided in two main categories based on behavi oral traits of the mosquito: Control of the resting adults, which are residual applications refe rred to as barrier or surface sprays, and control of the flying adults, which are Ultra Low Volume applicat ions referred to as space sprays. These two categories differ in the type of insecticides that are utilized as well in the application techniques that are used to distribute the insecticides on the target insect. Additionally, there is also one less popular approach available for controlling adult mosquitoes, which involves the use of vapor toxicants. For the control of the resting adults, also, known as barrier tr eatment applications, residual insecticides are applied to pe rimeters around private residencie s and recreational areas where mosquitoes are anticipated to rest. Some of th e commonly used insecticides are deltamethrin, bifenthrin, betacyfluthrin, and lambda-cyhalo thrin. Barrier treatments are large droplet applications, commonly applied during daylight hours, and are anticipated to last from a week up to two months depending on the insecticide used. Reiter (1991) pointed out that resting behavior of Ae.aegytpi plays a key role on the c ontrol of the insect, becaus e unlikely most mosquito species, Ae. aegytpi prefer to rest inside (endophilic be havior) or around houses, and therefore they are hard to target thr ough space-spraying applic ations. In agreement to Reiter’s theory,

PAGE 27

27 Chadee (1990) found that residual house spraying, a surface spray, was more effective for controlling Ae. aegytpi compared to ULV (ultra low volume applications) space spray. The control of the flying adults is the most visi ble type of treatment with immediate results, and is the method of choice when ther e is a need for rapid reduction of mosquito populations like in the case of a disease outbreak. For this type of treatment the target is the flying adult mosquito and therefore the timing of spraying must coincide with mosquito flight activity. The treatments can be applied either ae rially or by ground. The application technique is called Ultra Low Volume (ULV). ULV technology; as defined by the Environmental Protection Agency, is a method of dispensing insecticide in volumes less than 5 liters per hectare. Within mosquito control concentrate insecticide is of ten applied, therefore the output volume can be even lower < 1 liter per hectar In other words ULV is a technique that applies the minimum amount of liquid of insecticides per unit area. The size of the droplets within the insecticidal cloud plays a very important role in determin ing the effectiveness of every spraying mission. Previous research has shown that the optimum droplet size for adult mosquito control is 5-10 microns (volume median diameter) for ground ap plications and 10-25 microns (volume median diameter) for aerial applications (Mount 1970). The size of the droplet determines the number of droplets per unit volume of insecticide, the time of which a droplet remains airborne, and the chances of the droplet penetra ting through obstacles such as ve getation to reach the mosquito target (Becker 2003). Some common insecticides that have been used for controlling adult mosquitoes are fenthion, malathion and naled of the organophosphate family, sumithrin and resmethrin of the first generation synthetic pyret hroids and permethrin of the second generation synthetic pyrethroids (Florida Coordi nating Council on Mo squito Control 1998). There has been a certain degree of failure of space sp raying applications in controlling Ae. aegypti adults (Fox

PAGE 28

28 1980, Perich et al. 1990, Gratz 1993) a nd a suggested explanation to that is their tendency to rest indoors (Becker 2003). One last approach for adult mosquito contro l involves the use of slow release vapor toxicants. This is one of the leas t popular control methods and there has only been little research conducted to test the effectiveness of such applications. This could li kely be attributed to the lack of insecticidal compounds with effective va por toxicities. Dichlorvos (DDVP) is the one insecticide that has been most studied as a vapor toxicant agains t mosquitoes and other medically important pests (Maddock et al. 1963, Brooks & Schoof 1964, Brooks et al 1965). Dichlorvos is an organophosphate insecticide and fo r the first time it was registered to be used as an insecticide in 1948 (EPA Pesticide Fact Sheet, 1978). A very common slow vapor release formulation of dichlorvos is resin strips. Slow release form ulations of dichlorvos were shown to work effectively as an additional mosquito control me thod in occupied houses for malaria eradication programs (Mathis et al. 1959, Quarterman et al 1963). However, the high acute mammalian toxicity of dichlorvos, in comb ination to reported resistance incidents has limited the use of dichlorvos as a widespread mosquito contro l method. Therefore, there is a need for new insecticidal compounds, with good vapor toxicities and novel mode s of action that will replace dichlorvos. This research eval uated vapor toxicity of novel, low molecular weight, highly volatile formate, acetate, and hete robicyclic compounds on mosquitoes.

PAGE 29

29 CHAPTER 3 LITERATURE REVIEW: THE HOUSE FLY And there came a grievous swarm of flies into the house of Pharaoh, a nd into his servant’s houses, and into all the land of Egypt, and the land was corrupted by this kind of flies. (The Bible, Exodus 8:24, p. 74) Classification and Distribution The house fly Musca domestica (L.) belongs to the class Insecta, the order Diptera, suborder Cyclorrapha, and family Muscidae. It is commonly named house fly due to its close association to human settlement s and activities. It is the mo st common fly in and around the home and it is a nuisance in every place where do mestic animals are kept and waste accumulates. It is distributed around the world (West 1951) with the only exception of the Arctic, the Antarctic and areas of extreme high altitudes (Scott & Littig 1 964). There are four different subspecies : M. d. domestica Linnaeus, M. d. vicina Macqvart, M. d. nebulo Fabricius, and M. d. curviforceps Sacca & Rivosecchi. The first three subsp ecies are found in temperate zones all over the world including subarctic and subtropical ar eas where as the fourth subspecies is limited to Africa (Keiding 1986). Morphology The Egg They are 1-1.2 mm in length, banana shap ed and creamy in color (West 1951, Keiding 1986). The Larva The larval stage is divided in three instars, from which the third one or else known as prepupa can reach up to 13 mm in length (Keiding 1986). Each instar is characterized by a cylindrical body divided in 13 well-defined segments with no appendages (West 1951). The larval head has no eyes and is located on the an terior, conical-shaped en d of the larval body. For

PAGE 30

30 feeding and for locomotion the la rva has one strong and one small interior mouth hook located at the head. The posterior end of its body is rounded and consists of a pair of sclerotized structures, the spiracles, which are essential for breathing. The Pupa When the fly is ready for pupation, the integumen t of the third larval instar contracts and hardens to form a barrel shaped puparium (W est 1951, Keiding 1986). The size of an average puparium is 6.3 mm in length (West 1951). For th e first couple of hours the puparium is soft with a whitish, creamy coloration. As the cuticle hardens the color gradually da rkens into a dark brown coloration. The Adult An adult house fly is approximately 6-9 mm in length and has a grayish coloration (West 1951, Mullen & Durden 2002). It has a pair of wings longer than the abdomen and when in rest they are directed posteriorly giving a triangul ar appearance to the fly (West 1951). The house fly’s body is divided into three well defined regi ons: the head, the thorax, and the abdomen. The head has a pair of prominent eyes, where in the ca se of males are joined together (holoptic), and in the case of females are divided (dichoptic) (Mullen & Durden 2002). A dults have a pair of sucking mouthparts called the proboscis, which is composed of the labium that encloses the labrum and the hypopharynx and terminates in a two lobed labella (West 1951). The thorax is usually characterized by 4 dar k, longitudinal stripes called v itae (Mullen & Durden 2002). Life Cycle The Egg The eggs are laid in clusters in moist s ubstrates of decaying, fermenting or putrefying organic matter (Schoof et al. 1954). One hous e fly can lay approximately 100-150 eggs (West 1951). The most favorable breeding sites are human waste and animal manure (Keiding 1986).

PAGE 31

31 The eggs are very dependent upon moisture. It was shown that below 90% RH egg mortality increases (Keiding1986). Also, temp erature plays an important role in the egg development. At 350C it takes 6-8 hours from oviposition to hatching. Below 130C and above 420C the eggs die before hatching (West 1951). The Larva The larval stage is divided into three instars. The first, second, and part of the third instar are called the feeding stages. Th ey mainly feed on bacteria and their decomposition products. Odors attract the feeding stages to the breeding media. The larval stages tend to avoid light and prefer to occur in humid environments with a temperature around 350C (Keiding 1986). The late third instar is called prepupa a nd does not feed. In this stage th e prepupae migrate to cooler and less humid environments where pupation takes place. There are several fact ors that affect the duration of the larval development such as nut rition, moisture, and temperature. Under optimal conditions it takes a minimum of 3-4 days for th e completion of the larval development (Keiding 1986, Hogsette 1995). The Pupa The duration of this stage depends on humidity and temperature and lasts minimum of 3-4 days under optimal conditions (35-40C, 90% RH). The pupae have the ability to withstand lower humidity than the larvae. It has been shown that below 75% some pupae die and below 40% few survive (Keiding 1986). The Adult Emergence When the development of the adult is completed within the pupal case, the adult brakes through the puparium and emerges quickly. The newly emerged adults are light grey and soft in appearance. Also, they have no wings. Before the newly emerged adults become fully capable of

PAGE 32

32 flying they go through a phase that lasts severa l hours during which the cuticle hardens and the wings unfold (Keiding 1986). The young adults are ready for feeding 2-24 hours after emergence. Mating Males and females are ready for mating approximately 24 and 30 h, respectively, after emergence at optimal environmental conditions (K eiding 1986). Visual and olfactory stimulants are involved in the attracti on between male and female a dult flies (Colwe ll & Shorey 1977, Keiding 1986). A sex pheromone, (Z)-9tricosen e (muscalure), is produced by the females to attract the males (Carlson et al. 1971, Carl son & Leibold 1981). Al so, another pheromone produced by the males is known to attract virgin females (Schle in & Galun 1984). Last, the wing beat frequency of the males was shown to have an effect on the mating behavior of the females (Colwell & Shorey 1976). Females usually mate once during their lif etime (monogamous) and store the sperm into the spermatheca (Keiding 1986), as opposed to males that can mate multiple times (polygamous). Oviposition Oviposition is closely dependent on air temperature. Below 150C no oviposition occurs (Keiding 1986, West 1951). Ammonia, carbon dioxide and other odor s of rotting and fermenting materials attract the gravid females to th eir breeding medium (West 1956, Keiding 1986). Favorable breeding media include dung (Haines 1955), garbage and waste from food processing facilities (Schoof et al. 1954), sewage and accumulation of plan t material (Silverly & Schoof 1955). The eggs are very sensitive to moisture and in order to be protected from desiccation are laid beneath the surface, within cracks and crevic es. On average a female oviposits 120 eggs per batch (West 1951).

PAGE 33

33 Feeding House flies are considered to be polyphagous species, which m eans that they can feed on a wide variety of food material a nd they do not depend on particular types of proteins like other members of the family Muscidae (West 1951). Both male and female houseflies need water and sugars in order to survive. It is only the female flies that need additional protein in order to be able to develop viable eggs. They acquire their nutrients mo stly from animal dung, human food and garbage. They are attracted to the food s ource mostly by visual cu es. Odorous stimulants play some role when the food source is in clos e proximity (Keiding 1965). Flies are attracted to smells of fermenting and decomposing materials. When in contact with the food the fly uses special receptors on the legs and antennae to taste the food. Longevity Under laboratory conditions adult house flies can live up to a month (Keiding 1986). However, in field conditions the life span is c onsidered to be less, approximately 2 weeks under ordinary conditions (West 1951). Fecundity A single female house fly produces approxima tely 120 eggs per cycle. The number of generations per year varies depending on the en vironmental conditions. At temperate climates house flies can produce up to 30 generations per year whereas in tropical c limates the number of generations decreases to 10 per ye ar (Keiding 1986). Theoretically, if a female fly laid 120 eggs in the middle of April, she would be res ponsible for the emergence of 5,598,720,000,000 flies in the middle of July (West 1951)! Flight-range House flies are strong fliers, can move forwar d at a rate of 6-8 km per hour, and don’t tend to migrate (Keiding 1986). Provided that food and breeding medium is available they will remain

PAGE 34

34 within a radius of 100-500 m from their breeding site. However, they have been shown to migrate up to 5-20 km from their breeding site (Schoof 1959, Keiding 1986, Nazni et al. 2005). Public Health Importance of the House Fly House flies, because of their behavior and biol ogy can act as very effective disease vectors. They prefer to spend most of their life time on animal manure, human excrements, garbage and any type of decaying organic matter. However, th ey will eagerly utilize any other food source on any type of human facility that is available to them, and when that happens they will transfer pathogens from one substrate to the other. H ouseflies are capable of transmitting pathogenic microorganisms through different modes of transm ission. They can mechanically transfer them on the hair of their body (West 1951, Graczyk et al 2005). They regurgitate them in their vomit, and they can also transfer them in feces thr ough their alimentary track (Sulaiman et al. 2000). The pathogens transferred on the surface of the fl y do not multiply, and they can only survive for a few hours. On the other hand, the pathogens in the alimentary track can multiply and survive longer for up to several days (West 1951). Theref ore this mode of transmission is the most important and dangerous one. The diseases that house flies transmit are intes tinal diseases, eye diseases, and skin and wound diseases. Some examples of intestinal di seases are bacterial in fections (shingellosis, salmonelosis, cholera), protozoa n infections, and viral infections (poliomyelitis) (Levine & Levine 1991, Healing 1995, Mian et al. 2002, Gr aczyk et al. 2005). Outbreaks of diarrheal diseases in predominantly devel oping countries have been associ ated with the seasonal increase in abundance of filth flie s (Graczyk et al. 2001). For example, in Thailand the seasonal peak in fly populations coincides with outbreaks of choler a (Echeverria et al. 1983). Examples of eye diseases that can be transmitted by houseflie s are trachoma and conjunctivitis (Forsey & Darougar 1981). Last, an example of a skin dis ease is habronemiasis, a horse disease (Foil &

PAGE 35

35 Foil 1988). This disease involves the depositi on of infective house fly larvae onto mucous membranes of preexisting skin lesions on the stomach of horses. Control Methods of the House Fly Surveillance Methods For every successful pest contro l approach it is vital to obta in information on the density and species composition of the pest populati on prior to any treatment. Post-treatment surveillance is necessary as well in order to evaluate the success of the control measures that have been implemented. There are several device s available for housefly surveillance that are commonly known as fly-traps. Fly-traps utilize visual stimuli and/or chemical attractants to lure flies. These could be ultra viol et (UV) light traps which act as electrocutors, sugar/pheromone (sex pheromone-muscalure) baited traps, as well as cards or strips coated with sticky material to capture flies. Traps will not measure the absolute number of flies in a population, rather they will give an index and, also, the effectiveness of thes e traps to capture flies depends on their location within a certain area, temperat ure, and the physiological cond ition of the flies (Keiding 1986). Traps besides being a monitoring tool are also used for control operations. Control Methods Sanitation A very old English quote says “Kill a fly in Ju ly, you’ve just killed one fly. Kill a fly in June, they’ll be scarced soon. Kill a fly in May, you’ve kept thousands away” (retrieved from West 1951). Within these 2 lines lies the very es sence of a successful fly control plan. Due to their high reproduction rates, housefly populations can increase rapidly within a small period of time. Preventing the population fr om building up would be the best approach for effective and long-term fly control. The way to achieve preven tion is to eliminate the conditions that allow flies to breed and multiply. Some examples of ideal housefly breeding media, as has been

PAGE 36

36 discussed above, are animal manure, human feces and garbage. Proper disposal of animal manure, human feces, and garbage is the prim ary and most effective method to control houseflies. Pickens et al. (1967) recommended freque nt, if not daily, removal of animal manure. Barnard (2003) suggests collec ting and storing manure in cone -shape piles to reduce the available surface area to flies. He also suggest s proper composting or covering the organic matter with plastic to minimize fly attractiveness. West (1951) suggests storage of manure, when frequent disposal is not feasible, within concrete pits that will be fly-tight. Regarding disposal of human feces a properly operating sewage processi ng plant is necessary for each city and town (West 1951). Last, regarding garbage handling and disposal, open dumps must be replaced with sanitary landfills. In these landfills garbage wi ll be compacted daily and covered with 24 inches of soil to effectively eliminate fly breedi ng (Keiding 1986). Another approach for treating garbage in large cities is complete combustion at temperatures of 1,400 0F to 2,000 0F, which would completely destroy organic material and prevent flies form breeding (Scott & Littig 1964). In conclusion, environmental sanitation is th e best, long-term solution to every housefly problem. Chemical control For those situations where the fly populati on has already increased dramatically and immediate control is required there are several ch emical based approaches that one could follow, which involve the usage of insecticides. There ar e, mainly, six different types of insecticide applications for the control of houseflies: direct insect icide application to the breeding sites for larval control (larvicides), app lication of residual sprays on hous efly resting sites, introducing toxic man-made resting sites (impregnated cord s/strips), applying toxic baits, applying space sprays directly to fly aggregations, and, la st applying vapor toxican ts (Keidig 1986, Barnard 2003).

PAGE 37

37 Larvicides are applied as spot treatments on a regular basis in those areas where fly larvae are breeding. Some insecticides that have been used as larvicides in clude the organophosphates diazinon, trichlorfon, and fenthion, a nd several pyrethroids such as cypermethrin, deltamethrin, and permethrin. The insecticides are applied in different formul ations such as emulsions or suspensions to thoroughly wet the upper 10-15 cm of the breeding medium (Barnard 2003). This method of control, however, should only be consider ed as an alternative to sanitation, and most of the times as a poor alternative. One of the prob lems that appear from the use of larvicides is the mortality of natural predat ors and parasites of houseflies (K eiding 1986, Scott et al. 1991). It has been suggested that even if larvicides offer temporary control they ma y result in increase of the fly population by disrupting the biological re gulation by naturally occurring predators. Two products that have been used for fly larvae control and don’t appear to have any important adverse effects on non-target organisms are the insect growth regulat ors diflubenzuron and cyromazine (Keiding 1986). Treating naturally occurring resting areas of hou seflies with residual insecticides or even introducing insecticide treated resting sites (suc h as toxicant impregnated strips and cords) is another popular approach for fly control. These are low-pressure, spot treatments of residual insecticides on those surfaces that flies are anticipated to land and rest. Several examples of insecticides that have been used for this type of application are the organophosphates (dimethoate, trichlorfon and naled), and the pyrethroids (cypermeth rin, permethrin, and deltamethrin) (Barnard 2003). The effectivenes s of this method depends on the type of the insecticide used, the environmental conditions like sunlight exposure which accelerates the insecticide degradation, but mostly it depends on the right location of the treatment in time and space according to the resting behavior of the fly (Keiding 1965). Keiding (1965) in his review

PAGE 38

38 on observations of the housefly behavior in re lation to its control concluded firstly, that houseflies show preference for resting indoors at lower night temperatures (below 15-20 0C) and outdoors in warmer nights, secondly the upward movement of flies to the ceiling or branches of trees after sunset, and last the general preference of flies to rest on narrow objects, edges, and anything protruding from large surfaces. He s uggested that since housef lies tend to have an aggregated night time distributi on, control efforts should be mos tly directed against the night resting sites. Insecticides in the form of baits came into prominence in th e early 1950’s (Gahan et al. 1953). The first form of baits that were initially used for fly cont rol contained simple sugar water or some other type of attractant combined with poisons such as sodium arsenite and formaldehyde. Since the development of modern in secticides, newer baits have been developed that can be divided into three main categories: dry scatter baits, liquid baits, and paint-on baits (Keiding 1986, Barnard 2003). The newer baits u tilize a variety of organophosphate (i.e. dimethoate, malathion, naled, diazinon) and ca rbamate (i.e. propoxur, bendiocarb, methomyl) insecticides as active ingredients. The effectiveness of the baits to attract flies can be enhanced by the addition of attractants, such as the sex pheromone, muscalure. Baits can provide satisfactory control and reduce fly populations in short periods of time. However, they must be applied one to six times per week (Barnard 2003) in order to be effective. Also, they have the advantage that development of resistance is generally less compared to residual sprays. They must be kept, however, away from animals and children. Both outdoor and indoor space treatments for ho usefly control involve the usage of mists or aerosols of insecticide solutions or emulsions that directly targ et aggregations of resting or flying adults. Space treatments do not provide long -term fly control but instead they provide a

PAGE 39

39 temporary relief from housefly nuisance. Therefor e they should be applied in those situations where excessive housefly nuisance is being observe d, and they should be used as an additional tool and not as the main approach technique fo r controlling houseflies. For indoor applications, hand and power sprayers are used to apply th e material. For the outdoor applications mist sprayers, thermal foggers, or even Ultra Low Volu me (ULV) application methods can be used to disperse the material. For indoor treatments natural pyrethrins or synthetic pyrethroids would be the insecticide of choice, due to their ability to provide quick knockdown without presenting any toxic hazards (Schmidtmann 1981). Also, indoors sp ace treatments must be applied during those times when most flies are aggregated indoors. For the outdoor treatments the application can take place both by ground and air (Mount, 1985) and has as ultimate goal to eliminate fly populations around those areas with high human activity such as recr eational areas and f ood markets. For the outdoor treatments, in addition to the pyrethr oids, several organophosphate compounds are used as well (i.e. malathion, naled, diazinon). One last approach for fly control involves the use of slow release va por toxicants. This has been one of the least popular co ntrol methods and there has been little research conducted to test the effectiveness of such an application. This co uld be attributed to th e lack of insecticidal compounds with effective vapor toxicities. Dich lorvos (DDVP) is the one insecticide mostly studied as a vapor toxicant ag ainst house flies (Miles et al 1962, Matthysse & McClain 1972). Dichlorvos is an organophosphate in secticide and for the first time it was registered to be used as an insecticide in 1948 (EPA 2006). A very common fo rmulation of dichlorvos is in resin strips. The resin strips were shown to work effectivel y against adult flies in enclosed spaces. Resin strips were, also, proven effective for fly control within garbage cans or other similar receptacles that may not be fly-tight. The high mammalian toxici ty of dichlorvos, in combination to reported

PAGE 40

40 resistance incidents (Bailey et al. 1971) has limited the use of dichlorvos as a fly control approach. Therefore, there is a need for new insecticidal compounds, w ith good vapor toxicities and novel modes of action that will replace dichlorvos This research evaluated vapor toxicity of novel, low molecular weight, highly volatile form ate, acetate, and heterobicyclic compounds on house flies.

PAGE 41

41 CHAPTER 4 LITERATURE REVIEW: NOVEL VOLATILE COMPOUNDS AND INSECTICIDE SELECTIVITY Novel Volatile Compounds Insecticides are divided into five categories according to their mode of action: physical poisons, protoplasmic poisons, me tabolic inhibitors, neuroactive agents and stomach poisons (Matsumura 1980). Some insecticides have multiple modes of actions, as that seems to be the case with the novel compounds studi ed in this thesis project. Nguyen et al. (2007) studied toxicity, synergism and neurological effects of the novel formates, acetates, and heterobicyclics on Drosophila Drosophila was chosen as representative of th e order Diptera. According to their findings, the compounds possess a diverse range of ac tivities and modes of actions, as they seem to act as both metabolic inhibitors and neuroactive agents They were able to identify a role for cytochrome P450-based metabolism in activat ion and/or deactivation of the various heterobicyclics, esterase-based activation of some formate esters, and fina lly neurological action at chloride and sodium ch annels by the novel compounds. Also, Haritos & Dojchinov (2003) studied a range of alkyl esters on beetles, in an attempt to discover the toxic agent of the alkyl esters within the insects. Their intentions were to determine whether it was the intact ester or one or mo re of its break down products that were responsible for the toxic effects. Their findings revealed esterase -based activation of the formate esters, which comes in agreement with Nguyen et al (2007). Haritos & Do jchinov (2003) showed that volatile formate esters were more toxic than other alkyl es ters due to their hydrolysis to formic acid and its inhibition of cytochrome c oxidase. The process involves 3 main steps. First, a wide variety of many esterases hydrolyse th e formate esters into formic acid and their corresponding alcohols. Then, form ic acid binds to cytochrome a3 and inhibits cytochrome c oxidase activity (Nicholls 1975). Last, the inhi bition of cytochrome c oxidase prevents the

PAGE 42

42 utilization of molecular oxygen by cells, leading to loss of cell function and subsequently cell death. This research evaluated the vapor toxicity effects of the novel volatile compounds on two different insect species: the yellow fever mos quito and the common house fly. There is no work published to my knowledge regard ing the mode of action of th e novel volatile esters and heterobicyclcis on mosquitoes and house flies. This paper constitutes the first publication on the toxicity of the novel volatile compo unds on mosquitoes and house flies. It is very often that insectic ides exhibit different toxicitie s among different insect species (Camp at al. 1969, Coats 1979, Mallipudi & F ukuto 1979). Understa nding how various insecticides exhibit different t oxicities among different insect sp ecies (insecticide selectivity) will be necessary in order to appropriately explai n and discuss the results presented in Chapters 5 & 6 of this paper. Insecticide Selectivity Once the insecticide enters th e insect body it is recognized as a foreign substance or “xenobiotic”, and is metabolized to a less toxic an d more polar substance that will eventually be removed from the body. This metabolic process is called “detoxicification”. However, it has been shown that insecticides can also be convert ed into more toxic substances once within the insect body. This process is known as “activati on” (Feyereisen 2005). By far the two most significant reactions involvi ng the metabolism of insectic ides are the NADPH-requiring cytochrome P450 mono-oxygenases and the esterase s or hydrolases (Feyereisen 2005, Oakeshott et al. 2005). The first system is also known as the “mixed function oxidase” (MFO) system and it performs the first oxidative enzymatic attack on xenobiotic compounds. These enzymes are quite versatile and accept most xenobiotic copmpounds as their substrate. They require NADPH to deliver the electrons down an electron transport system with cytochrome P450 as the terminal

PAGE 43

43 oxidase of the electron transport chain. The final product of this reaction is the oxidized form of the xenobiotic compound. The second reaction is a hydrolysis reaction and it involves the action of several hydrolases, such as carboxylesterases, amidases, type A-esterases, which split esteratic insecticide substrates with the a ddition of water to yield alcohols and acids as the final products. The activity of these two enzymatic system s varies among different insect species, potentially resulting in species differences in susceptibility to various insecticidal compounds. Also, both enzymatic systems have been invol ved in insecticide resistance mechanisms. Following I have several examples that demons trate how the activities of these 2 enzymatic systems vary among different insects and can affect the insect responses on various insecticides. Casida et al. (1976) reported different ability of esterases to hydrolize pyrethroid insecticides among 5 different insect species. Brooks (1986) repor ted esterases to be more important enzymes for pyrethroid detoxification in Spodoptera littoralis (the Egyptian cotton leafworm), Trichoplusia ni (cabbage looper) and Chrysoperla carnea (common green lacewing) larvae, and oxidases more important in Tribolium castaneum (red flour beetle) larv ae. Claudianos et al. (2006) reported that honeybee shows much greater susceptibility to insecticides compared to Anopheles gambiae and Drosophila due to a deficit of detoxifi cation enzymes: there are only about half as many cytochrome P450 monooxyge nases and carboxyl/cholinesterases in the honeybee compared to Anopheles gambiae and Drosophila Phillips at al. (1990) and Benedict et al. (1994) showed that genetica lly transformed Drosophila (op de grading gene) with high levels of organophosphate hydrolases shows over 20-fold greater paraoxon resistance compared to untransformed controls. Chang & Whalon (1987) show ed that in resistant strains of predatory mites some esterase isozymes demonstrated hi gher rates of syntheti c pyrethroid hydrolysis compared to the non-resistant strains. Als o, P450 over expression was shown to various

PAGE 44

44 insecticide resistant strains. For example Kasa i et al. (1998) showed that the metabolism of permethrin to 4-hydroxypermethrin was higher in microsomes from Culex mosquito larvae resistant to permethrin than from the susceptible strain. Last, conversion of fipronil to its sulfone by P450 has a marginal effect on the toxicity of the parent chemical in Diabrotica virgifera (Scharf et al. 2000). However, in Blattela german ica it was shown that the oxidation of fipronil to its sulfone constitutes an activ ation step (Valle s et al. 1997).

PAGE 45

45 CHAPTER 5 EVALUATION OF VAPOR TOXICITY OF NOVEL LOW MOLECULAR WEIGHT COMPOUNDS ON MOSQUITOES Introduction Volatile insecticides have been commonly used as fumigants for the control of structural pests and the protection of agricu ltural commodities. However, they have been mostly ignored for the control of medical importance pests such as mosquitoes and flies. Dichlorvos (DDVP) is the one volatile insecticide studied mostly on mosquitoes and flies. Dichlorvos is an organophosphate insecticide and was regist ered in 1948 (EPA 2006). One very common formulation of dichlorvos is resin strips. Resin st rips were initially registered for use in areas where flies, mosquitoes and other nuisance pests occur. Dichlorvos has been classified by the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) as a “p robable human carcinogen”, and because of its implications in human health in 2006, its use in homes was restricted to confined spaces such as wardrobes, cupboards and closets (EPA Office 2006) Therefore, there is a need for replacement of dichlorvos with friendlier, less toxic chemistries. Highly volatile, low molecular weight formates, acetates, and heterobicyclics may be po tential replacements for dichlorvos, and in their own right may offer a new class of chemistry. Thirty novel, low molecular weight compounds with insecticidal ac tivity were tested on Drosophila melanogaster Meig. (Scharf et al. 2006). The compounds belonged to six different families: heterobicyclics, formates, acetates, propionates, butyrates and valerates. Drosophila was used as a model to assess potential efficacy of these novel chemistries against mosquitoes and flies. Findings showed 7 highl y effective compounds with vapor toxicity: four formate esters and three heterobicyclics. The reac tion of an organic acid and an alcohol is called esterification, where the end products are always ester and water. Formate esters are organic compounds composed of formic acid and a corresponding alcohol Acetate esters, similarly to formate esters,

PAGE 46

46 are composed of acetic acid and a correspondi ng alcohol. On the other hand the structure of heterobicyclics is made from fused 5, 6-membered rings. For my research I investigated the vapor toxi city effect of 4 heterobicyclic compounds, 7 formate, and 4 acetate esters directly on mosquito es. Most of the compounds that I evaluated in the work presented here are na turally occurring products. They are found on fruits such as apples, bananas, strawberries, oranges, kumquats and coconuts just to name a few. They are commercially used as flavoring agents in products such as coffee, chocolate, fruity drinks, rum, wine, and tobacco. Most of the compounds have a rather strong and fruity odor, and therefore they have many uses as odor agents. Another inte resting characteristic of these products is that they are part of the chemical structure of some pharmaceutical drugs, responsible for treating insomnia, osteoporosis, and asthma. In Tables 5-1, 5-2, and 5-3 the chemical structures of each individual chemical can be seen. Information su ch as molecular weight, boiling point, density, natural occurrence and other physical properties are included in the same table as well. Materials and Methods Chemicals Fifteen novel insecticides (Sigma Aldrich Chemical, Milwaukee, WI) were tested; 7 formate esters [ethylene glycol di-formate (EGDF), methyl formate, ethyl formate, propyl formate, butyl formate, hexyl formate and heptyl formate), 4 heterobicyclic esters (menthofuran, benzothiophene, coumaran and dimethyl-coumarone) and 4 acetate esters (p ropyl acetate, butyl acetate, pentyl acetate and hexyl acetate). Dichlorvos (DDVP) wa s tested as a positive control (Chem Service, West Chester, PA). All insectic ides were >99% pure and in liquid form except for thiophene that came in a crystalline solid form Insecticide stock solutions were prepared in acetone at concentrations of 2, 100, 150, 200, 300 and 400 g/l. All compounds and stock

PAGE 47

47 solutions were held at –20oC in glass vials with rubber lined ca ps to prevent vapor escape, until placed in experiments. The insecticide synergists SSStributyl-phosphorotrithioate (D EF) and piperonyl butoxide (PBO), which are esterase and cytochrome P 450 inhibitors respectively, were used (Mobay Chemical Co., Kansas City, MO and MGK Inc ., Minneapolis, MN). DEF and PBO were >95% pure. DEF and PBO stock solutions were prepared at 100 g/ml in acetone. Insects Mosquitoes [USDA-CMAVE Orlando strain of Aedes aegypti (L.)] reared at the University of Florida in Gainesville were us ed. Mosquitoes were re ared on a 12:12 (L: D) photoperiod, at 25oC and ~50% RH. Mosquito larvae were fed on a powder diet consisting of 2 parts liver (MB Biomedicals LLC, Aurora, OH) and 3 parts yeast (Modern Products Inc., Thiensville, WI). The diet was diluted in de ionized water to a 40 g/liter concentration. Approximately 1,500 larvae were reared in plastic trays (53.3 by 40.6 cm) containing 3 liters of water. The quantity of the diluted diet varied depending on the larval in star. Mosquito larvae were not fed for 24 h after hatching. Second and third instars were fed 30 ml of the diluted medium per day; whereas, the di et of the fourth instars was d ecreased to 20 ml per day. When majority of pupation had occurred no more food was provided. Pupae were removed and placed into deli cups filled with deionized water. The de li cups were then placed into screened rearing cages (39.4 by 26.7 by 26.7 cm) for adult emergence. Mosquito adults were maintained on a 10% [w/v] solution of sugar water. Prior to each treatment 3 to 5-d-old adult mos quitoes were aspirated from their cages and placed into plastic deli cups on ice until their ac tivity was reduced. Ten females were removed from the deli cups using a feather tip forceps. A minimum of 300 mosquitoes were selected for exposure to each insecticide.

PAGE 48

48 Bioassay Main bioassay set-up. This bioassay was adapted from Sc harf et al. (2006) and Nguyen et al. (2007) (Fig. 5-8). Ten females were transferred from the deli caps into 125 ml plastic vials. Caps with an opening of ~2.6 cm in diam eter, covered with co mmon fiberglass window screening (~1.55 mm mesh), were used to close th e vials. The screening prevented insect escape while allowing for gas exchange. Along with the mosquitoes a cotton wick (~1.5 cm in length) dipped in 10% w/v solution of sugar water was placed in the vials. A toothpick (~6.3 cm in length) was used to support the wick. The wick wa s provided as the nutrient and moisture source. The mosquitoes were given 1 h to recover from the chilling effects of the ice prior to the treatment, and then every vial was placed into a Mason 1 liter (1 quart) glass jar along with an untreated filter paper (55 mm in diameter). Pr ior to closing the glass jar the filter paper was treated with the proper quantity of insectic idal solution using an eppendorf pipette. The concentrations of the insecticide solutions varied depending on the insectic ide tested. Methyl and propyl formate were applied at a 100 g/l concentration and in a range from 1.2-1.8 mg. Coumaran, butyl formate, and hexyl formate were applied at a 150 g/l concentration and in a range from 0.75-3 mg, 1.05-1.95 mg, and 1.05-1.95 mg, respectiv ely. Menthofuran, benzothiophene, ethyl formate, heptyl format e, EGDF, propyl acetate a nd butyl acetate were applied at a 200 g/l concentration and in a range from 2-4 mg, 1.6-4 mg, 1.4-2.6 mg, 1.6-4 mg, 2-4 mg, 2.8-4 mg and 2.8-4 m g, respectively. Dimethyl-couma rone and hexyl acetate were applied at a 400 g/l concentration and in a rang e from 2-8 mg. DDVP was applied at a 2 g/l concentration and in a range from 0.016-0.04 mg. There was, also, a bl ank control where the filter paper received no chemical at all, and a solvent control, which received a volume of acetone identical to the highest insecticide soluti on volume (up to 20 l). The jars were closed rapidly and tightly to prevent vapor escape and after a 24 h expos ure mortality was recorded. In

PAGE 49

49 order to determine mortality the jars were sh aken for a minimum of 15 sec before mosquito movement was observed. A mosquito was reco rded dead when there was no movement observed. Synergist (DEF and PBO) bioassay set-up. The effect of the synergists PBO and DEF for toxicity was investigated on th ree of the fifteen insecticides te sted above: ethy lene glycol diformate, heptyl formate and menthofuran. The sy nergist bioassays were conducted in the same way described above except that an extra step was added. That extra st ep involved the exposure of the mosquitoes to the synergist, prior to their exposure to the insecticides (Nguyen et al. 2007). For the synergist bioassay the plastic vial s were replaced with 125 ml glass vials to prevent absorption of the synergis t into the plastic. Synergist stock solutions at 100 l were pipetted to every glass vial, usi ng an eppendorf pipette, so that ev ery vial would contain 10 g of the synergist. Previous studies have shown that this synergist quantity causes no mortality in Drosophila after 24 h of exposure (Nguyen et al. 2007) After treating the vials with the synergist the vials were rolled on their sides under a fu me hood to ensure equal distribution of the synergist on the inner surfaces while the acet one evaporated. Once acetone evaporated, 10 mosquitoes were added in every glass vial along with a moist cott on wick, and were held for an hour to allow for the synergist to take effect. Along with the bl ank and the solvent control, a synergist control was added where the mosquito es were only exposed to the synergist. Data Analysis In those cases where control mortality was obs erved data was adjusted using the Abbott’s formula (Abbott 1925). When control mortality exceeded 10% that rep was discarded. Probit analysis was performed and the LC50 and LC90 of each insecticide with and without the synergist were estimated (SAS Institute 2003). The data re ported in Tables 5-4, and 5-5 include slope, goodness of fit characteristics (c hi-square, P-value) and LC50 and LC90 estimates with 95%

PAGE 50

50 confidence limits. LC estimates with non overl apping 95% confidence limits were considered significantly different. Body-weight corrected LC50s of each insecticide for mosquitoes and Drosophila were calculated (Table 5-6, Fig. 5-7). One hundred indi viduals from both species were weighed and that weight was recorded. That number was then divided by 10 to give th e average weight of 10 mosquitoes and 10 Drosophila (0.0153 and 0.006 g, respectively). The average weight of the 10 insects was used to adjust the LC50 from mg/liter into mg/ g of insect body weight/liter. PoloPlus 2.0 (2005) was used to calculate the poten cy ratios of the LC 50s with & without the synergist. The program calculated 95% confid ence limits for every ratio. The 95% CI were used to determine whether there were significant di fferences in the LC50s due to the effect of the synergists (Table 5-5). Linear regression analyses were performe d (SAS Institute 2003) that compared LC50 estimates versus molecular weight, density and bo iling point of the seven fo rmate esters, the four heterobicyclics and the four acetate es ters (Figs. 5-3, 5-4, 5-5, and 5-6). Results Toxicity Evaluation of Novel Compounds DDVP was by far the most toxic compound tested on mosquitoes. Specifically, it was 54.4 times more toxic compared to the second best compound, the formate ester methyl formate. Within the novel compounds, overall, formate esters were the most toxic family followed by the heterobicyclics and, last, by the aceta te esters (Table 5-4, Fig. 5-1). Formate esters Methyl formate was the most toxic ester (LC50 estimate 1.36 mg/liter), followed by butyl, propyl, ethyl, hexyl formate, EGDF, and heptyl formate. The toxicities of propyl and ethyl formate were not significantly different and there was no major difference between them and butyl formate. EGDF and heptyl formate (LC50 estimates 2.99 and 3.17

PAGE 51

51 mg/liter, respectively) were the least toxic formate esters with toxicities in the same range as the heterobicyclics, the second best performing family of esters. Heterobicyclics Coumaran was the most toxic heterobicyclic (LC50 estimate 2.03 mg/liter), followed by benzothiophene, dimethyl -coumarone and menthofuran. Benzothiophene and dimethyl-coumarone were not significantly different. There were significant differences in the slopes among the 4 heterobicyclic co mpounds. Coumaran, the best performing heterobicyclic, had the smallest slope, which suggests that there is a lot of heterogeneity on the response of the insects to the insecticide. On the other hand, menthofuran, the heterobicyclic with the poorest performance, ha d the biggest slope, which sugge sts a lot of homogeneity on the response of the insects towards the insecticide. Acetate esters Hexyl acetate was the least toxic compound (LC50 estimate 5.09 mg/liter). The toxicities of propyl, butyl and pentyl acetate were not sign ificantly different. Toxicity Evaluation of Novel Compounds wi th the Synergistic E ffect of DEF and PBO Whne heptyl formate and EGDF were cotreat ed with DEF their toxicities decreased significantly (Table 5-5, Fig. 5-2) The toxicity of heptyl form ate decreased by 1.35 times, where as the toxicity of EGDF decreased by 2.56 times Also, when menthofuran was combined with PBO, its toxicity increased significantly. Evaluation of the Role of Volatility in Toxicity Molecular weight, density, and boiling point were investigated as pred ictors of volatility. A chemical with lower molecular weight (lighter chemical), lower boiling point and lower density volatilizes faster compared with a chemical havi ng higher molecular weight (heavier chemical), higher boiling point and higher density. Regressi on analysis between toxicity and volatility predictors was performed for each of the three families separately and for all three families together (Figs. 5-3, 5-4, 5-5, and 5-6). For the formate esters the regressions of LC50 versus

PAGE 52

52 molecular weight, boiling point, and density were correlated with R2 0.57, 0.69, and 0.19, respectively. For the heterobi cyclics the regression of LC50 versus molecular weight was correlated with R2 0.88. On the other hand, the regressions of LC50 versus density and boiling point were weak (R2 < 0.25). Last, for the acetate esters the regressions of LC50 versus molecular weight, density and boiling point were weak (R2 = 0.24, R2 = 0.20, R2 = 0.24 respectively). When combined families regression was performed ther e was a poor correlation between toxicity and all 3 volatility predictors, except maybe with molecular weight (R2 = 0.5). Discussion Comparing Toxicities of Novel Compounds Among Mosquitoes and Drosophila My study is the first report of the toxic effects of the novel vol atile formate, heterobicyclic, and acetate compounds on mosquitoes. Scharf et al (2006) reported the toxicity of these novel compounds on D. melanogaster Meig. Drospophila was used as a model to assess potential efficacy of these compounds on mosquitoes and flies. Body-weight corrected LC50 values (in mg per g of insect per liter) of the 15 volatile compounds and the organophosphate DDVP on mosquitoes and Drosophila can be seen in Table 5-6 and Fig. 5-7. There were significant differences among the toxicities of the compounds on mosquitoes and Drosophila DDVP was by far the most toxic insecticide for both insects and was significantly more toxic to mosquitoes than Drosophila DDVP has been known as a very effec tive insecticide against various insects for many years. Maddock and Sedlack (1961) gave one of the earliest reports regarding the toxicity of DDVP on mosquitoes. They reported th at 0.015 g of DDVP per liter of air will give 100% kill of Anopheles mosquitoes. All compounds, except for menthofuran, were significantly more toxic to mosquitoes than Drosophila On average the 14 com pounds were approximately 3.5 times more toxic to mosquitoes, whereas menthofuran was 1.7 times more toxic to Drosophila On mosquitoes there was a toxicity tr end observed among the three families, with

PAGE 53

53 formates showing overall higher toxicity, follo wed by heterobicyclics and last by acetates. However, there was not an apparent trend on toxicity among the three ester families on Drosophila Some of the best performing compounds and some of the poorest ones belonged to the same chemical families. It was only the acetat e esters that consistently showed poor toxicity. The best 7 performing insecticides with vapor toxicity on Drosophila were the two heterobicyclics menthofuran and benzothiophe ne. These two compounds were followed by the formate esters butyl, hexyl, heptyl formate, th e heterobicyclic coumaran and the formate ester ethyl formate. The best 7 performing compounds on mosquitoes were the formate esters methyl, butyl, propyl and ethyl formate. These compounds were followed by the formate ester hexyl formate, the heterobicyclics coumaran, and benzot hiophene. What is interest ing is that the most toxic compound on Drosophila, menthofuran, is one of the least toxic compounds when tested on mosquitoes. Conversely, the most toxic compound on mosquitoes, methyl formate, is one of two least toxic compounds when tested on Drosophila There are several possible explanations as to why the compounds performed differently on mosquitoes than Drosophila A first explanation could be di fferences on the insect handling techniques during the experimenta tion. Scharf et al. (2006) used CO2 to knock down Drosophila prior to exposing them on the insecticides, wh ereas I used ice for knocking down mosquitoes. Another explanation could be physiological differences in acquiring and metabolizing insecticides. The lethal effects of insecticid al compounds depend upon the amount of insecticide that reaches the target site (site of action). The amount of insecticide that reaches the target site is controlled by certain processes such as penetr ation through the insect cuticle, diffusion through the insect spiracles, bioactiva tion/biodegradation with in the insect body, trav el distance to the site of action and finally ex cretion just to name a few (Quraishi 1977, Matsumura 1980, Yu

PAGE 54

54 2006). Different insect species can differ greatly in susceptibility to insecticidal compounds due to distinct differences in the physical and physio logical processes mentioned above. Insecticides with high vapor pressures, such as the insecticides studied in th is paper, show the tendency to enter the insect body thr ough the spiracles (Matsumura 1980). Ther efore, the suscep tibility of an insect to a vapor toxicant is believed to be corr elated with its rate of respiration (Vincent & Lindgren 1965). In general, different insects exhi bit different patterns of gas exchange when at rest (Lighton 1988, 1990, Lighton & Berrigan 1995). The most familiar and well studied pattern is the Discontinuous Gas Exchange Cycle (DGC) (Kestler 1985, Lighton 1994), where the spiracles remain closed for le ngthy periods of time allowing for no gas exchange. This closedspiracle phase is followed by a fluttering-spiracle phase and finally an open-spiracle phase where the accumulated CO2 escapes form the tracheal system to the surrounding environment. Little information, however, is availabl e on the respiratory pattern of small insects (body weight ~ 1 mg) such as Drosophila (Williams et al.1997, Williams and Bradley 1998, Lehman et al. 2000, Fielden et al. 2001), and even less information is available on mosquito es (Diarra et al. 1999, Gray & Bradley 2003, Gray & Bradley 2006). What is known so far is that both mosquitoes & Drosophila have the ability to control gas release from their tracheal system. There is some evidence to support that both inse cts perform DGC, however furt her research is needed to conclusively test this hypothesis. Due to th e absence of evidence one should consider that mosquitoes and Drosophila may follow a different breathing pa ttern. If this is true, the insects may be allowing different amounts of insecticide to enter their body and this may be one of the factors responsible for the differe nt responses they show to the various insecticides tested. Another explanation could be differences in the detoxification systems among mosquitoes and Drosophila Once an insecticide enters the insect body it is perceived as a foreign substance

PAGE 55

55 or xenobiotic, and is metabolized by different meta bolical processes with the ultimate goal to be converted into a less toxic polar substance that will eventually be removed form the body. This metabolic process is called “detoxification”. By far the two most signifi cant reactions involving the metabolism of insecticides are the NADPH -requiring general oxidation system and the hydrolysis of esters (Matsumura 1980). The act ivity of these two enzy matic systems varies among different insect species, re sulting in species differences in susceptibility to various insecticidal compounds (Casida et al. 1976. Brooks 1986, Valles et al. 1997, Scharf et al. 2000). Implications of the Synergistic Effects of PBO and DEF on the Toxicity of the Novel Compounds on Mosquitoes The modes of action of the novel formate, acetate, and heterobicyclic compounds on mosquitoes so far remain undefined. According to the results presented in this study there seems to be a significant effect of cytochrome P 450 enzymes on menthofuran detoxification. Also, there was evidence supporting esterase-based act ivation of both heptyl formate and ethylene glycol di-formate. When heptyl formate and ethylene glycol di-for mate were synergized with the esterase inhibitor DEF their t oxicities decreased by 1.35 and 2.56 times, respectively. The first finding comes in agreement with Nguyen (2007), w ho showed in Drosophila that P450 enzymes play a significant role in ment hofuran detoxification and activa tion, depending on the fly strain. The second finding comes in agreement with both Haritos & Dojchinov (2003), and Nguyen (2007), who supported esterase based activation of some formate esters. In order for more legitimate conclusions to be made more extensiv e and complete research needs to be conducted where all of the esters will be te sted in combination with both synergists on susceptible and even resistant mosquito species.

PAGE 56

56 Structure-activity Relationships of the Three Families of Novel Compounds As one might expect the tendency of a chemical to volatilize should play an important role in its vapor-phase toxicity. However, this did no t always seem to be th e case with the novel, volatile compounds studied in th is research. Scharf et al ( 2006) did a combined ester and heterobicyclic regression analys is between toxicity and the thr ee volatility predictors: molecular weight, boiling point, and density. According to their findings there was a statistically weak correlation between toxicity and all three volatil ity predictors. I perfor med regression analyses for each of the three families separately and fo r all of them combined together. When studied each family separately I was able to show reasonable correlation between toxicity and volatility predictors for some of the families. For the form ate esters the regression analysis demonstrated a reasonable correlation between toxicity and the volatility predictors: molecular weight, and boiling point. However, there was a weak correlati on between toxicity and density. For the heterobicyclics there was a str ong correlation between toxicity a nd molecular weight, and a weak correlation between toxicity and th e rest two volatility predictors (boiling point, density). For the acetate esters there was overall a weak correla tion between the three volatility predictors and toxicity. When I evaluated all the compounds together there was overall a statistically weak correlation between toxicity and volatility. My findings, as well as Sc harf’s et al. (2006) findings, showed that high ester vo latility did not necessarily coin cide with high ester toxicity. What that implies is that there should be other factors, such as struct ure dependent factors, affecting the widely varying toxi city of the volatile esters. With respect to the heterobicy clics 2 structure-activity rela tionship trends are apparent. First, when no peripheral methyl groups are presen t, oxygen in the first position of the furan ring is associated with greater toxicity than if sulfur is in this position (i.e. coumaran > benzothiophene). However, that contradicts Scha rf’s et al (2006) findi ngs, where they showed

PAGE 57

57 that sulfur in the firs t position of the furan ring is associated with higher toxicity. Second, when oxygen is in the first position of the furan ring and peripheral methyl branches are present, adjacent methyl branches are associated with great er toxicity than opposing methyl branches (i.e. dimethyl-coumarone > menthofuran ). This finding comes in disagreement with Scharf et al. (2006), who showed that opposing methyl branches are associated with higher toxicity than adjacent methyl branches. The compounds showed different structure-activity relationships between mosquitoes and Drosophila which suggests that the co mpounds may follow different metabolic pathways and may exhi bit different modes of action w ithin the two insect species. With respect to the formate and acetate esters some structure activity relationships are apparent as well. First, as the aliphatic chain length on the acid group increases toxicity decreases for the majority of the formates (i.e. methyl format e>ethyl formate=propyl formate>hexyl formate>heptyl formate). On the other hand, there was a different activitystructure trend for formates when tested on Drosophila (Scharf et al. 2006). They showed that esters of intermediate chain length demonstrat ed greater toxicity (i.e butyl formate, hexyl formate), with lower toxicity for methyl and ethyl formates. Also, formates elicited higher toxicity than acetates implying that the formate group within the aliphatic chain is correlated with higher toxicity than the ace tate group. This comes in agreem ent with Scharf et al. (2006), who showed that acetate esters were a less toxic family compared to formate esters. In conclusion, DDVP was by far the most t oxic insecticide for both insects and was significantly more toxic to mosquitoes than Drosophila All insecticidal compounds, except for menthofuran, were significantly mo re toxic to mosquitoes than Drosophila On mosquitoes there was a toxicity trend observed among the three fa milies, with formates showing overall higher

PAGE 58

58 toxicity, followed by heterobicy clics and last by acetates. Th e novel compound with the highest insecticide activity on mosquitoes was methyl formate.

PAGE 59

59 Table 5-1. Physical and chemical properties of formate esters Formate Esters Mol. Weight bp (0C) Density (g/ml) Natural occurrence Used as Other Properties Methyl formate 60.05 33 0.974 -Quick drying finishes -Alternative to sulfur dioxide in domestic refrigerators Clear liquid with an ethereal odor Ethyl formate 74.08 53 0.921 Flavoring agent (raspberries flavor) Characteristi c smell of rum Propyl formate 88.11 80.5 0.904 Apple, Pineapple, Plum, Currant Flavoring agent(brandy & rum products) Colorless liquid with a sweet fruity/berry odor Butyl formate 102.13 106.5 0.892 Pear Flavoring/odor agent (rum, pear, plum products) Colorless liquid with a fruity/green odor Hexyl formate 130.18 155.5 0.879 Pear Flavoring/odor agent (apple, banana, lemon, strawberry, orange products) Colorless liquid with a medium fruity odor Heptyl formate 144.21 178 0.882 Kumquat Flavoring/odor agent (apple, apricot, coconut, kumquat,peach rose, wine products) Colorless liquid with a medium green/floral/ apple scent Ethylene glycol diformate 118.09 176 1.226 Colorless, odorless liquid

PAGE 60

60 Table 5-2. Physical and chemical properties of heterobicyclics Heterobicyclic Esters Mol. Weight bp (0C) Density (g/ml) Natural occurrence Used as Other Properties Menthofuran 150.22 205 0.97 Peppermint oil Flavoring/odor agent (chocolate, coffee, peppermint) Bluish clear liquid with a musty nutty/coffee odor benzothiophene 134.20 221.5 1.149 Constituent of petroleum related deposits (lignite tar) Found in the chemical structure of pharmaceutical drugs for treating osteoporosis & asthma (raloxifen, zileuton) Solid crystalline form with an odor similar to naphthalene Coumaran 120.15 188.5 1.065 Found in the chemical structure of pharmaceutical drugs (insomnia treatments) Dimethyl-coumarone 146.19 101.5 1.034 Cade oil Tobacco Coffee Flavoring/odor agent (chocolate, coffee, tobacco, vanilla, leather products) Pale yellow liquid with a strong phenolic odor

PAGE 61

61 Table 5-3. Physical and chemical properties of a cetate esters Acetate Esters Mol. Weight bp (0C) Density (g/ml) Natural occurrence Used as Other Properties Propyl acetate 102.3 102 0.888 Flavoring/odor agent Clear colorless liquid with an odor of pears Butyl acetate 116.16 125 0.88 Several fuits (eg. Apples in the Red Delicious variety) Flavoring agent (candy, ice-cream, cheeses, baked goods) Colorless liquid with a fruity odor Pentyl acetate 130.18 146 0.876 Colorless liquid with an odor similar to banana odor Hexyl acetate 144.21 169 0.87 Flavoring and fragrance agent Colorless liquid with a fruity/pear odor

PAGE 62

62 Table 5-4. Vapor toxicities of 15 novel, low molecular weight, volatile compounds and the organophosphate DDVP to mosquitoes Aedes aegypti (L.) Insecticide Families Insecticides Slope SE LC50 mg/liter (95% CI) LC90 mg/liter (95% CI) 2 P Organophosphates DDVPa 4.84 0.51 0.025 (0.023-0.027) 0.047 (0.042-0.056) 4.50 0.11 Formate esters Methyl formate 9.84 1.10 1.36 (1.311-1.40) 1.83 (1.74-1.98) 4.09 0.13 Ethyl formate 9.12 0.82 1.7 (1.64-1.78) 2.37 (2.25-2.54) 3.06 0.22 Propyl formate 7.87 1.70 1.69 (1.62-1.80) 2.45 (2.15-3.38) 2.66 0.10 Butyl formate 7.79 0.76 1.54 (1.48-1.60) 2.25 (2.08-2.50) 4.50 0.10 Hexyl formate 7.52 0.90 1.86 (1.77-2.00) 2.76 (2.47-3.29) 4.00 0.13 Heptyl formate 4.79 0.55 3.17 (2.92-3.51) 5.88 (4.99-7.54) 4.56 0.33 EGDF 9.12 0.81 2.99 (2.89-3.11) 4.14 (3.90-4.48) 1.98 0.96 Heterobicyclics Menthofuran 11.66 1.72 3.62 (3.51-3.73) 4.66 (4.37-5.21) 2.36 0.49 Benzothiophene 4.83 0.50 2.89 (2.71-3.10) 5.33 (4.70-6.42) 1.20 0.54 Dimethyl-coumarone 7.86 0.49 2.98 (2.88-3.09) 4.35 (4.13-4.62) 4.94 0.55 Coumaran 3.14 0.34 2.03 (1.84-2.26) 5.19 (4.22-7.05) 2.57 0.27 Acetate esters Propyl acetate 5.89 1.22 4.31 (3.98-5.11) 7.11 (5.73-11.8) 0.24 0.88 Butyl acetate 7.83 1.22 3.91 (3.73-4.21) 5.70 (5.04-7.16) 0.03 0.98 Pentyl acetate 8.04 1.21 3.80 (3.65-4.05) 5.49 (4.91-6.72) 0.24 0.88 Hexyl acetate 6.15 0.69 5.09 (4.75-5.41) 8.23 (7.52-9.38) 0.63 0.42 a Positive Control.

PAGE 63

63 Table 5-5. Vapor toxicity of EGDF, heptyl formate & menthofuran with and without the synergistic effect of DE F and PBO to mosquitoes Aedes aegytpi (L.) Insecticides Slope SE LC50 mg/liter (95%CI) LC90 mg/liter (95% CI) 2 P Potency ratio a EGDF 9.12 0.81 2.99 (2.89-3.11) 4.14 (3.90-4.48) 1.98 0.96 EGDF + DEF 6.36 0.69 7.67 (7.23-8.08) 12.19 (11.19-13.80) 0.34 0.98 2.56 (2.39-2.73) Heptyl formate 4.79 0.55 3.17 (2.92-3.51) 5.88 (4.99-7.54) 4.56 0.33 Heptyl formate + DEF 8.33 0.82 4.29 (4.12-4.47) 6.12 (5.74-6.70) 2.20 0.69 1.35 (1.23-1.49) Menthofuran 11.66 1.72 3.62 (3.51-3.73) 4.66 (4.37-5.21) 2.37 0.49 Menthofuran + PBO 8.47 0.96 3.37 (3.24-3.52) 4.77 (4.39-5.42) 5.37 0.14 0.932 (0.890.98) a LC50+synergist / LC50.

PAGE 64

64 Table 5-6. Body-weight corrected vapor toxicities of 15 novel, low molecular weight, volatile compounds and the organophosphate DDVP to mosquitoes Aedes aegytpi (L.) and Drosophila melanogaster Meig. Insecticide Families Insecticides Mosquito LC50 mg/gr of insect/liter (95%CI) Drosophila LC50 mg/gr of insect/liter (95%CI) c Organophosphates DDVPa 1.68 (1.5-1.76) 3.7 (3.2-4.3) Formates esters Methyl formate 88 (85.68-91.5) 824 (636.6-1,776) Ethyl formate 112 (107.2-116.3) 550 (493.3-636.6) Propyl formate 110 (105.8-117.6) 610 (593-626.6) Butyl formate 100 (96.7-104.5) 304 (266.6-332) Hexyl formate 130 (115.6-130.7) 380 (356.6-400) Heptyl formate 206 (190.8-229.4) 450 (420-475.3) EGDF 194 (188.8-203.3) 834 (676.6-1,846) Heterobicyclics Menthofuran 230 (229.4-243.7) 136 (120-150) Benzothiophene 190 (177.1-202.6) 266 (236.6-293.3) Dimethyl coumarone 194 (188.2-201.9) 654 (513.3-817.3) Coumaran 132 (120.3-147.7) 490 (446.6-553.3) Acetate esters Propyl acetate 282 (260.1-333.9) 683 (ND)b Butyl acetate 256 (243.8-275.2) 607 (576.6-643.3) Pentyl acetate 248 (238.5-264.7) 597 (550-660) Hexyl acetate 333 (310.4-353.6) 553 (526.6-583.3) a Positive control. b Not determined. c Drosophila data Scharf et al. 2006.

PAGE 65

65 2.99 1.36 1.71.69 1.54 1.86 3.17 3.62 2.892.98 4.31 2.03 3.91 3.8 5.090 1 2 3 4 5 6EG D F Methyl formate Et hy l format e Propyl formate Bu t y l f or mat e H exyl format e H ept yl form at e M ent hof ur an Thi o p hen e DM B F D HB F Propyl acetate Butyl acetate Pent yl acet at e Hexyl acetateLC50s (mg/L) Formates Heterobicyclics Acetates Figure 5-1. The LC50 values of mosquitoes Aedes aegypti (L.) when exposed on vapors of 15, novel, low molecular weight compounds.

PAGE 66

66 2.99 4.29 3.62 3.37 3.17 7.67 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9EGDFEGDF + DEFHeptyl formateHeptyl formate + DEF MenthofuranMenthofuran + PBOLC50 (mg/L) Figure 5-2. The LC50 values of mosquitoes Aedes aegypti (L.) when exposed on the vapors of EGDF, heptyl formate, and menthofuran with and without the syne rgistic effect of DEF and PBO.

PAGE 67

67 A y = 31.849x + 37.298 R2 = 0.576350 60 70 80 90 100 110 120 130 140 150 11.522.533.5LC50 (mg/L)Molecular weight B y = 68.026x 27.28 R2 = 0.69390 20 40 60 80 100 120 140 160 180 200 1234LC50 (mg/L)Boiling point (0C) C y = 0.0748x + 0.801 R2 = 0.19120.85 0.9 0.95 1 1.05 1.1 1.15 1.2 1.21.72.22.73.2LC50 (mg/L)Density (g/ml) Figure 5-3. Regression analyses of the LC50 versus the physical properties of each of the 7 formate esters. A) LC50 versus molecular weight. B) LC50 versus boiling point. C) LC50 versus density.

PAGE 68

68 A y = 19.525x + 81.457 R2 = 0.8889 115 120 125 130 135 140 145 150 155 1.82.32.83.33.8LC50 (mg/L)Molecular weigh t B y = 2.9995x + 170.49 R2 = 0.001390 110 130 150 170 190 210 230 1.82.32.83.33.8LC50 (mg/L)Boiling point (0C) C y = -0.0567x + 1.2177 R2 = 0.24770.96 0.98 1 1.02 1.04 1.06 1.08 1.1 1.12 1.14 1 16 1.82.32.83.33.8LC50 (mg/L)Density (g/ml) Figure 5-4. Regression analyses of the LC50 versus the physical properties of each of the 4 heterobicyclics. A) LC50 versus molecular weight. B) LC50 versus boiling point. C) LC50 versus density.

PAGE 69

69 y = 15.275x + 57.874 R2 = 0.2447100 105 110 115 120 125 130 135 140 145 150 3.74.24.75.2LC50 ( m g /L ) Molecular weight A y = 24.383x + 31.201 R2 = 0.247 80 90 100 110 120 130 140 150 160 170 180 3.73.94.14.34.54.74.95.15.3 LC50 (mg/L)Boiling point (0C) B C y = -0.0058x + 0.9034 R2 = 0.20250.868 0.87 0.872 0.874 0.876 0.878 0.88 0.882 0.884 0.886 0.888 0.89 3.74.24.75.2LC50 (mg/L)Density (g/ml ) Figure 5-5. Regression analyses of the LC50 versus the physical properties of each of the 4 acetates. A) LC50 versus molecular weight. B) LC50 versus boiling point. C) LC50 versus density.

PAGE 70

70 A y = 56.999x + 44.153 R2 = 0.500450 70 90 110 130 150 170 0246 LC50s (mg/L)Molecular weight B y = 21.076x + 75.734 R2 = 0.18470 50 100 150 200 250 0246 LC50s (mg/0.5L)Boiling point ( 0 C) C y = -0.0144x + 1.002 R2 = 0.0220.7 0.8 0.9 1 1.1 1.2 1.3 123456 LC50s (mg/L)Density (g/ml) Figure 5-6. Regression analyses of the LC50 versus the physical properties of all the 15 novel compounds (formates, acetates, and heterobicyclics). A) LC50 versus molecular weight. B) LC50 versus boiling point. C) LC50 versus density.

PAGE 71

71 Figure 5-7. Body-weight corrected LC50 values for mosquiotes Aedes aegypti & Drosophila when exposed to the vapors of the 15 low molecular weight esters and the organophosphate DDVP. Comparin g toxicities of novel volatile esters on mosquitoes and Drosophila 0 100 200 300 400 500 600 700 800 900D D VP EGDF M ethyl formate Ethy l f o rm a te Pro p yl formate B u ty l f o rmate H e x y l formate Heptyl form a te Me nth ofura n Thiophene D MB F DHB F Propyl acetate Butyl a c etate Pentyl a ceta t e H e x y l acetateLC50 (mg/gr of insect per L) Mosquito Drosophila Formates Heterobicyclics Acetates

PAGE 72

72 Mosquito holding vial Mason jar Cotton-wick dipped in sugar water Mason jar Mosquito holding vial Mason jar Filter paper Cotton-wick dipped in sugar water Mosquito holding vial Mason jar Figure 5-8. Main bioassay set-up.

PAGE 73

73 CHAPTER 6 EVALUATION OF VAPOR TOXICITY OF NOVEL LOW MOLECULAR WEIGHT COMPOUNDS ON HOUSE FLIES Introduction Volatile insecticides have been commonly used as fumigants for the control of structural pests and the protection of agricu ltural properties. However, they have been mostly ignored for the control of medical importance pests such as mosquitoes and f lies. Dichlorvos (DDVP) is the one volatile insecticide mostly studied on mosquitoes and flies. Dichlorvos is an organophosphate insecticide and was regist ered in 1948 (EPA 2006). One very common formulation of dichlorvos is resin strips. Resin st rips were initially registered for use in areas where flies, mosquitoes and other nuisance pests occur. Dichlorvos has been classified by the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) as a “p robable human carcinogen”, and because of its implications in human health in 2006, its use in homes was restricted to confined spaces such as wardrobes, cupboards and closets (EPA Office 2006) Therefore, there is a need for replacement of dichlorvos with friendlier, less toxic chemistries. Low molecular weight, highly volatile formates, acetates, and heterobicyclics may be potential replacement for dichlorvos. Thirty novel, low molecular weight compounds with insecticidal ac tivity were tested on Drosophila melanogaster Meig. (Scharf et al. 2006). The compounds belonged to six different families: heterobicyclics, formates, acetates, propionates, butyrates and valerates. Drosophila was used as a model to assess potential efficacy of these novel chemistries against mosquitoes and flies. Findings showed 7 highl y effective compounds with vapor toxicity: four formate esters and three heterobicyclics. The reac tion of an organic acid and an alcohol is called esterification, where the end products are always ester and water. Formate esters are organic compounds composed of formic acid and a corresponding alcohol Acetate esters, similarly to formate esters,

PAGE 74

74 are composed of acetic acid and a correspondi ng alcohol. On the other hand the structure of heterobicyclics is made from fused 5, 6-membered rings. For my research I investigated the vapor toxi city effect of three of those compounds, one heterobicyclic (menthofuran) and two formate esters (ethylene glycol diform ate, heptyl formate) directly on house flies. Both heptyl formate and menthofuran are natu rally occurring compounds. Heptyl formate is naturally found in kumquats an d has a floral, apple scen t. It is commercially used as a flavoring agent in apple, apricot, kumquat, and wi ne products to name a few. Menthofuran is naturally found in peppermint oil. It has a musty, nutty odor and is used as a flavoring/odor agent in coffee and chocolate products. In Table 5-1 the chemical structures of the three chemicals can be seen. Information such as molecular weight, boiling point, density, natural occurrence and other physical propertie s are included in the same table as well. Materials and Methods Chemicals Three novel insecticides (Sigma Aldrich Ch emical, Milwaukee, WI) were tested; one heterobicyclic (menthofuran) and 2 formate es ters [heptyl-formate and ethylene glycol diformate (EGDF)]. Dichlorvos (DDVP) was tested as a positive control (Chem Service, West Chester, PA). All insecticides were >99% pure and in a liquid form. Insecticide stock solutions were prepared in acetone at concentrations of 200 or 10 g/l. All compounds and stock solutions were held at –20oC in glass vials with rubber lined ca ps to prevent vapor escape until placed in experiments. The insecticide synergists SSStributyl-phosphorotrithioate (D EF) and piperonyl butoxide (PBO), which are esterase and cytochrome P 450 inhibitors respectively, were used (Mobay Chemical Co., Kansas City, MO and MGK Inc ., Minneapolis, MN). DEF and PBO were >95% pure. DEF and PBO stock solutions were prepared at 100g/ml in acetone.

PAGE 75

75 Ceramic Rods Hydrophilic, ceramic, porous rods (Small Parts, Inc., Miami, FL) were used to provide controlled vapor release of the volatile compound heptyl formate. The rods were 7.5 cm in length and 1.3 cm in diameter. The porous size of the ceramic rods was 2.5 microns and 38% of each rod was void volume. In order to decrease insecticid al release rate, the rods were covered tightly with aluminum foil leaving one end exposed, prior to being treated with insecticide. Insects Flies [Horse-Teaching-Un it (HTU) strain of Musca domestica (L.)] reared at the University of Florida in Gainesville were used. Flies were reared on a 12:12 (L:D) photoperiod at 26oC and ~55% RH. Fly larvae were fed on a medium contai ning 3 liters wheat bra n, 1.5 liters water, and 250 ml of dairy calf feed (C alf Manna; Manna Pro. Corp., St Louis, MO) pellets. Fly pupae were separated from the medium and placed into screened rearing cages (40.6 by 26.7 by 26.7 cm) for emergence. Fly adults were maintain ed on a 2 parts granulated sugar and 1 part powdered milk diet with water ad libitum Prior to each treatment 3 to 5d-old adult flies were aspirate d from their cages and placed into plastic deli cups on ice unt il their activity was reduced. Ten females were removed from the deli cups using a feather tip forceps. A minimum of 300 flies were selected for exposure to each insecticide. Bioassay Main bioassay set-up. Ten females were transferred from the deli caps into 125 ml plastic vials. Caps with an opening of ~2.6 cm in diameter, covered with common fiberglass window screening (~1.55 mm mesh), were used to close th e vials. The screening prevented insect escape while allowing for gas exchange. Along with the house flies a cotton wick (~1.5 cm in length) dipped in 10% w/v solution of sugar water was placed in the vials. A toothpick (~6.3 cm in

PAGE 76

76 length) was used to support the wick. The wick wa s provided as the nutrient and moisture source. The flies were given 1 h to recover from the chilli ng effects of the ice prior to the treatment, and then every vial was placed into a Mason 1 liter (1 quart) glass jar along with an untreated filter paper (55mm in diameter). Prior to closing the glass jar the filter paper was treated with the proper quantity of insecticidal solution using an eppendorf pipette. The concentration of the insecticidal solution varied depending on the in secticide tested. Menthof uran was applied at a 200 g/l concentration and in a range from 1-4 mg. Pure heptyl formate and pure EGDF were applied in a range from 18-44 mg and 2.5-15 mg, respectively. DDVP was applied at a concentration of 10 g/l and in a range from 0.1-0.2 mg. There was also a blank control where the filter paper received no chemi cal at all, and a solvent contro l, which received a volume of acetone identical to the highest insecticide soluti on volume (up to 20 l). In order to determine mortality the jars were shaken for a minimum of 15 sec before fly movement was observed. A fly was recorded dead when there was no movement observed. Synergist (DEF and PBO) bioassay set-up. The effect of synergists on the toxicity of the three insecticides tested above was investigat ed. The synergist bioassay was conducted in the same way described above except that an extra step was added. That extra step involved the exposure of the house flies to the synergist, prio r to their exposure on th e insecticides. For the synergist bioassay the plastic vials were replaced with 125 ml glass vials to prevent absorption of the synergist into the plastic. Syne rgist stock solutions at 100 l we re pipetted to every glass vial using an eppendorf pipette, so th at every vial would contain 10 g of the synergist. Previous studies have shown that this s ynergist quantity causes no insect mortality after 24 h of exposure (Nguyen et al. 2007). After treating the vials with the synergist, the vials were rolled on their sides under a fume hood to ensure equal distribution of the synerg ist on the inner surfaces while

PAGE 77

77 the acetone evaporated. Once acetone evaporated, 10 house flies were added in every glass vial along with the moist cotton wick and were held fo r an hour to allow for the synergist to take effect. Along with the blank and the solvent cont rol, a synergist contro l was added where the flies were only exposed to the synergist. Controlled vapor release of heptyl formate. Ceramic rods were used to determine effectiveness of heptyl formate in killing hous e flies over time. For the rod bioassay the house flies were handled the exact same way as desc ribed before. Three different treatments were tested and one blank control. In the first treatmen t flies within the glass jars were exposed to a single rod embedded with 3.81 g of heptyl formate. This treatment was replicated five times. In the second treatment flies were e xposed to a filter paper embedded with 0.95 g of heptyl formate, which is the amount of heptyl form ate that a single rod is anticipa ted to release within 24 hrs. In the third and final treatment the insects were e xposed to a filter paper embedded with the same amount of heptyl formate as the rods. Mortality was determined ev ery 24 hrs after which the five rods and the treated filter papers were remove d to new jars with new insects. The process was repeated over a 9 day period. Data Analysis In those cases where control mortality was obs erved data was adjusted using the Abbott’s formula (Abbott 1925). When control mortality exceeded 10% that rep was discarded. Probit analysis was performed and the LC50 and LC90 of each insecticide with and without the synergist were estimated (SAS Institute 2003). The data re ported in Tables 6-1, and 6-2 include slope, goodness of fit characteristics (c hi-square, P-value) and LC50 and LC90 estimates with 95% confidence limits. LC estimates with non overl apping 95% confidence limits were considered significantly different.

PAGE 78

78 Body-weight corrected LC50 of each insecticide for house flies and Drosophila were calculated. One hundred individuals from both sp ecies were weighed and that weight was recorded. That number was then divided by 10 to give the average weight of 10 house flies and 10 Drosophila (0.2126 and 0.006 g, respectively). The average weight of the 10 insects was used to adjust the LC50 from mg/liter into mg/ g of insect body weight/liter. The Drosophila data were retrieved from Scharf et al. (2006). PoloPlus 2.0 (2005) was used to calculate the poten cy ratios of the LC 50s with & without the synergist. The program calculated 95% confid ence limits for every ratio. The 95% CI were used to determine whether there were significant di fferences in the LC50s due to the effect of the synergists. In order to determine heptyl formate releas e rate form each rod regression analysis was performed (SAS Institute 2003) that showed the relationship between rele ase of heptyl formate vapors and time. The rods were weighed before and after being embedded with heptyl formate. The decrease in the rod weight was recorded th rough time and the release of heptyl formate was estimated. According to the regression equation [y=0.0006x-0.0003 and R2= 0.9994, where y represents heptyl formate weight in grams and x represents time of rel ease in minutes] it would require at least 111.11 hours for 4 g of heptyl formate to be released. Also, SNK (StudentNewman-Keuls) test was performed to determine the day when significant decrease in house fly mortality for the rod (3.81 g) treatment was seen (SAS Institute 2003). Results Toxicity Evaluation of Novel Compounds DDVP was by far the most toxic compound test ed on house flies. Specifically, it was 25 times more toxic compared to the second be st compound, the heterobicyclic menthofuran. Menthofuran was the most toxic compound among the three compounds te sted on house flies

PAGE 79

79 (LC50 estimate 3.70 mg/liter). EGDF was the second most toxic compound and heptyl formate was the least toxic compound among the three (LC50 estimates 9.27 and 32.62 mg/liter, respectively) (Table 61, Table 6-2, Fig. 6-1). Toxicity Evaluation of Novel Compounds wi th the Synergistic E ffect of DEF and PBO For heptyl formate and EGDF, when co-applie d with DEF, their toxicities decreased significantly. The toxicity of heptyl formate d ecreased by 1.5 times, wher eas the toxicity of EGDF decreased by 2 times. Also, the toxicity of menthofuran increas ed by 1.5 times, when it was synergized with PBO. All synerg ist effects were significant at the LC50 level. Effectiveness of Controlled Vapor Release of Heptyl Formate in Killing House Flies The mortality data among the different treatme nts are shown in Table 6-3. The control treatment caused no mortality thr oughout the duration of the experi ment, which lasted for 9 days. The filter paper treated with 0.95 g of heptyl formate caused 100% mortality for the first day. The filter paper treated with 3.81 g of heptyl formate caused mortality for days 1, 2, and 3. The rod embedded with 3.81 g of heptyl formate caused mortality throughout the duration of the experiment. Also, it was on the 9th day when significant decrease in house fly mortality was seen. Discussion Comparing Toxicities of Novel Compounds Among House Flies and Drosophila This study is the first report of the toxic effects of the novel volatile compounds heptyl formate, EGDF, and menthofuran on house flies. Scha rf et al. (2006) reported toxicity of these novel compounds on D. melanogaster Meig. They used Drospophila as a model to assess potential efficacy of these compounds on mos quitoes and flies. There were significant differences among the toxicities of the compounds on house flies and Drosophila (Table 6-2). Overall, all the compounds were more toxic to house flies than Drosophila DDVP was by far the most toxic insecticide for both insects and wa s significantly more toxic to house flies than

PAGE 80

80 Drosophila Specifically, DDVP was 5.2 times more toxic to Drosophila than house flies. DDVP has been known as a very effective insecticide against various insects for many years. Ihnidris and Sullivan (1956) gave one of the earliest re ports regarding the toxicity of DDVP against house flies. They reported 100 % knock down of house flies after 2 hours exposure to DDVP vapors. On average the compounds were approxim ately by 10 times more toxic to house flies than Drosophila Menthofuran was the most toxic co mpound when tested on both insects. However, heptyl formate was more toxic than EGDF to Drosophila and less toxic than EGDF to house flies. There are several possible explanations as to why the compounds performed differently on house flies and Drosophila. A first explanation could be differences on the insect handling techniques during the experimenta tion. Scharf et al. (2006) used CO2 to knock down Drosophila prior to exposing them on the insecticides, wh ereas I used ice for knocking down house flies. Another explanation could be species differen ces on acquiring and meta bolizing insecticides. The lethal effects of insectic idal compounds depend upon the amount of insecticide that reaches the target site (site of action). The amount of insecticide that reach es the target site is controlled by certain processes such as penetration through the insect cuticle, diffusion through the insect spiracles, bioactivation/biodegradation within the insect body, travel distan ce to the site of action and finally excretion just to name a few (Quraishi 1977, Matsumura 1980, Yu 2006). Different insect species can differ greatly in susceptibility to insectic idal compounds due to distinct differences in the physical and physiological pro cesses mentioned above. Insecticides with high vapor pressures, such as the inse cticides studied in this paper, show the tendency to enter the insect body through the spiracles (Matsumura 1980). Th erefore, the susceptibility of an insect to a vapor toxicant is believed to be correlated with its rate of respirati on (Vincent & Lindgren

PAGE 81

81 1965). In general, different insect s exhibit different pa tterns of gas excha nge when at rest (Lighton 1988, 1990, Lighton & Berrigan 1995). The most familiar and well studied pattern is the Discontinuous Gas Exchange Cycle (DGC) (K estler 1985, Lighton 1994), where the spiracles remain close for lengthy periods of time allowing for no gas exchange. This close-spiracle phase is followed by a fluttering-spir acle phase and finally an op en-spiracle phase where the accumulated CO2 escapes form the tracheal system to the surrounding environment. Little information, however, is availabl e on the respiratory pattern of small insects (body weight ~ 1 mg) such as Drosophila (Williams et al.1997, Williams and Bradley 1998, Lehman et al. 2000, Fielden et al. 2001). What is known so far is that Drosophila has the ability to control gas release from its tracheal system. There is some evidence to support that Drosophila performs DGC, however further research is needed for more le gitimate results. Not much research has been done on the respiratory pa ttern of houseflies. Due to the absence of evidence one should consider that house flies and Drosophila may follow a different breathing patte rn. If this is true, the insects may be allowing different amounts of insecticide to enter their body and that may be one of the factors responsible for the differe nt responses they show to th e various insecticides tested. Another explanation could be differences in the detoxification systems among house flies and Drosophila Once the insecticide enters the insect body it is perceived as a foreign substance or xenobiotic, and is metabolized by different meta bolical processes with the ultimate goal to be converted into a less toxic polar substance that will eventually be removed form the body. This metabolic process is called “detoxification”. By far the two most signifi cant reactions involving the metabolism of insecticides are the NADPH -requiring general oxidation system and the hydrolysis of esters (Matsumura 1980). The act ivity of these two enzy matic systems varies

PAGE 82

82 among different insect species, re sulting in species differences in susceptibility to various insecticidal compounds ( Casida et al. 1976. Brooks 1986, Valles et al. 1997, Scharf et al. 2000). Implications of the Synergistic Effects of PBO and DEF on the Toxicity of the Novel Compounds on House Flies The modes of action of menthofuran, EGDF, and heptyl formate on house flies so far remain undefined. According to the work presented in this paper there seems to be a significant effect of cytochrome P450 enzymes on the meta bolism of menthofuran. When cytochrome P450 enzymes were inhibited by the action of PBO the toxicity of menthofuran increased by 1.5 times. This finding is in agreement with Nguyen et al. (2007), who showed that P450 plays an important role in methofuran detoxification. Th ey, also, showed evidence supporting P450-based activation of menthofuran. Also, there was evidence supporting esterase-b ased activation of both heptyl formate and EGDF. When heptyl formate and EGDF were co-applied with the esterase inhibitor DEF their toxicity decreased by 1.5 and 2 times, respectivel y. The second finding comes in agreement with both Haritos & Dojchinov (2003) and Nguyen et al. (2007), who supported esterase-based activation of some formate esters In order for more legitimate conclusions to be made more extensive and complete research needs to be conducted where all of the compounds will be tested in combination with both synergists on susceptible and even resistant fly species. Structure-activity Relationships Among the two formate esters EGDF and heptyl formate, the first is significantly more toxic to houseflies than the second by 3.5 times. Wh en looking at their chem ical structures there is one difference that stands out; EGDF is composed by two molecules of formic acid, where as heptyl formate is composed by only one. Accord ing to Haritos & Dojchinov (2003) findings on alkyl ester mode of action, formate esters were more toxic than other alkyl esters. That was

PAGE 83

83 partially due to their hydrolysis to formic acid. Based on their findings one might say that EGDF was more toxic than heptyl formate because it contains two molecules of formic acid in its structure, and therefore the este rases would release 2 molecules of formic acid when hydrolysing EGDF, as opposed to 1 molecule of form ic acid when hydrolyzing heptyl formate. Controlled Vapor Release of Heptyl Formate Controlled vapor release of he ptyl formate can provide eff ective house fly mortality over time. In the future these compounds should be em bedded in specialized plastic polymers, similar to the DDVP resin strips, that would provide prol onged release of vapors a nd, therefore, result in prolonged insect mortality. In conclusion, DDVP was by far the most t oxic insecticide for both insects and was significantly more toxic to house flies than Drosophila All three novel compounds were significantly more toxic to house flies than Drosophila Menthofuran was the most toxic compound among the three tested on house flies (LC50 estimate 3.70 mg/liter). EGDF was the second most toxic compound and heptyl formate was the least toxic compound.

PAGE 84

84 Table 6-1. Vapor toxicity of EGDF, heptyl fo rmate, and menthofuran with and without the synergistic effect of DEF and PBO and the organophosphate DDVP to house flies Musca domestica (L.) Insecticide Slope SE LC50 mg/liter (95%CI) LC90 mg/liter (95%CI) 2 P Potency Ratio b DDVPa 9.6 1 0.148 (0.14-0.15) 0.202 (0.19-0.22) 2.35 0.67 EGDF 7.4 0.8 9.27 (8.75-9.75) 13.81 (12.81-15.36) 9.76 0.14 EGDF + DEF 7.9 0.67 18.56 (17.76-19.33) 26.88 (25.34-29.02) 8.10 0.23 2 (1.872.14) Heptyl formate 4.1 0.6 32.62 (30.21-35.44) 66.89 (55.88-91.58) 3.87 0.79 Heptyl formate + DEF 6.9 1.19 48.70 (46.20-51.63) 74.45 (65.94-94.29) 3.76 0.29 1.5 (1.361.64) Menthofuran 10.6 1.13 3.70 (3.58-3.83) 4.88 (4.61-5.32) 4.29 0.12 Menthofuran + PBO 4.8 1.22 2.43 (1.85-2.69) 4.49 (3.90-6.59) 0.49 0.48 0.65 (0.560.76) a Positive control b LC50+synergist / LC50

PAGE 85

85 Table 6-2. Body-weight corrected vapor toxicities of EGDF, hept yl formate, menthofuran and the organophosphate DDVP to house flies Musca domestica (L.) and Drosophila melanogaster Meig. Treatment Housefly LC50 (mg/g of insect/liter) Drosophila LC50 (mg/g of insect/liter)b DDVPa 0.7 (0.67-0.72) 3.7 (3.2-4.3) EGDF 44 (41.15-45.86) 834 (676.6-1,846) Heptyl formate 153 (142.1-166.7) 450 (420-475) Menthofuran 17.4 (16.83-18) 136 (120-150) a Positive control b Drosophila data Scharf et al. 2006

PAGE 86

86 Figure 6-1.Vapor toxicity of EGDF, heptyl fo rmate, and menthofuran with and without th e synergistic effect of DEF and PBO to th e house flies Musca domestica (L.). 9.27 18.56 3.7 2.43 48.7 32.62 0 10 20 30 40 50 60EGDFEGDF + DEFHeptyl formateHeptyl formate + DEF MenthofuranMenthofuran + PBOLC50s (mg/L)

PAGE 87

87 Table 6-3. Percent mortality of controlled vapor release of hept yl formate on house flies Musca domestica (L.) over 9 days amon g 3 different treatments and a blank control Percent Mortality of Heptyl Formate on House Flies Time (days) Control Filter Paper (3.81g) Filter Paper (0.95 g) Ceramic Rod (3.81 g) Day 1 0 100 100 100a Day 2 0 100 0 100a Day 3 0 100 0 98 2a Day 4 0 0 0 96 4a Day 5 0 0 0 88 5.8ab Day 6 0 0 0 84 6.8ab Day 7 0 0 0 82 5.8ab Day 8 0 0 0 74 10.3ab Day 9 0 0 0 64 14.7b Percentages followed by the same letter are not signi ficantly different (SNK test SAS Institute, 2003)

PAGE 88

88 CHAPTER 7 SUMMARY The main objective of my research was to ev aluate vapor toxicity of novel, low molecular weight compounds with insecticid al activities on mosquitoes and house flies. The results of the experiments have shown that all compounds demons trated vapor toxicity to both mosquitoes and house flies. However, the organophosphate DDVP was by far the most toxic compound to both mosquitoes and house flies. A total of 16 insecticidal compounds were tested on mo squitoes: 15 novel compounds (7 formates, 4 acetates, and 4 heterobicyclics) and the organophosphate DDVP. DDVP was 54.4 times more toxic compared to the second best compound, the formate ester methyl formate. Within the novel compounds, overall, formate esters were the most toxic family followed by the heterobicyclics and, last, by the acetate esters. Within the form ate group, methyl formate was the most toxic ester (LC50 estimate 1.36 mg/liter), followed by butyl, propyl, ethyl, hexyl formate, EGDF, and heptyl formate. The toxicities of propyl and ethyl formate were not significantly different and there was no major significance betw een them and butyl formate. EGDF and heptyl formate (LC50 estimates 2.99 and 3.17 mg/liter, respectively) were the least toxic formate esters with toxicities in the same range as the heter obicyclics, the second best performing family of compounds. Within the heterobicyclic group, coumaran was most toxic (LC50 estimate 2.03 mg/liter), followed by benzothiophene, dimethyl -coumarone and menthofuran. Benzothiophene and dimethyl-coumarone were not significantly different. Within the acetate group, hexyl acetate was the least toxic compound (LC50 estimate 5.09 mg/liter). The toxi cities of propyl, butyl and pentyl acetate were not significantly different. A total of 4 insecticidal compounds were tested on house flies: two formates, one heterobicyclic, and the organophosphate DDVP. DDV P was 25 times more toxic compared to

PAGE 89

89 the second best compound, the heterobicyclic menthofuran (LC50 estimates 3.70). Menthofuran was followed by the formate esters EGDF and heptyl formate (LC50 estimates 9.27 and 32.62 mg/liter, respectively). DDVP has been characterized by EPA as a “p robable human carcinogen” and because of its implications in human health its use in 2006 was restricted to confined spaces such as wardrobes, cupboards and closets where no human activity takes place (EPA 2006). Even though the novel compounds did not demons trate the high vapor toxicity demonstrated by DDVP, they showed good potential to be used as alternativ e vapor toxicants against mosquitoes and house flies for those situations where the use of DD VP is banned. Their low mammalian toxicities in combination with their pleasant, fruity odors make them very good DDVP replacement candidates. Also, the potential of the nove l compounds as contact toxicants should be investigated in the future as th ey might exhibit good t oxicities as contact insecticides, and thus provide an additional tool for the control of pub lic health pests such as mosquitoes and house flies.

PAGE 90

90 LIST OF REFERENCES Abbott, W.E. 1925. A method of computing the effectiv eness of an insecticide. J. Econ. Entomol. 18: 265-267. Acree, J., R.B Turner, H.K. Gouc k, M. Beroza, and N. Smith 1968. L-Lactic acid a mosquito attractant isolated form hu mans. Science. 161: 1346-1347. Bailey, D.L., G.C. LaBreque, and T.L. Whitfield 1971. Resistance of house flies in Florida to trichlorfon and dichlorvos formulated in sugar baits. Can. Entomol. 103: 853-856. Barnard, D.R. 2003. Control of fly-borne dise ases. Pest. Outl. 10: 222-228. Becker, N., S. Djakaria, A. Kais er, O. Zulhasril, and H.W. Ludwig 1991. Efficacy of a new tablet formulation of an asporogenous strain of B.t.i against larvae of Aedes aegypti. Bull. Soc. Vector Ecol. 16(1): 176-182. Becker, N., D. Petric, M. Zgomba, C. B oase, C. Dahl, J. Lane, and A. Kaiser. 2003. Mosquitoes and their control. Kluwer Academic/Plenum Publishers, New York, NY Benedict, M.Q., J.A. Scott, and A.F. Cockburn. 1994. High level expression of the bacterial opd gene in Drosophila melanogaster : improved inducible insect icide resistance. Insect Mol. Biol. 3: 247-252 Brett, G.A 1938. On the relative attractiveness to Aedes aegytpi of certain coloured clothes. Trans. Roy. Soc. Trop. Med. Hyg. 32: 113-124. Brooks, G.T. 1986. Insecticide metabolism and selectiv e toxicity. Xenobiotica. 16(10): 9891002. Brooks, G.D., and H.F. Schoof. 1964. Effectiveness of various dosages of dichlorvos resin against Culex pipiens quinquefasciatus Mosq. News. 24(2): 141-143. Brooks, G.D., H.F. Schoof, and E.A. Smith. 1965. Effectiveness of various dosages of dichlorvos against Aedes aegypti in cisterns, St. Thomas. 1965. Mosq. News. 25(3): 334338. Brown, A.W.A 1966. The attraction of mosquitoes to hosts. J. Am. Mosq. Control Assoc. 196(3): 249-252. Camp, H.B., T.R. Fukuto, and R.L. Metcalf 1969. Selective toxicity of isopropyl parathion. J. Agr. Food Chem. 17(2): 243-248. Capinera, L.J. 2004. Encyclopedia of entomology. Kl uwer Academic Publishers, London, Great Britain. Carlson, D.A, and C.M. Leibold. 1981 Field trials of pheromone toxicant devices containing muscalure for house flies (Diptera: Muscidae). J. Med. Entomol. 18: 73-77.

PAGE 91

91 Carlson, D.A., D.L. Silhacek, J.D. James, and M. Beroza. 1971. Sex attractant of the house fly: isolation, identification, a nd synthesis. Science. 174: 76-78 Carpenter, S.J., and W.J. LaCasse 1955. Mosquitoes of North America (north of Mexico). University of California Press, Los Angeles, CA Casida, J.E., and G.B. Quistad 1998. Golden age of insecticid e research: past, present, or future? Annu. Rev. Entomol. 43: 1-16. Casida, J.E., K. Ueda, L.C. Gaughan, L.T. Jao, and D.M. Soderlund 1976. Structure biodegradability relation ships in pyrethroid insecticides. Arch. Environ. Contam. Toxicol. 3: 491-500. Center of Disease Control. 2005 Dengue Fever Fact Sheet. http://www.cdc.gov/ncidod/dvbid/dengue/index.htm Chadee, D.D. 1985 An evaluation of malathion ULV spraying against caged and natural populations of Aedes aegytpi in Trinidad, West Indies. Ser. Entomol. Med. Parasitol. 23: 71-740. Chang, C.K., and M.E. Whalon. 1987. Substrate specificities and multiple forms of esterases in the brown plant hopper. Pestic. Biochem. Physiol. 27: 30-35. Christophers, S.R. 1960. Aedes aegypti (L.), the yellow fever mosquito. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, Great Britain Claudianos, C., H. Ranson, R.M. Johnson, S. Biswas, M.A. Schuler, M.R. Berenbaum, R. Feyereisen, and J.G. Oakeshott. 2006. A deficit in detoxifi cation enzymes: pesticide sensitivity and environmental response in th e honey bee. Insect Mol. Biol. 15(5): 615-636. Clements, A.N. 1992. The biology of mosquitoes, Volume 2. CABI Publishing, New York, NY Coats, S.A., J.R. Coats, and C.R. Ellis. 1979. Selective toxicity of three synthetic pyrethroids to eight Coccinellids, a eulophi d parasitoid, and two pest Chrysomelids. Environ. Entomol. 8: 720-722. Colwell, A.E., and H.H. Shorey 1977. Female produced stimuli influencing courtship of male house flies (Musca domestica). Ann. Entomol. Soc. Am. 70: 303-308. Darsie, R.F., and R.A. Ward. 2005. Identification and geographical distribution of the mosquitoes of North America, North of Mexic o. University Press of Florida, Gainesville, FL. Diarra, G.M, T.W. Roberts, and B.M. Christensen. 1999. Automated measurement of oxygen consumption by the yellow fever mosquito, Aedes aegypti Am. J. Trop. Med. Hyg. 60(5): 859-864.

PAGE 92

92 Echeverria, P., B.A. Harrison, C. Tirapat, and A. McFarland. 1983. Flies as a source of enteric pathogens in a rural village in Th ailand. Appl. Environ. Mi crobiol. 46: 32-36. Fay, R.W 1968. A trap based on visual responses of adult mosquitoes. Mosq. News. 28: 1-7. Feyereisen, R. 2005. Insect cytochrome P450, pp. 1-58. In L.I Gilbert, K. Iatrou, and S.S. Gill (eds.), Comprehensive molecular insect science, vol 4. Elsevier Science Ltd, Atlanta, GA. Fielden, L.J., B. Krasnov, and I. Khokhlova. 2001. Respiratory gas exchange in the flea Xenopsylla conformis (Siphonaptera: Pulicidae). J. Med. Entomol. 38: 735-739. Florida Coordinating Council on Mosquito Control 1998. Florida Mosquito Control: The state of the mission as defined by mosquito controllers, regulators, and environmental managers. University of Florida, Vero Beach, FL. Foil, L., and C. Foil 1988. Dipteran parasites of horses. Equine Pract. 10(4): 21-38. Forsey, T., and S. Darougar 1981. Transmission of chlamydiae by the house fly. Brit. J. Ophthalmol. 65: 147-150. Fox, I 1980. Evaluation of ultra-low volume aerial and ground applications of malathion against natural populations for Aedes aegypti in Puerto Rico Mosq. News. 40(2): 280-283. Gahan, J.B., R.S. Anders, H. Highland, and H.G. Wilson 1953. Baits for the control of resistant flies. J. Econ. Entomol. 46: 965-969. Georghiou, G.P. 1972. The evolution of resistance to pe sticides. Annu. Rev. Ecol. System. 3: 133-168. Georghiou, G.P 1990. Overview of insecticide resist ance, pp 18-41. In M.B Green, H.M. LeBaron, and W.K. Moberg (eds.), Mana ging resistance to agrochemicals-from fundamental research to practical strategi es, Am. Chem. Soc. Symp. Ser. 421, Washington, DC. Georghiou, G.P., M. Wirth, H Tran, F. Saume, and A.B. Knudsen 1987. Potential for organophosphate resistance in Aedes aegytpi (Diptera: Culicidae) in the Caribbean area and neighboring countries J. Med. Entomol. 24(3): 290-294. Gerberg, E.J., D.R. Barnard, and R.A. Ward. Manual for mosquito rearing and experimental techniques. American Mosquito Control Association, Inc., Lake Charles, LA. Graczyk, T.K., R. Knight, and L. Tamang. 2005. Mechanical transmission of human protozoan parasites by insects. Cl inic. Microbiol. Rev. 18(1): 128-132. Graczyk, T.H., R. Knight, R.H. Gilman, and M.R. Cranfield. 2001. The role of non-biting flies in the epidemiology of human infec tious diseases. Microb Infect. 3: 231-235.

PAGE 93

93 Grandes, A.E., and E.A. Sagrado. 1988 The susceptibility of mosquitoes to insecticides in Salamanca province, Spain. J. Am. Mosq. Control Assoc. 4(2): 168-172. Gratz, N.G. 1993a. Lesson of Aedes aegytpi control in Thailand. Med. Vet. Entomol. 7: 1-10. Gratz, N.G. 1993b. What must we do to effectively to control Aedes aegypti Trop. Med. 35(4): 243-251. Gray, E.M., and T.J. Bradley 2003. Metabolic rate in female Culex tarsalis (Diptera: Culicidae) : Age, size, activity, and feedi ng effects. J. Med. Entomol. 40(6): 903-911. Gray, E.M., and T.J. Bradley. 2006. Evidence form mosquitoes suggests that cyclic gas exchange and discontinuous gas exchange are two manifestations of a single respiratory pattern. J. Exp. Biol. 209: 1603-1611. Gubler, D.J 1991. The resurgence of vector borne diseases with emphasis on dengue hemorrhagic fever. Vector Ecol. Newslett. 22: 5-6. Haines, T.W 1955. Breeding media of common flies. In rural areas. Am. J. Trop. Med. Hyg. 4: 1125-1130. Haritos, V.S., and G. Dojchinov. 2003. Cytochrome c oxidase inhibition in the rice weevil Sitophilus oryzae (L.) by formate, the toxic metabol ite of volatile alkyl formates. Comp. Biochem. Physiol. 136: 135-143. Harrison, B.A., M.C. Callahan, D.M. Watts, and L. Panthursi. 1982. An efficient floating larval trap for sampling Aedes aegypti populations (Diptera: Culicidae). J. Med. Entomol. 19: 722-727. Healing, T.D. 1995. Arthropod pests as disease vectors. Rev. Med. Vet. Entomol. 83(5): 225234. Hemingway J., and H. Ranson 2000. Insecticide resistance in in sect vectors of human disease. Annu. Rev. Entomol. 45: 371-391. Hogsette, J.A. 1995. The house fly: Basic bi ology and ecology. USDA Medical and Veterinary Entomology Res. Lab., Gainesville, FL. Homer. 800 B.C.E. The Odyssey. http://www.online-literature.com/homer/odyssey/22/ Kasai, S., T. Shono, and M. Yamakawa. 1998. Molecular cloning and nucleotide sequence of a cytochrome P450 cDNA from a pyrethroid resistant mosquito, Culex quinquefasciatus Say. Insect Mol. Biol. 7: 185-190. Keiding, J. 1965. Observations on the behavi or of the house fly in relati on to its control. Rivista di Parassitologia. 26: 46-60.

PAGE 94

94 Keiding, J 1986. The house fly Biology and control. WHO Vector Control Series 63, World Health Organization, Geneva, Switzerland. Keiding, J 1999. Review of the global status and recent development of insec ticide resistance in field populations of the house fly, Musca domestica (Diptera: Muscidae). CABI Publishing, New York, NY. Kestler, P. 1985. Respiration and respiratory water lo ss, pp. 137-183. In Hoffmann K.H. (ed.), Environmental physiology and biochemist ry of insects. Springer, Berlin. Kroeger, A., U. Dehlinger, G. Burkhardt, H. Anaya, and N. Becker 1995. Community based dengue control in Columbia: people’s knowledge and practice and the potential contribution of the biological larvicide B.t.i. Trop. Med. Parasitol. 46: 241-246. Lehmann, F., M.H. Dickinson, and J. Staunton. 2000. The scaling of carbon dioxide release and respiratory water loss in flying fruit flie s (Drosophila spp.). J. Exp. Entomol. 203: 1613-1624. Levine, O.S, and M.M Levine 1991. House flies as mechanical vectors of shigellosis. Rev. Infect. Diseases. 13: 688-696. Lighton, J.R.B 1988. Simultaneous measurement of oxygen uptake and carbon dioxide emission during discontinuous vent ilation in the tok-tok beetle, Psammodes striatus J. Insect Physiol. 34: 361-367. Lighton, J.R.B 1990. Slow discontinuous ventila tion in the Namib dune-sea ant Camponotus detritus (Hymenotera: Formicidae) J. Exp. Biol. 151: 71-82. Lighton, J.R.B. 1994. Discontinuous ventilat ion in terrestrial insects. Physiol. Zool. 67: 142162. Lighton, J.R.B., and D. Berrigan. 1995. Questioning paradigms: cas te-specific ventilation in harvester ants, Messor pergandei and M. julianus (Hymenoptera: Formicidae). J. Exp. Biol. 198: (521-530). Maddock, D.R, and V.A. Sedlack. 1961. Dosage-mortality response of Anopheles quadrimaculatus exposed to DDVP vapor. Bull. Wrld. Hlth. Org. 24: 644-646. Maddock, D.R., C.M. Elmore, and H.F. Schoof 1963. Preliminary tests with DDVP vapor for the control of Culex pipiens quinquefasciatus in catch basins. Mos q. News. 23(2): 69-74. Magnarelli, L.A. 1979. Diurnal nectar-feeding of Aedes cantator and A. sollicitans (Diptera: Culicidae). Environ. Entomol 8: 949-955. Mallipudi, N.M., and T.R. Fukuto 1979. Toxicity of N-sulfenylated derivatives of insecticidal methylcarbamate esters to honeybee. J. Agr. Food Chem. 27: 261-265.

PAGE 95

95 Mathis, W., W. Richard, H.F. Schoof, and K.D. Quarterman 1959. Residual fumigants. Their potential in malaria erad ication. Pu. Hlth. Rep. 74(5); 379-381. Matsumura, F 1980. Toxicology of insecticides. Plenum Press, New York, NY. Matthysse, J.G, and D. McClain 1973. House fly control in clim ate-controlled caged-hen layer houses. J. Econ. Entomol. 66(4): 927-933. Mboera, L.E.G., and W. Takken 1997. Carbon dioxide in mosquitoes (Diptera :Culicidae) and its potential in vector surveillance and management. Rev. Med. Vet. Entomol 85: 355-368. Melander, A.L 1914. Can insects become resistant to sprays? J. Econ. Entomol. 7: 167-173. Meola, R. 1964. The influence of temperature and humidity on embryonic longevity in Aedes aegytpi Annals of the Ent. Soc. of Am 57: 468-472. Mian, L.S., H. Maag, and J.V. Tacal. 2002. Isolation of Salmonella from muscoid flies at commercial animal establishments in San Be rnardino County, California. J. Vec. Ecol. 27(1): 82-85. Miles, J.W., G.W. Pearce, and J.E. Woehst 1962. Stable formulations for sustained release of DDVP. Agric. Food Chem. 10: 240-244. Morlan, H.B., and M.E. Tinker 1965. Distribution of Aedes aegytpi infestations in United States. Am. J. Trop. Med Hyg. 14:892-899. Mount, G.A. 1970. Optimum droplet size for adult mosquito control with space sprays or aerosols of insecticides. Mosq. News. 30(1): 70-75. Mount, G.A 1985. Ultra low volume application of insect icides for vector co ntrol. WHO Vector Control Series 31, World Health Organization, Geneva, Switzerland. Mullen, G., and L. Durden. 2002. Medical and veterinary en tomology. Academic Press, San Diego, CA. Nazni, W.A., H. Luke, W.M. Wan Rozita, A.G. Abdullah, I. Sa’diyah, A.H. Azahari, I. Zamree, S.B. Tan, H.L. Lee, and M.A. Sofian. 2005. Determination of the flight range and dispersal of the house fly, Musca domestica (L.) using mark release recapture technique. Trop. Biomed. 22(1): 53-61. Nelson, M.J 1986. Aedes aegytpi biology and control. Pan American Health Organization, Washington, DC. Nguyen, S.N., S. Cheol, and M.E. Scharf. 2007. Toxicity, synergism, and neurological effects of novel, volatile insecticides in insecticide-susceptible and –res istant Drosophila strains. J. Econ. Entomol. 100(2): 534-544.

PAGE 96

96 Nicholls, P. 1975. Formate as an inhibitor of cytoch rome c oxidase. Biochem. Biophys. Res. Commun. 67: 610-616. Oakeshott, J.G., C. Claudianos, P.M. Ca mpbell, R.D. Newcomb, and R.J. Russell. 2005. Biochemical genetics and genomics of insect esterases, pp. 309-361. In L.I Gilbert, K. Iatrou, and S.S. Gill (eds.), Comprehensive mo lecular insect science, vol. 5. Elsevier Science Ltd, Atlanta, GA. O’Meara, G.F., A.D. Gettman, L.F. Evans, and F.D. Scheel 1992a. Invasion of cemeteries in Florida by Aedes albopictus J. Am. Mosq. Control Assoc. 8:1-10. O’Meara, G.F., L.F. Evans, A.D. Gettman and J.P. Cuda 1995. Spread of Aedes albopictus and Decline of Ae. Aegypti (Diptera: Culicidae) in Florida. J. Med. Entomol 32(4): 554562. Oppenoorth, F.J 1985. Biochemistry of genetics of insecticides, 731-775. In G.A Kerkut, and L.I. Gilbert (eds.), Comprehensive ins ect physiology, biochemistry, and pharmacology. Pergamon Press, Oxford, Great Britain. Peacock, B.E., J.P. Smith, P.G. Gregory, T.M. Loyless, J.A Mulrennen, P.R. Simmonds, L. Padgett, E.K. Cook, and T.R. Eddins 1988. Aedes albopictus in Florida. J. Am. Mosq. Control Assoc. 4: 380. Perich, M.J., M.A. Tidwell, D.C. Williams, M.R. Sardelis, C.J. Pena, D. Mandeville, and L.R. Boobar 1990. Comparison of ground and aerial ULV appplications of malathion against Aedes aegytpi in Santo Domingo, Dominican Republic J. Am. Mosq. Control Assoc 6(1): 1-6. Phillips, J.P., J.H. Kirby, K. Milne, and C.P. Krell. 1990. Transfer and expression of an organophosphate insecticide-degrading gene from Pseudomonas in Drosophila melanogaster Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. USA. 87: 8155-8159. Pickens, L.G., L.O. Morgan, and R.W. Miller. 1972. Comparison of traps and other methods for surveying density of populat ions of flies in dairy barn s. J. Econ. Entomol. 65: 144-145. Polo Plus Probit and Logit Analysis. 2005. LeOra Software, version 2.0. Berkeley, CA. Pratt, H.D., and K.S. Littig 1967. Handbook of general information on Aedes aegypti U.S Department of Health, Eduaction, and Welfare. Atlanta, Georgia. Quarterman, K.D., M. Lotte, and H.F. Schoof. 1963. Initial field studies in Upper Volta with dichlorvos residual fumigant as a malaria er adication technique. Bull. Wld. Hlth. Org. 29: 231-235. Quraishi, M.S. 1977. Biochemical insect control, its impact on economy, environment, and natural selection. Wiley/Interscien ce Publication, New York, NY. Reiter, P. 1991a. Comments on Aedes aegypti control. Vect. Ecol Newslett. 22: 3-4.

PAGE 97

97 Reiter, P 1991b. Architecture, ventilation, Aedes aegytpi and ULV spraying. J. Am. Mosq. Control Assoc 7: 642-743. Rigau-Perez, J.G., D.J. Gubler, A. V. Vorndam, and G.G. Clark. 1994. Dengue surveillanceUnited States, 1986-1992. Morb. Mort. Week. Rep. 43(SS-2): 7-19. Roth, L.M ., 1948. A study of mosquito behavior. An e pxerimental laboratory study of the sexual behavior of Aedes aegytpi Am. Midl. Natural. 40: 265-352. Rutledge, C.R. 2004. Overview of mosquito biology, pp. BOV 1-2. In Evans, H.T., C.D. Morris, R.H. Baker, and W.R. Opp (eds.), Florid a mosquito control handbook. Florida Mosquito Control Association, Gainesville, FL. Rutledge, C.R., and H.T. Evans 2004. Mosquito eggs, pp. BEG 1-8. In Evans, H.T., C.D. Morris, R.H. Baker, and W.R. Opp (eds.) Florida mosquito control handbook. Florida Mosquito Control Association, Gainesville, FL. Scharf, M.E., S.N. Nguyen, and C. Song 2006. Evaluation of volatile low molecular weight insecticides using Drosophila melanogaster as a model. Pest Ma nag. Sci. 62: 655-663. Scharf, M., B.D. Siegrfried, L.J. Meinke, and L.D. Chandler 2000. Firponyl metabolism, oxidative sulfone formation and toxicity among organophosphateand carbamateresistant and susceptible western corn rootworm populations. Pest Manag. Sci. 56: 757-766. Schlein, Y., and R. Galun. 1984. Male housefly genital system as a source of mating pheromone. J. Insect Physiol. 30: 175-177. Schmidtmann, E.T. 1981. Water-base and aero sol concentrate applicat ion of permethrin for house fly control in New York dairy housing. J. Econ. Entomol. 74: 404-408. Schoof, H.F 1959. How far do flies fly? And what eff ect does flight pattern have on their control. Pest Cont rol. 27(4): 16-24. Schoof, H.F 1967. Mating, resting habits and dispersal of Aedes aegypti Bull. World Health Org 36: 600-601. Schoof, H.F., G.A. Mail, and E.P. Savage. 1954. Fly production sources in urban communities. J. Econ. Entomol. 47: 245-253. Schreiber, E.T. 2004. Artificial container inhabiting mosquitoes, pp. BAC 1-13. In Evans, H.T., C.D. Morris, R.H. Baker, and W.R. O pp (eds.), Florida mosquito control handbook. Florida Mosquito Control Asso ciation, Gainesville, FL. Scott, H.G., and K.S. Littig. 1964. Flies of public health impor tance and their control. U.S. Department of Health, Educati on, and Welfare, Atlanta, GA.

PAGE 98

98 Scott, J.G., C.J. Geden, D.A. Rutz, and N. Liu 1991. Comparative toxicity of seven insecticides to immature stages of Musca domestica (Diptera: Muscidae) and two of its important biological control agents, Muscidifurax raptor and Spalangia cameroni (Hymenoptera: Pteromalidae). J. Econ. Entomol. 849(3): 776-779. Service, M.W 1992. Importance of ecology in Aedes aegytpi control. Southeast Asean J of Trop. & Med. Public Health. 23: 681-690 Shroyer, D.A 2004. Dengue and yellow fever, pp. DDY 1-4. In Evans, H.T., C.D. Morris, R.H. Baker, and W.R. Opp (eds.), Florida mosqu ito control handbook. Florida Mosquito Control Association, Gainesville, FL. Silverly, R.E., and H.F. Schoof. 1955. Utilization of various produc tion media by muscoid flies in a metropolitan area. Adaptability of differe nt flies for infestati on of prevalent media. Ann. Entomol. Soc. Am. 48: 258-262. Soper, F.L 1967a. Dynamics of Aedes aegytpi distribution and densit y. Bull. Wld. Hlth. Org. 36: 536-538. Soper, F.L 1967b. Aedes aegypti and yellow fever. Bull. World Health. Org. 36: 521-527. Spielman, A., and M. D’Antonio 2001. A natural history of our most persistent and deadly foe. Hyperion, New York, NY. Statistical Analysis Software Institute (SAS). 2003. Statistical analysis software computer program, version 8.01. Institute, S. A. S., Cary, NC. Sulaiman, S., M.Z. Othoman, and A.H. Aziz 2000. Isolation of enteric pathogens from synanthropic flies trapped in down town Kuala Lumpur. J. Vector Ecol. 25: 90-93. Tabachnick, W.J. 2004. Overview of mosquito transmitted diseases, pp. DOV 1-3. In Evans, H.T., C.D. Morris, R.H. Baker, and W.R. Opp (eds.), Florida mo squito control handbook. Florida Mosquito Control Asso ciation, Gainesville, FL. Takken, W., and D.L. Kline 1989. Carbon dioxide and 1-octenol -3-ol as mosquito attractants. J. Am. Mosq. Control Assoc. 5(3): 311-316. The Bible: Authorized King Jam es Version with Apocrypha. 1997. Oxford University Press, Inc., New York, NY. Tinker, M.E., and G.R. Hayes. 1959. The 1958 Aedes aegytpi distribution in the United States. Mosq. News. 19:73-78. Trips, M., and W. Hausermann 1986. Dispersal and other p opulation parameters of Aedes aegytpi in an African village and their possible siginificance in epidemiology of vectorborne diseases. Am. J. Trop. Med. Hyg. 35: 1263-79.

PAGE 99

99 Undeen, A.H., and J.J. Becnel. 1994. A device for monitoring populat ions of larval mosquitoes in container habitats. J. Am Mosq. Control. 10: 101-103. U.S Environmental Protection Agency 2006. Interim re-registration eligibility decision Document for dichlorvos (DDVP). http://www.epa.gov/oppsrrd1/re registration/REDs/ddvp_ired.pdf Valles, S.M., P.G. Koehler, and R.J. Brenner 1997. Antagonism of fipronil toxicity by piperonyl butoxide and S,S,S-tributyl phos phorotrithioate in th e German cockroach (Dictyoptera: Blattelliidae). J. Econ. Entomol. 90: 1254-1258. Vincent, L.E., and D.L. Lindgren. 1965. Influence of fumigati on and age on carbon dioxide production of some stored-product insect s. J. Econ. Entomo l. 58(4): 660-664. Weinzierl, T.H., P.G. Koehler, and C.L. Tucker 2005. Microbial insecticides. http://edis.ifas.ufl.edu/IN081 West, L.S 1951. The house fly. Its natural history, medi cal importance, and control. Comstock Publishing Company, Inc., Ithaca, NY. Williams, A.E., and T. J. Bradley. 1998. The effect of respirat ory pattern on water loss in desiccation resistant Drosophila melanogaster J. Exp. Biol. 201: 2953-2959. Williams, A.E., M.R. Rose, and T.J. Bradley. 1997. CO2 release patterns in Drosophila melanogaster : the effect of selecti on for desiccation resistance J. Exp. Biol. 200: 615-624. Wolfinsohn, M., and R. Galun 1953. A method of determining the flight range of Aedes aegypti Bull. Res. Council Israel. 2: 433-436. Womack, M. 1993. The yellow fever mosquito, Aedes aegytpi Wing Beats. 5(4): 4. Yu, S.J. 2007. The toxicology and biochemistry of insecticides. University of Florida, Gainesville, FL.

PAGE 100

100 BIOGRAPHICAL SKETCH Alexandra Chaskopoulou was born on June 3, 1981 in Thessaloniki, Greece, to Efthimios and Kalliopi Chaskopoulos. She has one sister and one brother. She and her family have spent most of their lives in Greece. Upon completi on of her high school education in Greece, she decided to come to the United Stat es in order to pursue her college education as an entomologist. She arrived at the United Stat es in 2003, and within a year she earned her minor in biology from St. Andrews University of Michigan. In 20 04 she moved in Gainesville, Florida where she earned her Bachelor of Science degree in entomology from the University of Florida and graduated in 2005. She remained at the Univers ity of Florida since 2007, when she completed her masters degree in medica l and veterinary entomology.


xml version 1.0 encoding UTF-8
REPORT xmlns http:www.fcla.edudlsmddaitss xmlns:xsi http:www.w3.org2001XMLSchema-instance xsi:schemaLocation http:www.fcla.edudlsmddaitssdaitssReport.xsd
INGEST IEID E20101114_AAAAAK INGEST_TIME 2010-11-14T05:42:36Z PACKAGE UFE0021338_00001
AGREEMENT_INFO ACCOUNT UF PROJECT UFDC
FILES
FILE SIZE 8689 DFID F20101114_AAAECM ORIGIN DEPOSITOR PATH chaskopoulou_a_Page_018thm.jpg GLOBAL false PRESERVATION BIT MESSAGE_DIGEST ALGORITHM MD5
1831e40e11ab56ce43617f1854eb0950
SHA-1
fa63858a2acf4d1033c5e044e08877b7941611b5
2100 F20101114_AAADXG chaskopoulou_a_Page_082.txt
22a3b4449ace88ab3782cf4f179870c6
d99875016b2aa9d7374c539c5bd8ddbf14a0c5d0
4163 F20101114_AAAEBY chaskopoulou_a_Page_069thm.jpg
0626ede34d394023808116235bdfc03c
e0491e9db3cc6fe54e81e7325b66525f3321fc5c
693 F20101114_AAADWS chaskopoulou_a_Page_067.txt
c673d8914cd32e3c394163c000ee25e8
bacd512af3401c447ce2071f60b2ed81dddd1bb4
38998 F20101114_AAAEDB chaskopoulou_a_Page_024.QC.jpg
eaacf50b5c3c33582f7c018469f15caa
daf32f9c8d5e45ac2e0987a20aa3e4be917791bf
6996 F20101114_AAAECN chaskopoulou_a_Page_005thm.jpg
7d71985f4806df89476eacea3fce5bbf
92d4f3d161968d5f128e3327e2a051e123c9c435
1210 F20101114_AAADXH chaskopoulou_a_Page_083.txt
8bef02deb64f9dd6e3ad446400bd1848
008b593a3ead708eda19d4bb7a1eb93b9475372d
37574 F20101114_AAAEBZ chaskopoulou_a_Page_039.QC.jpg
581f84c1adf6e04b715a724de16f252b
2d39c72fdd8d08b1b3a52ffe7f825ac429c9a737
697 F20101114_AAADWT chaskopoulou_a_Page_068.txt
1b933b58363a7ae879906671ee299cbf
aa739542a9709033d14a6485dec018761f3a365d
36545 F20101114_AAAEDC chaskopoulou_a_Page_090.QC.jpg
65f944006b6f32d51aeae14a6ead877e
5ffa610d5e8d4253597e2efa10d82ad2df270fc3
34576 F20101114_AAAECO chaskopoulou_a_Page_036.QC.jpg
3e2d02a622d55519bb873ab957db7e07
e53b8e70511b55f01191b8e2e95460b25a9fda69
1166 F20101114_AAADXI chaskopoulou_a_Page_084.txt
856fad7e1118c8404f1d5c5bcd98026e
49c4f977006cfe4f10520f7136ff24e7003d083c
785 F20101114_AAADWU chaskopoulou_a_Page_069.txt
316f8dbda21d22cfe1b7c3f4238bacf8
dee61990685332c750d5986f32b19da626a5309c
3237 F20101114_AAAEDD chaskopoulou_a_Page_066thm.jpg
a35dba524dacfcd515129ce7839c9b9b
0b4c52d90e28fd5c23687d9a7cab7539715f205f
8984 F20101114_AAAECP chaskopoulou_a_Page_082thm.jpg
e0acaf112ee4962b31d12a536633c2b5
de72ea14836c1616061d0a9eb9e85e44695ce4ba
593 F20101114_AAADXJ chaskopoulou_a_Page_085.txt
e9be37b095f986e314e43d770d4c4d01
15532586098c8e64702626b90a5f975616223656
584 F20101114_AAADWV chaskopoulou_a_Page_070.txt
a461ba6cc69be29ecea229cf03f29df9
90f87e6212ae86c7b91b246861e0a93d23b34b1b
8973 F20101114_AAAEDE chaskopoulou_a_Page_022thm.jpg
26a7de5e4d109c053895900c323b4b06
fd415f3843aebfefdf4352d4458a4fa5faba71de
33081 F20101114_AAAECQ chaskopoulou_a_Page_019.QC.jpg
7b0fa7fbe6dd158586d24da89b47c2bb
d5f074281b8ebb84049da0c6b34f278aaa604d96
449 F20101114_AAADXK chaskopoulou_a_Page_086.txt
d2bad6897afc515159be191ec6b7f6f0
0456a7b360bf1c959631862f6a42d71a7a68ef62
431 F20101114_AAADWW chaskopoulou_a_Page_071.txt
c74fa5f31f8bf48828a02e1c4b5efcbd
ad41edd4a1239cbf682984ddd596831a0fb89819
155039 F20101114_AAAEDF UFE0021338_00001.xml FULL
e437bfbdec56db06ae0fff2634e2b0b1
0ec7c1eb2f31f0b9634c4bbc19ac6ceb179bf8a8
9390 F20101114_AAAECR chaskopoulou_a_Page_090thm.jpg
149df57aef0cef5323fea3c7161409c1
4ea499f4d0b907f2762fbe8ff02cfab828f797e5
678 F20101114_AAADXL chaskopoulou_a_Page_087.txt
a2128ef95ac22069ef2e0ec7214849d1
bf5cd5823f0ae5c8aa7760967b4f3cf7e99ee3d8
118 F20101114_AAADWX chaskopoulou_a_Page_072.txt
45cc87938b20468f54f3a132d3c7687d
de5e43119033202936ec5cded255124feda38c05
8129 F20101114_AAAECS chaskopoulou_a_Page_031thm.jpg
3ae567252664dd84c17cef0bdd8d7a48
a0dcc34c323dbf3d1efa4e3fd4eb3a4db0f973ac
F20101114_AAADXM chaskopoulou_a_Page_088.txt
77467d604670e16abdc8047f4b5ff0e7
40ea81d434da3edafe3334cae24bc75a6f2f340e
2160 F20101114_AAADWY chaskopoulou_a_Page_073.txt
4b8bb3c3199da1655763bebad6757505
db452aa27dd0d61e70949d6316a73b702f098a26
8704 F20101114_AAAEDG chaskopoulou_a_Page_001.QC.jpg
e26094a63d5d51c7e723138ea7fbf67b
d5079a51f505f651d00c384bc03570b78d2fc917
8937 F20101114_AAADYA chaskopoulou_a_Page_049thm.jpg
7be822e4a0d7346fcb2da538a2ca2c8c
b3e544af6564da79dcdbc327ff73367777f4d2fd
25457 F20101114_AAAECT chaskopoulou_a_Page_062.QC.jpg
b4bfce0dd11fe7f2e1fcfca8e49a1726
c7eadf700c2521c67fa184cd53924c61da0572e8
1182 F20101114_AAADXN chaskopoulou_a_Page_089.txt
7627559d1238a7b5a93f7a139460f734
5e77b0f05deb0f8476d5b5628b0ca013d8f09c78
2045 F20101114_AAADWZ chaskopoulou_a_Page_074.txt
0721a89feeab8059d879c5e5b4ed9386
e0687e5bf5c9c8b356b72a6b6f58da9974096ad2
3901 F20101114_AAAEDH chaskopoulou_a_Page_003thm.jpg
66b22082ea4bd604c1cdc3f99d635990
201233fc6d511207c2cf876ebbada4bd9abcf5b6
6840 F20101114_AAADYB chaskopoulou_a_Page_028thm.jpg
368e60f9e251792f09414cda38fdc547
a0e5d1ca8373aa631fcc2a19f0ccf5d53dd44f67
29447 F20101114_AAAECU chaskopoulou_a_Page_029.QC.jpg
5f3b88956cabc0ac86fb7bcf390714a5
a5c5f124e01b3828fde35a3ed151c29f63819180
2383 F20101114_AAADXO chaskopoulou_a_Page_090.txt
fdb5d1f0096fcf26b3ea55cb04ab7bea
d38739b58a57ca8cfc82996ea3c8e858092ad36e
20522 F20101114_AAAEDI chaskopoulou_a_Page_006.QC.jpg
ff9c3bc847087466c50c57e79706ee27
1a9e8fa28218c2b45260998cd0b833612200920e
34836 F20101114_AAADYC chaskopoulou_a_Page_018.QC.jpg
47fe98635308f5b08d7ff9b1d1c132d5
853d27e0d127ce03fc17d7759ff0e430f9913452
32362 F20101114_AAAECV chaskopoulou_a_Page_075.QC.jpg
355b6cd47a585f33c1e8759e15d2a325
e85f5e343a7b1f1cbde776d2cda05f729d2e6812
2424 F20101114_AAADXP chaskopoulou_a_Page_091.txt
a704a4f3034e927c7b0677daeec5e62e
b1a6cb125e6ecd2c151026dd2bd0a5a63f5a851d
9156 F20101114_AAAEDJ chaskopoulou_a_Page_012thm.jpg
c93a4303a4831d4820a3121568806964
71f626da8f190caddc64a19ae54cfef4899a2a6e
30667 F20101114_AAADYD chaskopoulou_a_Page_031.QC.jpg
58b9aa921c9d60b930410f726c837356
2ae5f9f81108344e83e607673928ff3bb15b0ee8
7759 F20101114_AAAECW chaskopoulou_a_Page_075thm.jpg
488e9d5d88c67b4634662eb62b2134c4
826af5fd3de7d1536ba8760dd4b9b51575da8a45
2598 F20101114_AAADXQ chaskopoulou_a_Page_092.txt
6be43f4a9bf3f373155fe4d663c8baa2
ed9394a2a09713e868c3e385297a70136ad65cdd
36935 F20101114_AAAEDK chaskopoulou_a_Page_012.QC.jpg
67d97c857dc8cb3c5f8a409c98ba7fa9
54f4d986da3a4e0fda89d82b635874da1b0c0e2a
7508 F20101114_AAADYE chaskopoulou_a_Page_017thm.jpg
f6a3fedaf5c1cbe8568e6db6a15099c4
af93066a0e60b38381aa8f101e37c7f39f83b5c5
2321 F20101114_AAADXR chaskopoulou_a_Page_093.txt
57c324825edc38ca31977476c9a8ae43
f97556636998971b32d2bf3a8c998012bc79e9ad
8431 F20101114_AAAEEA chaskopoulou_a_Page_050thm.jpg
276d5b497733bf88f3e02e0608a6baee
5b8abb91fdac796d4cf8f91f4fb7a609b5f88e1f
28865 F20101114_AAAEDL chaskopoulou_a_Page_017.QC.jpg
45ad0428e8bbc8f61a163918f44e5feb
3cb869ab3eeb556c71be4cf34affe882f2820564
8642 F20101114_AAADYF chaskopoulou_a_Page_041thm.jpg
e5c2d1a3642309f7fa9a0dba05e68f7a
1a898e323f344b248befb996b7f3116f766769b8
20973 F20101114_AAAECX chaskopoulou_a_Page_089.QC.jpg
2786cc3524bd947a249514522a206011
46f2d71a764492cc713ffb558f397506eeaa619d
2516 F20101114_AAADXS chaskopoulou_a_Page_094.txt
dc8529b95c4dd15af3108d88e5b18205
564ef855ca57b6b1111b4bd36e14f3f8195e0cea
36511 F20101114_AAAEEB chaskopoulou_a_Page_051.QC.jpg
80b9fd22c7d7ae301b60620287fed1b4
f5161f7fb9d0f414eb8bfe992a38c2d1857b9680
8612 F20101114_AAAEDM chaskopoulou_a_Page_026thm.jpg
ca2b44bac28d5e22e73ac8f72405ded7
7cf921e36c5bb7354f42bddc4dbcfe2f92c01e07
33601 F20101114_AAADYG chaskopoulou_a_Page_020.QC.jpg
dcc2695a0c7e7c2eca5089f8dc597b85
981f71f4b1e0c2b3acf064aa510472a85f1e26d2
34300 F20101114_AAAECY chaskopoulou_a_Page_078.QC.jpg
8ad2fd7d61cff34d8376cd9fe6d6b590
7fcb3eaf93ac0779026af32c3e174f8d20290715
2409 F20101114_AAADXT chaskopoulou_a_Page_095.txt
fc4d9c260c4ee279c36cc3d09f74e2b3
609e8e4fec5add80be80e47d501cd39041213f18
9046 F20101114_AAAEEC chaskopoulou_a_Page_052thm.jpg
1e5d88783ec2f081825cb1b9c182f073
57fad88586da775778e072fd6fd38a3788143ae2
37006 F20101114_AAAEDN chaskopoulou_a_Page_027.QC.jpg
88f0bdd7e5b179fc39ff8cfa91a1bec8
2891e0fbbbc5838fbcfea94f31fa578c3267b23a
9280 F20101114_AAADYH chaskopoulou_a_Page_095thm.jpg
1000f0c4eaeee2849007965c8f3b31e2
2d299241049da07aa944907320d89b20f650ad01
2730 F20101114_AAAECZ chaskopoulou_a_Page_072thm.jpg
aaab067d219434e9a7673484ddc29fa0
d3fd8097acfec4ccb88be5f7d7d14389ab2b80fc
2681 F20101114_AAADXU chaskopoulou_a_Page_096.txt
ff9c803268030844a828c65acdc9104d
87364efe8ee63bd75272a031a66f3f08ed48e9df
36992 F20101114_AAAEED chaskopoulou_a_Page_053.QC.jpg
7969c3aa2dcb36250a9c24d95328d37e
fa0709b07592abeb0139b3253135fa1cd6dc29ab
27893 F20101114_AAAEDO chaskopoulou_a_Page_028.QC.jpg
b8bf62b7018806ba86293eb9336720ca
cda54c09da1d020ecda6cc890172e7ac53727cd0
8335 F20101114_AAADYI chaskopoulou_a_Page_020thm.jpg
8d82ed85415a5568a009b8d15484f467
380c6c8bb96f877030da9f6347074bda7e89319b
2500 F20101114_AAADXV chaskopoulou_a_Page_097.txt
e10d62dad8c04516a1c4473c0322d0e2
f8cf99d44bacea5fce4b38962af635c1c25c61ba
34372 F20101114_AAAEEE chaskopoulou_a_Page_055.QC.jpg
96d50aa9f214ab55192eb05d0bf8b022
63403fdd87a24c475044816e616646e9a005bc59
7604 F20101114_AAAEDP chaskopoulou_a_Page_029thm.jpg
943139a79e901f4e452fed9704dbea5c
841e025294ee6aff1fce044222c6847f8cd47a81
25574 F20101114_AAADYJ chaskopoulou_a_Page_007.QC.jpg
e1ed93e8ebf0902fc5728a8f6f3754a1
b87958cd4fa790aa6c31aafff77a5670d6923951
2501 F20101114_AAADXW chaskopoulou_a_Page_098.txt
cebb1a69d46b4816bef539a10528314f
8a3a45b2d2dc86601fe8bf78fee3df1b09d1cc16
18869 F20101114_AAAEEF chaskopoulou_a_Page_060.QC.jpg
8eec816466a4d428ee43f4e389e6be75
87a9bf66c16720ed013b2ec21787000005e3784c
8113 F20101114_AAAEDQ chaskopoulou_a_Page_032thm.jpg
0714c8adac5cd0b17585862e1d5983ba
1f9e5cafe5979aee48f556a32769235aaaf89bc6
35513 F20101114_AAADYK chaskopoulou_a_Page_042.QC.jpg
1906289dbaeef9b32262589af46945e3
179fec27ff6070444e50f581131a78bdffd9dbdd
1773 F20101114_AAADXX chaskopoulou_a_Page_099.txt
a67184b32b6ac650763657bce6d87f79
ffbecf33ca3c1b3aebc31101f2c2b8c819bafd01
15581 F20101114_AAAEEG chaskopoulou_a_Page_061.QC.jpg
e18fbdcc6190c98aa25ee851f1d1fdbf
a150040550aa2984b536e0ce2a3075b35dc66c7b
31407 F20101114_AAAEDR chaskopoulou_a_Page_032.QC.jpg
4313197d1e74edbbae176c801e84149d
815a50aa28d1ce420db505eb108549ee6e7ef01f
8183 F20101114_AAADYL chaskopoulou_a_Page_087.QC.jpg
e9cb359668d9bbb4a6dcf0794b6b66a6
8fc6178d0482103dfdecde818eec0ea7e12f6d2d
896 F20101114_AAADXY chaskopoulou_a_Page_100.txt
f0a1527fb7276e872999c05e0e08cde1
af2b0dd97141cf2c86fe89d8b522415551c68535
35776 F20101114_AAADZA chaskopoulou_a_Page_011.QC.jpg
321f7537c5555e924af89f94a72906a8
945c74578a879c75661d0d05a32729d010c26bb4
8149 F20101114_AAAEDS chaskopoulou_a_Page_033thm.jpg
bab66a4c368d04024c3b7127c0f24468
15d3b0461de23c06ad1c2629a3d94d9c638f70af
8848 F20101114_AAADYM chaskopoulou_a_Page_051thm.jpg
6ef6b06ac2e1c47f78d248bb491f2956
80e209431eee33b5cf57b80dfec9967455257e05
2141 F20101114_AAADXZ chaskopoulou_a_Page_001thm.jpg
f02e73710b46620e75f3706739aec3c6
422dbce94aee1de9eaa9262596331f9f3620e12c
21339 F20101114_AAAEEH chaskopoulou_a_Page_064.QC.jpg
66168ac7995ff9640d76966c5b01eae7
84983c2199a0db3faf07b69182ed28c754d8a443
4050 F20101114_AAADZB chaskopoulou_a_Page_063thm.jpg
99b027067709b5b1e1c8abea68da2ee7
0e986ed3ed9dee52f7520722329f389c8dd5881a
36325 F20101114_AAAEDT chaskopoulou_a_Page_037.QC.jpg
c0730b6374fa9268e6827ed91d1ca4ff
e9501577e154576061e172f1454824f6ce9de466
10641 F20101114_AAADYN chaskopoulou_a_Page_044.QC.jpg
4933472a4a2ed31af5af7cff50366c08
2f72870c3a9daae4902d54ce37f55c43ec9f8fe4
4697 F20101114_AAAEEI chaskopoulou_a_Page_065thm.jpg
661494487a2749909284c779fcaa3360
92f6d55cc8cae0869da47bdb237db1a83b3f57bb
8582 F20101114_AAADZC chaskopoulou_a_Page_057thm.jpg
e7d1d3edd00a70fc158be84ebe6dd4be
79ae2d871bcb9f5e5fb7ed66ede8fd1b021d55e6
9072 F20101114_AAAEDU chaskopoulou_a_Page_039thm.jpg
2e55ef1e5142a049ecda72042ef3b0cb
bf038ce206425117e1fdf7437cdb9429f1c14d33
9356 F20101114_AAADYO chaskopoulou_a_Page_093thm.jpg
61bc0f8849e7e2a4fcd79dbe98af4b62
cade59b8d156f183b99a68c14a5a8083dfaa622a
13808 F20101114_AAAEEJ chaskopoulou_a_Page_065.QC.jpg
5002f9ab20743c789fae43d174306b69
aaa238a57adf3265c52ed557fce38e7890a51cc0
32797 F20101114_AAADZD chaskopoulou_a_Page_021.QC.jpg
38674d3c1bf68d4df32b431fb1bf1024
81582ac3f31c2df70b1e168cf1da487da4945284
2205 F20101114_AAAEDV chaskopoulou_a_Page_040thm.jpg
24b6aa5725054d075f97d7448420d4b8
f559761e8cd48bbee9fa3905a1041cd9d3ffcf54
8454 F20101114_AAADYP chaskopoulou_a_Page_030thm.jpg
6f04e6337c07467313b5359f1f9f4e79
a9bf5acc7bd2ff866ebc00a6397b1d4df14c0800
12949 F20101114_AAAEEK chaskopoulou_a_Page_069.QC.jpg
b18362ab5242670a8d44f0911157b97f
33872f9416f8d5dd1b6c95c9c72d37145cecf69b
8587 F20101114_AAADZE chaskopoulou_a_Page_077thm.jpg
ba8f6912a7a070317dcf8d0c07209747
ca53d6e76b26bf940407e5e42d392d133a844140
37337 F20101114_AAAEDW chaskopoulou_a_Page_045.QC.jpg
8ae957fca3aba58feb14383a04ea0f02
9f60c903901b72e162b5ee307fab30cab5b4bbbb
36789 F20101114_AAADYQ chaskopoulou_a_Page_097.QC.jpg
023f3ca936357a3b94186f207cebd8dd
6ea71caf593c958aa984dd3e174dd08380b679fd
4540 F20101114_AAAEEL chaskopoulou_a_Page_070thm.jpg
c47605258febc84ef5fbb788c53c6803
e87c564553ed4aa0aabcd249d8498e931438f970
37427 F20101114_AAADZF chaskopoulou_a_Page_094.QC.jpg
f6bd36a306fcce5fcd4938bcb79d2c57
01c4e0051e17a75f454cd3afe64142101147dee5
8526 F20101114_AAAEDX chaskopoulou_a_Page_046thm.jpg
d345c1afbf632f140033fcaef04c7a43
f8b5d8e815b34d93f72ee50aa20badf2606230b1
2611 F20101114_AAADYR chaskopoulou_a_Page_044thm.jpg
7d30bb5303e24bf1c3def2890586bc74
fe62d1adf77bb3fe768ac34eef63b17d27909472
4693 F20101114_AAAEEM chaskopoulou_a_Page_071thm.jpg
943bd6030d411cf6f14432ccd5957241
d318991ddf19f8e465220cc65b878c8abb23264e
15663 F20101114_AAADZG chaskopoulou_a_Page_100.QC.jpg
daf6ce7f8c543a3f2831013b40b00fab
60743e5bbd50c10910bc16e8b50cf858dc3ff2f1
34017 F20101114_AAAEDY chaskopoulou_a_Page_046.QC.jpg
e1633e4e63f179b566a9b50a5c3df080
c541952def315948df12d50c5fe7979593b7337b
9140 F20101114_AAADYS chaskopoulou_a_Page_034thm.jpg
43be09ac1703a955f4c9a83d5d2dbde1
b73bd4a36a6cb160f32c960c7dafbe611cbbbfa5
35780 F20101114_AAAEEN chaskopoulou_a_Page_073.QC.jpg
81cc2b095b5a03cb4a4f01fa15f4fe01
a923f5f2209c8ac0ece6286b44e4bdb333a66d5d
35151 F20101114_AAADZH chaskopoulou_a_Page_074.QC.jpg
d206ed833472c78b198a4dca19f58df6
fe43bc388f0c4097c3d55c2ecdb496fd6fa955bf
8346 F20101114_AAAEDZ chaskopoulou_a_Page_047thm.jpg
684706fda901fc680088e76f1f36c288
8a76714a66fcf0b756b9d6e2db84d1aa62ea641a
33604 F20101114_AAADYT chaskopoulou_a_Page_050.QC.jpg
745218477535ca68a80ee7793d5306d2
f81020dfdca0a34425aedaad29af352302723060
9168 F20101114_AAAEEO chaskopoulou_a_Page_076thm.jpg
aa057143b2dae6ad81a2c958a04dc54d
e4fd1c42d8c05483a1645e0874a7d0fa13c0f964
8623 F20101114_AAADZI chaskopoulou_a_Page_023thm.jpg
2b2abff31d2bbe61199ecb6852abcb4a
04d43adb929543db363516f80103c7f4631dee5f
32223 F20101114_AAADYU chaskopoulou_a_Page_016.QC.jpg
fd2c558ba082073c7e4a739c10183b2a
8905533a423be262d62b92e123f373b07611aed8
37442 F20101114_AAAEEP chaskopoulou_a_Page_076.QC.jpg
823558502bee767090348bf2763aa42b
d3f2370539950bc692667d682fe066d32da6c627
34852 F20101114_AAADZJ chaskopoulou_a_Page_013.QC.jpg
8678767906177b279f47248682889bb3
7dd1ac87f62187d5df991121a06175a21fa775ee
36088 F20101114_AAADYV chaskopoulou_a_Page_091.QC.jpg
cc35f977a65c62b6b563408b691fdce6
76810e9f064e9fff5d3268fee71c7a245ee2076a
8472 F20101114_AAAEEQ chaskopoulou_a_Page_078thm.jpg
4396af4282e6b6518f4553989a9673fe
e4eb165308e3be6a3c4bf71c51a83e7c34f2eea6
10703 F20101114_AAADZK chaskopoulou_a_Page_066.QC.jpg
7c6ddff27987746e9654ac79781d2d41
b0be8edbc76d908a097b38d366ff45b6f39bc5a4
13269 F20101114_AAADYW chaskopoulou_a_Page_068.QC.jpg
388621dfc5c1acc5c68529267b63dd75
8801ede702f770f8aa6f76d012e5338301ded389
37090 F20101114_AAAEER chaskopoulou_a_Page_079.QC.jpg
9e6e7c93e6268d9b7c21a2faab5d3a89
01119e7b30202b4b20431be393f069aa1fe52f9d
5183 F20101114_AAADZL chaskopoulou_a_Page_006thm.jpg
984eb39c3f7cea9124c86b76720d3182
a562ba5496abb39f0dc9b10a66d5fcbfa383b8dd
8128 F20101114_AAADYX chaskopoulou_a_Page_021thm.jpg
b806a95eb2df68a625ad56f4334b3c6b
033d89fecf90fe48d837d139688ac4b0cfb96e61
8833 F20101114_AAAEES chaskopoulou_a_Page_080thm.jpg
b0d2b5062398d4c27522c174525e9460
e401470b4027cdef7cac757fa119ae91972c3d30
5587 F20101114_AAADZM chaskopoulou_a_Page_083thm.jpg
2cc797863c91ef2b1b95c81f56449e0e
4769ffd00c34407525533829ae7d5785a754556e
14321 F20101114_AAADYY chaskopoulou_a_Page_015.QC.jpg
a81cb1d638845e51045bc14a104c9675
31b6757ff03440e42f2760da486478875e1d15dd
8789 F20101114_AAAEET chaskopoulou_a_Page_081thm.jpg
04abd27efbea32dc4f4256bc5ea393d5
9bc774ddaefa404d5b5dbb5a1220d7e18b46d562
3385 F20101114_AAADZN chaskopoulou_a_Page_086thm.jpg
37b11043bcca45c5b3cf5e9369ba76a4
c0b164811c1c5793c5103f5d9a308ecda184241d
7368 F20101114_AAADYZ chaskopoulou_a_Page_010thm.jpg
5b13b2c8c51a8b74560a17efc38d58ec
89102d4c0c4422f1b4a8e2d5d2d4f90880ac850b
4504 F20101114_AAAEEU chaskopoulou_a_Page_084thm.jpg
ee174278ff8791cce35bd24434adf02f
dbb8c1eed8e9cccd9cbca66e8d679292d07204bc
4924 F20101114_AAADZO chaskopoulou_a_Page_061thm.jpg
8ee24458e6a5cb15108c0f4667562789
f6827894bb3a7a7e4ee4f4bbdb82ac18af622310
10762 F20101114_AAAEEV chaskopoulou_a_Page_085.QC.jpg
855d429688e5f8b7e0e1ad856f104414
b22eb00e2da0871f20b24102b12d04b29f021980
4520 F20101114_AAADZP chaskopoulou_a_Page_067thm.jpg
cb70a07fcd4e820c45887ab9f108fc84
145e295d7fc4a0a05b295380734d4fc2b819bf53
34464 F20101114_AAAEEW chaskopoulou_a_Page_088.QC.jpg
7bcfff10e5417fee08c36346aa6e1729
4dbab8f6177d0fa8179f86a316e1f7059dac0001
F20101114_AAADZQ chaskopoulou_a_Page_027thm.jpg
76520799a14d3af8d99551cbc9754eba
6025477a893d8e02d3a10ae634a0511145b94037
9870 F20101114_AAAEEX chaskopoulou_a_Page_096thm.jpg
39179d0009aea9f9afd161f373ca5eee
ff9fac4632dfe11e154bdbf0863ea9daff85208b
9285 F20101114_AAADZR chaskopoulou_a_Page_079thm.jpg
64dd10873c8230f1ae571d4492b0c0cc
6ff8b2160b651a38b8305e79aa16dfb26cac0676
9256 F20101114_AAAEEY chaskopoulou_a_Page_098thm.jpg
e8b293e80ca5ed1c4ac11b3f8ada643d
2a06bda61ba966a564ac89da8eae97fe22c7d1ef
34651 F20101114_AAADZS chaskopoulou_a_Page_038.QC.jpg
7d25e1ec71a3e62438a6db2cb4f103da
24eca0058d7af0475f6f5273efaef88c6c1b82fc
8210 F20101114_AAADZT chaskopoulou_a_Page_055thm.jpg
066b6959567528e68b966cc68b42e1c9
fecadf9fa9bba4996be11497062fac0d6baf6027
4392 F20101114_AAADZU chaskopoulou_a_Page_068thm.jpg
5804f1f52d8b9f123d7272dd1bf0cc70
fe74f0ba2e79595eb3746a8ae3728c751288fa7a
9624 F20101114_AAADZV chaskopoulou_a_Page_091thm.jpg
fa8bf5a74db39574bb7f669c6ce63cdf
101f6a794728da6e0aaebd79041299a92d68f05e
8510 F20101114_AAADZW chaskopoulou_a_Page_086.QC.jpg
43ea5d5562c63bd6f792fc9237b0daad
2a0ea5654273a96b63bc9e54e1b359e366596b77
1286 F20101114_AAADZX chaskopoulou_a_Page_002.QC.jpg
182ec61272155415c5c151d8b8636e1f
c43c21d8fab02d62e808404b5da1b9f9e1e8c28d
14762 F20101114_AAADZY chaskopoulou_a_Page_070.QC.jpg
a9b4e7da762f381e1ec893f7e7669ffd
f3a4931ab89cac48f231261d64d1f621bb061831
36382 F20101114_AAADZZ chaskopoulou_a_Page_095.QC.jpg
f2883dd0709af8d1013101a861256153
2b302a82d13962daa36829292135e31517390854
34370 F20101114_AAADEA chaskopoulou_a_Page_035.QC.jpg
658bfc2b1a11036b723bf48701cae014
3f5fc86869ba141bce006ca0b34964c5394a8cd7
122014 F20101114_AAADEB chaskopoulou_a_Page_034.jp2
883f475b16a006df3a37641be0adca6b
2f2ec5fec2a9d842e1173118bc068feb9478bac3
469 F20101114_AAADEC chaskopoulou_a_Page_066.txt
8485262c0ca662bd852875b9e9233428
8e8f13859006afb4322e4811ea6c298d2e9b9f71
36741 F20101114_AAADED chaskopoulou_a_Page_049.QC.jpg
551bf64fc7f8f571d1bd98bb44946c82
2bbced50337c2c8da8cd0671df607efa36282991
24497 F20101114_AAADEE chaskopoulou_a_Page_008.QC.jpg
24e348bd24e652ca90821f8762cc4967
e75ef367e3faa2fb48f7653c5bfd5086ebad9bea
48558 F20101114_AAADEF chaskopoulou_a_Page_009.pro
9cb4ebdeea3693658c34b5e9acce5fb2
94472b545941166000f78a96b4937a453c91ed69
93775 F20101114_AAADEG chaskopoulou_a_Page_099.jpg
67c2c7fc56bf2ac2bce3cbff46d9d252
7eb76ad3f8f75526e4c9cc4468754946d79c71a0
36786 F20101114_AAADEH chaskopoulou_a_Page_041.QC.jpg
41323842024ea00ecd4b07c08edd4354
437f9e9531875828993bf935d24e44b45ad529f1
110810 F20101114_AAADEI chaskopoulou_a_Page_041.jpg
4e4a6c00b617d96521a73fd2b8e9b1a2
787fe70c4ffbd3fc4979a0b03a576221d2cec2f0
51793 F20101114_AAADEJ chaskopoulou_a_Page_014.pro
765f6859bc61d7d3a47a7d3948ef55a9
f2c753ab58655486c989cfdbc1227812a9475912
31097 F20101114_AAADDW chaskopoulou_a_Page_010.QC.jpg
280eb9294c927d8cb3f654953c90ab18
22d4a04e08dc2a1104dca965fcbe4ad6b0f7a191
34499 F20101114_AAADEK chaskopoulou_a_Page_047.QC.jpg
9439f9e16f86785991d9b28dbe44448e
d72acb1e826d06c89fb722989e11f56d8198cfc0
8685 F20101114_AAADDX chaskopoulou_a_Page_011thm.jpg
b976935c8a03cc1f5285f6977b00b0d4
e82ccb1052a9a20a5c4658b21b43f10932451d8f
253700 F20101114_AAADFA chaskopoulou_a_Page_066.jp2
feea99fa515b613dd959d544d981251a
3f08615d0826754b32c04bd9d883018aaa44223c
118437 F20101114_AAADEL chaskopoulou_a_Page_041.jp2
95b299942511c90a9978c549c270df5b
dd24a36bc950df034f554340a184db2ee9818deb
106688 F20101114_AAADDY chaskopoulou_a_Page_042.jpg
fe9b4a2a7b3605e2736ed650ce33412b
63e491c736699db3cc3e24e949b5a94df4771557
2229 F20101114_AAADFB chaskopoulou_a_Page_027.txt
4aa9ad96ef7934aca73f9930f5b71002
cd2205807c5f577bfdfc1cc9ed532672e12716b4
108690 F20101114_AAADEM chaskopoulou_a_Page_057.jpg
e0faeeb142e91ff2d71f6ba5633d3998
bc0579908466e9209d8b0f3d26387d1feaf357a2
F20101114_AAADDZ chaskopoulou_a_Page_022.txt
3aed55e44a31cfc1001776142a07c640
0267270d3ba8f565604c5c5d56dbfa10feb28211
8206 F20101114_AAADFC chaskopoulou_a_Page_042thm.jpg
7e037776c47bc2160ce066a360af41fd
490749496029b22e67d84ab0e727baf12b3dd958
1164 F20101114_AAADEN chaskopoulou_a_Page_058thm.jpg
9daaa1d9467a3bbc728580fbcae184e1
5d8dd1c95d3cccde31edd80d95006b5a3d723ca1
758001 F20101114_AAADFD chaskopoulou_a.pdf
74eadb71eb9ab91cf275cc422650723e
a51d296939fa392e78138dd9b4d5c32654f78e9f
106041 F20101114_AAADEO chaskopoulou_a_Page_088.jpg
590617e05fea187ba76c7f81f5b0269b
eb5957c43f07a0f40fdb789937c97dc3d9c1c66e
40878 F20101114_AAADFE chaskopoulou_a_Page_067.jpg
c26e2bb85a19702c9f74d8891f9aa69f
31638605e45f6bb472a653c86e62829598f31f02
1053954 F20101114_AAADEP chaskopoulou_a_Page_050.tif
62a9b44bbd1127728129f443e20f9f28
13b7ea375885466168898b70816c2911d5c1c297
5938 F20101114_AAADFF chaskopoulou_a_Page_002.jp2
33451ba003fd29f2853617a7acb9bce2
84c71e2f1722d1c41282711ec41644754220d64d
10129 F20101114_AAADEQ chaskopoulou_a_Page_071.pro
0d85de5ec44a711f5882d7d96c9e6117
708a7b3c095f27231cd735c99b930743f5c2664f
50163 F20101114_AAADFG chaskopoulou_a_Page_077.pro
6de186413d8c5a70e8101327cd7709ca
7c86345ab8e6c83e1e970d93238d9541542ea1e3
116082 F20101114_AAADER chaskopoulou_a_Page_057.jp2
d457185bca31bdd164da58e436a6aede
6187d3854190b55bc7feb67554de2db9053d8b28
3997 F20101114_AAADFH chaskopoulou_a_Page_100thm.jpg
7f1822e755796cd8448489f30bea4ab7
c1f3b9e3e6201d51cd38f32aaeced6998a4d5e73
2226 F20101114_AAADES chaskopoulou_a_Page_052.txt
bcd0be6fea8d4ac48ea2fac1731bad68
79c117ef0a63dfe34edb35f3be61410db3c125f7
117308 F20101114_AAADFI chaskopoulou_a_Page_014.jp2
80e3f39ed35d93f889c2557bb8a3c058
53136efb1d872a19e8768b36c4a794525cbb613d
47706 F20101114_AAADET chaskopoulou_a_Page_003.jp2
a01e7588e7a6a661ce60ff5a3f30dec5
8987abda302528a9f990e8b05365c92b1cf66c0f
27838 F20101114_AAADEU chaskopoulou_a_Page_099.QC.jpg
3dc33e484fbaa24a6d7d1a0437ebdf58
78038c7a8e92ed8a1a330257a922e1b7cb8be567
F20101114_AAADFJ chaskopoulou_a_Page_057.tif
ceba6e0743123d521ac02f3f928a8998
2b2a75206389075768e0bae696328182628a1a4a
2171 F20101114_AAADEV chaskopoulou_a_Page_080.txt
1aab6fbf3a0ddfa74e7af4629e361991
2258ad529b39bf60f98fb237c6da2f722d8ccc34
111740 F20101114_AAADFK chaskopoulou_a_Page_080.jpg
911d467179c9a9b8c878316126e0862e
17e9156b6875b45d88bdf7ae81f9a873510a662a
13766 F20101114_AAADEW chaskopoulou_a_Page_071.QC.jpg
20982d0107553bf89934b8a1d102820c
ea63c9b4873ce60d26066e0e79982ae3610ae741
119620 F20101114_AAADGA UFE0021338_00001.mets
1d701ddc4cb45b7215f9268ad3ec8c1b
3a52910b58d30fa4351545c4684ce5bd1f20f677
35999 F20101114_AAADFL chaskopoulou_a_Page_022.QC.jpg
b3a66d683c290d373d315bd4e1bf18f0
d1cd5419a857bb6f099b2cea3db94cc76145050f
5263 F20101114_AAADEX chaskopoulou_a_Page_089thm.jpg
9b30852839ad47eef89df37f957aa003
10a03e9ff8e79b4fefe7f688517bcd1e2b96f9bc
108856 F20101114_AAADFM chaskopoulou_a_Page_035.jp2
33cbc9d77611547e36148ff184e11dd2
c92410eac4f786c5b2b7842fddb55e524b717816
33341 F20101114_AAADEY chaskopoulou_a_Page_044.jp2
d37eb61a928f61cd3551f073ba24d593
33f70e3ca32a60ffa9b08fcf4d35dff283c51c67
105436 F20101114_AAADFN chaskopoulou_a_Page_074.jpg
3a4e32616756477c20e8247314961f4c
02d707eeb8d7fc317405237f44c52db2c013c612
25265604 F20101114_AAADEZ chaskopoulou_a_Page_086.tif
08c17fefce0dc7666d468cdcdc3afd0e
56cb20cbef9bb6c4416dd6e31d697ac05174a879
26977 F20101114_AAADGD chaskopoulou_a_Page_001.jpg
d1c92ea6c88b53e2387a65c0453416a6
a862e93e98a0357ff8547b0e3c4085036b2bc689
22876 F20101114_AAADFO chaskopoulou_a_Page_086.jpg
9b728b95d0010ba1e11e1ec1705d51c4
af6a9a361bdc0b6aa1ba99cba94b2929ff4cf8fa
4469 F20101114_AAADGE chaskopoulou_a_Page_002.jpg
c585284106e326018e772f53c0b1c2d1
0e8a8185440f0c35ed486de29e294197a2861125
F20101114_AAADFP chaskopoulou_a_Page_089.tif
d4f72d6ab9e34648c955335a8f0f14ee
d8ad69d69c0cfbc6642b663970ec213f3ba8cf77
44907 F20101114_AAADGF chaskopoulou_a_Page_003.jpg
face956d9214c0410c7ee56dcf7109c0
ee0b56b0db01af3b87201021b7b92c72b533b100
557 F20101114_AAADFQ chaskopoulou_a_Page_002thm.jpg
552a3bb46a9897c6c63bc7fb8e5913da
676523e69ac5dd9f331aaa8db39a52aef8fa3269
116266 F20101114_AAADGG chaskopoulou_a_Page_004.jpg
68a8b727bfff0f1d572621c9f8e118de
dac90ebf8b6f7ac0d6680a7efb83b20c2f5d795f
F20101114_AAADFR chaskopoulou_a_Page_072.QC.jpg
2df491531a194a0b7af96860a26359e8
33096928486b1a6f213727b3dbcdc6183c6ff1b7
137309 F20101114_AAADGH chaskopoulou_a_Page_005.jpg
e02171735c10365db5ec2528281f5f74
41b5feaab1745436be46d6b6533f3977101d3101
111106 F20101114_AAADFS chaskopoulou_a_Page_047.jp2
f94d27ce6481a6c1e0669ded685fc6ed
92d524d9364d8ab6cd70a9b4e38d5af5c06a7e46
91086 F20101114_AAADGI chaskopoulou_a_Page_006.jpg
d8c32fe57b077483ed38ec9e19752807
df80f693d02b3adbcce6baff68d656d82d658054
2262 F20101114_AAADFT chaskopoulou_a_Page_054.txt
b53d092c9328aa87cda6dd82623f3246
2a743df9f7e7b06b0bb6bf297174678757022d5a
96848 F20101114_AAADGJ chaskopoulou_a_Page_007.jpg
61382f09ad2a9b019bb65a74ae763053
780dbefbce86da0411ec0a1e68eda06d23831427
34900 F20101114_AAADFU chaskopoulou_a_Page_026.QC.jpg
0f3a5fd4df97e0d1274fb161efc6ec1b
4aedebb970e9f6b28879019391813807a718c45f
38447 F20101114_AAADFV chaskopoulou_a_Page_056.QC.jpg
550d82f24c9a5b1b93fe0e795fb74a55
7dcbdb6c9d3582d403a2f083bb09365a10138a8d
89754 F20101114_AAADGK chaskopoulou_a_Page_008.jpg
e6008386e99a8e7a93142c1b1f47581c
774d5fffce0d121cd1309226954f3d0305e17ac8
10566 F20101114_AAADFW chaskopoulou_a_Page_040.pro
ebf087cde7732dd33b38b247d5e9a221
2e4a55a41102bee8404a7cf082bf532e20e5b6a1
103085 F20101114_AAADGL chaskopoulou_a_Page_009.jpg
d63f9e54d1b80d75c6b6d62a7d212712
0988c381030dac5b0de8b4bbfaa338ae33658a71
53949 F20101114_AAADFX chaskopoulou_a_Page_045.pro
7a6f6fa9b54eb3f0ee5cec8dc4df74aa
f9deeacb13534d552b4536d5f216fc2b865b7b08
119288 F20101114_AAADHA chaskopoulou_a_Page_024.jpg
b8bc57646ee2b5905f4e18a38f0862d5
1c7afef31fbdaa11f2497af6851c761360c874fc
95131 F20101114_AAADGM chaskopoulou_a_Page_010.jpg
ecdd71d56cdf904c8e6861db22069074
f7eb1f909411f6b8ae50b9b06e2fc993ab67cc00
117625 F20101114_AAADFY chaskopoulou_a_Page_079.jp2
ce81f9e7fdf78957b380818fc6270179
a255e22902204a345e703f08ce9c8e90488f4ad3
116208 F20101114_AAADHB chaskopoulou_a_Page_025.jpg
1a2afaf556dff5f1158e310e00d45cab
c270fc0340beef21271b084c871f47010b4c6f5f
111529 F20101114_AAADGN chaskopoulou_a_Page_011.jpg
5fa54e397cf441b2e56c836c7138f1b7
25a719a9d119ff8dd72e778c4d874aa50deea500
39150 F20101114_AAADFZ chaskopoulou_a_Page_096.QC.jpg
1af5dbfc94913bf01e6965e262b1b3c3
2136e310c344f88d30d0baef1d5cc354ffa56784
108105 F20101114_AAADHC chaskopoulou_a_Page_026.jpg
38761a51395a021d0bec209a62fe08c1
af15d0f94a8d0f8a53bfd3c769a2539cef187e2f
113808 F20101114_AAADGO chaskopoulou_a_Page_012.jpg
108b91eed2c208d66686e8590afcd846
5aa05ce405e65bfa5a5ed5072b73f729576dd5dc
114522 F20101114_AAADHD chaskopoulou_a_Page_027.jpg
b97981ea3f99789354a91dfd1514179e
0922f368d28e437f9db6d15e5752ef2d2e777e51
107332 F20101114_AAADGP chaskopoulou_a_Page_013.jpg
33945fb90e6e2338170eb1679cf04a4c
7242fcff93891872be00a689179be23b84a3775d
85466 F20101114_AAADHE chaskopoulou_a_Page_028.jpg
ec87b5728b7b86b8204f1a64c9d2ff7b
324261b2878d7496ddce011c9351da6031bd52c5
106446 F20101114_AAADGQ chaskopoulou_a_Page_014.jpg
c551988564ca9a9446e36828536ea27e
cf19c34a6db9aad8f967587ad292b719abca406f
90027 F20101114_AAADHF chaskopoulou_a_Page_029.jpg
faa9ef1c8c5f6a88b3b85f001a499e09
eb59f2b8ecef1e745fbc1dcac25db38926f7296d
42844 F20101114_AAADGR chaskopoulou_a_Page_015.jpg
76a40f5b2edca24252f8a5622bf57796
a642df27139587890ff7df5684e81bdd21b9113d
97699 F20101114_AAADHG chaskopoulou_a_Page_030.jpg
94f97a84757f4dc2d435373dcf7e13de
2e2de7851eb969ddfbffff4ee061a678653d9cec
105046 F20101114_AAADGS chaskopoulou_a_Page_016.jpg
15a62d688fd4e79778d50b34ac54ccee
454aed32bc77296adbbd020c478d92e27acd5e40
94219 F20101114_AAADHH chaskopoulou_a_Page_031.jpg
6ecdf998f6ecb011a90db02a8b8ea92c
707f0260a4164c0ca515a890dcc7f62ceae74ca3
87088 F20101114_AAADGT chaskopoulou_a_Page_017.jpg
f80903331e2b710373032f20e2f3eef3
653cc25c3d34eb512dd906236a241ac30fe40450
96226 F20101114_AAADHI chaskopoulou_a_Page_032.jpg
cd34031272e3af5d29fa3ed9a206bcea
628f981b9bb81c93f2b18e25f1121802944b502d
104952 F20101114_AAADGU chaskopoulou_a_Page_018.jpg
c7c22c2c599c5198f713af72ac6ee6a7
23407cc68c41bfd8c00c5e720b18927b32f33c7d
94424 F20101114_AAADHJ chaskopoulou_a_Page_033.jpg
52cdacb109c7e080c366ea5e63df8d22
4215bb6a1e227c8c360afd11c384f9e18b57a711
99030 F20101114_AAADGV chaskopoulou_a_Page_019.jpg
08ad5b3e1752ee581188d32bba3e4b2a
d042f849dc8d1b7d0a151111274a1db1a52ee2e1
114499 F20101114_AAADHK chaskopoulou_a_Page_034.jpg
e39fb77a33002a05af6bcb284340ef88
94ef803dafc82915000c6f02783a70ffb897e6cf
101975 F20101114_AAADGW chaskopoulou_a_Page_020.jpg
d525cc4c40215a6f7e51090bff1b5f95
eff8540bffd68ed6c745c1e8b481564d42ea7faf
97071 F20101114_AAADGX chaskopoulou_a_Page_021.jpg
7070ce691b413dc922d35b1398cd3198
8c0a5d4ae3a2e8508408e6727773b7d3b0161ed1
113660 F20101114_AAADIA chaskopoulou_a_Page_052.jpg
3afb938f4d870f41a0b6fbfc6b0c3e63
cafca5105b3d823dfbd2c755de1a4296b7b5a434
101996 F20101114_AAADHL chaskopoulou_a_Page_035.jpg
6adcf92457ff2e1523bae0c8a44d3d08
513d397c69bf23df7c5376890ed911926aeed341
110083 F20101114_AAADGY chaskopoulou_a_Page_022.jpg
0a7fa59401b5d3d58c0f8bd195879fa1
71f77871c5c72c6078105b9028026ea2fc75c36f
112817 F20101114_AAADIB chaskopoulou_a_Page_053.jpg
72350b12f949c9d1e00b341ff14ea873
7b619ade7c0a8153faf672314f4c599d0f25d1c0
106128 F20101114_AAADHM chaskopoulou_a_Page_036.jpg
77362dc077d06398f1a506ad1b2f9de5
8801d05bba9d73347ed03190d98b93551455149f
111048 F20101114_AAADGZ chaskopoulou_a_Page_023.jpg
32d93aeda8f23758916f07f41b84f0dd
1508835b215b31c521bd38f18f23fccf4fb80f54
115858 F20101114_AAADIC chaskopoulou_a_Page_054.jpg
baa549eee7a435cc31e7ba59ccc15066
2bfe6e79ffe29d9eb1a8c66ed8f3e41eb3ebe54b
111375 F20101114_AAADHN chaskopoulou_a_Page_037.jpg
79e5f89084d237eb3793cc64d73a3a20
b446a737e15afa972869690443da637b15963fd4
105215 F20101114_AAADID chaskopoulou_a_Page_055.jpg
3645a9b838441b26f3e6510db9cec4a8
f1d9902541485ca42332f6571cf5580b1e5df38c
107867 F20101114_AAADHO chaskopoulou_a_Page_038.jpg
e5f32b79a0c6b6e76bd032fb983a159d
316d94abb20d1e19c19ee5b776391837ef583987
117627 F20101114_AAADIE chaskopoulou_a_Page_056.jpg
0bed1d35057b11aaa4d19fd63c874517
e267b52a42d3ff494a91614de4e5655f18683078
114118 F20101114_AAADHP chaskopoulou_a_Page_039.jpg
9bfc4f093585471a322d9993ff4b864a
64b544c29132d4ddbc51a68100311b19222d3616
11568 F20101114_AAADIF chaskopoulou_a_Page_058.jpg
000f5f774417dfe3636b3d70a76a7c14
12f1e0761896a342d679f4612d8d7b4ee3739785
24293 F20101114_AAADHQ chaskopoulou_a_Page_040.jpg
f78887fb97635ba6ad95366b99d24d86
4823f42ef31fe95d6fffd6bc4c7e5cca2f0563e4
72702 F20101114_AAADIG chaskopoulou_a_Page_059.jpg
20af6bc91d02f1c9575722778fcf082b
afac1e1c3369fc80a57108f2a86c51371e4008be
114726 F20101114_AAADHR chaskopoulou_a_Page_043.jpg
89da7cb425b42fab50b83d0033fd8866
274c5864d76c9385113dc2cff8e8a7d622b88af3
59108 F20101114_AAADIH chaskopoulou_a_Page_060.jpg
a4c4139cd6220c91eb309cef0bf7ae8d
f486b556db72637ae57ca065c6381c580885186a
31291 F20101114_AAADHS chaskopoulou_a_Page_044.jpg
9943ddf84069fd514323bd4d5563bd97
26029fc5828c9d82138a627c6dc21532be47e087
47154 F20101114_AAADII chaskopoulou_a_Page_061.jpg
4314526f46a4ced250d825da7752e5b5
caafd640ac86e36c372b9e10819b8a9585814fb9
110423 F20101114_AAADHT chaskopoulou_a_Page_045.jpg
62437d8ead36888a8742d914f46ebf98
1e4d406515172c9a7dda6ce520a102d771c17c5e
75553 F20101114_AAADIJ chaskopoulou_a_Page_062.jpg
8bff202ea6611e5285e393f13948b14e
18fb8f5f32a412e159c0d4a526b11c6731831416
106010 F20101114_AAADHU chaskopoulou_a_Page_046.jpg
62aa2fa7cdeac1d88753b9c617e7b63d
df399465f58d592d9a2feb33f1361c1f576b10b7
45006 F20101114_AAADIK chaskopoulou_a_Page_063.jpg
b00fec206178c7e4183b6a45f598065b
1fd678c20aff79cad69dac949761ad4c2da0deaf
104805 F20101114_AAADHV chaskopoulou_a_Page_047.jpg
6f0a946488fdbad851b945fa31bbd54c
f3206bbb26be5cc3db510f474e2dbf1a83162789
69246 F20101114_AAADIL chaskopoulou_a_Page_064.jpg
ee0a49c99304c23bec672734ca02eec4
9c589ea3c41aa05a2e5b107245615ba1e574e72c
116397 F20101114_AAADHW chaskopoulou_a_Page_048.jpg
2465e4dd62f7e46ebd73ef605eefde48
65c1bfe2d512568ee86140f971b60a72f447a529
108874 F20101114_AAADJA chaskopoulou_a_Page_082.jpg
d96eaf228ea8dad56d3d5a21dbe506e7
ac8b0ea921308190916e3e75ae9beb5e3f3205a7
110105 F20101114_AAADHX chaskopoulou_a_Page_049.jpg
79af86536ec762bca12b87753864f9d0
36b6992fb1dc7f527fef0219e7263cc4a2a7d59c
64677 F20101114_AAADJB chaskopoulou_a_Page_083.jpg
c447cf66f0c7396f20413d491dab9023
48910a0b582e6134746857b1d5b8623a38372d3a
40276 F20101114_AAADIM chaskopoulou_a_Page_065.jpg
73f346e9385b17625377621d22de7d2b
41151aff2c743951d0ae42cec7527251aa77f598
102539 F20101114_AAADHY chaskopoulou_a_Page_050.jpg
5dc49671f3672219a661ac95ed544c30
5787bb2364f8182fa5a5af4e24018da9d2a036f1
51566 F20101114_AAADJC chaskopoulou_a_Page_084.jpg
856452ba6b1b9355b0ba020e29b834ac
f36153389d351c7b0699b1d1446c7502cbcd0159
28529 F20101114_AAADIN chaskopoulou_a_Page_066.jpg
27a78f82014f81db200aaf427812e892
260d3d31a02ea955634793040e8075979f1373f9
110682 F20101114_AAADHZ chaskopoulou_a_Page_051.jpg
94ad526e3088b9e8ab5f6cd6934a8e4a
53fe8f3d2f0e663e651c5971b183173f0e1968e3
32254 F20101114_AAADJD chaskopoulou_a_Page_085.jpg
c881487c3c506db16b350ba5a8922f70
a531d762a3a9832c2bea43a49e7703af9193f8cd
37933 F20101114_AAADIO chaskopoulou_a_Page_068.jpg
2cd429af96a9c4b031f16fca50656d20
ccac985ff26067ec586da88c20f905e800778ef7
27357 F20101114_AAADJE chaskopoulou_a_Page_087.jpg
66190b8ef416da12fccb381b4f04e425
cf9139bf62e1b372239b4868b26f851c1217d5bb
38224 F20101114_AAADIP chaskopoulou_a_Page_069.jpg
7a4e833d661d4e3780ee171ed2a72449
222a3975722ec48dbc62dd6add221183c4354104
64302 F20101114_AAADJF chaskopoulou_a_Page_089.jpg
6a11c885a2118c44a9f78dcea7a769ca
7b56cdf7c0451311fda1c593067be96d15b8aefc
41635 F20101114_AAADIQ chaskopoulou_a_Page_070.jpg
01e44c4b289e645eabde913d3f89de02
4752a955e35175032208f358672271316c1a1a2c
120432 F20101114_AAADJG chaskopoulou_a_Page_090.jpg
8cdd72d4a1c471f3499c7108dbcbbcac
f695dfd99d6d69fb84f315b101a6134ba21eab19
41913 F20101114_AAADIR chaskopoulou_a_Page_071.jpg
5e2d2c5dde39275262d513f624472ac2
b8a55588825f851202e0ed930bd49ba3d81aeae7
26090 F20101114_AAADIS chaskopoulou_a_Page_072.jpg
08a50f20a4b91bcff3109debd3810bd3
c6e235ce0a5a22f467b2fd6c7038e8558affaa95
117095 F20101114_AAADJH chaskopoulou_a_Page_091.jpg
3fde73c6a25dec2033df5d85d27ae6c6
1c71e49f5b05e7b957a37728a4edaf8a129b65ab
108206 F20101114_AAADIT chaskopoulou_a_Page_073.jpg
66512347051eb31c22df977f76cd6acd
dfc0959845c06905f0e5370eff9a5327939d4a77
132361 F20101114_AAADJI chaskopoulou_a_Page_092.jpg
53a56c211e32ecc8ac57803f7afa6c6b
6d32198facf40633a58ff209d4f1c97db82ef5ab
101642 F20101114_AAADIU chaskopoulou_a_Page_075.jpg
5158cc0567a38b3cce34cc969dbb3f7f
3587934d6b01cb1b09e6bed319e4e7f1fbc8167e
119026 F20101114_AAADJJ chaskopoulou_a_Page_093.jpg
88057a6b346e02edea4427f97b5bd1f2
734d5597c9ae6f29cb81c35a6fde6be7926bd390
113568 F20101114_AAADIV chaskopoulou_a_Page_076.jpg
d1e3976edf3fb592269d8ab0c63c6fd7
c55814e1ae7d80044741bac6634add140634e141
131346 F20101114_AAADJK chaskopoulou_a_Page_094.jpg
0243fc3fa5a79ddd01220b7c905488f0
9323b1a545341f1da90066e589837daf4cbaeb1d
100585 F20101114_AAADIW chaskopoulou_a_Page_077.jpg
c775126c0753c2d0119a6857ec54589f
00de84b9f30fb348c848c1b23ffd7a0e3f6d03a6
120481 F20101114_AAADJL chaskopoulou_a_Page_095.jpg
75c7cb858a5870a84d81c8abf0957686
1036b36ec3685a9bed5c1b78da1735c3f493c4a5
103177 F20101114_AAADIX chaskopoulou_a_Page_078.jpg
40d2c81ba44bea58c8d494e2f0d4651a
dab23d3f0996b68eb98359c84f536f13b0559956
116702 F20101114_AAADKA chaskopoulou_a_Page_013.jp2
09e6216ccefd2fa5ad4ea5e2d6459781
62cbea3381d38137b628371fbf1be5ce32018ebd
133385 F20101114_AAADJM chaskopoulou_a_Page_096.jpg
aa6c2ae222cd62fb6df405fe12a036e3
1cc1013839b199a8bebf51f2c91c4bdf0c79f98f
109919 F20101114_AAADIY chaskopoulou_a_Page_079.jpg
7463599526f7a0a78adf8aebcc118bfc
99f4dc27c4ad4ca0d7a4507bd682d8f28a194356
46607 F20101114_AAADKB chaskopoulou_a_Page_015.jp2
5d24c70d71eea37046bd49393303e37a
16e1eaded1b35eb2c5dfe0ff9787be6e83c7adfa
111792 F20101114_AAADIZ chaskopoulou_a_Page_081.jpg
ddf1a264e48dd006f3fffb4fe7421736
21d6bb90acca689d051e6274922199d3f80a3690
109817 F20101114_AAADKC chaskopoulou_a_Page_016.jp2
98a4816c89c986b75d94b4fdf26411ce
cd80a411b44d5758644b6fc19182aa2f21ad42f5
122475 F20101114_AAADJN chaskopoulou_a_Page_097.jpg
29ac81ecf3d3702df1d0817073c989c6
b957fb1355cf00758d98d129e421f8885e989189
91754 F20101114_AAADKD chaskopoulou_a_Page_017.jp2
ab3d5541ecba6dec8090e390cc004939
5cf104cac4d6499e63ccce76997d900aa48b8f5a
124906 F20101114_AAADJO chaskopoulou_a_Page_098.jpg
b435798b65e3c806ba0f505d074ecca1
9c6c962cf39f6e1158e9018234f1fd3e74beb427
112974 F20101114_AAADKE chaskopoulou_a_Page_018.jp2
020de70c7eeb863196273be477c15b74
50f35944361e9c16fe77abf6a8d5e6cdd96a4d51
48696 F20101114_AAADJP chaskopoulou_a_Page_100.jpg
91ebaf8c4a7e842ff74799c7ac049c95
5e7d7820bc376c6542d2d5faa958b99a5e4600ea
105162 F20101114_AAADKF chaskopoulou_a_Page_019.jp2
e6db34d99386be2f3c0f96ffb71ae8f6
2a459d732d924b37bcd4e9082f88f538c414647e
27005 F20101114_AAADJQ chaskopoulou_a_Page_001.jp2
f77d09808fcc6d6b0034881b4a5aa249
d86c5a0cb4ef87e3e96c1cb55440d85fcf54ed9e
109498 F20101114_AAADKG chaskopoulou_a_Page_020.jp2
db41ed33fe12b5244788ef989c2e80de
8632fdbfb291ad0be51e839c4917fe71c645823e
1051980 F20101114_AAADJR chaskopoulou_a_Page_004.jp2
29e4694e8af0f19807079c58269e9102
140a13e2bf98f5366ebce67d4a315f338e7f9412
104381 F20101114_AAADKH chaskopoulou_a_Page_021.jp2
9cf90c46d16087677e982e88bfe17e05
48708024d3edd15f65669367cf94d41f4720d015
1051945 F20101114_AAADJS chaskopoulou_a_Page_005.jp2
02bbcce43b16a11ca075b47c0f134e54
ba77e5cde45330202b61a0650499bd2231b65e30
116637 F20101114_AAADKI chaskopoulou_a_Page_022.jp2
c32b6a3f88f1fadbfe842255eee09254
c367a9608581cd2498dcc1438230aaddb3e6b563
1051966 F20101114_AAADJT chaskopoulou_a_Page_006.jp2
c408949f43f0f74fa83899d42ab9e869
46b6a88ebf378af380832d237a45966014dd72ec
118159 F20101114_AAADKJ chaskopoulou_a_Page_023.jp2
7faf8a966a0edeffd36f6a6d942f62b8
b1badc907b28c22b735b19fbdc2d4df93a373db3
F20101114_AAADJU chaskopoulou_a_Page_007.jp2
8bbcaa4c5e36211bf921b71130b3a1b9
3a2458eff33a1b6abf9b83d7360ac537055855ab
126754 F20101114_AAADKK chaskopoulou_a_Page_024.jp2
910649cf0a118d51554efe00586c94b3
be280e55f348f768a08f138cd57ea196225df0ee
1051986 F20101114_AAADJV chaskopoulou_a_Page_008.jp2
1a1813612203022b89d45ecf34566a05
6bf0d92e95b226d687d93b7ac2f08cb8a8bd8329
123173 F20101114_AAADKL chaskopoulou_a_Page_025.jp2
a2420e26edcc05770373787d24600fc5
4a1e7d4a61c919756309e46edb77357a4407112d
107547 F20101114_AAADJW chaskopoulou_a_Page_009.jp2
6821ac8b82d6dfe68a31a88167ba5e50
f917b2a3bb4e30bbfc3a864b12a284ff05bdf911
126426 F20101114_AAADLA chaskopoulou_a_Page_043.jp2
24db8d92adcddc653be7397f30a186ec
4a32a242e8a85f910b1968fc4b4f2105da829ab4
117287 F20101114_AAADKM chaskopoulou_a_Page_026.jp2
bd4ec6bde21c170e7d78926b176f91d3
cffbe6775f8aa721f8d924339dbc1f76e4bcf1b7
100659 F20101114_AAADJX chaskopoulou_a_Page_010.jp2
40aee8742d59207dd2a12cf330372d4d
0621f432ce567eaf615d1a8931e96bd78da46569
118734 F20101114_AAADLB chaskopoulou_a_Page_045.jp2
52d49f6b4b47e54c3d371bf125b42506
181ef4401b6696e259ca181d8d7db2585a24c98a
121252 F20101114_AAADKN chaskopoulou_a_Page_027.jp2
5dca1ed2a1fb8078862bc653f3695eac
927b7f39b4deede49b25a67b805914f6344d7da1
117982 F20101114_AAADJY chaskopoulou_a_Page_011.jp2
f24f9b3a3924eb42c77253adf0592fb6
113e38aedd18e6d525060a9fd770fa7275b6481c
112942 F20101114_AAADLC chaskopoulou_a_Page_046.jp2
55b8746753b3e650257281e5363582b1
0638bd2e5075402c3de013c634a787abeb59cc0e
121308 F20101114_AAADJZ chaskopoulou_a_Page_012.jp2
b928beed64722b31c50c7d983e500b6b
047c15a0af19e093bc2e2efa6ee20e5059c95151
121619 F20101114_AAADLD chaskopoulou_a_Page_048.jp2
e20bff418492e5cbd744b009080e9150
7db28f207712a68d304d2e729dae8c0cdf295cfa
92500 F20101114_AAADKO chaskopoulou_a_Page_028.jp2
b08ac96a0a2df8105d322743558a8961
c1b326c5985716969deee68f5f25e5794180674a
118714 F20101114_AAADLE chaskopoulou_a_Page_049.jp2
cc5b34d5c6573c818c8c7973545dba08
956182991b6e8e4f6fb8de229cc877ba81bf5ee6
95495 F20101114_AAADKP chaskopoulou_a_Page_029.jp2
26ec282eeec43fc9fdf746f6b23bc1fd
a57ec536a4a29109d3d74f8d40cf5edd58c32918
110650 F20101114_AAADLF chaskopoulou_a_Page_050.jp2
a2bd94cbd30b5f64adedc2ffaf94deaf
74dcc62e95ef2056387fcca118ef7e97ff52b668
104296 F20101114_AAADKQ chaskopoulou_a_Page_030.jp2
fcaf049f33b1888bba726582977ef705
a0e31f97fd96f4ed2eb05398a9916a25dadce236
117338 F20101114_AAADLG chaskopoulou_a_Page_051.jp2
9c9b6b6ca8297250802199d4d8b8686c
914c22d807a487467fd2a06ac4d5f25dce9a4fab
101427 F20101114_AAADKR chaskopoulou_a_Page_031.jp2
1f50e8a89a8c8c600bf09af8f816647c
c39ce73f7ab7b4a49e1eaab6a21981d0d8738ee1
123025 F20101114_AAADLH chaskopoulou_a_Page_052.jp2
2b9b89eff4dcaf4a8147b29c5102fbb0
167e1f4004c6276e17061e4880f834e678f8a6f2
104367 F20101114_AAADKS chaskopoulou_a_Page_032.jp2
6dd36a4efe326cf7b311297e2506caad
a70f862224a29ff8d4ff162121a65938f0c725df
121235 F20101114_AAADLI chaskopoulou_a_Page_053.jp2
8166576aa97239ff5eb8020aeac96cbd
312664a25ce7d8005e387d183c71d7e3db5c19bb
103334 F20101114_AAADKT chaskopoulou_a_Page_033.jp2
1cf6ef039ef6ec39b8662a0d3459e7e5
7c6e4b9da02e61ce59f070de82da586a2002f709
125023 F20101114_AAADLJ chaskopoulou_a_Page_054.jp2
49277aa9c10ae63e7cb7f8d28fb26afa
b8526fd3a23ab896623a93f4f3d033fe0028605b
116717 F20101114_AAADKU chaskopoulou_a_Page_036.jp2
496140c985c0cb19a7245847be1bca31
226eced23505f84b9b4002bd0126ae8f897a0068
111659 F20101114_AAADLK chaskopoulou_a_Page_055.jp2
63905846bb90e1ca40d328d04f16b26f
44aca166b54b088e9f34d804ed54aad1ad760cdc
119722 F20101114_AAADKV chaskopoulou_a_Page_037.jp2
bf373ad46b10b04a348d76fbbf1e9167
be9d64723a45e0df0af2f8a74d624a3376a4b3dd
125062 F20101114_AAADLL chaskopoulou_a_Page_056.jp2
3a72c2ade51b47280d72b09257777139
2ab9f22ce9e2bb4d50ddb9933a5205ac147db76e
116369 F20101114_AAADKW chaskopoulou_a_Page_038.jp2
6ef0afbb60a0672f64fc88df7c3128d2
81e4d6b364ac6732d15f1e7e66e39e1514d27c43
12708 F20101114_AAADLM chaskopoulou_a_Page_058.jp2
e1e12bac2e0306309f359570a4683604
804072d1e3e4d9fe339f0c5e4a60b6fbeba7205c
122073 F20101114_AAADKX chaskopoulou_a_Page_039.jp2
118f4850b96350ab2f5f462deaca72ac
355d9a7811ef23d4e04ef8d3b1230e7f2288c57a
115330 F20101114_AAADMA chaskopoulou_a_Page_073.jp2
418cff9bdcc828986fbab2c0e0ea4f48
36d296165badb03aed1b3b9af528d29247bc5946
708430 F20101114_AAADLN chaskopoulou_a_Page_059.jp2
b37a573f77e21b9348aabcb9e60533a7
9af1faa01c8346e235fd2fef9bffe27639123fcd
26011 F20101114_AAADKY chaskopoulou_a_Page_040.jp2
9851b081cb272175c61fc60cafd9500d
6abed22423e64254b5ff60ae635d26587b569970
111469 F20101114_AAADMB chaskopoulou_a_Page_074.jp2
bf7b183913fd285323fa93750b2bc1f5
8c4476cc8d316266b74edc29b24c6fcccecaed6a
574153 F20101114_AAADLO chaskopoulou_a_Page_060.jp2
60646498ab2b7532d40158b3a9d58357
259180c4c96a34ad9328804b0c67b0b110c8493f
114117 F20101114_AAADKZ chaskopoulou_a_Page_042.jp2
451ba191f5f33e28b4c0a88901ab4b22
3004436da8818a6c916f8ca4e9cd3e4b468b7ca8
106890 F20101114_AAADMC chaskopoulou_a_Page_075.jp2
dcdb2ec4a6a976ab2e7505e3bb04637e
52fdb576f2993bc9fb31d5a005e6c8ccd4d81ec8
121238 F20101114_AAADMD chaskopoulou_a_Page_076.jp2
ac8c65698df22dfabfe800a1f7c987e7
4271389ceb7b08ce007a4ea34741735db0e2fd7d
431350 F20101114_AAADLP chaskopoulou_a_Page_061.jp2
d15ee91351ec463baba9b12ecc820f95
2c22c9ab1dfb49751e8a4077f0a5dfcbb771e791
109017 F20101114_AAADME chaskopoulou_a_Page_077.jp2
41ecd6c791871f1f7e2dae19a56449f4
61ad60a02e3807f6a31195085614d07a27e1c421
77509 F20101114_AAADLQ chaskopoulou_a_Page_062.jp2
ad66b30f02a75ad8cfcd0fbcf4d09375
aca2a7d09a447dc436a5575172bb04ca42d6546e
112880 F20101114_AAADMF chaskopoulou_a_Page_078.jp2
e10975f75238b5360e5445e537fef6be
29a1cf0df40c271c793295758460d3a8f1922f4f
44056 F20101114_AAADLR chaskopoulou_a_Page_063.jp2
7215702b7510436e15733cea27e03748
4dec2312ce36e03dc2fb851b36be3e6a2427baaf
120764 F20101114_AAADMG chaskopoulou_a_Page_080.jp2
d77c608e8d6e1a6bacfce7f70a31c047
23c1421b9f5be535892210f925ae2ec9c1b797f3
71797 F20101114_AAADLS chaskopoulou_a_Page_064.jp2
7914bc212ca8ea4044e22772835c2c66
b5a2a6429f33abeb32a40ce66c2c8e6ddea72a8f
119023 F20101114_AAADMH chaskopoulou_a_Page_081.jp2
ae5e8dd1ad5db69d25f2fe7c74b329e6
4df6ab186b154427fb72cb7b58fbb296b75bb383
524176 F20101114_AAADLT chaskopoulou_a_Page_065.jp2
86e3e46dbd7b552f28d6a4afa25bc755
9daf2831a7e5c8f8d034a70842477c17d50155a7
116486 F20101114_AAADMI chaskopoulou_a_Page_082.jp2
0f47aab1f0b948a1b37b5158caa518a1
b36eda58d5c9f1edd2377e206b85cbc3a8655fe6
383013 F20101114_AAADLU chaskopoulou_a_Page_067.jp2
5f91cb9b787a77f41a4646a388ba3928
ffa9350a2cc5afb42425b066d841f5bbb58fe482
69147 F20101114_AAADMJ chaskopoulou_a_Page_083.jp2
f3ad8888a6702296ec47252a003ca2c3
87a924c6ecd7965b328e5bd0d617be47cc9f5bdc
361411 F20101114_AAADLV chaskopoulou_a_Page_068.jp2
afc920e182d1fbf574df459435f301c2
e181a96c68a37101b6a1f30534a6540b45234c48
F20101114_AAADMK chaskopoulou_a_Page_084.jp2
05e22a49b24dea2ccbcecb93239695ec
d084baafa9d98b17ea1010eaa1fedebb452be1c3
350519 F20101114_AAADLW chaskopoulou_a_Page_069.jp2
626f179670bd953f4613bcb6aab81c18
f041f8513d0068f1b29b438d934d73dc02b8e5c9
33676 F20101114_AAADML chaskopoulou_a_Page_085.jp2
d8b11e531e8ee0b6ee51b463d234fb81
7a6ce29d245b4f84d3005ad0ee983bfe47cf9603
396882 F20101114_AAADLX chaskopoulou_a_Page_070.jp2
e04c6314333e185d401032373e3d20f8
9d292ed18a82e006a67673cb4053747e2bb23a63
50372 F20101114_AAADNA chaskopoulou_a_Page_100.jp2
16628d4a615e24660c8555dac7827bd7
c1b27d9f6196a5116ef7e57f2491739b683b4eee
277268 F20101114_AAADMM chaskopoulou_a_Page_086.jp2
7bf0c27c1457cfc53f9699049702cc38
d161c65212efa19afb614ad04558f0f0ebe22836
557819 F20101114_AAADLY chaskopoulou_a_Page_071.jp2
4e384aacd3fc1282aa02a8b3fb05e0b9
5ce99e79c0073ab9418a8b7a7ced385a41046af9
F20101114_AAADNB chaskopoulou_a_Page_001.tif
e90209e4eb32a8f7113a851e3da45e6f
7709449db89d457c185efec7788a0bd208ba5864
41109 F20101114_AAADMN chaskopoulou_a_Page_087.jp2
6bbaa7d5c85c7fd03d0378f44c892afb
776fbe6c9de4437f4d0027369833a05c4b46f4da
228974 F20101114_AAADLZ chaskopoulou_a_Page_072.jp2
ef6eab5041d8fc17932bf14a809b45da
0a4da6253c081175c54c3df6144f6fa46deaa370
F20101114_AAADNC chaskopoulou_a_Page_002.tif
385673f7d1b97143430169f92bdb0e19
8a701d19679c02ce12e082399885c91af3f887ff
113576 F20101114_AAADMO chaskopoulou_a_Page_088.jp2
0cd42075e2434edfbd2fbddbe7ecc7bb
b25939d3cecc76848f68d49290e3ce5fd873fd94
F20101114_AAADND chaskopoulou_a_Page_003.tif
739610dde763fc2eb01f0ea2696a900e
de1e25163018ed895ad69c0cf75dd26e10358734
67827 F20101114_AAADMP chaskopoulou_a_Page_089.jp2
803753bf3d24b2fc2f9f7a474b20b7cf
abc2cf6487c32c94c7d42f309ac2356e70b743dc
25271604 F20101114_AAADNE chaskopoulou_a_Page_004.tif
b0c6450909754ebbf773b0fb4ba8e8e8
3abb6bee99e333407a6581496de9028594e24034
F20101114_AAADNF chaskopoulou_a_Page_005.tif
4bff2990982d6446bf862741b9e8e847
41d14f10ccc1084b240e887ee63fbb4fb7e1371f
122612 F20101114_AAADMQ chaskopoulou_a_Page_090.jp2
5eaae2a06f238c0dbfc4a7702542ff22
284d6b84b7c1305915a675436de8c4e09b856c52
F20101114_AAADNG chaskopoulou_a_Page_006.tif
db51b1b051ff3a3aa6898d5d2e0424d5
cdfd7c7fe1b031b27ab7a6e65a367d79d6c13e69
1051944 F20101114_AAADMR chaskopoulou_a_Page_091.jp2
a0dd6b1799959dc7cf5d23f61fda1628
5af14e67394e3aa2585d7869a383239430c75149
F20101114_AAADNH chaskopoulou_a_Page_007.tif
8da43606322f2e556cc422a8948f43c8
8408878a4971e7248e57bf956bc10003eaf75bd9
133496 F20101114_AAADMS chaskopoulou_a_Page_092.jp2
977d3fc5ae44557f10c9438a6341e4b7
29e5960e731e8d086a8ad87c7329048724bd4ab8
F20101114_AAADNI chaskopoulou_a_Page_008.tif
a5c4ecfe7899b5d3c0d5bfe7b692f980
cc09c2ce88be5b85279955e764e86bb98940b56f
1051964 F20101114_AAADMT chaskopoulou_a_Page_093.jp2
537c78987c64559d5b6382a329fd8dea
8ac5ae5335363b02026aa4e377c4161f8651b15b
F20101114_AAADNJ chaskopoulou_a_Page_009.tif
c103e7e20a4aeffa0015e0d3bc0ce44c
1c0877667c407fa83f2e93a6cda5b47776481428
130734 F20101114_AAADMU chaskopoulou_a_Page_094.jp2
906a2499c9c15170453825f9830e3a42
b1017b65b42951b398b065d5d7c2db5df55bcf75
F20101114_AAADNK chaskopoulou_a_Page_010.tif
8db537be218d20dcaf00fe46a5068380
bb83ec13320d4a6730e3101a9aed9f3595f17f58
125352 F20101114_AAADMV chaskopoulou_a_Page_095.jp2
b442c1189acd9971b325a7f431465971
eb327323064218f4e9e3dd04ed868ee2aac7c6c8
F20101114_AAADNL chaskopoulou_a_Page_011.tif
77ab978809b863375a9aa9f0637eb0b4
686673e24e00eb8243ee9c28c5ee4e5ad95537cc
137000 F20101114_AAADMW chaskopoulou_a_Page_096.jp2
95bffde4665952737a165b774fe7a9e1
1cf0144b44289abbffc9254fe9365a3b61eb7d43
F20101114_AAADOA chaskopoulou_a_Page_026.tif
0b4b623315476125e09b3283e826b975
b3cb832ee7e0298fc068a0bf387967d5d5fcb832
F20101114_AAADNM chaskopoulou_a_Page_012.tif
b47e1f04dc215f96bd4234d6f0371155
4023f93523f0eab9721932bd99a4ea64170f6ab7
128050 F20101114_AAADMX chaskopoulou_a_Page_097.jp2
41704fda2d8242875b710301b223b10d
16353bb98d3a6aa5efbbd0771bd48108e020e970
F20101114_AAADOB chaskopoulou_a_Page_027.tif
b329ec7f1c42526843c891fd4dc5eeb3
53bbbf1e29136095d182cbdf3a6beec97d4352a6
F20101114_AAADNN chaskopoulou_a_Page_013.tif
73e8cfd8ad54d3035f58848517a39d29
ad182010785d56a1926d84dc5c9903bccc844782
130156 F20101114_AAADMY chaskopoulou_a_Page_098.jp2
08afed212c991bdbb728518e92489ef9
0da83abf00fc940931eebebb78ffa84cf9afb3b0
F20101114_AAADOC chaskopoulou_a_Page_028.tif
c5b833d8b289c6f71e9a59006e45fbd9
d62712c5468967e4bef775ef1b226e741ce8a9d8
F20101114_AAADNO chaskopoulou_a_Page_014.tif
3693c6dc15d19b27c70014856863edf2
8303ecdaf1adf931415a986b303bc48817e9eb4f
1048740 F20101114_AAADMZ chaskopoulou_a_Page_099.jp2
03035765d36cb3451b861859be146d15
e6f1100b15dd8fee8f515affdeb4fcddae952172
F20101114_AAADOD chaskopoulou_a_Page_029.tif
3d86ad7c311453e8b0ade73d30263668
81a8fbebfaa1f007eb2a2a5defc334d270578491
F20101114_AAADNP chaskopoulou_a_Page_015.tif
1e10e1db28acc20c52cb562edd0b755f
008f25150dfd40f47965e7a0ef8bd3af06a91b02
F20101114_AAADNQ chaskopoulou_a_Page_016.tif
463e0c664a909f5c16eb09e1e84b05ff
6f903b73be176dc6c420e41367dde94af03ce181
F20101114_AAADOE chaskopoulou_a_Page_030.tif
b680327917a4d244d66c2f4f506a0943
1f213a5ee54a1d47e5611eab7ee48798e1d95973
F20101114_AAADOF chaskopoulou_a_Page_031.tif
0d865d016e15a0b288f34d6c09680f04
330ecc7cb3d65eb65d747d8e951581d4626448b7
F20101114_AAADNR chaskopoulou_a_Page_017.tif
81d70df45aae1db00f0c424925792cfa
1af4a4a5e53e8f4bc63fec92e9e6fd956301e1f5
F20101114_AAADOG chaskopoulou_a_Page_032.tif
416ba31d799572a63902b98bca584841
7064c605844846de94e78525be1292d58d67eef4
F20101114_AAADNS chaskopoulou_a_Page_018.tif
ab99c91e555adb6779b75db2eddfcfce
138213771349dca8dfc6c8463324bc5e1ee5a02f
F20101114_AAADOH chaskopoulou_a_Page_033.tif
3c2c8cbb2436ef6d77f58cb655e23d3f
6e09240debbd490638d319bed97bd6f4c5304087
F20101114_AAADNT chaskopoulou_a_Page_019.tif
d434898898a8f3348a5fd9bebfa7a703
6200541e2c09c060566d34b479b3d8f57cc36955
F20101114_AAADOI chaskopoulou_a_Page_034.tif
ef319f7abacb054493e26e6751470a96
b3ef67e6e0b288c569613bdd99cb930feaae2e5d
F20101114_AAADNU chaskopoulou_a_Page_020.tif
1aede8ffcc14622aba45de70341f18a1
f13ade5dce9a0b889133a52ea37c6f7ac0026bd2
F20101114_AAADOJ chaskopoulou_a_Page_035.tif
06040319a46175e4acd70a5461f98ada
11662d8a7b54e7cd88efd74f4a1fb6de5fe9dbaa
F20101114_AAADNV chaskopoulou_a_Page_021.tif
835a7d06dc3203a017302b4659a35948
d576066a7ee5aea01cea5224d6a98e091b56ab10
F20101114_AAADOK chaskopoulou_a_Page_036.tif
e0b13cd564a9cbd45a34714164d1f7ef
fd5f66ce5707176706a813fcad1b9539ac715d81
F20101114_AAADNW chaskopoulou_a_Page_022.tif
11a3ea58adc28fc218f53559e39a62b0
91c4d5b9d6b85479d0916cf42cac391ec7c6efef
F20101114_AAADOL chaskopoulou_a_Page_037.tif
43cfda165cc0c4cc53533b126654c9a1
29de8f9ef018a2507310c1e18541d1a3d108067f
F20101114_AAADNX chaskopoulou_a_Page_023.tif
c6e7ddbeebaeff7720e8dbad2fecad65
b26dccb5417c663e05f498b4f4a93ac2ab06af2e
F20101114_AAADPA chaskopoulou_a_Page_053.tif
684fc4f18f87f0d31e4c1a50b0cef69c
e8cc5c042ca1d71359919dfedea47abaa4f92d11
F20101114_AAADOM chaskopoulou_a_Page_038.tif
35ef4d1c83e5ce5c20abf0b9322d4035
4672f0cad8659197a65586dfab9f334a8bae9431
F20101114_AAADNY chaskopoulou_a_Page_024.tif
aca1c520dd2019227d683474a8562df8
69e9f3321033c53b74191825dfc839036a755dc3
F20101114_AAADPB chaskopoulou_a_Page_054.tif
3a39cd2701829df8961e739afd706a39
41514a612004dfed76d58738fc595bbd12e14608
F20101114_AAADON chaskopoulou_a_Page_039.tif
2e9c741631afbbf19def390a6f740fe9
43b2777a7b3f42618287e0b4141fec862a948cb3
F20101114_AAADNZ chaskopoulou_a_Page_025.tif
ace4e6f2ec5e1548c1aba72343f9d7dc
3af65416bc6c4cd7d53e971069207dd61aaa3a9f
F20101114_AAADPC chaskopoulou_a_Page_055.tif
7f42a5f25d3c8920810bdfa403f091a4
59035f2bca3ee6cfb54112560249f913485a4a8b
F20101114_AAADOO chaskopoulou_a_Page_040.tif
828ce77a8e5773013af35b1d82339948
aaaba840bf1adf3e3d85706747c81d747d0b5e14
F20101114_AAADPD chaskopoulou_a_Page_056.tif
c1c964423055efabe6ebe798298f795f
ddedbe63f35713c557bbd70729ef3ca3e080fb4d
F20101114_AAADOP chaskopoulou_a_Page_041.tif
688eb22acbbf8c552c2fbe60020a9b78
63b3b109634b6317175468e70628873c28da597f
F20101114_AAADPE chaskopoulou_a_Page_058.tif
d85e791e6c1494514721496ce0f0ff2c
dab99f1396b2d5798c90429fe340cb800470cd34
F20101114_AAADOQ chaskopoulou_a_Page_042.tif
ddb5b07ce255a386f3d9164516747d77
5c5f5485cf9254e578965025857fccfd3f2e101d
F20101114_AAADPF chaskopoulou_a_Page_059.tif
6aae7a3c3fb924623dd1cbac594719ed
4cf81c0ce80427dce4cee29752f21dec0211b7b9
F20101114_AAADOR chaskopoulou_a_Page_043.tif
e767730668611016172ddb9c3a37e934
e4e7c65d8a54043e451a121790d5b14b377bdf95
F20101114_AAADPG chaskopoulou_a_Page_060.tif
0cce3627b2be25a97d297d0eebc671a3
99d0c5bde3efc7bd375ff3cc7739e4d340b9d8e2
F20101114_AAADPH chaskopoulou_a_Page_061.tif
c5ec715edd5c6095ba7fa0a80100c077
9570708e92f3590cd27822ddeaa7d61c74896b3b
F20101114_AAADOS chaskopoulou_a_Page_044.tif
fb2023eb0d4e393e4b34c74e6664a2c3
d4c56772fdb80908f2788a1818b5e3b752d6a323
F20101114_AAADPI chaskopoulou_a_Page_062.tif
29505f8c5aaa5d49cfad198a64313e03
addfac6dcea82f0c641e654510067a2c005aea1e
F20101114_AAADOT chaskopoulou_a_Page_045.tif
136cf254a332c5a231d7569386c47ed5
9196f11489108139336b9111addee2a27171e8f4
F20101114_AAADPJ chaskopoulou_a_Page_063.tif
b1668a20133f0f14341c3129a7283d8d
55288e1cdc98c52afac5328e6a4f1820c3ce0a63
F20101114_AAADOU chaskopoulou_a_Page_046.tif
2cc3102fab3924668d0b41159d5f4e07
044040752da8b4e6ddb30002fccc6806121b676e
F20101114_AAADPK chaskopoulou_a_Page_064.tif
d497076a85046c6235174f9d4b1d7ee3
7db985c9ead0198cf4f3d44d5750bacf427c5e42
F20101114_AAADOV chaskopoulou_a_Page_047.tif
06460363a41a8092ea086a0315668919
7c4cf784dd32a2e1fa6a080ccbfc9e350db10ad0
F20101114_AAADPL chaskopoulou_a_Page_065.tif
504d874d61fee4c4061741291614a445
05c3b2030bad8c92cc7d7025c3b42fef4bdcc614
F20101114_AAADOW chaskopoulou_a_Page_048.tif
99abddc6d6299ab32293d9d02112b5c6
de6464e96a87519e12577c31702d5dc16923f682
F20101114_AAADQA chaskopoulou_a_Page_080.tif
516447dff4b507de3af75edae85142c1
425fd5bc3c98b013e89b6eedb48f1d59c77ddff0
F20101114_AAADPM chaskopoulou_a_Page_066.tif
a2c1112d2810e302d4f54d659d18de48
750f0f15ede2f6693f90a717925862d2c2503804
F20101114_AAADOX chaskopoulou_a_Page_049.tif
8e3b6cd7f3c28852cebb8ba76a683a05
2202c70f3fa1874da3f9cd941231d639b4752580
F20101114_AAADQB chaskopoulou_a_Page_081.tif
d2412f381dfa0378a0419c3a310bab16
83f9b95f752a5660065d2bff70f338b43420d75f
F20101114_AAADPN chaskopoulou_a_Page_067.tif
723cb6e249634de0b71264ea9568af78
3c74aef9ea8dbe26de867ddeb43e282dd9965d67
F20101114_AAADOY chaskopoulou_a_Page_051.tif
9536b727ba17ab032aa7ddcb9fb1714b
9d448ade06dc955c31d2835af61373cbbbb3a846
F20101114_AAADQC chaskopoulou_a_Page_082.tif
fd8571a79c14f672559aa58c89e5ffe1
4da1a8f217ba64fe9411cbcfe70ed8da0b423eee
F20101114_AAADPO chaskopoulou_a_Page_068.tif
ec6fd545878b46270db5088dc3628c65
376993b43cf5acf7b1148a72684e9c6d9d02c56c
F20101114_AAADOZ chaskopoulou_a_Page_052.tif
cba6b7fd29c1c66cd811a54fff041770
5c0fb78bc10c31b4955c706fb59311e446f470e8
F20101114_AAADQD chaskopoulou_a_Page_083.tif
a7457fd257c9f37d6fd8d7a315f5e314
a1bfcb14b7f4d1c652c6bc0b46051565dfe19913
F20101114_AAADPP chaskopoulou_a_Page_069.tif
b506eccf930d6d0dd2d6cbc45ebdf777
ab6e67685c68969d967133ceaa62e3eb7e59c3f6
F20101114_AAADQE chaskopoulou_a_Page_084.tif
c319f3c08dc90a2a1a08f6d86d7274bc
9d280adaf94019359bbe24704f95bcd030a208ea
F20101114_AAADPQ chaskopoulou_a_Page_070.tif
2ed1fc1467b3e49095aaeaa778991be0
bf320b0d4746de65d571b3c329784a6b7425ce15
F20101114_AAADQF chaskopoulou_a_Page_085.tif
5774d065c41882a6904fef32d8020ead
62af8c92754bb1e647a4f4dfaaed766d7dfda709
F20101114_AAADPR chaskopoulou_a_Page_071.tif
cb1034d5ddf5426aa33094e2ddd7bfd3
8b0b4d2c5dc4a0ce6d8229307d945da0ab492e87
1054428 F20101114_AAADQG chaskopoulou_a_Page_087.tif
363b30bbb0dc0aa26ed009872e074335
fe7a868f9ab076a816d6bd9959ebbf8455e0662f
F20101114_AAADPS chaskopoulou_a_Page_072.tif
3e00bb0d1f07285b30118603b8cb9da3
0202045f3f0fd78a0df3b9465431ea63fccb4cda
F20101114_AAADQH chaskopoulou_a_Page_088.tif
435d44f2f07839b40b27860320094a21
7f57ec47a06b1c9c9b2bb8e044ecd90f7a03f951
F20101114_AAADQI chaskopoulou_a_Page_090.tif
90ced1b6b5bda1503a1c1a1e7dda499a
e1bd0c0d04acc0b49c372adcbc3aaf68e8f10bce
F20101114_AAADPT chaskopoulou_a_Page_073.tif
9a03e4d907d8e574c30baf5d2e2ac14b
304e08bb99a56d65619c236c679e9901430f19b7
F20101114_AAADQJ chaskopoulou_a_Page_091.tif
2ede6b8d6c311b4966e6545cf89a3744
1b3f72b7229d1c3f712c4d497f0defee8b008f73
F20101114_AAADPU chaskopoulou_a_Page_074.tif
a61bfc550978ce1952fd40a37b96d0bc
b9b8099e76fb17b6d6be891a63ec471ccfc22fcf
F20101114_AAADQK chaskopoulou_a_Page_092.tif
529057b12d6d725b38f89c70f8edb783
1bec13403564bdec7968f8c5c5e1936a9cceb137
F20101114_AAADPV chaskopoulou_a_Page_075.tif
c599401c4d9c4372dff5104f5877a2c7
02887740480ff68899f1e0789687f55c1db39b69
F20101114_AAADQL chaskopoulou_a_Page_093.tif
de5655f1e6626462324bdfc97e31373b
68896e477ee11cfdbf2839e15c64c208ee87a431
F20101114_AAADPW chaskopoulou_a_Page_076.tif
9c31a5fed7dbc2ed99fd0a79a83e94ab
87ae50546f29df71e8e40581a56cb1cb8a55cd72
F20101114_AAADQM chaskopoulou_a_Page_094.tif
27d4be5f120ecea0bcd2d3163cb9db77
6a3733f9dafa69f498b5f2e9856af07be7c215cc
F20101114_AAADPX chaskopoulou_a_Page_077.tif
c8c3d19c6be0e26ff15f8b0eca0cc5b1
925bb80d2c9e129e4c0e3eb12fb028051b99814b
40992 F20101114_AAADRA chaskopoulou_a_Page_008.pro
e7ecd51a16950918f9261ede25188fad
d9a31c538b4a76e94c8c330e9c99dcc512629e4a
F20101114_AAADQN chaskopoulou_a_Page_095.tif
1340194470301b9c1ade3f994e61a93c
d8532dddf51f1582b4f4a7c306a210e38077b372
F20101114_AAADPY chaskopoulou_a_Page_078.tif
9786038410ed90def53eaebf05779394
426aa527f7b70c0c2a9fb16d5ae01061943a74e4
44931 F20101114_AAADRB chaskopoulou_a_Page_010.pro
2675a64c2bc041b9bec6b9e189ecc682
29f71d95df17c5a77760c5286996bd783ad85f29
F20101114_AAADQO chaskopoulou_a_Page_096.tif
3ca1e02a96d40e2b629244846ad9233f
db3efa7584ab7d90d76d0ff66147c60df6e8518e
F20101114_AAADPZ chaskopoulou_a_Page_079.tif
116fd8420e9ffb70eae51e2261fc886f
d4f2aeae745408282974abe39e18d2eebfa2ed7c
54548 F20101114_AAADRC chaskopoulou_a_Page_011.pro
f01cce414f0be75f81aec6b96c78faa7
6767dc3bccce5c23c7aedabd2dd730cae941deff
F20101114_AAADQP chaskopoulou_a_Page_097.tif
c030b9f621caca978f53712d7f6929bd
6a74b05af467042b0ad7c2e787f228dbbd7bbd8c
56629 F20101114_AAADRD chaskopoulou_a_Page_012.pro
8162a7f3428ea4f9a9a1a1332a283e34
1a3405cd37c6c2f1ae4bdefaa01282be17d6b5b9
F20101114_AAADQQ chaskopoulou_a_Page_098.tif
9588b4d0f91a2de2c17e11189c7ca52f
f146ae6fd054379d2fb1abd00e5f86ea640d0afc
53608 F20101114_AAADRE chaskopoulou_a_Page_013.pro
77dbc9c2c99180331108d9f74c6066b5
e8833cb2c541f2d31014e8286ddd554cc43d7993
F20101114_AAADQR chaskopoulou_a_Page_099.tif
038f9087c7e31cf7d0a02b226d70764a
c99587210c359a6519319a893c02666c2acc5290
20099 F20101114_AAADRF chaskopoulou_a_Page_015.pro
41e04ddaa6a6fef6a46a212189a6da83
2633b1c805e1c94bf09c27748c92984ffc239ee6
F20101114_AAADQS chaskopoulou_a_Page_100.tif
311b624479e6bcf73acd2ffe2e0cd686
cd2a71e0bac1c90552cf291e7f456841505b9b5a
50278 F20101114_AAADRG chaskopoulou_a_Page_016.pro
10624ad07e2555ebbe23371f75f09935
c43873379e4558b5cef69eb07752f8957a317093
8928 F20101114_AAADQT chaskopoulou_a_Page_001.pro
389a97a9cef520150cdfe0dba5bb8720
f8e7ce23957728dcbac33493c04779592a0f0b2c
41696 F20101114_AAADRH chaskopoulou_a_Page_017.pro
32426d3637deb6fa890e45eaf4cbe28f
0b25d80f783d5ea29162be5f752a2533fc8d2d64
52461 F20101114_AAADRI chaskopoulou_a_Page_018.pro
6cb0ca991e640cff7175fdf545fd2e33
7ffdb45edd4aec3fe072fe5809483d0df9ca2ab4
1043 F20101114_AAADQU chaskopoulou_a_Page_002.pro
0824e5c99a97c0a451b60383a4c091ef
71bd16df2d6d5976ccb64a9088587862991827b5
48500 F20101114_AAADRJ chaskopoulou_a_Page_019.pro
7101309cd14e5152e2c6ff0a33f90f1c
77e1eef6cd66d91d84018c8d4dffbe896fb64f50
20381 F20101114_AAADQV chaskopoulou_a_Page_003.pro
4a5a262bec64db8f3add7afc6d77a9a0
178c2e9959adafc13f6975a0c04076b2290c7661
49212 F20101114_AAADRK chaskopoulou_a_Page_020.pro
dd69342ae43f5e7cce198aa0b6d138b8
52d4b98a48b9db43d0169aca04aa75ab7eb52bc8
81280 F20101114_AAADQW chaskopoulou_a_Page_004.pro
f231dd1644efe4279be5cad08e73f454
e25f05440fff321b69f74d9b4ebf18f60f520274
47183 F20101114_AAADRL chaskopoulou_a_Page_021.pro
19ccf25ca5e246b3f2ea66d19dcd45c2
c33d5f44a8c9dbce78b2b3e968d35215602f0d13
85993 F20101114_AAADQX chaskopoulou_a_Page_005.pro
c4bab0fcaf603fef239d462ef438cc7d
7aa718866003d4d418466f49f2cb1f04a2c339a6
53385 F20101114_AAADSA chaskopoulou_a_Page_036.pro
36c5929e5f998c6abc5677662e668d25
f73bae91735cad51e15b6ac64d58f6bb40162507
53330 F20101114_AAADRM chaskopoulou_a_Page_022.pro
31fb15cb257058b00abdd96a70f5eb19
f0088490e9fd97ce5d63ae6a8ae0048c45271e18
49346 F20101114_AAADQY chaskopoulou_a_Page_006.pro
ae8c945cdfb9a9dd8bd3eb5c3cf7f419
5b29bcc9b50cde599c9e3b8eb481ad8817db2e9d
55878 F20101114_AAADSB chaskopoulou_a_Page_037.pro
13a66248d075ae82056cdeaef1fe9f09
423f37f9c644c56c006d10f90184848ae4b006c6
54280 F20101114_AAADRN chaskopoulou_a_Page_023.pro
dc123342017b72fc3a897cbf1d4ddd16
cde6e7a5335b2f11c98447c72ad950459e428d41
41522 F20101114_AAADQZ chaskopoulou_a_Page_007.pro
8632d682222631826b695363d95dc9ea
f55200d942dd93dea2212825722fb68952fb35e1
54346 F20101114_AAADSC chaskopoulou_a_Page_038.pro
6f185c13d4ac1c99aac9150c39249b65
b32ea539bf75a47c585babf84c3d7db0297db426
59980 F20101114_AAADRO chaskopoulou_a_Page_024.pro
d35969cac7f57b78dd4a8bc654ccf73d
7f4a00a0a79e03ea57a516235752a46339a2727e
57174 F20101114_AAADSD chaskopoulou_a_Page_039.pro
0808a7f8c60ed1db4326af8046b2a54f
ca3fbaae26daa19dee220d822cd441cd5e6f65d3
57707 F20101114_AAADRP chaskopoulou_a_Page_025.pro
ac6f647cbfbdfb6b7516a05c461af504
42aedd35a7cdfd9318a06017307e17703a313dfd
54289 F20101114_AAADSE chaskopoulou_a_Page_041.pro
b156322da67714f35267b08f0af55f1d
653909d62d1702160e0a4c85ca8989c023097033
54363 F20101114_AAADRQ chaskopoulou_a_Page_026.pro
3a501d4b8b01bd47631a149217266880
35f12e167c6121e55b5b6565a07dff890fbd7835
53003 F20101114_AAADSF chaskopoulou_a_Page_042.pro
c4dc52168b4fe1661c6c10a78463e9af
6d38225b1c1561346f28209373cd9f7d49171546
56989 F20101114_AAADRR chaskopoulou_a_Page_027.pro
077bb99844441813d267bd6557324297
8bbc4a01105e7aeae6f9edc59ab172560cccc987
56867 F20101114_AAADSG chaskopoulou_a_Page_043.pro
b7c4ff64b2df86c3dce595c481862844
5fb51a8d12957e0910af6db91bb0e4c87ea9d7f2
41853 F20101114_AAADRS chaskopoulou_a_Page_028.pro
ef27b7be7fea0a420d80b765977f4c6d
fdf51d2d77a642d583e16c71490742dcdadd2d29
14348 F20101114_AAADSH chaskopoulou_a_Page_044.pro
be0f7664be395839d881ea1a50ab94a5
8e68e5b9ba791827a3c8ef43d5356105331cdbaf
43866 F20101114_AAADRT chaskopoulou_a_Page_029.pro
08c4f317e57eed5c03907457f274d858
30ae5c3bb1c79339bc11fb973bd6862f2db0c736
51692 F20101114_AAADSI chaskopoulou_a_Page_046.pro
00393667b6a3f4411f0940aa35a36daf
902a3ab17127ac7e9fd2a7a044d13ea6b3dcc07a
47716 F20101114_AAADRU chaskopoulou_a_Page_030.pro
976582f8ee9dcd3551f5c08e6f35030b
ea3e9108f02d4b5fbd05e69e61c179fe11f7a33a
50582 F20101114_AAADSJ chaskopoulou_a_Page_047.pro
702f2cd2739fed99f77778d9c0090a65
7fbea0087f65664f5a26d3b5ed18b2996ef30522
57245 F20101114_AAADSK chaskopoulou_a_Page_048.pro
499c09cf5a9afd06c85f9c37eaf88d87
15f3b1b9254c9cb75eb0bc19806ecd8434e16cd9
45492 F20101114_AAADRV chaskopoulou_a_Page_031.pro
cbc7c94f1598a27ec017f97e43347a01
87b2707864cdd9aff4968d456186d9ac5cc91e9c
54943 F20101114_AAADSL chaskopoulou_a_Page_049.pro
b46f4d53b7415e4988a4f7a5e9da65d0
ebc690d8bc472911e644cd35e4ab16ad363bb3c2
46017 F20101114_AAADRW chaskopoulou_a_Page_032.pro
c21bc448c6a25030787e5156361322e6
f7eabf99f35db432bfffb7e3a366efd2e373dad8
33227 F20101114_AAADTA chaskopoulou_a_Page_064.pro
0afd8253b3a7f40c4756747533d68fb0
844e5a302e0bd34ab3daf78ff73aa6fc2461e880
50058 F20101114_AAADSM chaskopoulou_a_Page_050.pro
f189d33c2639e341855aa63e6f2a6e89
88d68dfb23505f20005a169c4c7f1c27691691a3
46935 F20101114_AAADRX chaskopoulou_a_Page_033.pro
c5f740cdeb2a4fb2121e840a98494d6b
55292410739acec7df462f238c43b4919db0b303
54123 F20101114_AAADSN chaskopoulou_a_Page_051.pro
7c218340c4c8f51cfd05e2dd6cc00928
bf56a15641c2abe76155927b8b5bb0724083fd0d
56940 F20101114_AAADRY chaskopoulou_a_Page_034.pro
85bdb0d7a3fc7c2a3501ef01efa7c2b5
55ba74300fd6ca690904b848f16ea67e8b84099b
10414 F20101114_AAADTB chaskopoulou_a_Page_065.pro
52dfac3aadb13a8c966dea1dcf87370a
345d7682b0fb950fcf506809226f6858c62945d1
55949 F20101114_AAADSO chaskopoulou_a_Page_052.pro
e8793fe4493520ce25ed63289bad0409
afaaa6ecf64f71a179d5c6779b324d321366ed2a
51636 F20101114_AAADRZ chaskopoulou_a_Page_035.pro
cbe68a31b4e8437fd7e3313432ce5dc5
db7c5d9bbd007197fb6e92ba24e13cf2d2da045d
9250 F20101114_AAADTC chaskopoulou_a_Page_066.pro
fde5c53ec20ed070301ffc7500178b86
b52c0012a730eb9f6ae6298a8353bb75b5b55b06
55484 F20101114_AAADSP chaskopoulou_a_Page_053.pro
981db8c367869721f24961b9a12bcb07
75958d7d66e55aa0ed4a8099daa1c951ae3fc03b
12921 F20101114_AAADTD chaskopoulou_a_Page_067.pro
01fe54fe16e010f16dcc3d2dd1881bcb
6cf8762e7e135ba855db0be0201a60892f239de6
57777 F20101114_AAADSQ chaskopoulou_a_Page_054.pro
50068c89ee7db7cd242e8316e31336b0
8109147bb1300526905b7b053d5bab9ea4af2ec3
14256 F20101114_AAADTE chaskopoulou_a_Page_068.pro
e419fb6eb57e8bdab97669062f80ccc1
95c1d4ece69ec2dc44b8c900cfa1508050562f80
50448 F20101114_AAADSR chaskopoulou_a_Page_055.pro
222168ad65bd3641a9bd32af00185e8c
3121ec6cd7422c47306e638dde2fc20acb390bbe
14011 F20101114_AAADTF chaskopoulou_a_Page_069.pro
b06828e448962753c04104e83cbf16a1
0d062a1b01add66856e95b3aee8d40d68d436b22
59155 F20101114_AAADSS chaskopoulou_a_Page_056.pro
026c749735cfd4f142615dda887c9b9a
0d85454dfe485827ab671fb93da8c7c0a7a85bee
12188 F20101114_AAADTG chaskopoulou_a_Page_070.pro
d32f9f772bd709550bce1d70067fa637
167a314b490757fe2a2a936334c074533c39697f
53511 F20101114_AAADST chaskopoulou_a_Page_057.pro
1078d27cc88118d1df672b84ced5f91e
5ff424c529249ff6b64b3736ca4706a8d148bab7
1148 F20101114_AAADTH chaskopoulou_a_Page_072.pro
88c5e85e4f3b64928177cde8ae2765be
d88928a2a61a4e9a2dfe44e5a85d801c557a9bd3
4178 F20101114_AAADSU chaskopoulou_a_Page_058.pro
9e38739e6343994bb3d671a6d9498c39
0f9b944e64b18acff61dd5303df7957f51f87292
52184 F20101114_AAADTI chaskopoulou_a_Page_073.pro
83dc4eef4a2d3a937b82f8e70bcd0886
c7e5bc5bbb718f1a5c3eeb58389ec9565ffe5d0e
37451 F20101114_AAADSV chaskopoulou_a_Page_059.pro
6cd41371c79d62a06c7fa4834ab2615d
cde4e3bbbfd7584e454b16a153887c5bfdc89d00
51011 F20101114_AAADTJ chaskopoulou_a_Page_074.pro
6e97a89ac20671ec83aa587e02d2f6c8
6b98c57b745d0ca6af83eeb3d28539c7394bf57e
49357 F20101114_AAADTK chaskopoulou_a_Page_075.pro
9ee26d484ae950c74580f8d7f7c10b74
e685967c719e14c7f7106511c445ce3f2856db19
25868 F20101114_AAADSW chaskopoulou_a_Page_060.pro
40975b00ab277ccae065f56fa87d445c
7b26dbdafb32539636d48c23b83c72da98b7d9d3
57600 F20101114_AAADTL chaskopoulou_a_Page_076.pro
59e0dea5e59711d6d2f44b4ef9f2b9e2
4c6e896fcaa5f347c40b363d463c1650b7868090
19624 F20101114_AAADSX chaskopoulou_a_Page_061.pro
d10290a8bf10099f440508844d77eb24
cc12c5db64e72ab381ddd618e7e286cc9de3a5c3
64787 F20101114_AAADUA chaskopoulou_a_Page_092.pro
c4269c37e05a1b60d597b358db9be71d
13fa332bfb46398645abf0ea2cb225ea6923d830
50772 F20101114_AAADTM chaskopoulou_a_Page_078.pro
957a7def0dcf7d8a7e604405567852d1
fd1346c8ee26dd18afeae6f8813c99183e11e863
40158 F20101114_AAADSY chaskopoulou_a_Page_062.pro
ac615940d7d43dae5754a6c061dd14dc
3b5adbfec53f5e08eaad71f5ca93b4c01c474255
57508 F20101114_AAADUB chaskopoulou_a_Page_093.pro
0d9fe44a50a9bf949c2efb58de9935cb
c7eb81c9d8a8f786d534141e39d1ecab78e78eef
54064 F20101114_AAADTN chaskopoulou_a_Page_079.pro
89b38ecb651d5b5336e6942e6f891204
f550c7ab72fc84497160935afb7b319b2404902c
19802 F20101114_AAADSZ chaskopoulou_a_Page_063.pro
fe63a1ef5ef6f793320ae5e94fec72d9
dac726cdea66e50d45fbc759924a754fa48be14d
62370 F20101114_AAADUC chaskopoulou_a_Page_094.pro
c6a2321f02b363e3d74e14ee03693191
9b34efb9d8b5e92a6a40cc30a6eeafc0d845a34b
55472 F20101114_AAADTO chaskopoulou_a_Page_080.pro
5d8cf1cb14f2cc7a5bcc9b40db044a0b
91e3f29b0ce46855fbbc3cb3100cd1b95bdf95bb
59802 F20101114_AAADUD chaskopoulou_a_Page_095.pro
df21dccc0eb47e3f4114f9abb68f3918
1f75bd754cb25cc860e246dccb115acdeddf5f1a
54933 F20101114_AAADTP chaskopoulou_a_Page_081.pro
094a524c3ae50ea3f7c6698adcd3cbbe
7c0bc255155f686a138ca43d69c2677be274c221
66583 F20101114_AAADUE chaskopoulou_a_Page_096.pro
23b13420fa50835eb226cb68cf466514
4bce9f7bdd28a637e2696c0bf72bf3a564596f31
53226 F20101114_AAADTQ chaskopoulou_a_Page_082.pro
1173013ccad86f81af697ce3e3db0a7b
a6642482085b5554bf29ab4e14e5d2bda68f0c1f
62104 F20101114_AAADUF chaskopoulou_a_Page_097.pro
6719d1e22ead3dc2f16bc11cfb38e5a3
750be93aabfa35b07f4049e17e84479bd9b072ff
30171 F20101114_AAADTR chaskopoulou_a_Page_083.pro
2be277a8cbc83ed7df33a9d544054109
c81933ecd91457ad5b6f213e6d679934873994f6
36840 F20101114_AAAEAA chaskopoulou_a_Page_098.QC.jpg
d8d559e255db67316fe2f8e24c59502e
f2da3865825897cc5d5a261215f04b3d44534ff5
62012 F20101114_AAADUG chaskopoulou_a_Page_098.pro
41705174b2ef8dad3b476bd7f9dab76b
f456806040e54d861a4c0a98af5a3eb3c580d1bf
22810 F20101114_AAADTS chaskopoulou_a_Page_084.pro
963d10645e85a9bc31c6909b214aa402
c9b20950e2ea8c83e8ad1269ff6b8b3fd2582842
38312 F20101114_AAAEAB chaskopoulou_a_Page_052.QC.jpg
f786386924fa38c38095927f91e57157
e30e8257727230d2cd1727404dbe5dec125abc15
43489 F20101114_AAADUH chaskopoulou_a_Page_099.pro
2ff6176ac6b273e816a8e8be8772df6a
0682f52e6a19173e01a7378a5bc1c028d1f403a5
13279 F20101114_AAADTT chaskopoulou_a_Page_085.pro
b6dd21ccefcaf044b2ef1ec056aa287b
d7b12e7b83a2890edc4fde8f4e3d709dfd9b0fb1
35127 F20101114_AAAEAC chaskopoulou_a_Page_057.QC.jpg
ebfe8403a883019ebbabe7b0c62015c6
422199edbc1f4b5d796212bd8ee5f266635c1d04
21485 F20101114_AAADUI chaskopoulou_a_Page_100.pro
defb1a2225816921d8667d150ad246f2
e0437ba1cfa14ffd19bf08f9988aa51e6f71c682
8729 F20101114_AAADTU chaskopoulou_a_Page_086.pro
df8441ba4113686a2be3439be9f5b03e
6390b830718b55d06a0af44163162113368e121a
498 F20101114_AAADUJ chaskopoulou_a_Page_001.txt
1b166b9be0916f597ca31e9c25341e50
57999f37af3f397a74a2264068ce75cacfa3a9e9
16297 F20101114_AAADTV chaskopoulou_a_Page_087.pro
5d8a74b596734110ee27fd6ab06f02e7
1ed72698455bfb61b5d52a0208484fd3cd403591
9213 F20101114_AAAEAD chaskopoulou_a_Page_094thm.jpg
7f35224d4f5a1d2483c3067716529a0a
f8697e7a48027c2b32721fb26435799ded8d7d9f
94 F20101114_AAADUK chaskopoulou_a_Page_002.txt
51f732b018de52babaa1de2114682996
c96b145e8e5c938c8b791cb80fe667c507b6084c
51351 F20101114_AAADTW chaskopoulou_a_Page_088.pro
0bf7b395ffc82268425d2a66e54b0379
c6d030815f6f6e2fd952d1b5e10c08d99741d66c
37892 F20101114_AAAEAE chaskopoulou_a_Page_034.QC.jpg
37b16b539c127140a372c97ca68c1ebd
731248dd62e7f41195164b70eddc60eaafaf1ad7
855 F20101114_AAADUL chaskopoulou_a_Page_003.txt
adb45a85832b260663e60c7919ee5c91
0044863556250958a39f438ec12e2ba109110888
8661 F20101114_AAAEAF chaskopoulou_a_Page_073thm.jpg
43788e583aaa242d5a46075e88cc8d54
5330ded1d3c8752c3c21da436703408486fcd833
2057 F20101114_AAADVA chaskopoulou_a_Page_018.txt
67e1de33666087d893ce0b1f537c4184
6854d5aec95b99b25e8751ee7d9f026f9183bb52
3311 F20101114_AAADUM chaskopoulou_a_Page_004.txt
8e2abc9c9ddb7003c5f7b1d04bc6eecc
939ec431c08397691d0328694f52759a87e297d4
29574 F20101114_AAADTX chaskopoulou_a_Page_089.pro
7883dbe27b6377d2c0e5a0735d5db1c5
089b5af499e2b1b6b36967d9bfadc3dca328f464
8954 F20101114_AAAEAG chaskopoulou_a_Page_043thm.jpg
f19b186bb0736c96bca214be9ea3e5f6
4d73917371ef1cda5bec78fcdda65034b57158b7
1912 F20101114_AAADVB chaskopoulou_a_Page_019.txt
23846ba1162afe8e22940f7851be9892
59c69721d67947ff0fc52a01f259919a1ddf93dd
3849 F20101114_AAADUN chaskopoulou_a_Page_005.txt
e6a6631f118a2ee61d1081ba032a6290
781e704b350edfe4ef0f23cbe4c5252194c23d2e
58339 F20101114_AAADTY chaskopoulou_a_Page_090.pro
e9fe23e1ad9b6eedfee8348db4e318c9
6af6e357d4745fee977033fa607ac00d10554b8f
37780 F20101114_AAAEAH chaskopoulou_a_Page_054.QC.jpg
48cfe0aab9c615b71a6c2cf21378d1ef
42da2e688bf168f4c7799e26594d48af4e213f9d
1938 F20101114_AAADVC chaskopoulou_a_Page_020.txt
1ac90930df460378493905eb75903837
6f7b14559f555401e8ae0ef5897ac62f1666c064
2109 F20101114_AAADUO chaskopoulou_a_Page_006.txt
d5e9078b5f1c22c98245129a1b40dbb5
c5d9c5eb47c656ec5c9ce3f2d25a8cdafd17ee7e
59945 F20101114_AAADTZ chaskopoulou_a_Page_091.pro
8afa3c53581ba1d95d9b85fc843f377f
1386aebaffdaaaead4a4140aef14e7956bb28aaa
8838 F20101114_AAAEAI chaskopoulou_a_Page_037thm.jpg
d5cc74f11942a5fab14e83a9de4190c5
e82a487d4345f8fde43ebc93395a964e9dc17c12
1893 F20101114_AAADVD chaskopoulou_a_Page_021.txt
310c2678656e7e5966c37fe6fd3da3d8
b92f61fc3576ad1f5ab6d4bb1d2ecbd40383a97f
1719 F20101114_AAADUP chaskopoulou_a_Page_007.txt
05bacc07b6748994e438f67db9f5ea66
8011f3b155b5eb263f231bb6ff8f254b3f53000b
18163 F20101114_AAAEAJ chaskopoulou_a_Page_084.QC.jpg
dca81225dade113766aca038524cf59d
9261cdbf034a829268e75438a4a88e881b6e90b0
2151 F20101114_AAADVE chaskopoulou_a_Page_023.txt
c9af34553d3014bcfd545f877003f09b
df53983e1c9191a9266706b6124d70d5e2288ffc
1738 F20101114_AAADUQ chaskopoulou_a_Page_008.txt
608a96ec8889ff7f0d54a408cbbb80e8
b98fffe9017b7215934a448f32d66778b783eabd
8008 F20101114_AAAEAK chaskopoulou_a_Page_016thm.jpg
468155f3731879f308ed6d4f5c4519f2
ce8dd14e03748afa85a5e57c045134845103977a
2343 F20101114_AAADVF chaskopoulou_a_Page_024.txt
c8f7386f530f3fa2dcce064f83c24857
3a93d91a1f380e37191aef39032c39003ac11cab
2099 F20101114_AAADUR chaskopoulou_a_Page_009.txt
d72319e8fa1e4965231a270ad48ada08
c6d1a7b92e2e2533add502834c14f76bd433a360
37060 F20101114_AAAEBA chaskopoulou_a_Page_043.QC.jpg
747281a3affe3af38e3a446c97c0d158
3146901ccc5748116214dfd293df9ab55a088822
8627 F20101114_AAAEAL chaskopoulou_a_Page_038thm.jpg
78a524f86c2ba3e0f506f7e83696c4a1
ffbd942a979b79d6f8b82abf4c594afc7016e04b
2253 F20101114_AAADVG chaskopoulou_a_Page_025.txt
42655dc0887b1992aa153dc17a2f5555
0f86a600bd999e56e64ffdc807ca0a9acc83c19b
1785 F20101114_AAADUS chaskopoulou_a_Page_010.txt
99083d0ffef396bdbff59a1365a806f1
169ea2ac1fc3e423b0e1bff907d3d07faaaffd20
6200 F20101114_AAAEBB chaskopoulou_a_Page_008thm.jpg
726a9bababa282c45314605ab8d81917
d50d1405c6e8cc508961ea3503d417b37a775054
6112 F20101114_AAAEAM chaskopoulou_a_Page_007thm.jpg
a4ccac9f799b459a5b06ec25b63b7544
79e5a3a6a376be42f4df49450822f440b3bd7f7b
2136 F20101114_AAADVH chaskopoulou_a_Page_026.txt
3fc142f647f27cfdaa710f115cae12fd
27f756c96b612f35a7218067a9b29fb3e6f68f78
2214 F20101114_AAADUT chaskopoulou_a_Page_011.txt
a92e6ffd37cad427b113f632986a1b83
d6b668dce521b15ddc34216ecbbf1d8c200cc188
6807 F20101114_AAAEBC chaskopoulou_a_Page_059thm.jpg
8239601c2488f8183bae959d526237c9
d5053237b74579916a6a5ac277a54697d26633ed
8980 F20101114_AAAEAN chaskopoulou_a_Page_056thm.jpg
3f6e2acc9fba88b2b565c16446185dc5
f6766d6747eaa71df9d5e1b5a307cb8f5af6f1e1
1665 F20101114_AAADVI chaskopoulou_a_Page_028.txt
9f803c00a892ce7d397fdad5a9d033e2
bbe7228745b1e15952872d593d45e7a5b23c7b00
F20101114_AAADUU chaskopoulou_a_Page_012.txt
70868c0461057b4d03c7aeb89f556791
1a0989843fcfdd7d09d4c0feee54d8a157f55043
32705 F20101114_AAAEBD chaskopoulou_a_Page_030.QC.jpg
bed842690cc4bb44991e7039539561a5
993cab4cce4393a1b6a303f280a060e3b720fca9
F20101114_AAAEAO chaskopoulou_a_Page_013thm.jpg
43d379be0f5c5c6135df0ad8143fba08
2c1bc20b43efc9402e2fe41cdb40268e1c108323
1875 F20101114_AAADVJ chaskopoulou_a_Page_029.txt
946d14b3389495f27ebd17b3bc7783f2
7f7f4244843f6bd42b160f124d889384a62f269f
F20101114_AAADUV chaskopoulou_a_Page_013.txt
4ae7b150033b4ea66f565e9a107469f4
7999cbc587ffa51cacaf0a11fb25537c7394d16e
2239 F20101114_AAAEAP chaskopoulou_a_Page_087thm.jpg
1ee999b3890cc494ab75a5eda4dd5b38
372abf8d2ad50ff91149c69b1581a813749e6bd0
1933 F20101114_AAADVK chaskopoulou_a_Page_030.txt
b38cc718e00923ec0c679496b4e48222
544863cfb0471eff82b780dcfa92b378ddeef8a5
2036 F20101114_AAADUW chaskopoulou_a_Page_014.txt
fbd4ed9fa47ab636e187aaf679a03071
7cd02d41454118be6c802bf41de5561e0b058384
2991 F20101114_AAAEBE chaskopoulou_a_Page_085thm.jpg
2b7a68318fa9db2c028497fe11312631
7765532ec6f43d3b9d4f926493b2075a28447056
8028 F20101114_AAAEAQ chaskopoulou_a_Page_040.QC.jpg
14abaa3a26d9aa6013880a61c7ea3caf
043c5f0c232506b36c39ac2d8f829aea28ed2961
1804 F20101114_AAADVL chaskopoulou_a_Page_031.txt
e65f4650f02ec760a951fe565bda303c
c71fb99c711fc20582aa3e34389a7b859e285e9a
802 F20101114_AAADUX chaskopoulou_a_Page_015.txt
525515354666c5004bf5138cd415063c
dc68427c937516d949313f70c5fb034a807b459d
23363 F20101114_AAAEBF chaskopoulou_a_Page_059.QC.jpg
6753d2de84df42464c347afb90f22120
bee0c2aefda91a5649055ab7e449268c577fbea6
F20101114_AAAEAR chaskopoulou_a_Page_014thm.jpg
5e4fd974d82d3bbca95ee8005368b201
ee812567e041f1a298be9f30d7d19923f9020882
1821 F20101114_AAADVM chaskopoulou_a_Page_032.txt
6105f628856f9b0e8336e0c420582118
7e2771da08c5cdf14c9140606406682ef7b067a8
37039 F20101114_AAAEBG chaskopoulou_a_Page_023.QC.jpg
7e2730a6e8a917167cc05aaac3bca0f0
708d3c0f0b375c2d5302025cfbd4cea7951faf2e
2069 F20101114_AAADWA chaskopoulou_a_Page_046.txt
7a51aa9263a38617ad9fef597c59f130
5df5d81155f85fc59e93bde0de2215f4843b4fec
35896 F20101114_AAAEAS chaskopoulou_a_Page_081.QC.jpg
da6ce95a2a472b96e3a98d59b1e00bd7
98898348e93911fe219822f7daafc731448b9b33
1868 F20101114_AAADVN chaskopoulou_a_Page_033.txt
0116e58c53c5b67d5b18e8b6e417c533
b4e7113fef2612c8fa4530054cf1160202375946
2103 F20101114_AAADUY chaskopoulou_a_Page_016.txt
9bf71ec815b321f6d591a7bb127eef28
fa0edc8105d02420e1d3d71e8f72fcf964f56090
33185 F20101114_AAAEBH chaskopoulou_a_Page_077.QC.jpg
6746cba81532177370206f17a1c76b4e
df64275fdad060613ea4f81cbf618bdd5b32a4b9
1997 F20101114_AAADWB chaskopoulou_a_Page_047.txt
00bd0de04eb42b3822d245f930e821ca
e50716d01d28a227816d013f9ab415c62771c7b3
5432 F20101114_AAAEAT chaskopoulou_a_Page_064thm.jpg
292248c1942e65978885ae3beeeff14f
303ce3e2b15771e7a9237ce601883a1ee603b0b8
2255 F20101114_AAADVO chaskopoulou_a_Page_034.txt
f0aaf7ba4afcd712eb72d5992ab51ca0
dcec019699536df91e443cc3fd6b561f04436e24
1677 F20101114_AAADUZ chaskopoulou_a_Page_017.txt
4f34de64a3f0395572f327278b7e8843
e00193faa2da9ce3305902e623487b0ef3c89f0e
21103 F20101114_AAAEBI chaskopoulou_a_Page_083.QC.jpg
f2a6a195a87ff8328672415f53901fc4
df356026a918c23748d97366b5155e5bb6cdcdb9
2236 F20101114_AAADWC chaskopoulou_a_Page_048.txt
138601987c45f9bde376f74a25823051
98a793c1e1e86a7f5403210996cf0cc2d371997f
9065 F20101114_AAAEAU chaskopoulou_a_Page_048thm.jpg
6c5ff6fcb4324955389c89e41dd3382b
9cd816e0c6f6ecf00dcd5f848a274de500486ab0
2056 F20101114_AAADVP chaskopoulou_a_Page_035.txt
cc3dbb86ca00d028316cd9dd51e8caad
df9d169868d01f84462b021e42a9f0c38b4918db
37674 F20101114_AAAEBJ chaskopoulou_a_Page_025.QC.jpg
74430cf652f7f1b7fcbbc7f18cabdd8c
35ebfceff03f174ee498edfcf922a85a2833fab2
2193 F20101114_AAADWD chaskopoulou_a_Page_049.txt
39ddcc6f6ce530bdce8d65d8833a5f01
b1734f70102398ad993a5c1d4f236c9f7667e949
5915 F20101114_AAAEAV chaskopoulou_a_Page_004thm.jpg
813bc7c9a77d7d04c8ebcb2415997e0b
febc8e43bf90f1cf51c441a0dca01274cbb3b0d8
2094 F20101114_AAADVQ chaskopoulou_a_Page_036.txt
b808dfd64d53ae526821f0e7e91e4b5e
05a626380df8565ecbcf419d29826beb9f5324b9
9293 F20101114_AAAEBK chaskopoulou_a_Page_025thm.jpg
16fa7532ce005190ba0a56bcce6c6bcc
8f2afc008e28031cdae0440283fffb8941e82de0
2024 F20101114_AAADWE chaskopoulou_a_Page_050.txt
ff8189e80ab46dd4cbb16b13fccbd0f3
68209d9492f4887a77efff68b66aa91a797aecff
8861 F20101114_AAAEAW chaskopoulou_a_Page_045thm.jpg
cf11933f1c801eb25c9cf6af5615adff
3453c51030f32641d81d7f6adda7865e14e5b1d0
F20101114_AAADVR chaskopoulou_a_Page_037.txt
86b2698e7d18fe738f6719fb01a9eade
3bef5d6167f70bb2d53003affd1a39efc78cca65
36927 F20101114_AAAECA chaskopoulou_a_Page_080.QC.jpg
9adfdec8498d9494e4718d8ab9dd50b6
38059d39af250983b3e62b2e33a0d0eed6d2ee09
4356 F20101114_AAAEBL chaskopoulou_a_Page_058.QC.jpg
a010d71bb5e25a35db5af2bb5195029d
76bc769c3a441e2c2b46358ce773456255e9b144
2135 F20101114_AAADWF chaskopoulou_a_Page_051.txt
25204e5581a16881ea875bae698347ca
c92d9a326bde2dfae1cdd852c6266b196155148b
9271 F20101114_AAAEAX chaskopoulou_a_Page_092thm.jpg
db735107ae4f85ec8919e86ab011cca0
0c9eb8cef7765f301b2fee0cc4f2d196cfeab888
F20101114_AAADVS chaskopoulou_a_Page_038.txt
5f29efa9d3ef93b50c68296365a98118
989b84ba271c4cc2963129fc5759b208ac39cd23
36206 F20101114_AAAECB chaskopoulou_a_Page_082.QC.jpg
12ba5cf0afd93abfe8498dd559b245ca
d795e7211cbf119be901f51e392e7fc180583338
37950 F20101114_AAAEBM chaskopoulou_a_Page_048.QC.jpg
255575b8a7440689283c03a04f1cf3b2
a5fa42cd7e5aaaee6b33bf373efc64bebaef8437
F20101114_AAADWG chaskopoulou_a_Page_053.txt
c88ca1c609c215dc501cca601c78ecca
b0d2ad018ee4529c9bc8694f51109bb4f727ee25
30484 F20101114_AAAEAY chaskopoulou_a_Page_033.QC.jpg
52e0ea6e7014574484a943360f814e75
4d0817c5e22404a891dbdb67c776dbb9feed3f9b
2238 F20101114_AAADVT chaskopoulou_a_Page_039.txt
55529c94b351d5c057f31cbb53aa917c
7911fe2ef55a66de9fc8f602e841b2e9d5ef5310
14847 F20101114_AAAECC chaskopoulou_a_Page_063.QC.jpg
3e42d2c47600d8927941daa2b4ecc5c1
56dc4d2196e2ab21f668fbb5278c8a9116121329
8736 F20101114_AAAEBN chaskopoulou_a_Page_036thm.jpg
0809efaca0b14c525415ac3955dbfcf6
287a2094d5e41033c78fa936a319ba9e69597eb3
1995 F20101114_AAADWH chaskopoulou_a_Page_055.txt
36391631fb9e50cc7e8816349c5cbecb
dd043db6272c5784ba96d743712f53013f373de2
8488 F20101114_AAAEAZ chaskopoulou_a_Page_035thm.jpg
f6a869d8b00afa92dfc321a27d9be932
644e1ef215f46d23763ac38f95b6c20e00e8a52b
424 F20101114_AAADVU chaskopoulou_a_Page_040.txt
8888ede1611c61c9cf4800675e0efe65
7da76ae6d7a56b3a6af41ed4d178b64f8f543c75
9214 F20101114_AAAECD chaskopoulou_a_Page_097thm.jpg
c3e371239157d86ebbe67989afeb14dd
4971ace7101f89c512ef1e8c30659a5966238491
8915 F20101114_AAAEBO chaskopoulou_a_Page_053thm.jpg
14505e9b02b17ecae0cd28acdd8d5342
c041712145307c70c3aea4342b9a3b4d2f39b16e
2318 F20101114_AAADWI chaskopoulou_a_Page_056.txt
5696a3d89128fdb6a06e01122e05230b
53fbda616a3d66f42c34cb861869564fa3e4455a
F20101114_AAADVV chaskopoulou_a_Page_041.txt
aaa5f8690cc33afe58c81a2817015c94
105edc2ba209ef9a3de79951857fe1cf317666a9
9212 F20101114_AAAECE chaskopoulou_a_Page_024thm.jpg
f8ba1bd9bdfad4d8a006ddeb9c574778
f20caaa62fe86e55892d30246196264f4d8194bb
14690 F20101114_AAAEBP chaskopoulou_a_Page_003.QC.jpg
2cbe3db36d1dbdfe803ad1ccf44b52f8
1c7168c275ade4342ccdd58bb763e017e47c314e
2107 F20101114_AAADWJ chaskopoulou_a_Page_057.txt
c8b98e1e9928444ae11b943e35884d02
36796c2755d6c540f21f434e94d03dc98e8b7d2b
2121 F20101114_AAADVW chaskopoulou_a_Page_042.txt
ecce3423305c9332154f52273ff695f6
a194705d8c910d41d53eff9054eab97a34225dc2
F20101114_AAAEBQ chaskopoulou_a_Page_060thm.jpg
b631e3f8794142c0fc80675743bd3bf2
c1c869170d6e4aa9d0aeed3a32dfe18546abca0a
169 F20101114_AAADWK chaskopoulou_a_Page_058.txt
236787298a4a789801a1592bc565add7
5640a67faa7eb3a3c940bfb541324d9e7909b5d5
F20101114_AAADVX chaskopoulou_a_Page_043.txt
ac9f27ba4c311779cb2ae4987ddbdbaf
7c67efe3aad1aee77e2b116c75e382bb31a38667
34976 F20101114_AAAECF chaskopoulou_a_Page_014.QC.jpg
76558526afa70089d9aaba68b8cef316
dfc0f1b989f41db0f3c3b60c093e6128ff3d833f
3510 F20101114_AAAEBR chaskopoulou_a_Page_015thm.jpg
2c475a8fa07141b882af6a8ef74fe433
0a6c461440d6ab33808290ce99cd833e38f9f8f8
2819 F20101114_AAADWL chaskopoulou_a_Page_059.txt
6921d811dc096886d91346e97702c30e
24c88faf7d72438093b392e53fd7a2801f555114
570 F20101114_AAADVY chaskopoulou_a_Page_044.txt
9da6936f2c16cc94ab5cd699ae4daa63
12dc16c3da8cd58baa44ce76e92b05bf11a5f831
38811 F20101114_AAAECG chaskopoulou_a_Page_092.QC.jpg
1d74bba3b67850ebc973631e1e9bc0ef
d2e147c916dcc998034ba76395974cf50239a240
1950 F20101114_AAADXA chaskopoulou_a_Page_075.txt
8245e59fb60fd67af94535ef063f9f00
8013f1a48d64cc129fd20ad2baff3920fad5e9e9
23945 F20101114_AAAEBS chaskopoulou_a_Page_004.QC.jpg
d5badc20601559d854f85fcab21ba885
e1c97714c5e0ecd09c6e9bcd5ae4d16082dcdb66
F20101114_AAADWM chaskopoulou_a_Page_060.txt
a7692cfd622ed797df7055ef4ffcec51
06ee1c2f2452f4619a3b02eca6e8956c2d0bbf71
8550 F20101114_AAAECH chaskopoulou_a_Page_019thm.jpg
5f0dd94d0ed6be7689d4fccaa312053f
d6ed3394b9d5ae4b91e5c61c1c17cb23737632b6
2254 F20101114_AAADXB chaskopoulou_a_Page_076.txt
d4d9b847462130f57900e149a926a754
3a92ef1d2044f318176bb4ad14c58615d82117c2
7002 F20101114_AAAEBT chaskopoulou_a_Page_099thm.jpg
345a8294ac0cb415653e7edf6f4a9f16
52299127dd8980be47319854e1b1ad11b4095ad3
2065 F20101114_AAADWN chaskopoulou_a_Page_061.txt
51659d465364389224d19838d662000a
9847fa235141f5d1857883d16cec5a0083062df8
9211 F20101114_AAAECI chaskopoulou_a_Page_054thm.jpg
11b35eb3afa0d3a4534841022f1ed48c
82c9e9fe2ff13edf1d1a3041d936a8c021f4254e
2019 F20101114_AAADXC chaskopoulou_a_Page_077.txt
5a415cbd1cad31826b1c9e6df33c3ef0
f5451a94635d054395e0249120779c3385fdee17
31691 F20101114_AAAEBU chaskopoulou_a_Page_009.QC.jpg
406f091c341ef8887e81c90147e94def
b08b43eccae26dfc2668b869e71201a19231c1f2
1937 F20101114_AAADWO chaskopoulou_a_Page_062.txt
16edaa4dc9a2726e2c4063297079ea45
c831d4636c55f74b8e1440f6e23affbf3d776976
2222 F20101114_AAADVZ chaskopoulou_a_Page_045.txt
599fa3b9aaeee6f0cdc0b42c47fb1fb3
ef6debca9f308e9b18b60862943b2a686e5c9f36
35527 F20101114_AAAECJ chaskopoulou_a_Page_093.QC.jpg
044305535710009b67a47e4414dd26f0
36223ec2d43688b5b2fe466bd9f2e539192302da
F20101114_AAADXD chaskopoulou_a_Page_078.txt
76ad0e8ecae519fa022f0ff0b2a60d9b
c742b2a4c72c3988d1a4fc25578e090e2a548381
8647 F20101114_AAAEBV chaskopoulou_a_Page_088thm.jpg
6a1d6ce468bbcb9218132f264a44ca8a
8d2b8762b72565f8c1dbce3762fdbaf4f556fe5a
1120 F20101114_AAADWP chaskopoulou_a_Page_063.txt
160ca548caf3233e138b66990d0e262c
bbd5ea2e72d56c3cfeb9b1ac170b623fab15d852
7950 F20101114_AAAECK chaskopoulou_a_Page_009thm.jpg
8370e2eaa737dee104f8693a206e2c17
718ffd3cd866e36b3525ba9256587be979785632
2169 F20101114_AAADXE chaskopoulou_a_Page_079.txt
6727a6f908052fa53968a0bb2329aa40
de3e7b46da7a2248f32a4f48b1e4254b56b952e9
6715 F20101114_AAAEBW chaskopoulou_a_Page_062thm.jpg
aef1530f33fe25d7c1eabe743ef15221
ab72e9832f766c0cf4c958d2704432dfc9c21d09
1466 F20101114_AAADWQ chaskopoulou_a_Page_064.txt
a4fbf4ef29e849c3ec7c4510cfb362be
bdb6e66a6f4f2eb8754c10435d7ca0c78e1a6ce9
8187 F20101114_AAAECL chaskopoulou_a_Page_074thm.jpg
a02eea4b8e72a37b27ae71b82172de4e
6d4bbfa95d565c194505349833a80c50939a4083
2158 F20101114_AAADXF chaskopoulou_a_Page_081.txt
b86cd2426bf76ccb046ce37b246a8a8f
c3b8ce755f5dff979b3c2f02469541fc04d3c37c
14262 F20101114_AAAEBX chaskopoulou_a_Page_067.QC.jpg
670bf546500649b9ead07532a8012bab
d664d1ceae2f8fae7e6b1b8f85bd24f7cfd563c2
623 F20101114_AAADWR chaskopoulou_a_Page_065.txt
7355063c9e35ec8d536b1f74f53abbc3
97c229349447970869bfde836548caaaf4e7d15f
29085 F20101114_AAAEDA chaskopoulou_a_Page_005.QC.jpg
c44f9585549506f92f22936e716ad66a
e67150b13c22b1bd2a6c72c2d21f100bc13709ef