Citation
Mechanisms of carbaryl resistance in the fall armyworm, Spodoptera frugiperda

Material Information

Title:
Mechanisms of carbaryl resistance in the fall armyworm, Spodoptera frugiperda
Added title page title:
Carbaryl resistance in the fall armyworm, Spodoptera frugiperda
Added title page title:
Spodoptera frugiperda
Creator:
McCord, Elzie
Publication Date:
Language:
English
Physical Description:
xv, 103 leaves : ill. ; 28 cm.

Subjects

Subjects / Keywords:
Armyworms ( jstor )
Carbamates ( jstor )
Cytochromes ( jstor )
Enzymes ( jstor )
Insecticides ( jstor )
Insects ( jstor )
Larvae ( jstor )
Metabolism ( jstor )
Midgut ( jstor )
Resistance mechanisms ( jstor )
Dissertations, Academic -- Entomology and Nematology -- UF
Entomology and Nematology thesis Ph. D
Fall armyworm -- Insecticide resistance ( lcsh )
Insecticide resistance ( lcsh )
Genre:
bibliography ( marcgt )
non-fiction ( marcgt )

Notes

Thesis:
Thesis (Ph. D.)--University of Florida, 1985.
Bibliography:
Bibliography: leaves 92-101.
General Note:
Typescript.
General Note:
Vita.
Statement of Responsibility:
by Elzie McCord Jr.

Record Information

Source Institution:
University of Florida
Holding Location:
University of Florida
Rights Management:
Copyright [name of dissertation author]. Permission granted to the University of Florida to digitize, archive and distribute this item for non-profit research and educational purposes. Any reuse of this item in excess of fair use or other copyright exemptions requires permission of the copyright holder.
Resource Identifier:
021382864 ( ALEPH )
13343001 ( OCLC )
ACW3016 ( NOTIS )
AA00004879_00001 ( sobekcm )

Downloads

This item has the following downloads:


Full Text


MECHANISMS OF CARBARYL RESISTANCE IN THE FALL ARMYWORM
Spodoptera frugiperda
BY
ELZIE McCORD, JR.
A DISSERTATION PRESENTED TO THE GRADUATE SCHOOL
OF THE UNIVERSITY OF FLORIDA IN
PARTIAL FULFILLMENT OF THE REQUIREMENTS
FOR THE DEGREE OF DOCTOR OF PHILOSOPHY
UNIVERSITY OF FLORIDA
1985


I Elzie McCord, Jr., dedicate this dissertation to:
o my family, Pinkie W., wife, Rogers Christopher and
Timothy Ryan, sons, for their continued support,
understanding and companionship, and
o Ms. Lue Vester Davis for being an ideal role model,
for forfeiting her one free hour during the school
day to teach a select few of us the slide rule, basic
and advanced algebra and trigonometry, for coercing
parents to impress upon their children the importance
of performing well in school and for inspiring my
career in the biological sciences.


ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS
Since it is nearly impossible to thank everyone who has contributed
to the success of my career, this research and the preparation of this
manuscript, I will attempt to mention those who have contributed the
most without diminishing the roles of those not named here.
I wish to thank the following people:
o My parents, Pearlence C. and Elzie, Sr., for their continued
encouragement and support in my pursuit of personal goals and for
guiding me in a direction that made goal selection possible,
o Dr. S. H. Kerr, for supporting me throughout my pre- and post
graduate studies at the University of Florida,
o Dr. Simon S. J. Yu for allowing me the opportunity to study and
work with him under somewhat accelerated conditions; for providing
encouragement, constructive criticism, and assistance in performing
the complex biochemical processes for which he is highly regarded,
and for his belief in me and my abilities to accomplish the program
described herein,
o Drs. J. L. Nation, J. R. Strayer, D. L. Shankland, and R. B.
Shireman for quality educationsl instructions, for serving on my
supervisory committee and for reviewing this manuscript,
o Mr. and Mrs. Siegfried J. Schulze, Mr. Willie Foresto, Ms. Alice
Foresto and Mr. Lutz Schulze for being such wonderful neighbors who
took care of my family while I completed the research herein,
o Dr. J. R. Young, USDA, Agricultural Research Center, Tifton,
Georgia, for inspiring this research project and for providing me
with the resistant fall armyworm strain,
iii


o Drs. A. B. Meade, K. S. Amuti, Der-I Wang, T. M. Priester, Ms.
Babirette Babineaux, Ms. C. N. Selz, Mr. Matthew McGirr and others
who have contributed moral support, ideas, constructive criticisms,
drawings, computer wizardry, etc.,
o The Agricultural Chemicals Department of the E. I. Du Pont de
Nemours & Company, Drs. Dale Wolf, K. A. Saegebarth, G. D. Hill, H.
M. Loux, J. W. Searcy, E. J. Soboczenski and others who assisted in
my leave of absence request and those who approved the granting of
that request,
o Mr. Philip N. Chaney and Mr. J. L. Jenkins for being the true
friends I always wanted and needed,
o Mrs. Jo Ann Ledford and Mrs. Glinda Burnett for their continued
friendship and assistance since 1973, and
o Last but not least, my wife Pinkie W. and my sons Rogers
Christopher and Timothy Ryan for enduring the hardships of daily
activities without me for 18 months, for tolerating my absence
while in Florida and while I was locked away in my home office.
iv


TABLE OF CONTENTS
Page
ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS iii
LIST OF TABLES viii
LIST OF FIGURES x
LIST OF ABBREVIATIONS xii
ABSTRACT xiv
INTRODUCTION 1
LITERATURE REVIEW 4
Status of Resistance 4
Genetics of Resistance 6
Resistance Mechanisms 9
Reduced Penetration 9
Altered Site Insensitivity II
Increased Detoxication 14
Cytochrome P-450 Monooxygenases 17
Hydrolases 21
A. Phosphotriester Hydrolysis 22
B. Arylester Hydrolysis 22
C. Carboxylester Hydrolysis 22
Glutathione S-transferases 24
Epoxide Hydrolases 25
History of Carbaryl Resistance 26
Fall Armyworm Resistance to Carbaryl 27
v


MATERIALS AND METHODS
28
Insects 28
R Strain 28
S Strain 28
Chemicals 29
Bioassay 29
Protein Determinations 29
Epoxidation Assay 30
Microsomal Biphenyl Hydroxylase Assay 34
Microsomal N-Demethylase Assay 37
Cytochrome P-450 Measurements 37
Glutathione S-Transferase Assay 40
In vitro Carbaryl Metabolism Study 43
Epoxide Hydrolase Assay 44
Esterase Assays 48
Acetylcholinesterase Assay 48
Cuticular Penetration by Carbaryl 51
Statistics 54
RESULTS 55
Bioassays 55
Enzymatic Assays 58
A. Aldrin Epoxidase 58
B. Biphenyl Hydroxylase 58
C. N-demethylase 61
D. Cytochrome P-450 61
E. Glutathione S-transferase and Epoxide Hydrolase 61
F. Esterase 67
vi


G. AChE Kinetics
67
H. In vitro Carbaryl Metabolism 67
Cuticular Penetration 75
DISCUSSION 82
LITERATURE CITED 92
BIOGRAPHICAL SKETCH 103
vii


1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
LIST OF TABLES
Page
The primary action of MFO systems on specific chemical
configurations found in xenobiotic molecules 19
Rj. values of carbaryl and its metabolites on silica gel
G plates in a developmental solution of acetic acid:
ethyl acetaterbenzene (1:10:33 by volume) 45
Comparison of toxicological responses of R and S fall
armyworm larvae topically treated with 6 insecticides 56
Comparison of toxicological responses of R and S fall
armyworm larvae topically treated with carbaryl + PB . 57
Aldrin epoxidase activities of midgut microsomes and
homogenates from various instars of R and S fall
armyworm larvae 59
Microsomal biphenyl 4-hydroxylase activity in various
instars of R and S fall armyworm larvae 60
Microsomal N-demethylase activity from sixth-instar R
and S fall armyworm larvae 62
Cytochrome P-450 activity from midgut microsomes of
sixth-instar R and S fall armyworm larvae 63
Glutathione S-aryltransferase activity of midgut soluble
enzyme fraction from sixth-instar R and S fall armyworm
larvae 64
Microsomal epoxide hydrolase activity in sixth-instar R
and S fall armyworm larvae 65
General and carboxylesterase activities from crude homo
genates of sixth-instar R and S fall armyworm larvae 66
General and carboxylesterase activities from microsomes
of sixth-instar R and S fall armyworm larvae 68
Acetylcholinesterase activity from moth heads of 1 to 2
day old mixed population R and S fall armyworms .... 69
viii


14
In vitro metabolism of carbary1 by midgut homogenate
from R and S fall armyworm larvae
74


LIST OF FIGURES
Page
Metabolism of lipophilic foreign compounds 16
The reaction of aldrin with midgut microsomes to produce
the epoxide product, dieldrin 33
The reaction of biphenyl with microsomes to produce the
oxidative metabolite 4-hydroxybiphenyl 36
The reaction of p-Chloro-N-methyl aniline with microsomes
to produce the demethylated product p-Chloroaniline 39
The reaction of 3,4-dichloronitrobenzene with glutathione
-S-aryltransferase to produce the conjugated product S(2
Chloro-4-nitrophenyl) glutathione 42
14
The reaction of [ C] styrene oxide with water and
microsomes to produce the water soluble product, styrene
glycol 47
The reaction of a-naphthylacetate with esterases to form
a-naphthol and acetic acid 50
The reactions of acetylthiocholine with acetylcholin
esterase producing thiocholine which produces a yellow
color when combined, in reaction, with 5-dithiobis-2-
nitrobenzoic acid 52
Lineweaver-Burke plot for the reaction of R and S fall
armyworm moth head acetylcholinesterase with acety^thio-
choline V = product formed (nmol min mg protein );
[ATC] = substrate concentration (mM)
71
Carbaryl inhibition of AChE from heads of R and S fall
armyworm adult moths 73
14
Percent of applied dose of [ C] carbaryl remaining on
the cuticle of sixth-instar R and S fall armyworm
larvae 77
14
Percent of applied [ C] carbaryl extracted from homoge
nate of sixth-instar R and S fall armyworm larvae ... 79
14
Percent of applied [ C] carbaryl recovered from excreta
of sixth-instar R and S fall armyworm larvae
81


14 Aldrin epoxidase activities of midgut microsomes from
various instars of R and S fall armyworm larvae .... 85
15 Microsomal biphenyl 4-hydroxylase activities from various
instars of R and S fall armyworm larvae 87
16 Metabolic pathways of carbaryl 90


LIST OF ABBREVIATIONS
AChE
Acetylcholinesterase enzyme
ATC
Acetylthiocholine
BHC
Benzene hexachloride (See HCH)
BSA
Bouine serum albumin
CPB
Colorado potato beetle
DBLS
Diazoblue laurylsulfate
DCNB
1,2-dichloro-4-nitrobenzene
DDT
p,p' dichloro-diphenyl trichloroethane
DEF
S,S,S-tributyl phosphorotrithioate
DFP-ase
Phosphotriester hydrolase
DMC
bis-(p-chlorophenyl) methyl carbinol
DTNB
5,5-dithiobis-2-nitrobenzoic acid
FAW
Fall armyworm
GSH
Glutathione
HCH
Hexachlorohexane (see BHC)
HC1
Hydrochloric acid
HPLC
High performance liquid chromatography
IBP
S-benzyl 0,0-disopropyl phosphorothioate
Kdr
Knockdown resistance
K.
i
Inhibition constant
K
m
Binding affinity
MFO
Microsomal mixed-function oxidase
a-NA
a-naphthylacetate
B-NA
8-naphthylacetate
xii


NADPH
Nicotinamide adenine dinucleotide phosphate
O.D.
Optical density
OP
Organophosphate insecticide
p-NPA
p-Nitrophenyl acetate
PB
Piperonyl butoxide
PCA
p-chloroaniline
PCMA
p-chloro-N-methylaniline
PCMB
p-chloromercuribenzoate
PDAB
p-dimethylaminobenzaldehyde
PHMB
p-hydroxymercuribenzoate
R
Resistant insect strain
R-AChE
Acetylcholinesterase enzyme from resistant strain
R-V
max
Maximum reaction velocity of resistant strain
S
Susceptible insect strain
S-AChE
Acetylcholinesterase enzyme from susceptible strain
S-V
max
Maximum reaction velocity of susceptible strain
TLC
Thin layer chromatography
TOCP
Tri-creosyl phosphate
TPP
Triphenyl phosphate
USDA
United States Department of Agriculture
V
max
Maximum reaction velocity
WHO
World Health Organization
xiii


Abstract of Dissertation Presented to the Graduate School
of the University of Florida in Partial Fulfillment
of the Requirements for the Degree of
Doctor of Philosophy
MECHANISMS OF CARBARYL RESISTANCE IN THE FALL ARMYWORM,
Spodoptera frugiperda
By
Elzie McCord, Jr.
August, 1985
Chairman: Dr. S. J. Yu
Major Department: Entomology and Nematology
Mechanisms of resistance to carbaryl were investigated in larvae of
the fall armyworm, Spodoptera frugiperda (J. E. Smith). Piperonyl
butoxide greatly reduced the resistance ratio from > 90-fold to 6-fold
suggesting the involvement of microsomal cytochrome P-450-dependent
monooxygenases. In vitro metabolic studies revealed that oxidative
metabolism of carbaryl by midgut microsomes was 5 times more active in
the resistant strain compared to the susceptible strain. In addition,
activities of midgut microsomal epoxidase and hydroxylase were signifi
cantly higher during the larval stage in the resistant strain than in
the susceptible strain.
14
Cuticular penetration studies using [ C] carbaryl showed that 60%
of the applied radioactivity remained on the cuticle of resistant larvae
while 32% remained on susceptible larvae 24 hr after topical treatment.
There was no difference in the amount of radioactivity found internally
in the two strains. Susceptible larvae, however, excreted 4 times more
xiv


radioactivity than resistant larvae. It is concluded that enhanced
oxidative metabolism of carbaryl plays an important role in the carbaryl
resistance. Slower penetration of carbaryl in the resistant armyworm
may be a minor factor contributing to resistance.
xv


INTRODUCTION
Resistance has been defined as "the developed ability in a strain
of insect to tolerate doses of toxicants which would prove lethal to the
majority of individuals in a normal population of the same species"
(Anonymous 1957). It is preadaptive in nature, representing a selection
of genes already present in the population. As susceptible individuals
are killed from the selected population, resistant individuals breed and
pass resistance genes to their progeny. The continued use of the same
or similar insecticides increases the selection pressure on the popula
tion and causes resistance expression in the majority of the individuals
in that population. Georghiou and Mellon (1983) reported that a total
of 428 insect and acaria species were resistant to one or more
insecticide classes including those commonly used today. These insecti
cide classes include DDT-analogues, cyclodiene/BHC, organophosphates
(OP's), carbamates, insect growth regulators, pyrethrins and the newer
synthetic pyrethroids (Priester 1979; Wolfenbarger et al. 1981; Sparks
1980; Bull 1981; Brown 1981).
Insect resistance to insecticides can be divided into two types,
behavioral resistance and physiological resistance. Recent evidence
shows that both types of resistance often coexist in resistant individ
uals (Lockwood et al. 1984). Behavioral resistance is mostly stimulus
dependent, requiring sensory stimulation to achieve avoidance. Insects
with behavioral resistance are more sensitive and are able to respond to
lower concentrations of insecticides than are susceptible insects.
1


2
There are three main types of physiological resistance, namely, in
creased detoxication, reduced penetration, and target site insensitivity.
Increased insecticide metabolism by specific detoxication enzymes
was found to confer carbamate, organophosphate and/or chlorinated
hydrocarbon resistance in numerous species of insects (Hughes 1982; Yu
and Terriere 1979; Motoyama et al. 1980; Kuhr 1970; Kao et al. 1984;
Devonshire and Moores 1982; Clark et al. 1984; Rose and Sparks 1984;
Plapp 1970; Wool et al. 1982).
Reduced penetration as a resistance mechanism was reported in
several insect species (Eldefrawi and Hoskins 1961; Ku and Bishop 1967;
Hanna and Atallah 1971; Ahmad et al. 1980; Ariaratnam and Georghiou
1975; Patil and Guthrie 1979; Sinchaisri et al. 1978).
Target site insensitivity, including insensitive acetylcholines
terase as a resistance mechanism was reported in several insect species
(Roulston et al. 1968 and 1969; Iwata and Hama 1972; Hama and Iwata 1971
and 1978; Devonshire 1975; Yamaoto et al. 1977; DeVries and Georghiou
1981a and 1981b; Yeoh et al. 1981; Devonshire and Moores 1984).
Carbaryl (1-Naphthyl-N-methylcarbamate), a reversible cholinester
ase inhibitor, is an agricultural pesticide used in the control of over
150 major pests (Mount and Oehme 1981). Carbaryl is safe to mammals,
having an acute oral LD,_q greater than 500 mg/kg body weight in rats
(Mount and Oehme 1981; Terriere 1982). It is short lived in the
environment. However, its high toxicity to honey bees has restricted
its use on some highly pollinator dependent crop plants, and has limited
its time of application on others. The apparent success of carbaryl
since its introduction in 1956 has been due to its reliability of
control, safety to humans and wildlife, and the array of insects con
trolled.


3
The fall armyworm, Spodoptera fruglperda (J. E. Smith), is a vora
cious phytophagous insect pest of the southeastern U.S. and the tropics
(Luginbill 1928; Vickery 1929). The fall armyworm (FAW) damages many
crop plants by feeding on leaves and fruit, often consuming the entire
leaf, except the mid-rib, or producing holes in the leaves (Vickery
1929) as a result of sporadic feeding.
Young and McMillian (1979) reported that FAW had become resistant
to carbaryl insecticide but remained susceptible to a related carbamate
insecticide, methomyl. FAW resistance to the organophosphates, tri-
chlorfon, diazinon, methyl parathion and parathion was reported by Bass
(1978).
It is important to study the mechanisms of resistance in order to
better understand how to slow down or lessen the severity of widespread
insect resistance to insecticides. The research reported here was
designed to investigate resistance mechanisms in a field collected
resistant strain of FAW.
Specific objectives were to determine the following:
1. The susceptibility of the field collected strain to related
carbamates, organophosphorous and synthetic pyrethroid insecticides as
compared to a susceptible laboratory strain.
2. The activities of various detoxication enzymes in the resistant
and susceptible strains.
3. The differences in the rate of cuticular penetration of car
baryl in both strains.


LITERATURE REVIEW
Status of Resistance
Insect resistance to insecticides has been known since the early
1900s. Melander reported San Jose scale resistance to lime-sulfur in
1914 and Quayle reported resistance in the California red scale to
cyanide in 1916 (O'Brien 1967; Forgash 1984). Since these early
reports, resistance has been reported in organisms other than insects
such as bacteria, sporozoa and mammals (Georghiou and Mellon 1983).
Nowhere has the impact of organisms expressing resistance been as great
as with insects. Georghiou and Mellon (1983) reported, conservatively,
428 known insect and acaria species world-wide that have developed
resistance. Georghiou (1980) emphasized that the number of resistant
insect species is not as staggering as the number of chemicals that many
insect strains can now tolerate and the increased geographical distribu
tion of resistant insect populations.
The wide distribution of resistant species suggests a common
phenomenon called cross-resistance which allows one organism to become
resistant to insecticides of the same and different classes due to the
same resistant mechanism (Oppenoorth and Welling 1976). Priester (1979)
reported cross-resistance in Culex quinquefasciatus Say to synthetic
pyrethroids with implication of prior DDT exposure. Scott et al. (1983)
reported cross-resistance in six predatory mite strains to permethrin
that also had previous exposure to DDT, azinphosmethyl, parathion and
carbaryl.
4


5
Resistance that is related to previous exposure suggests a genetic
change that influences massive physiological and biochemical changes in
an organism. Plapp (1984, p. 194) states that "it is becoming apparent
that changes at only a few loci are responsible for resistance to many
insecticides. That is, the genetic basis for resistance is relatively
simple. This is why cross-resistance to insecticides is such a severe
problem. Selection for resistance to a specific chemical often confers
resistance not only to the selecting agent, but sometimes to all insec
ticides having the same mode of action and other times to virtually all
chemicals metabolized by one or more of the major detoxification enzyme
systems".
Wolfenbarger et al. (1981) reported geographical locations of
resistant Heliothis zea (Boddie), H. virescens (F.), 11. armgera (Hubner)
and H. puntigera (Wallengren) in Mexico, Central America, South America,
Australia, Africa and Asia. Wolfenbarger's survey included countries or
continents where each species was indigenous. Sparks (1981) emphasized
the severity and importance of resistant Heliothis zea (Boddie) and H.
virescens (F.) in North America, concluding that these species are two
of the most serious agricultural pests. Bull (1981) noted that _H.
virescens (F.) had become resistant to many of the older chlorinated
hydrocarbon and organophosphorus insecticides and apparently has some
cross tolerance to certain of the new synthetic pyrethroids and organo
phosphorus insecticides recently developed for its control.
Graham-Bryce (1983) concluded that increases in resistance to
conventional pesticides require investigation of novel chemical ap
proaches to crop protection. He suggested the investigation of


6
unexploited target sites, the modification of chemical properties of
pesticides to increase mobility and availability, the exploration of
novel formulations, and the investigation of chemical compounds that
suppress chemically mediated processes rather than functioning by direct
toxic action. The approaches suggested by Graham-Bryce (1983) would
serve to slow down resistance, produce selective compounds, reduce
mammalian toxicity and afford control comparable to more toxic, environ
mentally persistent compounds now in use.
Genetics of Resistance
The World Health Organization's (WHO) definition of resistance
denotes resistance as a property of a population and not the result of
alterations within individual insects (Oppenoorth and Welling 1976). It
is the individual insect that possesses the preadaptive ability to
withstand higher than normal toxic doses of pesticides. Resistance is
assumed to be preadaptive arising through recurrent mutation of existing
alleles (Sawicki and Denholm 1984). Mutations of genes can be monogenic
or polygenic, and those terms are synonymous with mono- and multifac
torial, respectively, meaning resistance is under the control of one or
several genes. It is not known which mutation will occur under which
insecticidal pressure for a given insecticide. However, Oppenoorth and
Welling (1976) predict monogenic resistance will occur if a single gene
can confer high resistance in an organism. Polygenic resistance is less
likely to occur, but may occur in organisms exposed to the selecting
agent over long periods of time.
Genetics offer a valuable tool in analysis of resistance (Oppen
oorth and Welling 1976). Genetics can aid the separation of different
resistance mechanisms that occur simultaneously in a strain. Also
continuous environmental selection can provide researchers with rare


7
mutants that without genetic analysis would not be detected (Oppenoorth
1965).
To use genetics as a tool, researchers have developed various
cytogenic techniques whereby marker genes can be located on chromosomes,
and these chromosomes mapped to determine specific location of alleles
on those chromosomes. Priester (1979) used genetic crosses of Culex
quinqufasciatus Say to study inheritance of pyrethroid resistance to
isomers of permethrin. Farnham (1973) isolated four genetic resistance
factors from the house fly, Musca domestica (L.), to natural pyrethrins
and resmethrin. Priester (1979) and Farnham (1973) used bioassay
technique to determine the presence or absence of expected resistance
genes acquired during crossings.
Farnham (1973) found that the resistance genes carried no markers.
He replaced the marked autosomes of a quadruple susceptible strain with
unmarked resistance genes in an attempt to associate visible phenotypic
characters with resistant characteristics. By crossing and back-cross
ing progeny from both fly strains, he developed four strains which were
visibly distinct and which conferred resistance factors specific for
penetration, kdr (knockdown resistance), natural pyrethrin resistance
and resistance to synergized pyrethrins. These genes were located on
chromosomes 3, 3, 5, and 2, respectively.
Predecessors of the above techniques were performed soon after the
discovery of organic insecticide resistance. Lovell and Kearns (1959)
selected house flies, Musca domestica (L.), with DDT and DMC (bis-(p-
chlorophenyl) methyl carbinol). The amount of DDT-ase present in the
fly strain selected with DDT alone was much less than in those selected
with DDT and DMC. Subsequent back crosses provided initial clues that


8
DDT resistance may be governed by a single partially dominant gene which
behaved according to simple Mendelian principles.
Georghiou et al. (1961) and Georghiou (1962) selected laboratory
house flies with various carbamates and tried to reverse resistance with
piperonyl butoxide (PB). They concluded that some unknown factor in the
fly was insensitive to PB because resistance could not be eliminated
entirely. They also recognized that factors other than those inhibited
by PB played a major role in carbamate resistance in highly resistant
fly strains.
Plapp and Hoyer (1968a), investigating resistance in the mosquito
Culex tarsalis Coquillet and the house fly, found that a kdr gene for
DDT resistance also conferred resistance to DDT analogues and pyrethrins
+ PB. By crossing groups of individuals in both species and using
discriminating insecticidal doses to isolate the desirable genotypes,
Plapp and Hoyer relocated unmarked genes in individuals with phenotypic
marker. No metabolic differences were found in the Resistant (R) or
Susceptible (S) strain of the mosquito or house fly that could explain
the high degree of resistance found to DDT and pyrethrin. This experi
ment showed that resistance could occur without the presence of high
levels of detoxication enzymes and pointed toward some insensitive
resistance mechanism.
Plapp and Casida (1969) reported that genes on autosome 2 and 5 in
two house fly strains, controlled the tissue level of NADPH (reduced
nicotinamide adenine dinucleotide phosphate). NADPH levels were
controlled genetically to confer resistance to chlorinated hydrocarbon,
pyrethroid, organophosphate, and methyl carbamate insecticides.


9
Plapp (1970) used back crosses of two carbamate resistant house fly
strains to demonstrate resistance inheritance. By isolating heterozygo
tes with Isolan and carbaryl, Plapp distinguished resistant flies
phenotypically and chemically. Isolated genes were located on chromo
some 2; however, genes on chromosome 3 and 5 contributed insignificantly.
Resistance Mechanisms
The mechanisms of pesticide resistance are classified into two
categories; behavioral and physiological. Behavioral resistance is
defined as those actions that have evolved as the result of pesticide
selection which aid the organism in avoiding toxicosis (Lockwood et al.
1984). Insects that are behaviorally resistant usually avoid pesticide
residues and treated surfaces either by direct stimulation or host
and/or habitat selection.
Physiological resistance is categorized as follows: I. Physical or
restricted cuticular penetration, II. Increased enzymatic detoxication,
and III. Altered site or reduced sensitivity of a physiological endoge
nous target (Busvine 1971; Devonshire 1973; Plapp 1976; Oppenoorth and
Welling 1976; Oppenoorth 1984; Hodgson and Motoyama 1984).
Reduced Penetration
Early researchers investigating the rate at which insecticides
penetrated the cuticle of various insects (Eldefrawi and Hoskins 1961;
Plapp and Hoyer 1968b; Ku and Bishop 1967; Camp and Arthur 1967; Hanna
and Atallah 1971; Ahmad et al. 1980) correlated that rate with the rate
of internal metabolism. Resistance attributed to the rate of penetra
tion produced a comparable rate of metabolism except in those species
that were deemed highly resistant (Ku and Bishop 1967). Busvine (1971)


10
reported on work of other researchers who tried to explain resistance by
this route. Several researchers measured cuticle thickness in R and
S insect strains while others measured the protein and lipid content in
the cuticle of R and S insect strains (Oppenoorth and Welling 1976).
Patil and Guthrie (1979) altered the lipid composition of house fly
cuticle by feeding artificial diets with and without DL-carnitine and
2-dimethylaminoethanol. House flies with abnormally high cuticular
phospholipids did not always show a decrease in insecticide absorption.
Strain and insecticide differences showed trends toward reduced penetra
tion, thus, partially supporting the theory that a gene for penetration
resistance can alter the cuticular composition to slow the rate of
insecticide moving into organisms. Generally, the slower penetration
rate allows the usually slow metabolic detoxication process to protect
the organism from toxicosis.
Busvine (1971) also cited one case where excessive peritrophic
membrane development accounted for the rapid excretion of DDT in a
mosquito strain. Ariaratnam and Georghiou (1975) reported slight, but
not statistically significant differences in rates of metabolism in R
and S strains of Anopheles albimanus Wiedemann to carbaryl. They
concluded that high resistance in this mosquito strain was yet uniden
tified but alluded to reduced penetration as the probable cause.
DeVries and Georghiou (1981b) found decreased cuticular penetration as
one of the resistance mechanisms in a permethrin selected strain of
house fly. Devonshire (1973) showed that the gene for house fly pene
tration resistance was located on chromosome 3.
Sinchaisri et al. (1978) reported cuticular penetration as a
possible mechanism of resistance in Leucania separata Walker to methyl


11
parathion, fenithrothion, diazinon, and phenthoate because each chemical
showed variable rates of penetration. They concluded that penetrability
can be influenced by solubility, lipophilicity and hydrophilicity of a
compound, thus accounting for the variability in penetration rates in
this insect strain. Oppenoorth and Welling (1976) also agreed that the
effectiveness of the penetration gene is dependent on the nature of the
insecticide and its avenue of administration.
Altered Site Insensitivity
Altered site insensitivity varies among organisms and between
pesticides. Altered site insensitivity can take the form of
o Less sensitive AChE to inhibition by carbamate and OP Compounds
(Oppenoorth 1984).
o Kdr (knockdown resistance), where the immediate immobility of an
organism treated with DDT or pyrethroids does not occur. This
phenomenon was first observed in the house fly (Oppenoorth and
Welling 1976) and has subsequently been found in the cattle tick
(Busvine 1971) .
o Target site change. Evidence of HCH and dieldrin (cyclodienes)
resistance in several mosquito, house fly and bed bug strains
suggests target site change because no differences in metabolism
or cuticular penetration was found between R and S strains
(Oppenoorth 1965; Oppenoorth and Welling 1976).
The nervous system is an integral part of an organism thus making
it a suitable target for alteration, inhibition or direct poisoning.
The nervous system of both vertebrates and invertebrates is the most
exploited target site for natural poisons and the majority of organic


12
insecticides (carbamates, organophosphates and chlorinated hydrocarbons)
(Shankland 1976).
There is a multitude of papers describing the function of this
chemically mediated cholinergic system. Also, recent reviews employing
electrophysiological techniques for measuring electrical impulses and
the effects of substrates on axonal sodium channels have been published
(Shankland 1976; Edwards 1980; Laufer et al. 1984). In view of the
above published works, description and operations of the nervous system
will not be described here.
It is general knowledge that carbamate and organophosphorus
insecticides exert their toxic action on the nervous system by
inhibiting acetylcholinesterase (AChE) (Oppenoorth and Welling 1976;
Hodgson and Motoyama 1984) Kinetic studies have shown that AChE of
some R species is less sensitive to inhibition than their S counterparts
(Hodgson and Motoyama 1984; Plapp 1976; Oppenoorth 1984) indicating an
alteration or site change (Oppenoorth and Welling 1976; Busvine 1971).
Site changes or alterations can occur quantitatively or qualita
tively, i.e., more sites of action or less sensitive sites (Oppenoorth
1984). Site alterations have only been found in AChE. The first
evidence of altered AChE was found in the red spider mite, Tetranychus
urticae Koch, by Smissaret in 1964 (Plapp 1976; Busvine 1971; Oppenoorth
and Welling 1976; Oppenoorth 1984). Other mite strains showing altered
AChE had slight changes in an imidazole residue relative to the serine
hydroxyl necessary for acetylcholine hydrolysis (Plapp 1976).


13
Roulston et al. (1969) showed that the R-AChE of a Biarra strain of
cattle tick, Boophilus microplus (Canestrini), was less sensitive to
inhibition by organophosphate and carbamate insecticides than a was
susceptible strain. R-AChE of the Biarra tick strain also showed 60%
less activity toward acetylthiocholine than did the susceptible strain
suggesting that their enzymes were different. Hama and Iwata (1971 and
1978) and Yamamoto et al. (1977) found that a strain of green rice
leafhopper, Nephotettix cinctipes Uhler, was resistant to organophos-
phates and selected carbamates by insensitive AChE. Hama and Iwata
concluded that insensitive AChE was controlled genetically by an incom
pletely dominant autosome.
Devonshire and Moores (1984) showed that differences in R-AChE from
house flies were unusual in having a greater affinity for acetylthio
choline converse to previous works where R-AChE showed less affinity for
ATC. They concluded that AChE should be partially protected from
inhibitors by substrates present in the synapse, even if the enzyme was
not also intrinsically insensitive to inhibition.
Biochemical differences in R and S AChE of the house fly was
described by Devonshire (1975). The R and S enzymes showed no differ
ences electrophoretically when applied on the surface of polyacrylamide
gels with a surfactant. In the absence of the surfactant, R-AChE
produced two distinct electrophoretic bands indicating heterogeny or
isozymic forms but acted as one enzyme Tn vitro. R-AChE showed slower
organophosphate inhibition than the S-AChE in this house fly strain.
Altered AChE has been predominantly found in mosquitoes, house
flies, planthoppers, ticks and several mite strains (Voss 1980). Voss
(1980) found that a related armyworm species, Spodoptera littoralis


14
Boisduval, was resistant by this mechanism. These findings indicate
that lepidopterous larvae that are exposed to heavy selection pressures
from various insecticidal classes possess the capability of altered AChE
resistance.
Oppenoorth et al. (1977) found house fly R-AChE in combination with
other metabolic detoxication mechanisms providing resistance to paraoxon
and tetrachlorvinphos. DeVries and Georghiou (1981a, 1981b) found that
decreased nerve sensitivity to permethrin combined with reduced
cuticular penetration provided resistance in another house fly strain.
AChE inhibition and axonal sodium channel interference by pesti
cides can selectively produce organisms that are resistant. Also
important are the new techniques available for determining effects on
these insect systems by extrapolations from giant axons of crayfish or
squids.
Increased Detoxication
A compound which is biologically active by virtue of interactions
with biochemical systems such as enzymes and membranes will be vulnerable
to attack by other enzymes in the same cells and tissues (Terriere
1982). "Attack" denotes metabolism of the compound. Metabolism gener
ally results in detoxication and subsequent elimination of the metabo
lized compound from the organism's system. The original function of the
MFO system is assumed to be that of metabolizing toxic allelochemicals
(Dowd et al. 1983) and to a lesser extent, juvenile hormones (Yu and
Terriere 1975) followed by juvenile hormone analogues (Yu and Terriere
1978). A typical metabolic scheme indicative of most lipophilic insec
ticides is shown in Figure 1. This scheme was derived from the many
studies of insecticide metabolism in various organisms.


Figure 1. Metabolism of lipophilic foreign compounds.


16
LIPOPHILIC
.> HYDROPHILIC
Drugs
Insecticides
Other Foreign
Compounds
Figure 1. Metabolism of lipophilic foreign compounds.


17
Most of the more active insecticides are non-polar, lipophilic, fat
soluble compounds which readily penetrate insect cuticle and gut walls.
Non-polar compounds are usually insoluble in water; therefore, they are
difficult to excrete without some biochemical modifications. However,
some insects have developed the ability of rapidly excreting intact
unchanged toxic molecules (Devonshire 1973; Matthews 1980; Ivie et al.
1983). Insects that possess this ability are considered highly resis
tant by virtue of rapid elimination.
Metabolism of lipophilic compounds may follow primary and/or
secondary pathways, (Fig. 1) (Wilkinson and Brattsten 1972). Primary
metabolism of lipophilic compounds takes the form of oxidation, reduc
tion, group transfer, or hydrolysis. Some primary products are bio
transformed into hydrophilic, water soluble products and are readily
excreted. Those primary products that are not readily excretable are
biotransformed into secondary products which are conjugated either with
sugars, amino acids, phosphates, sulfates, glutathione or other endogen
ous conjugative compounds and excreted (Wilkinson 1983; Terriere 1982;
Hollingworth 1976).
Cytochrome P-450 Mono-oxygenases
The most important oxidase enzymes are found in the endoplasmic
reticulum membranes of cells. Cells which contain the most abundant
oxidase enzymes are species specific. That is to say some organisms
show higher oxidative activity from preparations of the midgut (Krieger
and Wilkinson 1969; Yu and Ing 1984), fatbodies (Ruhr 1971; Price and
Ruhr 1969; Brattsten et al. 1980), and less activity in preparations
from malpighian tubules, fore- and hindgut, and the whole body (Rrieger
and Wilkinson 1969; Yu 1982b).


18
Fragmented endoplasmic reticulum membranes are called microsomes
and are the results of tissue grinding or homogenation. The oxidase
enzymes associated with microsomes are termed microsomal oxidases (Yu
1983a), mixed-function oxidases (MFO), or cytochrome P-450-dependent
mono-oxygenases.
The MFO system accomplishes its functions by inserting one atom of
molecular oxygen into a xenobiotic and combining the other oxygen atom
with hydrogens from NADPH to form water (H^O). Wilkinson (1983)
depicted a generalized reaction for this procedure:
RH + 02 + NADPH + H+ > ROH + HO + NADP+
RH represents the lipophilic toxicant.
ROH represents the hydrophilic metabolite.
In the above reaction, electrons flow from NADPH + H and a flavo-
protein, cytochrome P-450 reductase (Terriere 1982) to an enzyme known
as cytochrome P-450. Cytochrome P-450 binds to the xenobiotic (RH) and
to oxygen (0^) resulting in the splitting of molecular oxygen, inserting
one atom in the xenobiotic (ROH) and combining the other with hydrogens
from NADPH + H+ to form water.
MFO actions on xenobiotics including insecticides are listed in
Table 1, which was derived from Terriere (1982) and Yu (1982, personal
communications).
The diversity of compounds attacked by MFO is shown to some extent
in Table 1. The wide tissue distribution of MFO systems in insects
demonstrates the ubiquitous nature of this important enzyme system.
Increases in the rate of deactivation (detoxication) of toxic molecules
can demonstrate the evolution of a resistance mechanism, particularly if


19
Table 1. The primary action of MFO systems on specific chemical
configurations found in xenobiotic molecules.
Reaction
Chemical
Reaction
Consequence*
Type
Configuration
Products
0
/\
Epoxidation
-C=C-
-C C-
Activation
Sulfoxidation
-c-s-c-
-c-s-c-
II
Activation
II
0
s
0
II
II
Phosphorothioate
>p-
>p-
Activation
Oxidation
CH
H
/ 3
/
N-Dealkylation
-N
-N
Deactivation
\
\
H
O-Dealkylation
-0-CH3
-C-OH
Deactivation
Hydroxylation
-C-H
-C-OH
Deactivation
* Activation means the metabolite is more toxic than the parent compound
deactivation means the metabolite is less toxic than the parent
compound.


20
that rate is high enough to protect the organism from toxicosis.
Indeed, this phenomenon occurs widely in the insect world. Insecticides
detoxified by increased oxidation include DDT, carbamates, organophos-
phates and pyrethroids (Devonshire 1973).
Increased MFO deactivation of diazinon and diazoxon in a resistant
house fly strain compared to a susceptible strain was demonstrated by
Yang et al. (1971). Kuhr (1971) found increased fatbody MFO responsible
for resistance in a cabbage looper strain to carbaryl. Feyereisen
(1983) found high oxidative metabolism in a resistant house fly strain
when measuring NADPH:cytochrome C reductase, cytochrome P-450 and aldrin
and heptachlor epoxidase systems.
Multiple forms of cytochrome P-450 have been credited for the
ability of insects to metabolize almost any foreign compound (Wilkinson
1983). Yu and Terriere (1979) found different forms of cytochrome P-450
in resistant and susceptible house fly strains. The resistant strain
showed absorbance maxima lower than that found in the susceptible strain
which resembled the high spin hemoprotein type cytochrome found in
mammals. Terriere et al. (1975) used temperature, pH, ionic buffer
strength and spectral data to determine microsomal oxidase differences
in several R and S house fly strains. They found that a WHO standard
reference strain showed abnormalities in the oxidase enzyme system and
concluded that this strain may not be suitable as a reference strain.
Also, this work suggested the presence of multiple forms of cytochrome
P-450 as described by Yu and Terriere (1979).
Moldenke et al. (1984) isolated two forms of cytochrome P-450 from
a house fly strain with different absorbance maxima and aldrin epoxidase
activities. O-demethylase activity was detectable in one cytochrome
P-450 fraction and not the other.


21
The MFO system is even more flexible in the metabolism of various
chemical compounds. The induction of MFO systems provides this flexi
bility (Brattsten et al. 1977). Yu et al. (1979) and Berry et al.
(1980) showed that peppermint plant leaves induced microsomal oxidases
and cytochrome P-450 in the variegated cutworm. Brattsten et al. (1980)
showed that epoxidation, N-demethylation and cytochrome P-450 reductase
could be induced with phenobarbital either in midgut or fat body prep
arations from the southern armyworm. Yu and Ing (1984) demonstrated
that another oxidase, fall armyworm microsomal hydroxylase, was induced
by allelochemicals, drugs and host plants. Wood et al. (1981) and
Farnsworth et al. (1981) showed that certain host plants could increase
the tolerance in the fall armyworm and cabbage and alfalfa loopers
when fed host plants that induced microsomal oxidases.
MFO induction appears to be age dependent. Yu (1982b, 1983a)
showed that MFO in young fall armyworm larvae were less inducible than
in older larvae. MFO induction also appears to be host plant and insect
specific. Brattsten et al. (1984) showed that certain monoterpenes
isolated from carrots induced MFO in the southern armyworm.
The significance of induction to the survival of an organism is yet
unclear (Busvine 1971; Oppenoorth and Welling 1976; Wilkinson 1983);
however, Perry et al. (1971) viewed chemical induction as a possible
enhancement to the development of insect resistance.
Hydrolases
Hydrolases are those enzymes that catalyze the cleavage of mole
cules with water thus producing an acid and a leaving group, usually an
alcohol or an amide. These include the esterases, phosphotases and
amidases (Terriere 1982). Each group contains several different kinds


22
of hydrolases. Oppenoorth and Welling (1976) and Dauterman (1976)
emphasized the importance of hydrolase attack on ester groups of many
insecticides such as organophosphates, carbamates and pyrethroids but
stated that the effects on organophosphates are most important in
resistance.
A. Phosphotriester Hydrolysis
Phosphotriester hydrolase has been named DFP-ase, paraoxonase,
A-esterase, phosphorylphosphatase, aryl esterase, phosphatase, etc.
(Dauterman 1983). This enzyme or enzyme complex catalyzes the hydro
lysis of organophosphate insecticides to produce phosphorus containing
molecules that are poor cholinesterase inhibitors and are generally
water soluble (Dauterman 1976, 1983).
B. Arylester Hydrolysis
Arylester hydrolases are implicated in the detoxication of aryl
esters of organophosphorus compounds such as parathion or paraoxon
(Dauterman 1976). Ahmad and Forgash (1976) described arylester hydro
lases as 1) preferentially reacting with phenolic esters, 2) being
inhibited by PCMB (parachloromercuribenzoate), 3) being activated by
Ca^+, and 4) readily hydrolyzing organophosphate compounds.
C. Carboxylester Hydrolysis
Carboxylesterases are known to catalyze the hydrolysis of aliphatic
and aromatic carboxyl esters (Dauterman 1976; Ahmad and Forgash 1976) in
many insecticides and is responsible for resistance. The hydrolysis of
malathion by carboxylesterases produces malathion acid(s) and an
alcohol(s). Zettler (1974) found that the carboxylesterase titre in a
malathion resistant Indian meal moth strain was greater than in that of
a susceptible strain. He also concluded that this strain of Indian meal


23
moth was resistant only to malathion and not other organophosphate
compounds. Devonshire and Moores (1982) characterized carboxylesterase
from the peach-potato aphid and found that the enzyme had broad sub
strate specificity thus contributing to organophosphate, carbamate and
possibly pyrethroid resistance.
Motoyama et al. (1980) described a house fly strain that had multi
ple resistant mechanisms responsible for organophosphorus resistance.
They concluded that a carboxylesterase from the nuclei, the mitochondria
and the microsomal fraction was predominantly responsible for malathion
resistance in this fly strain. Kao et al. (1984) selected two suscep
tible house fly strains with malathion and found that carboxylesterase
activities and values were significantly increased after treating
only three generations. Carboxylesterases were credited for rapid
development of resistance to malathion in this house fly strain.
Hemingway and Georghiou (1984) found a mosquito strain resistant to
organophosphorus insecticides by increased levels of esterase enzymes.
They were able to reverse resistance below the susceptible level by
treating the larvae with known esterase inhibitors, IBP (S-benzyl
0,0-diisopropyl phosphorothioate), DEF (S,S,S-tributyl phosphorotrithi-
oate) and TPP (triphenyl phosphate), thus partially confirming the
resistance mechanism.
Recent studies of synthetic pyrethroid resistance have shown that
hydrolases are responsible for flucythrinate, decamethrin, and fenva-
lerate resistance in an Egyptian cotton leafworm strain (Riskallah
1983). Resistance to another synthetic pyrethroid, permethrin, was
found in a predatory mite strain by Scott et al. (1983). Several mite
strains were investigated that had a prior exposure to DDT, azinphos-


24
methyl, carbaryl, and permethrin. In all cases, resistance was due to
either a kdr type resistance or to increased ester hydrolysis. Hydro
lase activity is generally measured with one of these commonly used
substrates, a-naphthyl acetate (a-NA), 3-naphthyl acetate (3-NA) and/or
p-nitrophenyl acetate (p-NPA). Comparison of hydrolase activities of
susceptible and resistant insects is a good measure of hydrolase resis
tance.
Glutathione S-transferases
Glutathione S-transferases are enzymes that catalyze the conjuga
tion of glutathione (GSH) with many foreign compounds (Chasseaud 1973).
Chasseaud (1973) and Dauterman (1983) explained the two main roles of
GSH S-transferase as the conjugation of potentially harmful electro
philes with the nucleophile, GSH, thus protecting cell nucleophilic
centers which occur in proteins and nucleic acids. Secondly, GSH
provides an avenue for excretion of the potentially harmful electrophile
through the formation of anionic, water-soluble products. GSH S-trans
ferases catalyzes two type of reactions, the conjugations of GSH with
epoxides and unsaturated compounds and the substitution of GSH with
alkyl and aryl halides (Dauterman 1983).
There are many such transferases as described by Ahmad and Forgash
(1976). These authors listed all known transferases requiring GSH in
the metabolism of insecticides. GSH S-transferases act directly on the
insecticide without the need for hydroxylation by MFO.
Usui and Fukami (1977) found two transferases from cockroach fat
bodies active on diazinon and three transferases active on methyl
parathion. Wool et al. (1982) correlated high GSH S-transferase levels
with resistance to malathion in a flour beetle strain. Motoyama et al.
(1980) determined that resistance in a house fly strain was in part due


25
to elevated levels of GSH S-transferase. Oppenoorth et al. (1977) found
GSH S-transferase levels in a resistant house fly strain 9 to 120-fold
more than a susceptible strain to methyl parathion, parathion, methyl
paraoxon and paraoxon.
GSH S-transferases are known to be induced by allelochemicals (Yu
1982a) and insecticides. Xanthotoxin, an allelochemical from parsnip,
induced GSH S-transferase by 39-fold in an insecticide resistant and
susceptible strain of fall armyworm (Yu 1984). Permethrin, a synthetic
pyrethroid, induced GSH S-transferase 296% of the control when fed to
groups of adult honey bees for two days (Yu et al. 1984). Hayaoka and
Dauterman (1982) induced GSH S-transferases in a strain of house fly
with phenobarbital and several chlorinated hydrocarbon insecticides.
House fly pretreatment with phenobarbital afforded some protection from
toxicosis by several organophosphorus insecticides, thus further empha
sizing the importance of GSH S-transferases in insecticide detoxication.
Epoxide Hydrolases
Epoxide hydrolases are enzymes that hydrate epoxides of certain
arene, alkene and cyclodiene compounds to trans-diols by the inclusion
of water in the molecules (Dauterman 1976; Oesch et al. 1971). Enzyma
tic hydration of epoxides is recognized as an important metabolic
reaction in protecting organisms from potentially hazardous labile
epoxides which are considered carcinogens (Yu 1982, personal communica
tion; Dauterman 1976). I have not found literature articles where
epoxide hydrases contribute significantly to insect resistance; however,
their presence is unquestionably important in the detoxication of
cyclodienes such as dieldrin, enzymatically altered compounds such as
heptachlor epoxide, and other more stable deleterious epoxides.


26
History of Carbaryl Resistance
Carbaryl was introduced to the commercial market in 1956 to control
a variety of insect pest species including those that were highly
resistant to DDT (Harding and Dyar 1970). The first reported cases of
resistance to this compound were against the light brown apple moth in
1963 in New Zealand and in 1966 against the tobacco budworm in the U.S.
(Mount and Oehme 1981).
Since carbaryl controlled important agronomic and urban insects, it
was no surprise when Ku and Bishop (1967) reported that carbaryl resis
tance in a cockroach strain was due to three resistance mechanisms. The
primary mechanism was reduced cuticular penetration while increased
excretion and metabolism contributed significantly to the elevation of
resistance in this strain.
Roulston et al. (1968, 1969) reported insensitive AChE in a Biarra
strain of cattle tick while Schuntner et al. (1972) found increased
metabolism responsible for resistance in a Mackay strain of cattle tick.
Increased oxidative metabolism was found to be responsible for
carbaryl resistance in a resistant cabbage looper strain (Kuhr 1971).
Atallah (1971) selected several strains of Egyptian cotton leafworms
with carbaryl for 15 generations and found a 30-fold increase in resis
tance. Biochemical identification of the resistance mechanism proved to
be increased metabolism and restricted cuticular penetration (Hanna and
Atallah 1971). Atallah (1971) simultaneously selected individuals of
the same leafworm strain used for carbaryl selection with DDT. He found
that DDT resistance developed much more slowly than that of carbaryl.
DDT resistance was 24-fold after 26 generations. This work indicated
multifactorial resistance to carbaryl while DDT resistance was probably
due to a single mechanism.


27
Hama and Iwata (1971) found insensitive AChE responsible for
carbamate resistance, including carbaryl, in a resistant strain of green
rice leafhopper. Hama and Iwata (1978) described the heritability of
resistance in this leafhopper strain as being controlled by an incom
pletely dominant autosomal gene.
Wolfenbarger et al. (1981) reported increases in carbaryl LD,^
values from the American bollworm, Heliothis armgera, from 1969 to 1973
in Thailand as 94 ug/g to 310 ug/g, respectively. Increases of this
magnitude over this period indicate the tremendous insecticidal selec
tion pressure applied to this insect.
Rose and Brindley (1985) showed that a carbaryl resistant Colorado
potato beetle strain from New Jersey was resistant due to an increase in
oxidative metabolism. Potato beetles in the northeastern U.S. are
subjected to tremendous insecticide selection pressures because they
have developed resistance to many of the highly toxic persistent insec
ticides including chlorinated hydrocarbons, organophosphates, and carba
mates .
Fall Armyworm Resistance to Carbaryl
The fall armyworm is a highly mobile phytophagous pest of many
grasses, corn, oats, rye, cotton, garden vegetables, and other succulent
plants (Quaintance 1897). This species migrates from the tropics,
Florida and Gulf coast states (Luginbill 1928; Vickery 1929) as far
north as Canada (Snow and Copeland 1969; Combs and Valerio 1980). In
1979, using diet spray bioassay techniques, Young (1979) found that the
fall armyworm was resistant to carbaryl. Many researchers believe that
wide-spread resistance in this species could prove devastating to
farmers from the tropics to Canada and west to southern California.


MATERIALS AND METHODS
Insects
R Strain
The carbaryl resistant strain of fall armyworm was collected near
Tifton, Georgia, by Dr. J. R. Young. Larvae were reared on a meridic
diet (Burton 1969) Environmental conditions were 27 2 degrees C with
50 5% relative humidity and 16:8 light:dark photoperiod. Moths were
held in a separate environmental chamber whose atmospheric conditions
were 26 2 degrees C, 50 70% relative humidity, and 16:8 light:dark
photoperiod.
S Strain
Eggs of the carbaryl susceptible strain were obtained twice weekly
from the United States Department of Agriculture (USDA), Gainesville,
Florida. Larvae were reared under the same conditions as the R strain;
however, old sixth instar larvae were discarded.
The rearing procedures utilized have been previously described by
Young (personal communication) and Shorey and Hale (1965). Modifica
tions to each were made to accommodate current laboratory conditions.
Moths of the R strain were housed in one-gallon cardboard ice-cream
containers. The lid was removed and fitted with an absorbent paper
towel. The moths were fed a 10% sucrose solution saturated on sterile
cotton in a 4 oz squat cup. Eggs were removed thrice weekly by anesthe
tizing the moths with 12 second bursts of CO^. The moths were
28


29
transferred to a clean container and provided clean towelling and fresh
sucrose solution (10%).
Eggs on paper towelling were sterilized in a 10% formaldehyde
solution, rinsed in tap water and allowed to dry. The paper towelling
was glued to tab lids of 16 oz plastic cups, each containing about Jg
inch of the artificial diet.
Chemicals
14
[ C] carbaryl was purchased from the California Bionuclear Cor-
14
poration, Sun Valley, CA, and [8- C] styrene oxide was purchased from
the Amersham Corporation. All insecticides and chemical reagents were
of the highest purity available commercially. Carbaryl metabolites were
a gift from The Union Carbide Corporation.
Bioassay
The bioassay methods used were as described by Mullins and Pieters
(1982). Twenty 4th instar Spodoptera frugiperda larvae (22 3 mg in
weight) were placed into a four inch glass petri dish. An ISCO Model M
microapplicator was used to treat the larvae topically on the dorsal
prothorax with 1 ul of insecticide diluted with acetone. Controls were
treated with 1 ul of acetone only. After treatment, the larvae were
transferred individually to glass scintillation vials, each containing
about 1 gram of artificial diet. Mortality was recorded 24 and 48 hours
post-treatment with the end point being a completely moribund condition
unresponsive to prodding. Only 48 hour data were used in probit
analysis. All insecticides were tested at a minimum of five dosages, on
at least four different days. Probit analyses were made by a computer
program.
Protein Determinations
The protein content of each preparation, midgut microsomal suspen
sion or crude homogenate was measured by the method of Bradford (1976).


30
A protein reagent was made by adding precisely the ingredients described
by Bradford:
a). Coomassie Brilliant Blue G-250 dye (100 mg)
b). Ethanol-95% (50 ml)
c). Phosphoric acid-85% (100 ml)
This solution was brought to a final volume of 1 liter, stirred, filter
ed twice and used for all assays. A standard curve was made with
multiple determinations of known quantities of bovine serum albumin
(BSA), Fraction V.
A typical mixture included 0.1 ml of 10 ug BSA protein pipetted
into a test tube and 3.0 ml protein reagent added. This mixture was
shaken and incubated at room temperature for a minimum of 2 minutes. A
blank was prepared with 0.1 ml warm 0.1 M sodium phosphate buffer, pH
7.5, plus 3.0 ml protein reagent and handled as above.
A desk top Turner Model (330) single beam spectrophotometer was
used to measure optical densities (O.D.) at 595 nm. Each protein
concentration was replicated 3 times and run on at least 3 different
days. The average O.D. was plotted on graph paper against micrograms of
BSA protein to establish the standard curve.
To determine unknown protein quantities, 0.03 ml protein solution
and 0.07 ml of 0.1 M sodium phosphate buffer, pH 7.5, were added to a
standard test tube. A volume of 3.0 ml protein reagent was added, and
the tube shaken and incubated at room temperature for a minimum of 2
minutes. Optical densities were measured at 595 nm and compared to the
standard curve.
Epoxidation Assay
Aldrin epoxidation was assayed (Fig. 2) by the method of Yu et al.
(1979) and Yu and Terriere (1979). Aldrin epoxidation was assayed with


31
two types of enzyme preparations, crude homogenate and microsomal
fraction. Crude homogenates were uncentrifuged homogenates of fall
armyworm midguts. They were obtained by dissecting larval midguts,
removing the food containing peritrophic membrane and placing the
cleaned guts into ice-cold 1.15% KC1 solution. The clean guts were then
transferred to an ice-cold glass homogenizer tube into which 20.0 ml
ice-cold 0.1 M sodium phosphate buffer, pH 7.5, were added. The guts
were homogenized for about 30 seconds with a motor-driven teflon tissue
grinder. Homogenized guts were filtered through double layer cheese
cloth and used as the enzyme source. Microsomal isolation followed the
above steps except the homogenate was centrifuged in a Beckman L5-50E
ultracentrifuge at 10,000g max at 0 to 4 degrees C for 15 minutes. The
pellet containing mitochondria and cell debris was discarded and the
supernatant filtered through glass wool. The supernatant was recentri
fuged at 105,000g max for 65 minutes. The resulting microsomal pellet
was resuspended in ice-cold 0.1 M sodium phosphate buffer, pH 7.5, to
obtain a protein concentration 1.0 mg/ml and used immediately as the
enzyme source. A typical 5 ml incubation mixture contained 0.1 M sodium
phosphate buffer, pH 7.5, an NADPH generating system (1.8 umoles of
NADP; 18 umoles of glucose-6-phosphate; 1.0 unit of glucose-6-phosphate
dehydrogenase); 250 nmoles of aldrin in 0.1 ml methyl Cellosolve; and
2.0 ml of microsomal suspension (1 mg protein). Mixtures were incubated
in a water bath while being shaken at 30 degrees C in an atmosphere of
air for 15 minutes. Each incubation was duplicated and accompanied by a
blank or control which did not contain microsomes. After 15 minutes,
each reaction was stopped by adding 10 ml hexane and placing the incuba
tion tube on ice. The epoxidation product, dieldrin, was extracted


Fig. 2. The reaction of aldrin with midgut microsomes to produce the epoxide product, dieldrin.


oo
Aldrin epoxidase
Cl C1
U)
U>
Aldrin
Dieldrin


34
from the mixture by slowly shaking it for one hour. Dieldrin formation
was analyzed on a Varian Model 3740 gas chromatograph equipped with an
electron capture detector. The column was 4 ft. X 2 mm i.d. glass,
packed with a 1:1 mixture of 5% DC 11 and 5% QF 1 on 100 to 120 mesh
high performance Chromosorb W (Yu and Terriere 1974; Yu 1982).
Microsomal Biphenyl Hydroxylase Assay
Microsomal biphenyl hydroxylation (Fig. 3) is a mixed-function
oxidase system that plays a major role in the oxidative metabolism of
foreign substances in insects (Yu and Ing 1984). The activity of this
enzyme system in the fall armyworm was determined by the method of Yu
and Ing (1984) which used biphenyl as substrate.
Microsomes were isolated from 25 cleaned guts by homogenizing the
guts in 20 ml ice-cold 0.1 M sodium phosphate buffer, pH 7.5, and
centrifuging as above. The resulting microsomal pellet was resuspended
in ice-cold 0.1 M sodium phosphate buffer, pH 7.5, and used immediately
as the enzyme source. A typical 5.0 ml incubation mixture contained 0.3
ml of an NADPH generating system as mentioned above; 2.6 ml of a 0.1 M
sodium phosphate buffer, pH 7.5; 2.5 mg biphenyl in 0.1 ml methyl
Cellosolve, and 2.0 ml of microsomal suspension (1 mg protein).
Mixtures were incubated in duplicate in a water bath while being shaken
at 30 degrees C in an atmosphere of air for 30 minutes.
The reactions were stopped by adding 5.0 ml ethyl acetate and
placing incubation tubes on ice. The hydroxylated product, 4-hydroxybi-
phenyl, was extracted twice with 5.0 ml of ethyl acetate, each time,
dried over anhydrous sodium sulfate and analyzed by high performance
liquid chromatography (HPLC). Analyses were performed on a Beckman
Series 340 HPLC at 254 nm. The column was an Ultrasphere-Si measuring


Fig. 3
The reaction of biphenyl with microsomes to produce the oxidative metabolite
4-hydroxybiphenyl.


Biphenyl 4-hydroxylase
Biphenyl
4-hydroxybiphenyl


37
25 cm X 4.6 mm i.d. Isopropanol (5%) in hexane was used to elute the
column at a flow rate of 0.75 ml/minutes. Enzymes were denatured by
heat and tested as above to determine non-enzymatic product formation.
Microsomal N-Demethylase Assay
Microsomal N-demethylation of p-Chloro-N-methylaniline (PCMA) (Fig.
4) was carried out by the method of Kupfer and Bruggeman (1966).
Standard curves were obtained by measuring, spectrophotometrically,
known concentrations of p-Chloroaniline (PCA) in an aqueous solution at
445 nm. All assays, whether standard curve determinations or enzyme
activity determinations, consisted of a comparable blank, i.e., the
absence of PCA or the use of heat denatured protein. A Beckman Model
5260 spectrophotometer was used for all N-demethylation assays.
Microsomes were prepared as mentioned earlier and suspended in 0.1
M sodium phosphate buffer, pH 7.5. A 5.0 ml incubation mixture contain
ed 0.3 ml NADPH generating system (1.8 umoles of NADP; 18 umoles of
glucose-6-phosphate, and 0.5 unit of glucose-6-phosphate dehydrogenase);
0.1 ml PCMA (30 umoles in aqueous HC1); 2.6 ml of 0.1 M sodium phosphate
buffer, pH 7.5; and 2.0 ml microsomal preparation (0.5 to 1 mg protein/
ml). The incubation mixture was shaken at 34 degrees C for 20 minutes.
The reaction was stopped with 2.0 ml of a 6% aqueous p-dimethylamino-
benzldehyde and centrifuged for 15 minutes at 10,000 RPM in a refrige
rated Beckman Model JA-21 centrifuge. The incubation tubes were allowed
to reach ambient temperature before being analyzed spectrophotometrically
at 445 nm on a Beckman Model 5260 spectrophotometer. Each incubation
was duplicated and each experiment was repeated three times.
Cytochrome P-450 Measurement
Cytochrome P-450, a carbon monoxide-binding pigment of endoplasmic
reticulum, was determined by the method of Omura and Sato (1964).


Fig. 4
The reaction of p-Chloro-N-methyl aniline with microsomes to produce the demethylated product
p-Chloroaniline.


Microsomal N-Dealkylation
p-Chloro-N-methyl
Aniline
p-Chloro Aniline


40
Midgut microsomes from 20 cleaned guts were homogenized in 20 ml of
ice-cold 0.1 M sodium phosphate buffer, pH 7.5, and centrifuged as
above. The resulting microsomal pellet was resuspended in ice-cold 0.07
M sodium phosphate buffer, pH 7.5, containing 30% glycerol and used
immediately as the enzyme source.
Baseline scans of the microsomal suspension alone were run on a
Beckman Model 5260 uv/vis spectrophotometer equipped with a scattered
transmission accessory at 300 to 500 nm. After recording the baseline,
the sample cuvette was removed and carbon monoxide (CO) was gently
bubbled through the preparation for 1 minute. This sample was reduced
with a few milligrams of sodium dithionite (^2820^) stirred with a
glass rod and again scanned from 300 to 500 nm. Scanning was continued
until a maximum spectrum was obtained. This assay was duplicated and
run on at least 3 different days on both insect strains (Yu 1982b).
Glutathione S-Transferase Assay
Glutathione S-transferases (Fig. 5) are enzymes that catalyze the
conjugation of glutathione (GSH) with many foreign compounds (Chausseaud
1973). Conjugation products are usually water soluble, readily excret-
able substances and their formation generally results in a decrease in
xenobiotic toxicity (Yang 1976).
Glutathione S-transferase activity was measured by the method of Yu
(1982a). Midgut soluble enzyme fractions were used in lieu of the
resuspended microsomal pellet. Twenty cleaned guts were homogenized in
20 ml of ice-cold 0.1 M Tris-HCl buffer, pH 9.0, and filtered through
double layered cheesecloth. The homogenate was centrifuged at 10,000g
max for 15 minutes. The resulting supernatant was filtered through
glass wool and recentrifuged at 105,000g max for 65 minutes. Prior to
decanting the supernatant from the centrifuge tube, all lipids were


Fig. 5
The reaction of 3,4-dichloronitrobenzene with glutathione by the enzyme Glutathione S-
aryltransferase to produce the conjugated product S-(2-chloro-4-nitrophenyl) glutathione.


Glutathione S-aryltransferase
+ GSH
+ h++ cr
3,4-dichloro-
nitrobenzene
S-(2-chloro-4-
nitrophenyl) glutathione


43
removed from the supernatant surface with a medicine dropper and
discarded. The supernatant was then gently poured into a large test
tube so as not to disturb the microsomal pellet and kept on ice for
immediate use. A typical 3.0 ml reaction mixture contained 1.0 ml of 15
mM glutathione and 2.0 ml soluble fraction (2.0 ml 0.1 M Tris-HCl
buffer, pH 9.0, served as blank) was first incubated for 3 minutes at 37
degrees C, after which 0.02 ml 150 mM 1,2-dichloro-4-nitrobenzene (DCNB)
was added and mixed. The change in absorbance at 340 nm for 5.0 minutes
was measured with a Beckman Model 5260 uv/vis spectrophotometer. The
enzyme activity was expressed as nmoles DCNB conjugated per minute per
milligram of protein using an extinction coefficient of 10 mM ^ cm ^ for
S-(2-chloro-4-nitrophenyl) glutathione.
In vitro Carbaryl Metabolism Study
Carbaryl was metabolized Tn vitro by modifications of the methods
of Kuhr and Davis (1975), Ruhr and Hessney (1977), and Yu and Terriere
(1978). Midgut homogenate was prepared, as described earlier, from 2
day-old sixth instar larvae to obtain 4-5 mg protein/ml.
Midgut homogenates of R and S larvae were incubated with carbaryl
in an atmosphere of air for 2 hours at 30 degrees C. The 5.0 ml incuba
tion mixture contained 0.3 ml of an NADPH generating system, as mention
ed above; 0.58 ml of 0.1 M sodium phosphate buffer, pH 7.5; 0.437 ug
14
[ C] carbaryl (100,000 dpm); 10 ug cold carbaryl; 10 mg bovine serum
albumin; 0.05 ml methyl Cellosolve; and 4.0 ml of midgut crude homoge
nates. The NADPH generating system was omitted from some incubations in
order to study nonoxidative metabolism of carbaryl. The incubation
mixture was stopped with 5.0 ml chloroform, and carbaryl and its metabo
lites were extracted by the solvent. The same extraction was repeated
again and the combined extracts were then dried over anhydrous sodium


44
sulfate. Two milliliter aliquots of chloroform were concentrated under
a stream of air to 0.2 ml and spotted on silica gel G thin layer
chromotographic (TLC) plates (0.25 mm). The TLC plates were developed
in a solution of acetic acid:ethyl acetate:benzene (1:10:33 by volume)
and scanned for radioactivity in a Packard Model 7220/21 radiochromato
gram scanner. Individual spots were identified by R^s of previously
chromatographed standard metabolites (see Table 2). Each peak was
scraped from the plates and counted in a Tracor Analytic Data 300 liquid
scintillation counter. The oxidative metabolites were combined due to
poor separation and resolution near the TLC plates' origin.
Epoxide Hydrolase Assay
Epoxide hydrolase (Fig. 6) was assayed by the method of Yu et al.
14
(1984) using [ C] styrene oxide as substrate. Microsomes were prepared
as previously described and suspended in 0.5 M Tris-HCl buffer, pH 9.0,
to make a final concentration of 0.4 mg protein/ml. Heat denatured
enzyme was used as the control to correct for any non-enzymatic glycol
formation.
Screw cap tubes were used to hold the incubation mixture which
14
contained 0.6 ug (100,000 dpm) [ C] styrene oxide, 8.0 ug cold styrene
oxide in 7.0 ul of acetonitrile, and 0.5 ml microsomal suspension. This
mixture was incubated in a shaking water bath at 37 degrees C for 5
minutes. The reactions were stopped by the addition of 10 ml petroleum
ether and the unreacted styrene oxide was extracted by the solvent. The
petroleum ether was readily decanted by freezing the aqueous phase in a
dry ice-acetone mixture. The same extraction was repeated again after
the aqueous phase was thawed. The aqueous solution which contained the
14
polar product, [8- C] styrene glycol, was then shaken with 2 ml ethyl


45
TABLE 2. R values of carbaryl and its metabolites on silica gel G
plates in a developmental solution of acetic acid:ethyl
acetate:benzene (1:10:33 by volume).
Compound
Rf
a-naphthol
0.79
Carbaryl
0.64
5-hydroxy-carbaryl
0.49
4-hydroxy-carbaryl
0.40
Methylol-carbaryl (N-hydroxymethyl)
0.29


Fig. 6.
14
The reaction of [ C] styrene oxide with water and microsomes to produce the water soluble
product, styrene glycol.


Epoxide hydrolase
Styrene oxide
Styrene glycol


48
acetate, and the product in the ethyl acetate was quantified by liquid
scintillation counting.
Esterase Assays
Esterases were assayed by the method of van Asperen (1962) (Fig. 7)
using a-naphthylacetate (a-NA) as substrate. Both midgut microsomes and
crude homogenates were used to perform this assay. A typical 6.0 ml
incubation mixture contained 4.95 ml of 0.04 M sodium phosphate buffer,
pH 7.0; 0.05 ml of a 0.03 M a-NA in acetone, and 1.0 ml of midgut
homogenate or microsomal preparation. To assay for carboxylesterase
-4 -4
activity, eserine (10 M) and p-hydroxymercuribenzoate (PHMB) (10 M)
were added to the incubation mixture to inhibit cholinesterase and
arylesterases, respectively.
This mixture was incubated for 30 minutes at 27 degrees C and the
reaction was stopped by placing each incubation tube on ice and intro
ducing 1.0 ml of diazoblue laurylsulfate solution (DBLS). A red color
developed and quickly changed to a dark blue color. The absorbance of
the reaction product, naphthol-diazoblue, was measured at 600 nm on a
Beckman Model 5260 spectrophotometer against a blank containing no
enzyme. Optical densities of the reaction products were compared to
known quantities of naphthol reacted with DBLS and plotted as a standard
curve.
All incubations were duplicated and each experiment was repeated
twice.
Acetylcholinesterase Assay
Acetylcholinesterase (AChE) (Fig. 8) was assayed by the method of
Ellman et al. (1961) using acetylthiocholine (ATC) as substrate.
Initially fall armyworm adult heads, whole larvae and larval heads were


Fig. 7. The reaction of a-naphthylacetate with esterases to form a-naphthol and acetic acid.


Esterases
o
ii
a-naphthylacetate
oc-naphthol
Ln
O
-I- CH3C00H


Fig. 8.
The reaction of acetylthiocholine with acetylcholinesterase producing thiocholine which
produced a yellow color when combined, in reaction, with 5-dithiobis-2-nitrobenzoic acid.


Acetylcholinesterase
I. (CHJ +NCH.CH.S-
3 3 2 2
acetylthiocholine
2. (CH3)+NCH2CH2S_
thiocholine
(CH3) +NCH2CH2 S-
0
CCH + H,0 sitLafetCH,) +NCHoCH,S_+CH,C00"42H
O c. j j
thiocholine
+ 02 N ^ jj S S
COO" COO"
5-dithiobis 2-nitrobenzoic acid
+ 2N^}^S'
COO"
5-thio-2 nitrobenzoic acid


53
assayed for AChE activity. Whole larvae larval heads showed low acti
vity and were not used. Adult heads contained the highest activity and
were subsequently used in this assay.
Two-day old adults of both R and S strains were frozen and their
heads removed with forceps. The heads were homogenized for 30 seconds
in ice-cold 0.1 M sodium phosphate buffer, pH 8.0, in a glass homoge-
nizer with a teflon pestle attached to a motorized grinder, for 30
seconds. The homogenate was filtered through doubled layered cheese
cloth and used as the enzyme source.
A typical 3.2 ml incubation mixture contained 2.75 ml of 0.1 M
sodium phosphate buffer, pH 8.0; 0.1 ml of 0.01 M 5,5-dithiobis-2-nitro-
benzoic acid (DTNB), 0.1 ml ice-cold 0.075 M acetylthiocholine (ATC);
and 0.2 ml enzyme. The reaction was initiated by adding 0.2 ml enzyme
to the incubation mixture. The blank contained all of the above rea
gents excluding the enzyme. The buffer was increased in the blank to
compensate for the lack of enzyme. The yellow colored reaction product
formation was measured for 5 minutes at 412 nm against the blank which
showed some non-enzymatic ATC hydrolysis.
Cuticular Penetration by Carbaryl
Cuticular penetration of carbaryl was measured by a method modified
from Ku and Bishop (1967). The cuticular penetration was assayed by
14
topically applying [ C] carbaryl to the dorso-prothorax of fall army-
worm larvae. The treated larvae were rinsed with acetone at different
time intervals after treatment. The excreta was extracted directly from
scintillation vials with Scinti-Verse I scintillation cocktail. Carbaryl
that penetrated larval cuticle was extracted by homogenizing whole
larvae at various time intervals and washing the remaining carcasses and


54
utensils with aliquots of acetone. Washes were collected, concentrated,
and radioactivity measured.
In a typical experiment, duplicate groups of 4 larvae each of
2-day-old sixth instar were placed into a glass petri dish. Each larva
14
was treated topically with 1.0 ul acetone containing 0.048 ug [ C]
carbaryl and 0.952 ug cold carbaryl. Those larvae that were assayed at
zero hour were rinsed immediately in three 5.0 ml aliquots of acetone in
3 separate scintillation vials. Those larvae requiring rinses at other
time intervals were treated and placed into separate pre-labelled vials.
Larvae were removed individually from each duplicate vial set at the
designated time interval and rinsed as above. After being rinsed, each
larva was cut into four pieces and placed into a glass homogenizer.
After all larvae had been rinsed, the larval pieces (two larval equiva
lents) were homogenized in 7.0 ml acetone. The pestle was rinsed with
another 5.0 ml acetone and the acetone was filtered into a 250 ml
Erlenmeyer flask. The filter paper (Whatman #1) and the precipitate
were rinsed twice into the same flask. The combined extracts were
concentrated to approximately 5.0 ml under a constant stream of air.
The Erlenmeyer flasks were rinsed 2 times with acetone, and the combined
rinses were concentrated and added to the original extract in the
scintillation vial.
Ten milliliters of Scinti-Verse I scintillation cocktail were added
and radioactivity was counted in a Tracor Analytic Data 300 liquid
scintillation counter.
Statistics
Computerized t- and F-tests were used to compute the significance
of the difference between means and to determine population normality,
respectively. All in vitro data, except carbaryl metabolism, were
analyzed by these methods.


RESULTS
Bioassays
All FAW bioassays were by the methods of Mullins and Pieters
(1982). Carbaryl, parathion, methomyl, diazinon, cypermethrin, and
permethrin were bioassayed initially to determine FAW susceptibility to
different insecticidal classes and to determine cross-resistance if any.
The values (ug/g larva) for each insecticide are shown in Table 3
along with the relative resistance ratios in descending order of suscep
tibility. The resistant strain showed > 90X resistance to carbaryl but
remained susceptible to a related carbamate, methomyl (4.7X). The
resistant strain also showed tolerance to the organophosphates, para
thion (5.8X), and diazinon (2.9X). The R and S fall armyworm strains
showed no tolerance or cross-resistance to the synthetic pyrethroids,
cypermethrin and permethrin.
In Table 4, the toxicological responses are shown for larvae
treated with PB, a known microsomal oxidase inhibitor (Yu, 1982b).
Resistance was reduced to 6X in the R strain when PB was topically
applied in conjunction with carbaryl at a 5:1 ratio. These results
suggest that microsomal oxidases are involved in carbaryl resistance.
The synergized resistance level of the R strain did not approach that of
the susceptible strain, further suggesting that other factors are pos
sibly involved in carbaryl resistance. Also, the LD,_q of the suscep
tible strain was reduced by PB, suggesting that microsomal oxidases play
an important role in the detoxication of carbaryl in this insect strain.
55


56
TABLE 3. Comparison of toxicological responses of R and S fall armyworm
larvae topically treated with 6 insecticides.
Insecticide
g /
LD50 (ug/g Larva)
R S
R/S
Carbaryl
10343b/
115
90
Parathion
14.38
2.46
5.85
Methorny1
4.17
0.98
4.74
Diazinon
19.18
6.50
2.95
Cypermethrin
0.12
0.08
1.50
Permethrin
0.23
0.17
1.35
a/
b/
Each observation consisted of at least two different tests.
Computer estimate


57
TABLE 4. Comparison of toxicological responses of R and S fall armyworm
larvae
topically treated
with carbaryl + PB.
LD50
£ /
(ug/g Larva)
Insecticide
/Synergist
R
S
R/S
Carbaryl
10343b/
115
90
Carbaryl +
Piperonyl
Butoxide
400.43
67
5.98
a/
b/
Each observation consisted of at least two different tests.
Computer estimate


58
These iji vivo results may prove helpful in the discussion of results
found in in vitro detoxication assays. DEF, (S, S, S, tributyl phosphoro-
trithioate), a known esterase inhibitor, was too toxic when applied
alone for esterase comparisons. TOCP (tri-O-creosyl phosphate), another
known esterase inhibitor, had no effect on the LD^ levels in either
strain. These findings indicate that esterases do not play a role in
carbaryl resistance in this FAW strain.
Enzymatic Assays
A. Aldrin Epoxidase
The specific activities of aldrin epoxidase enzyme of various
larval instars are shown in Table 5. Larvae younger than fourth-instar
were not studied because of the difficulty in dissecting the midgut.
The R strain showed significantly higher epoxidase activity than the S
strain across all instars tested. These results support those of Yu
(1984) in that the R strain of fall armyworm possesses a higher level of
microsomal epoxidase activity than does the S strain.
B. Biphenyl Hydroxylase
The results summarized in Table 6 show that the biphenyl 4-hydroxy
lase activity was significantly higher in R larvae. Larvae younger than
4th instar were not examined because of the difficulty in dissecting
midguts. The activity of biphenyl 4-hydroxylase enzyme increased in
both strains from 4th to 2 day-old sixth instar larvae. Three day-old
sixth instar individuals showed a slight decrease in activity thus
confirming results from Yu (1984) that the activity of important detoxi
cation enzymes reached maximum capacity in the second day of the final
instar. High activity begins to decline with the onset of pupation.
Four day old sixth instar larvae were not observed feeding, and were


59
TABLE 5.
Aldrin epoxidase activities of midgut microsomes and homoge
nates from various instars of R and S fall armyworm larvae a
Specific Activity
(pmol dieldrin min mg protein )
Larval
Instar R S
Microsomes
5thb/
483.23
+
1.58Cd/
237.94
+
1.41
5the/
709.35
+
1.22d/
445.67
+
3.17
6the/
694.52
+
3.83d/
475.67
+
3.37
Crude Homogenates
6the/
237.33
+
1.25
171.39
+
1.38
a/
b/
c/
d/
e/
f/
Larvae used in all assays were age synchronized.
Newly molted
Mean SE of at least three experiments, each assayed in duplicate.
Value significantly different (< 0.05) from S strain.
1 day old
2 day old.


61
found to have clear guts and to be preparing cells in the artificial
diet for pupation.
The activities of microsomal biphenyl 4-hydroxylase of all R larval
instars in Table 6 were greater than in the S strain by the following
factors: 4th (3.74X), 5th (1.75X), one day-old 6th (2.09X), two day-old
6th (1.65X), three day-old 6th (1.38X). The activities of all larval
instars in the R strain on a per mg protein basis were statistically
different from the S strain at a probability of P < 0.01 except for
three day old 6th instar which showed a significance probability of P <
0.05.
C. N-demethylase
The activity of microsomal N-demethylase of two- day-old sixth
instar R and S fall armyworm larvae is summarized in Table 7. There are
no differences in activity on a per mg protein basis; however, the S
strain is significantly (P < 0.01) more active on a per midgut basis.
The maximum difference (3.2-fold) was observed in the sixth instar of R
and S larvae.
D. Cytochrome P-450
The results summarized in Table 8 show that there was no signifi
cant difference in the Cytochrome P-450 content between R and S strains,
although the R strain appeared to be consistently higher than the S
strain.
E. Glutathione S-transferase and Epoxide Hydrolase
From Table 9, it can be seen that there was no significant differ
ences in the glutathione S-aryltransferase activity between the R and S
strains. This is also true for the epoxide hydrolase activity (Table
10).


62
TABLE 7.
Microsomal N-demethyl^se activity from sixth-instar R and S
fall armyworm larvae
N-demethylase
Strain
pmol min ^ ^
mg protein
pmol min^
midgut
R
849.38 59.42b/
39.96 2.78
S
883.35 141.62
129.70 25.24c/
3- /
. Larvae used in all assays were age synchronized.
, Mean SE of at least three experiments, each assayed in duplicate.
C Value significantly different (P < 0.01) from R strain.


63
TABLE 8.
Cytochrome P-450 activity from midgut microsomes
instar R and S fall armyworm larvae
of sixth-
Strain
pmol P-450^
mg protein
pmol P-4^0
midgut
R
269.70 12.40b/
17.97 0.10
S
235.30 6.60
11.53 0.31
a/
b/
Larvae used in all assays were age synchronized.
Mean SE of at least three experiments, each assayed in duplicate.


64
TABLE 9. Glutathione S-aryltransferase activity of midgut soluble
enzyme fraction from sixth instar R and S fall armyworm
larvae.3
Specific activity
Strain
(nmol DCNB conjugated min ^ mg protein ^)
R
22.73 0.45b/
S
24.12 0.30
a/
b/
Larvae used in all assays were age synchronized.
Mean SE of at least three experiments, each assayed in duplicate.


65
TABLE 10. Microsomal epoxide hydrolase activity in sixth instar R and
S fall armyworm larvae.
Strain
Epoxid^ Hydrolase ^
(nmol min mg protein )
R
33.92 0.69b/
S
30.63 0.77
a/
b/
Larvae used in all assays were age synchronized.
Mean SE of at least three experiments, each assayed in duplicate.


TABLE 11.
General and carboxyle|terase activities from crude homogenates of sixth instar R and S
fall armyworm larvae.
nmo|-
a-naphthol
nmol a-naphthol
min
mg protein
min
midgut
Strain
General
Carboxyl
General
Carbaryl
esterase
esterase
esterase
esterase
R
920.00 .007b/
202.10 11.13
1540 .001
356.00 22.63
S
1003.5 .02
217.75 18.45
1036.5 22.63
191.00 2.10
a/
b/
Larvae used in all assays were age synchronized.
Mean SE of at least three experiments, each assayed in duplicate.
O'
O'


67
F. Esterase
The activities of general esterases and carboxylyesterase in the R
and S strains are summarized in Table 11. The results show that there
was no significant difference in the general esterase and carboxylester-
ase activities between the R and S strains when midgut crude homogenates
were used as the enzyme source. However, the activity of general
esterases from midgut microsomes are significantly higher in the S
strain compared to the R strain (Table 12).
G. AChE Kinetics
AChE activity was not significantly different bewteen the R and S
strains (Table 13). Studies of AChE enzyme kinetics (Fig. 9) show that
the K values from both the R and S strains are not different toward
m
ATC. Although the maximum reaction velocity (V ) is different (R-V
IT13X ITlclX
= 0.345 nmol min ^ my protein ^; S-V = 0.208 nmol min ng protein ^)
toward the hydrolysis of ATC, their substrate binding affinities, K ,
are the same (K = 38.46). Attempts to obtain an inhibition constant
m
(K_) failed because carbaryl is a poor yet reversible inhibitor of
cholinesterase (Mount and Oehme 1981). Carbamates bind less tightly to
cholinesterase as compared to most organophosphorous insecticides (Mount
and Oehme 1981). At 10 ^ M to 10 ^ M concentrations, the inhibition
rate showed a flat, nonlinear response after 15 minutes of incubation
with carbaryl against moth head homogenate. A linear increase in
-4 -3
carbaryl inhibition from 10 to 10 M concentrations is shown in Fig.
10, thus verifying that high carbaryl molar concentrations are required
to inhibit AChE.
H. In vitro Carbaryl Metabolism
In vitro carbaryl metabolism studies showed that the R strain
produced 5.4X more carbaryl oxidative metabolites than did the S strain


68
TABLE 12. General and Carboxylesterase activities from microsomes of
sixth instar R and S fall armyworm larvae.
Specific
activity
(nmol a-naphthol
. -i Is
mm mg protein )
Strain
General esterase
Carboxylesterase
R
286.20 11.15a/
196.23 0.32
S
477.57 6.88c/
261.73 2.23
a/
b/
c/
Larvae used in all assays were age synchronized.
Mean SE of at least three experiments, each assayed in duplicate.
Value significantly different (P < 0.05) from R strain.


69
TABLE 13. Acetylcholinesterase activity from moth head^ of 1 to 2 day
old mixed population R and S fall armyworms
Specific activity
Strain
(nmol ATC metabolized min ^ mg protein^)
R
339.05 4.93b/
S
253.21 16.73
a/
b/
Larvae used in all assays were age synchronized.
Mean SE of at least three experiments, each assayed in duplicate.


Fig. 9. Lineweaver-Burke plot for the reactions of R and S fall armyworm moth head
acetylcholinesterase with acetylthiocholine. V = product formed (nmol min mg
protein ); [ATC] = substrate concentration (mM).


1/ [ATC]
A RESISTANT
A SUSCEPTIBLE


Fig. 10. Carbaryl inhibition of AChE from heads of R and S fall armyworm adult moths.


INHIBITION
DOSE X (LOG 10 [-6])


TABLE 14. In vitro metabolism of carbaryl by midgut homogenate from R and S fall armyworm larvae
a/
Carbaryl metabolized
(pmol 2 hr ^ mg
protein
Esterase
Microsomal
Oxidases
Strain
Control
TOCP
(10 4 M)
DEE1
(10 4 M)
Control
(10
M)
R
567.45
114.90
2.81 3.67
0
168.72 28.28
13.28
2.86
S
578.53
108.21
200.78 15.01b/ 159
.68 26.73b/
32.73 4.32b/
13.26
2.84
a/
, Larvae used in this assay were 1-3 days old.
Value significantly different (P < 0.01) from the R strain.


75
(Table 14). A 1.76X decrease in oxidative metabolites was seen when
NADPH was not used in an incubation mixture. This suggests that oxida
tion depends on the NADPH cofactor for maximum reaction rate. The
-4 -4
addition of the esterase inhibitors, DEF (10 M) and TOCP (10 M), to
the incubation mixture reduced the esterase activity in the R strain by
99.5% and 100%, respectively. However, these inhibitors caused 65% and
72% reduction in esterase activity in the S strain suggesting that the S
strain has a different form of esterase than the R strain. Similarly,
microsomal oxidases which oxidized carbaryl were more susceptible to Pb
inhibition in the R strain (92%) than in the S strain (59%).
The most significant data in the jin vitro metabolism of carbaryl
are the production of oxidative metabolites. The R strain metabolizes
more carbaryl per unit time than does the S strain, thus confirming that
oxidative metabolism plays a major role in resistance in this strain.
Cuticular Penetration
14
The rate of disappearance of [ C] carbaryl from the exterior
cuticle of sixth instar fall armyworm larvae is shown in Figure 11.
After 24 hours, there remains almost 2X more carbaryl on the exterior
cuticle of R larvae than of S strain. Figure 12 shows that the amount
of carbaryl found internally in both R and S larvae is about the same at
13 and 14%, respectively, of the controls (immediate wash-off) (Fig.
12). Data in Figure 13 show that the S strain excretes more than 2X
more carbaryl than the R strain in 24 hours, however. This suggests
that more carbaryl enters S larvae and more is excreted either as
carbaryl or as carbaryl metabolites while 60% of the applied carbaryl
remains on the cuticle of R larvae.


Fig. 11.
Percent of applied dose of [ C] carbaryl remaining on the cuticle of sixth instar R and
S fall armyworm larvae.


HOURS AFTER TREATMENT


Fig. 12.
Percent of applied [ C] Carbaryl extracted from homogenate of sixth instar R and
armyworm larvae.
fall


[14]-C CARBARYL RECOVERY (DPM)


Fig. 13.
Percent of applied C-Carbaryl recovered from excreta of sixth instar R and S fall armyworm
larvae.


[14]-C CARBARYL RECOVERY (DPM)
O 2 4 a 8 10 12 14 IB IB 20 22 24
& EXCRETA-R
EXCRETA-S
HOURS AFTER TREATMENT


DISCUSSION
The results of this study show that the fall armyworm is resistant
to carbaryl and confirms the findings of Young and McMillian (1979) and
Wood et al. (1981). Young and McMillian (1979) also noted that R-FAW
larvae were resistant to carbaryl biochemically and behaviorally.
According to them, R-FAW larvae avoided carbaryl treated surfaces as
compared to a carbaryl susceptible strain. Lockwood et al. (1984) cited
this type of resistance as stimulus-dependent, i.e. requiring sensory
stimulation to exhibit avoidance in this case, to avoid carbaryl resi
dues. To further demonstrate the complexity of resistance in FAW, Wood
et al. (1981) showed that FAW larvae that fed on previously carbaryl
treated corn and signalgrass were resistant to carbaryl while those that
fed on bermudagrass and millet were susceptible. These data agree with
those of Yu (1984) where he found that midgut microsomes of a carbaryl
resistant strain of FAW were highly induced by the allelochemicals,
indole 3-carbinol and flavone.
In vivo data (Table 4) show that resistance could not be eliminated
entirely by topical treatments of PB-carbaryl. These findings suggest
that microsomal oxidases play a major role in resistance; however, there
are other factors involved in resistance in this strain. Rose and
Brindley (1985) showed that the Colorado potato beetle (CPB) was highly
resistant to carbaryl. The topical treatment of these beetles with
PB-carbaryl did not eliminate the resistance completely. They concluded
that monooxygenases and other resistance mechanisms may be involved in
82


83
CPB resistance to carbaryl and carbofuran. This work agrees with my
findings in FAW.
Results of Jri vitro assays show that the activities of aldrin
epoxidase (Fig. 14) and biphenyl 4-hydroxylase (Fig. 15) are signifi
cantly higher in R-FAW larvae compared to S-FAW over all instars tested.
Higher aldrin epoxidase and biphenyl 4-hydroxylase activities in R-FAW
larvae were also observed by Yu (1984) and Yu and Ing (1984), respec
tively. These data further support ^n vivo findings that MFO enzymes
play a major role in resistance in this strain.
In vitro metabolism of carbaryl in the R strain showed a 5-fold
increase in oxidative metabolite production over the S strain (Table
14). The fact that differential inhibitions of carbaryl oxidation by PB
were observed between R and S strains suggests that the MFO enzymes from
the R strain were qualitatively different from the S strain. Kuhr
(1971) and Kuhr and Davis (1975) identified carbaryl metabolites pro
duced by midgut homogenates of R and S cabbage looper and European corn
borer strains. They found that the oxidative metabolite, hydroxymethyl
carbaryl, was the major metabolite produced iri vivo and jin vitro.
Shrivastava et al. (1969) suggested that hydroxylation of substituted-
aryl methylcarbamate toxicants contributed significantly to the develop
ment of resistance in a house fly strain. These findings are in agree
ment with my observations from the fall armyworm.
In the present study, carbaryl metabolites produced Jai vitro were
not identified; however, those carbaryl metabolites that were found by
other researchers (Price and Kuhr 1969; Camp and Arthur 1967; Andrawes
and Dorough 1967; Kuhr 1970) were chromatographed by TLC and R^s were
recorded (Table 2). These R^s were used to isolate carbaryl radiocarbons


Fig. 14. Aldrin epoxidase activities of midgut microsomes from various instars of R and S fall
armyworm larvae.


Full Text
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 EXRYB12UF_0NLHLO INGEST_TIME 2011-10-03T14:46:11Z PACKAGE AA00004879_00001
AGREEMENT_INFO ACCOUNT UF PROJECT UFDC
FILES



MECHANISMS OF CARBARYL RESISTANCE IN THE FALL ARMYWORM
Spodoptera frugiperda
BY
ELZIE McCORD, JR.
A DISSERTATION PRESENTED TO THE GRADUATE SCHOOL
OF THE UNIVERSITY OF FLORIDA IN
PARTIAL FULFILLMENT OF THE REQUIREMENTS
FOR THE DEGREE OF DOCTOR OF PHILOSOPHY
UNIVERSITY OF FLORIDA
1985

I Elzie McCord, Jr., dedicate this dissertation to:
o my family, Pinkie W., wife, Rogers Christopher and
Timothy Ryan, sons, for their continued support,
understanding and companionship, and
o Ms. Lue Vester Davis for being an ideal role model,
for forfeiting her one free hour during the school
day to teach a select few of us the slide rule, basic
and advanced algebra and trigonometry, for coercing
parents to impress upon their children the importance
of performing well in school and for inspiring my
career in the biological sciences.

ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS
Since it is nearly impossible to thank everyone who has contributed
to the success of my career, this research and the preparation of this
manuscript, I will attempt to mention those who have contributed the
most without diminishing the roles of those not named here.
I wish to thank the following people:
o My parents, Pearlence C. and Elzie, Sr., for their continued
encouragement and support in my pursuit of personal goals and for
guiding me in a direction that made goal selection possible,
o Dr. S. H. Kerr, for supporting me throughout my pre- and post¬
graduate studies at the University of Florida,
o Dr. Simon S. J. Yu for allowing me the opportunity to study and
work with him under somewhat accelerated conditions; for providing
encouragement, constructive criticism, and assistance in performing
the complex biochemical processes for which he is highly regarded,
and for his belief in me and my abilities to accomplish the program
described herein,
o Drs. J. L. Nation, J. R. Strayer, D. L. Shankland, and R. B.
Shireman for quality educationsl instructions, for serving on my
supervisory committee and for reviewing this manuscript,
o Mr. and Mrs. Siegfried J. Schulze, Mr. Willie Foresto, Ms. Alice
Foresto and Mr. Lutz Schulze for being such wonderful neighbors who
took care of my family while I completed the research herein,
o Dr. J. R. Young, USDA, Agricultural Research Center, Tifton,
Georgia, for inspiring this research project and for providing me
with the resistant fall armyworm strain,
iii

o Drs. A. B. Meade, K. S. Amuti, Der-I Wang, T. M. Priester, Ms.
Babirette Babineaux, Ms. C. N. Selz, Mr. Matthew McGirr and others
who have contributed moral support, ideas, constructive criticisms,
drawings, computer wizardry, etc.,
o The Agricultural Chemicals Department of the E. I. Du Pont de
Nemours & Company, Drs. Dale Wolf, K. A. Saegebarth, G. D. Hill, H.
M. Loux, J. W. Searcy, E. J. Soboczenski and others who assisted in
my leave of absence request and those who approved the granting of
that request,
o Mr. Philip N. Chaney and Mr. J. L. Jenkins for being the true
friends I always wanted and needed,
o Mrs. Jo Ann Ledford and Mrs. Glinda Burnett for their continued
friendship and assistance since 1973, and
o Last but not least, my wife Pinkie W. and my sons Rogers
Christopher and Timothy Ryan for enduring the hardships of daily
activities without me for 18 months, for tolerating my absence
while in Florida and while I was locked away in my home office.
iv

TABLE OF CONTENTS
Page
ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS iii
LIST OF TABLES viii
LIST OF FIGURES x
LIST OF ABBREVIATIONS xii
ABSTRACT xiv
INTRODUCTION 1
LITERATURE REVIEW 4
Status of Resistance 4
Genetics of Resistance 6
Resistance Mechanisms 9
Reduced Penetration 9
Altered Site Insensitivity II
Increased Detoxication 14
Cytochrome P-450 Monooxygenases 17
Hydrolases 21
A. Phosphotriester Hydrolysis 22
B. Arylester Hydrolysis 22
C. Carboxylester Hydrolysis 22
Glutathione S-transferases 24
Epoxide Hydrolases 25
History of Carbaryl Resistance 26
Fall Armyworm Resistance to Carbaryl 27
v

MATERIALS AND METHODS
28
Insects 28
R Strain 28
S Strain 28
Chemicals 29
Bioassay 29
Protein Determinations 29
Epoxidation Assay 30
Microsomal Biphenyl Hydroxylase Assay 34
Microsomal N-Demethylase Assay 37
Cytochrome P-450 Measurements 37
Glutathione S-Transferase Assay 40
In vitro Carbaryl Metabolism Study 43
Epoxide Hydrolase Assay 44
Esterase Assays 48
Acetylcholinesterase Assay 48
Cuticular Penetration by Carbaryl 51
Statistics 54
RESULTS 55
Bioassays 55
Enzymatic Assays 58
A. Aldrin Epoxidase 58
B. Biphenyl Hydroxylase 58
C. N-demethylase 61
D. Cytochrome P-450 61
E. Glutathione S-transferase and Epoxide Hydrolase . 61
F. Esterase 67
vi

G. AChE Kinetics
67
H. In vitro Carbaryl Metabolism 67
Cuticular Penetration 75
DISCUSSION 82
LITERATURE CITED 92
BIOGRAPHICAL SKETCH 103
vii

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
LIST OF TABLES
Page
The primary action of MFO systems on specific chemical
configurations found in xenobiotic molecules 19
Rj. values of carbaryl and its metabolites on silica gel
G plates in a developmental solution of acetic acid:
ethyl acetaterbenzene (1:10:33 by volume) 45
Comparison of toxicological responses of R and S fall
armyworm larvae topically treated with 6 insecticides . 56
Comparison of toxicological responses of R and S fall
armyworm larvae topically treated with carbaryl + PB . . 57
Aldrin epoxidase activities of midgut microsomes and
homogenates from various instars of R and S fall
armyworm larvae 59
Microsomal biphenyl 4-hydroxylase activity in various
instars of R and S fall armyworm larvae 60
Microsomal N-demethylase activity from sixth-instar R
and S fall armyworm larvae 62
Cytochrome P-450 activity from midgut microsomes of
sixth-instar R and S fall armyworm larvae 63
Glutathione S-aryltransferase activity of midgut soluble
enzyme fraction from sixth-instar R and S fall armyworm
larvae 64
Microsomal epoxide hydrolase activity in sixth-instar R
and S fall armyworm larvae 65
General and carboxylesterase activities from crude homo¬
genates of sixth-instar R and S fall armyworm larvae • . 66
General and carboxylesterase activities from microsomes
of sixth-instar R and S fall armyworm larvae 68
Acetylcholinesterase activity from moth heads of 1 to 2
day old mixed population R and S fall armyworms .... 69
viii

14
In vitro metabolism of carbary1 by midgut homogenate
from R and S fall armyworm larvae
74

LIST OF FIGURES
Page
Metabolism of lipophilic foreign compounds 16
The reaction of aldrin with midgut microsomes to produce
the epoxide product, dieldrin 33
The reaction of biphenyl with microsomes to produce the
oxidative metabolite 4-hydroxybiphenyl 36
The reaction of p-Chloro-N-methyl aniline with microsomes
to produce the demethylated product p-Chloroaniline • . 39
The reaction of 3,4-dichloronitrobenzene with glutathione
-S-aryltransferase to produce the conjugated product S—(2—
Chloro-4-nitrophenyl) glutathione 42
14
The reaction of [ C] styrene oxide with water and
microsomes to produce the water soluble product, styrene
glycol 47
The reaction of a-naphthylacetate with esterases to form
a-naphthol and acetic acid 50
The reactions of acetylthiocholine with acetylcholin¬
esterase producing thiocholine which produces a yellow
color when combined, in reaction, with 5-dithiobis-2-
nitrobenzoic acid 52
Lineweaver-Burke plot for the reaction of R and S fall
armyworm moth head acetylcholinesterase with acety^thio-
choline V = product formed (nmol min mg protein );
[ATC] = substrate concentration (mM)
71
Carbaryl inhibition of AChE from heads of R and S fall
armyworm adult moths 73
14
Percent of applied dose of [ C] carbaryl remaining on
the cuticle of sixth-instar R and S fall armyworm
larvae 77
14
Percent of applied [ C] carbaryl extracted from homoge¬
nate of sixth-instar R and S fall armyworm larvae ... 79
14
Percent of applied [ C] carbaryl recovered from excreta
of sixth-instar R and S fall armyworm larvae
81

14 Aldrin epoxidase activities of midgut microsomes from
various instars of R and S fall armyworm larvae .... 85
15 Microsomal biphenyl 4-hydroxylase activities from various
instars of R and S fall armyworm larvae 87
16 Metabolic pathways of carbaryl 90

LIST OF ABBREVIATIONS
AChE
Acetylcholinesterase enzyme
ATC
Acetylthiocholine
BHC
Benzene hexachloride (See HCH)
BSA
Bouine serum albumin
CPB
Colorado potato beetle
DBLS
Diazoblue laurylsulfate
DCNB
1,2-dichloro-4-nitrobenzene
DDT
p,p' dichloro-diphenyl trichloroethane
DEF
S,S,S-tributyl phosphorotrithioate
DFP-ase
Phosphotriester hydrolase
DMC
bis-(p-chlorophenyl) methyl carbinol
DTNB
5,5-dithiobis-2-nitrobenzoic acid
FAW
Fall armyworm
GSH
Glutathione
HCH
Hexachlorohexane (see BHC)
HC1
Hydrochloric acid
HPLC
High performance liquid chromatography
IBP
S-benzyl 0,0-disopropyl phosphorothioate
Kdr
Knockdown resistance
K.
i
Inhibition constant
K
m
Binding affinity
MFO
Microsomal mixed-function oxidase
a-NA
a-naphthylacetate
B-NA
8-naphthylacetate
xii

NADPH
Nicotinamide adenine dinucleotide phosphate
O.D.
Optical density
OP
Organophosphate insecticide
p-NPA
p-Nitrophenyl acetate
PB
Piperonyl butoxide
PCA
p-chloroaniline
PCMA
p-chloro-N-methylaniline
PCMB
p-chloromercuribenzoate
PDAB
p-dimethylaminobenzaldehyde
PHMB
p-hydroxymercuribenzoate
R
Resistant insect strain
R-AChE
Acetylcholinesterase enzyme from resistant strain
R-V
max
Maximum reaction velocity of resistant strain
S
Susceptible insect strain
S-AChE
Acetylcholinesterase enzyme from susceptible strain
S-V
max
Maximum reaction velocity of susceptible strain
TLC
Thin layer chromatography
TOCP
Tri-creosyl phosphate
TPP
Triphenyl phosphate
USDA
United States Department of Agriculture
V
max
Maximum reaction velocity
WHO
World Health Organization
xiii

Abstract of Dissertation Presented to the Graduate School
of the University of Florida in Partial Fulfillment
of the Requirements for the Degree of
Doctor of Philosophy
MECHANISMS OF CARBARYL RESISTANCE IN THE FALL ARMYWORM,
Spodoptera frugiperda
By
Elzie McCord, Jr.
August, 1985
Chairman: Dr. S. J. Yu
Major Department: Entomology and Nematology
Mechanisms of resistance to carbaryl were investigated in larvae of
the fall armyworm, Spodoptera frugiperda (J. E. Smith). Piperonyl
butoxide greatly reduced the resistance ratio from > 90-fold to 6-fold
suggesting the involvement of microsomal cytochrome P-450-dependent
monooxygenases. In vitro metabolic studies revealed that oxidative
metabolism of carbaryl by midgut microsomes was 5 times more active in
the resistant strain compared to the susceptible strain. In addition,
activities of midgut microsomal epoxidase and hydroxylase were signifi¬
cantly higher during the larval stage in the resistant strain than in
the susceptible strain.
14
Cuticular penetration studies using [ C] carbaryl showed that 60%
of the applied radioactivity remained on the cuticle of resistant larvae
while 32% remained on susceptible larvae 24 hr after topical treatment.
There was no difference in the amount of radioactivity found internally
in the two strains. Susceptible larvae, however, excreted 4 times more
xiv

radioactivity than resistant larvae. It is concluded that enhanced
oxidative metabolism of carbaryl plays an important role in the carbaryl
resistance. Slower penetration of carbaryl in the resistant armyworm
may be a minor factor contributing to resistance.
xv

INTRODUCTION
Resistance has been defined as "the developed ability in a strain
of insect to tolerate doses of toxicants which would prove lethal to the
majority of individuals in a normal population of the same species"
(Anonymous 1957). It is preadaptive in nature, representing a selection
of genes already present in the population. As susceptible individuals
are killed from the selected population, resistant individuals breed and
pass resistance genes to their progeny. The continued use of the same
or similar insecticides increases the selection pressure on the popula¬
tion and causes resistance expression in the majority of the individuals
in that population. Georghiou and Mellon (1983) reported that a total
of 428 insect and acariña species were resistant to one or more
insecticide classes including those commonly used today. These insecti¬
cide classes include DDT-analogues, cyclodiene/BHC, organophosphates
(OP's), carbamates, insect growth regulators, pyrethrins and the newer
synthetic pyrethroids (Priester 1979; Wolfenbarger et al. 1981; Sparks
1980; Bull 1981; Brown 1981).
Insect resistance to insecticides can be divided into two types,
behavioral resistance and physiological resistance. Recent evidence
shows that both types of resistance often coexist in resistant individ¬
uals (Lockwood et al. 1984). Behavioral resistance is mostly stimulus
dependent, requiring sensory stimulation to achieve avoidance. Insects
with behavioral resistance are more sensitive and are able to respond to
lower concentrations of insecticides than are susceptible insects.
1

2
There are three main types of physiological resistance, namely, in¬
creased detoxication, reduced penetration, and target site insensitivity.
Increased insecticide metabolism by specific detoxication enzymes
was found to confer carbamate, organophosphate and/or chlorinated
hydrocarbon resistance in numerous species of insects (Hughes 1982; Yu
and Terriere 1979; Motoyama et al. 1980; Kuhr 1970; Kao et al. 1984;
Devonshire and Moores 1982; Clark et al. 1984; Rose and Sparks 1984;
Plapp 1970; Wool et al. 1982).
Reduced penetration as a resistance mechanism was reported in
several insect species (Eldefrawi and Hoskins 1961; Ku and Bishop 1967;
Hanna and Atallah 1971; Ahmad et al. 1980; Ariaratnam and Georghiou
1975; Patil and Guthrie 1979; Sinchaisri et al. 1978).
Target site insensitivity, including insensitive acetylcholines¬
terase as a resistance mechanism was reported in several insect species
(Roulston et al. 1968 and 1969; Iwata and Hama 1972; Hama and Iwata 1971
and 1978; Devonshire 1975; Yamaoto et al. 1977; DeVries and Georghiou
1981a and 1981b; Yeoh et al. 1981; Devonshire and Moores 1984).
Carbaryl (1-Naphthyl-N-methylcarbamate), a reversible cholinester¬
ase inhibitor, is an agricultural pesticide used in the control of over
150 major pests (Mount and Oehme 1981). Carbaryl is safe to mammals,
having an acute oral LD,_q greater than 500 mg/kg body weight in rats
(Mount and Oehme 1981; Terriere 1982). It is short lived in the
environment. However, its high toxicity to honey bees has restricted
its use on some highly pollinator dependent crop plants, and has limited
its time of application on others. The apparent success of carbaryl
since its introduction in 1956 has been due to its reliability of
control, safety to humans and wildlife, and the array of insects con¬
trolled.

3
The fall armyworm, Spodoptera fruglperda (J. E. Smith), is a vora¬
cious phytophagous insect pest of the southeastern U.S. and the tropics
(Luginbill 1928; Vickery 1929). The fall armyworm (FAW) damages many
crop plants by feeding on leaves and fruit, often consuming the entire
leaf, except the mid-rib, or producing holes in the leaves (Vickery
1929) as a result of sporadic feeding.
Young and McMillian (1979) reported that FAW had become resistant
to carbaryl insecticide but remained susceptible to a related carbamate
insecticide, methomyl. FAW resistance to the organophosphates, tri-
chlorfon, diazinon, methyl parathion and parathion was reported by Bass
(1978).
It is important to study the mechanisms of resistance in order to
better understand how to slow down or lessen the severity of widespread
insect resistance to insecticides. The research reported here was
designed to investigate resistance mechanisms in a field collected
resistant strain of FAW.
Specific objectives were to determine the following:
1. The susceptibility of the field collected strain to related
carbamates, organophosphorous and synthetic pyrethroid insecticides as
compared to a susceptible laboratory strain.
2. The activities of various detoxication enzymes in the resistant
and susceptible strains.
3. The differences in the rate of cuticular penetration of car¬
baryl in both strains.

LITERATURE REVIEW
Status of Resistance
Insect resistance to insecticides has been known since the early
1900s. Melander reported San Jose scale resistance to lime-sulfur in
1914 and Quayle reported resistance in the California red scale to
cyanide in 1916 (O'Brien 1967; Forgash 1984). Since these early
reports, resistance has been reported in organisms other than insects
such as bacteria, sporozoa and mammals (Georghiou and Mellon 1983).
Nowhere has the impact of organisms expressing resistance been as great
as with insects. Georghiou and Mellon (1983) reported, conservatively,
428 known insect and acariña species world-wide that have developed
resistance. Georghiou (1980) emphasized that the number of resistant
insect species is not as staggering as the number of chemicals that many
insect strains can now tolerate and the increased geographical distribu¬
tion of resistant insect populations.
The wide distribution of resistant species suggests a common
phenomenon called cross-resistance which allows one organism to become
resistant to insecticides of the same and different classes due to the
same resistant mechanism (Oppenoorth and Welling 1976). Priester (1979)
reported cross-resistance in Culex quinquefasciatus Say to synthetic
pyrethroids with implication of prior DDT exposure. Scott et al. (1983)
reported cross-resistance in six predatory mite strains to permethrin
that also had previous exposure to DDT, azinphosmethyl, parathion and
carbaryl.
4

5
Resistance that is related to previous exposure suggests a genetic
change that influences massive physiological and biochemical changes in
an organism. Plapp (1984, p. 194) states that "it is becoming apparent
that changes at only a few loci are responsible for resistance to many
insecticides. That is, the genetic basis for resistance is relatively
simple. This is why cross-resistance to insecticides is such a severe
problem. Selection for resistance to a specific chemical often confers
resistance not only to the selecting agent, but sometimes to all insec¬
ticides having the same mode of action and other times to virtually all
chemicals metabolized by one or more of the major detoxification enzyme
systems".
Wolfenbarger et al. (1981) reported geographical locations of
resistant Heliothis zea (Boddie) , H. virescens (F.), 11. armígera (Hubner)
and H. puntigera (Wallengren) in Mexico, Central America, South America,
Australia, Africa and Asia. Wolfenbarger's survey included countries or
continents where each species was indigenous. Sparks (1981) emphasized
the severity and importance of resistant Heliothis zea (Boddie) and H.
virescens (F.) in North America, concluding that these species are two
of the most serious agricultural pests. Bull (1981) noted that _H.
virescens (F.) had become resistant to many of the older chlorinated
hydrocarbon and organophosphorus insecticides and apparently has some
cross tolerance to certain of the new synthetic pyrethroids and organo¬
phosphorus insecticides recently developed for its control.
Graham-Bryce (1983) concluded that increases in resistance to
conventional pesticides require investigation of novel chemical ap¬
proaches to crop protection. He suggested the investigation of

6
unexploited target sites, the modification of chemical properties of
pesticides to increase mobility and availability, the exploration of
novel formulations, and the investigation of chemical compounds that
suppress chemically mediated processes rather than functioning by direct
toxic action. The approaches suggested by Graham-Bryce (1983) would
serve to slow down resistance, produce selective compounds, reduce
mammalian toxicity and afford control comparable to more toxic, environ¬
mentally persistent compounds now in use.
Genetics of Resistance
The World Health Organization's (WHO) definition of resistance
denotes resistance as a property of a population and not the result of
alterations within individual insects (Oppenoorth and Welling 1976). It
is the individual insect that possesses the preadaptive ability to
withstand higher than normal toxic doses of pesticides. Resistance is
assumed to be preadaptive arising through recurrent mutation of existing
alleles (Sawicki and Denholm 1984). Mutations of genes can be monogenic
or polygenic, and those terms are synonymous with mono- and multifac¬
torial, respectively, meaning resistance is under the control of one or
several genes. It is not known which mutation will occur under which
insecticidal pressure for a given insecticide. However, Oppenoorth and
Welling (1976) predict monogenic resistance will occur if a single gene
can confer high resistance in an organism. Polygenic resistance is less
likely to occur, but may occur in organisms exposed to the selecting
agent over long periods of time.
Genetics offer a valuable tool in analysis of resistance (Oppen¬
oorth and Welling 1976). Genetics can aid the separation of different
resistance mechanisms that occur simultaneously in a strain. Also
continuous environmental selection can provide researchers with rare

7
mutants that without genetic analysis would not be detected (Oppenoorth
1965).
To use genetics as a tool, researchers have developed various
cytogenic techniques whereby marker genes can be located on chromosomes,
and these chromosomes mapped to determine specific location of alleles
on those chromosomes. Priester (1979) used genetic crosses of Culex
quinquéfasciatus Say to study inheritance of pyrethroid resistance to
isomers of permethrin. Farnham (1973) isolated four genetic resistance
factors from the house fly, Musca domestica (L.), to natural pyrethrins
and resmethrin. Priester (1979) and Farnham (1973) used bioassay
technique to determine the presence or absence of expected resistance
genes acquired during crossings.
Farnham (1973) found that the resistance genes carried no markers.
He replaced the marked autosomes of a quadruple susceptible strain with
unmarked resistance genes in an attempt to associate visible phenotypic
characters with resistant characteristics. By crossing and back-cross¬
ing progeny from both fly strains, he developed four strains which were
visibly distinct and which conferred resistance factors specific for
penetration, kdr (knockdown resistance), natural pyrethrin resistance
and resistance to synergized pyrethrins. These genes were located on
chromosomes 3, 3, 5, and 2, respectively.
Predecessors of the above techniques were performed soon after the
discovery of organic insecticide resistance. Lovell and Kearns (1959)
selected house flies, Musca domestica (L.), with DDT and DMC (bis-(p-
chlorophenyl) methyl carbinol). The amount of DDT-ase present in the
fly strain selected with DDT alone was much less than in those selected
with DDT and DMC. Subsequent back crosses provided initial clues that

8
DDT resistance may be governed by a single partially dominant gene which
behaved according to simple Mendelian principles.
Georghiou et al. (1961) and Georghiou (1962) selected laboratory
house flies with various carbamates and tried to reverse resistance with
piperonyl butoxide (PB). They concluded that some unknown factor in the
fly was insensitive to PB because resistance could not be eliminated
entirely. They also recognized that factors other than those inhibited
by PB played a major role in carbamate resistance in highly resistant
fly strains.
Plapp and Hoyer (1968a), investigating resistance in the mosquito
Culex tarsalis Coquillet and the house fly, found that a kdr gene for
DDT resistance also conferred resistance to DDT analogues and pyrethrins
+ PB. By crossing groups of individuals in both species and using
discriminating insecticidal doses to isolate the desirable genotypes,
Plapp and Hoyer relocated unmarked genes in individuals with phenotypic
marker. No metabolic differences were found in the Resistant (R) or
Susceptible (S) strain of the mosquito or house fly that could explain
the high degree of resistance found to DDT and pyrethrin. This experi¬
ment showed that resistance could occur without the presence of high
levels of detoxication enzymes and pointed toward some insensitive
resistance mechanism.
Plapp and Casida (1969) reported that genes on autosome 2 and 5 in
two house fly strains, controlled the tissue level of NADPH (reduced
nicotinamide adenine dinucleotide phosphate). NADPH levels were
controlled genetically to confer resistance to chlorinated hydrocarbon,
pyrethroid, organophosphate, and methyl carbamate insecticides.

9
Plapp (1970) used back crosses of two carbamate resistant house fly
strains to demonstrate resistance inheritance. By isolating heterozygo¬
tes with Isolan and carbaryl, Plapp distinguished resistant flies
phenotypically and chemically. Isolated genes were located on chromo¬
some 2; however, genes on chromosome 3 and 5 contributed insignificantly.
Resistance Mechanisms
The mechanisms of pesticide resistance are classified into two
categories; behavioral and physiological. Behavioral resistance is
defined as those actions that have evolved as the result of pesticide
selection which aid the organism in avoiding toxicosis (Lockwood et al.
1984). Insects that are behaviorally resistant usually avoid pesticide
residues and treated surfaces either by direct stimulation or host
and/or habitat selection.
Physiological resistance is categorized as follows: I. Physical or
restricted cuticular penetration, II. Increased enzymatic detoxication,
and III. Altered site or reduced sensitivity of a physiological endoge¬
nous target (Busvine 1971; Devonshire 1973; Plapp 1976; Oppenoorth and
Welling 1976; Oppenoorth 1984; Hodgson and Motoyama 1984).
Reduced Penetration
Early researchers investigating the rate at which insecticides
penetrated the cuticle of various insects (Eldefrawi and Hoskins 1961;
Plapp and Hoyer 1968b; Ku and Bishop 1967; Camp and Arthur 1967; Hanna
and Atallah 1971; Ahmad et al. 1980) correlated that rate with the rate
of internal metabolism. Resistance attributed to the rate of penetra¬
tion produced a comparable rate of metabolism except in those species
that were deemed highly resistant (Ku and Bishop 1967). Busvine (1971)

10
reported on work of other researchers who tried to explain resistance by
this route. Several researchers measured cuticle thickness in R and
S insect strains while others measured the protein and lipid content in
the cuticle of R and S insect strains (Oppenoorth and Welling 1976).
Patil and Guthrie (1979) altered the lipid composition of house fly
cuticle by feeding artificial diets with and without DL-carnitine and
2-dimethylaminoethanol. House flies with abnormally high cuticular
phospholipids did not always show a decrease in insecticide absorption.
Strain and insecticide differences showed trends toward reduced penetra¬
tion, thus, partially supporting the theory that a gene for penetration
resistance can alter the cuticular composition to slow the rate of
insecticide moving into organisms. Generally, the slower penetration
rate allows the usually slow metabolic detoxication process to protect
the organism from toxicosis.
Busvine (1971) also cited one case where excessive peritrophic
membrane development accounted for the rapid excretion of DDT in a
mosquito strain. Ariaratnam and Georghiou (1975) reported slight, but
not statistically significant differences in rates of metabolism in R
and S strains of Anopheles albimanus Wiedemann to carbaryl. They
concluded that high resistance in this mosquito strain was yet uniden¬
tified but alluded to reduced penetration as the probable cause.
DeVries and Georghiou (1981b) found decreased cuticular penetration as
one of the resistance mechanisms in a permethrin selected strain of
house fly. Devonshire (1973) showed that the gene for house fly pene¬
tration resistance was located on chromosome 3.
Sinchaisri et al. (1978) reported cuticular penetration as a
possible mechanism of resistance in Leucania separata Walker to methyl

11
parathion, fenithrothion, diazinon, and phenthoate because each chemical
showed variable rates of penetration. They concluded that penetrability
can be influenced by solubility, lipophilicity and hydrophilicity of a
compound, thus accounting for the variability in penetration rates in
this insect strain. Oppenoorth and Welling (1976) also agreed that the
effectiveness of the penetration gene is dependent on the nature of the
insecticide and its avenue of administration.
Altered Site Insensitivity
Altered site insensitivity varies among organisms and between
pesticides. Altered site insensitivity can take the form of
o Less sensitive AChE to inhibition by carbamate and OP Compounds
(Oppenoorth 1984).
o Kdr (knockdown resistance), where the immediate immobility of an
organism treated with DDT or pyrethroids does not occur. This
phenomenon was first observed in the house fly (Oppenoorth and
Welling 1976) and has subsequently been found in the cattle tick
(Busvine 1971) .
o Target site change. Evidence of HCH and dieldrin (cyclodienes)
resistance in several mosquito, house fly and bed bug strains
suggests target site change because no differences in metabolism
or cuticular penetration was found between R and S strains
(Oppenoorth 1965; Oppenoorth and Welling 1976).
The nervous system is an integral part of an organism thus making
it a suitable target for alteration, inhibition or direct poisoning.
The nervous system of both vertebrates and invertebrates is the most
exploited target site for natural poisons and the majority of organic

12
insecticides (carbamates, organophosphates and chlorinated hydrocarbons)
(Shankland 1976).
There is a multitude of papers describing the function of this
chemically mediated cholinergic system. Also, recent reviews employing
electrophysiological techniques for measuring electrical impulses and
the effects of substrates on axonal sodium channels have been published
(Shankland 1976; Edwards 1980; Laufer et al. 1984). In view of the
above published works, description and operations of the nervous system
will not be described here.
It is general knowledge that carbamate and organophosphorus
insecticides exert their toxic action on the nervous system by
inhibiting acetylcholinesterase (AChE) (Oppenoorth and Welling 1976;
Hodgson and Motoyama 1984) . Kinetic studies have shown that AChE of
some R species is less sensitive to inhibition than their S counterparts
(Hodgson and Motoyama 1984; Plapp 1976; Oppenoorth 1984) indicating an
alteration or site change (Oppenoorth and Welling 1976; Busvine 1971).
Site changes or alterations can occur quantitatively or qualita¬
tively, i.e., more sites of action or less sensitive sites (Oppenoorth
1984). Site alterations have only been found in AChE. The first
evidence of altered AChE was found in the red spider mite, Tetranychus
urticae Koch, by Smissaret in 1964 (Plapp 1976; Busvine 1971; Oppenoorth
and Welling 1976; Oppenoorth 1984). Other mite strains showing altered
AChE had slight changes in an imidazole residue relative to the serine
hydroxyl necessary for acetylcholine hydrolysis (Plapp 1976).

13
Roulston et al. (1969) showed that the R-AChE of a Biarra strain of
cattle tick, Boophilus microplus (Canestrini), was less sensitive to
inhibition by organophosphate and carbamate insecticides than a was
susceptible strain. R-AChE of the Biarra tick strain also showed 60%
less activity toward acetylthiocholine than did the susceptible strain
suggesting that their enzymes were different. Hama and Iwata (1971 and
1978) and Yamamoto et al. (1977) found that a strain of green rice
leafhopper, Nephotettix cinctipes Uhler, was resistant to organophos-
phates and selected carbamates by insensitive AChE. Hama and Iwata
concluded that insensitive AChE was controlled genetically by an incom¬
pletely dominant autosome.
Devonshire and Moores (1984) showed that differences in R-AChE from
house flies were unusual in having a greater affinity for acetylthio¬
choline converse to previous works where R-AChE showed less affinity for
ATC. They concluded that AChE should be partially protected from
inhibitors by substrates present in the synapse, even if the enzyme was
not also intrinsically insensitive to inhibition.
Biochemical differences in R and S AChE of the house fly was
described by Devonshire (1975). The R and S enzymes showed no differ¬
ences electrophoretically when applied on the surface of polyacrylamide
gels with a surfactant. In the absence of the surfactant, R-AChE
produced two distinct electrophoretic bands indicating heterogeny or
isozymic forms but acted as one enzyme In vitro. R-AChE showed slower
organophosphate inhibition than the S-AChE in this house fly strain.
Altered AChE has been predominantly found in mosquitoes, house
flies, planthoppers, ticks and several mite strains (Voss 1980). Voss
(1980) found that a related armyworm species, Spodoptera littoralis

14
Boisduval, was resistant by this mechanism. These findings indicate
that lepidopterous larvae that are exposed to heavy selection pressures
from various insecticidal classes possess the capability of altered AChE
resistance.
Oppenoorth et al. (1977) found house fly R-AChE in combination with
other metabolic detoxication mechanisms providing resistance to paraoxon
and tetrachlorvinphos. DeVries and Georghiou (1981a, 1981b) found that
decreased nerve sensitivity to permethrin combined with reduced
cuticular penetration provided resistance in another house fly strain.
AChE inhibition and axonal sodium channel interference by pesti¬
cides can selectively produce organisms that are resistant. Also
important are the new techniques available for determining effects on
these insect systems by extrapolations from giant axons of crayfish or
squids.
Increased Detoxication
A compound which is biologically active by virtue of interactions
with biochemical systems such as enzymes and membranes will be vulnerable
to attack by other enzymes in the same cells and tissues (Terriere
1982). "Attack" denotes metabolism of the compound. Metabolism gener¬
ally results in detoxication and subsequent elimination of the metabo¬
lized compound from the organism's system. The original function of the
MFO system is assumed to be that of metabolizing toxic allelochemicals
(Dowd et al. 1983) and to a lesser extent, juvenile hormones (Yu and
Terriere 1975) followed by juvenile hormone analogues (Yu and Terriere
1978). A typical metabolic scheme indicative of most lipophilic insec¬
ticides is shown in Figure 1. This scheme was derived from the many
studies of insecticide metabolism in various organisms.

Figure 1. Metabolism of lipophilic foreign compounds.

16
LIPOPHILIC
.> HYDROPHILIC
Drugs
Insecticides
Other Foreign
Compounds
Figure 1. Metabolism of lipophilic foreign compounds.

17
Most of the more active insecticides are non-polar, lipophilic, fat
soluble compounds which readily penetrate insect cuticle and gut walls.
Non-polar compounds are usually insoluble in water; therefore, they are
difficult to excrete without some biochemical modifications. However,
some insects have developed the ability of rapidly excreting intact
unchanged toxic molecules (Devonshire 1973; Matthews 1980; Ivie et al.
1983). Insects that possess this ability are considered highly resis¬
tant by virtue of rapid elimination.
Metabolism of lipophilic compounds may follow primary and/or
secondary pathways, (Fig. 1) (Wilkinson and Brattsten 1972). Primary
metabolism of lipophilic compounds takes the form of oxidation, reduc¬
tion, group transfer, or hydrolysis. Some primary products are bio¬
transformed into hydrophilic, water soluble products and are readily
excreted. Those primary products that are not readily excretable are
biotransformed into secondary products which are conjugated either with
sugars, amino acids, phosphates, sulfates, glutathione or other endogen¬
ous conjugative compounds and excreted (Wilkinson 1983; Terriere 1982;
Hollingworth 1976).
Cytochrome P-450 Mono-oxygenases
The most important oxidase enzymes are found in the endoplasmic
reticulum membranes of cells. Cells which contain the most abundant
oxidase enzymes are species specific. That is to say some organisms
show higher oxidative activity from preparations of the midgut (Krieger
and Wilkinson 1969; Yu and Ing 1984), fatbodies (Ruhr 1971; Price and
Ruhr 1969; Brattsten et al. 1980), and less activity in preparations
from malpighian tubules, fore- and hindgut, and the whole body (Rrieger
and Wilkinson 1969; Yu 1982b).

18
Fragmented endoplasmic reticulum membranes are called microsomes
and are the results of tissue grinding or homogenation. The oxidase
enzymes associated with microsomes are termed microsomal oxidases (Yu
1983a), mixed-function oxidases (MFO), or cytochrome P-450-dependent
mono-oxygenases.
The MFO system accomplishes its functions by inserting one atom of
molecular oxygen into a xenobiotic and combining the other oxygen atom
with hydrogens from NADPH to form water (H^O). Wilkinson (1983)
depicted a generalized reaction for this procedure:
RH + 02 + NADPH + H+ > ROH + HO + NADP+
RH represents the lipophilic toxicant.
ROH represents the hydrophilic metabolite.
In the above reaction, electrons flow from NADPH + H and a flavo-
protein, cytochrome P-450 reductase (Terriere 1982) to an enzyme known
as cytochrome P-450. Cytochrome P-450 binds to the xenobiotic (RH) and
to oxygen (0^) resulting in the splitting of molecular oxygen, inserting
one atom in the xenobiotic (ROH) and combining the other with hydrogens
from NADPH + H+ to form water.
MFO actions on xenobiotics including insecticides are listed in
Table 1, which was derived from Terriere (1982) and Yu (1982, personal
communications).
The diversity of compounds attacked by MFO is shown to some extent
in Table 1. The wide tissue distribution of MFO systems in insects
demonstrates the ubiquitous nature of this important enzyme system.
Increases in the rate of deactivation (detoxication) of toxic molecules
can demonstrate the evolution of a resistance mechanism, particularly if

19
Table 1. The primary action of MFO systems on specific chemical
configurations found in xenobiotic molecules.
Reaction
Chemical
Reaction
Consequence*
Type
Configuration
Products
0
/\
Epoxidation
-C=C-
-C C-
Activation
Sulfoxidation
i
o
i
CO
1
c_>
1
-c-s-c-
II
Activation
II
0
s
0
II
II
Phosphorothioate
>p-
>p-
Activation
Oxidation
CH„
H
/ 3
/
N-Dealkylation
-N
-N
Deactivation
\
\
H
O-Dealkylation
-0-CH3
-C-OH
Deactivation
Hydroxylation
-C-H
-C-OH
Deactivation
* Activation means the metabolite is more toxic than the parent compound
deactivation means the metabolite is less toxic than the parent
compound.

20
that rate is high enough to protect the organism from toxicosis.
Indeed, this phenomenon occurs widely in the insect world. Insecticides
detoxified by increased oxidation include DDT, carbamates, organophos-
phates and pyrethroids (Devonshire 1973).
Increased MFO deactivation of diazinon and diazoxon in a resistant
house fly strain compared to a susceptible strain was demonstrated by
Yang et al. (1971). Kuhr (1971) found increased fatbody MFO responsible
for resistance in a cabbage looper strain to carbaryl. Feyereisen
(1983) found high oxidative metabolism in a resistant house fly strain
when measuring NADPH:cytochrome C reductase, cytochrome P-450 and aldrin
and heptachlor epoxidase systems.
Multiple forms of cytochrome P-450 have been credited for the
ability of insects to metabolize almost any foreign compound (Wilkinson
1983). Yu and Terriere (1979) found different forms of cytochrome P-450
in resistant and susceptible house fly strains. The resistant strain
showed absorbance maxima lower than that found in the susceptible strain
which resembled the high spin hemoprotein type cytochrome found in
mammals. Terriere et al. (1975) used temperature, pH, ionic buffer
strength and spectral data to determine microsomal oxidase differences
in several R and S house fly strains. They found that a WHO standard
reference strain showed abnormalities in the oxidase enzyme system and
concluded that this strain may not be suitable as a reference strain.
Also, this work suggested the presence of multiple forms of cytochrome
P-450 as described by Yu and Terriere (1979).
Moldenke et al. (1984) isolated two forms of cytochrome P-450 from
a house fly strain with different absorbance maxima and aldrin epoxidase
activities. O-demethylase activity was detectable in one cytochrome
P-450 fraction and not the other.

21
The MFO system is even more flexible in the metabolism of various
chemical compounds. The induction of MFO systems provides this flexi¬
bility (Brattsten et al. 1977). Yu et al. (1979) and Berry et al.
(1980) showed that peppermint plant leaves induced microsomal oxidases
and cytochrome P-450 in the variegated cutworm. Brattsten et al. (1980)
showed that epoxidation, N-demethylation and cytochrome P-450 reductase
could be induced with phenobarbital either in midgut or fat body prep¬
arations from the southern armyworm. Yu and Ing (1984) demonstrated
that another oxidase, fall armyworm microsomal hydroxylase, was induced
by allelochemicals, drugs and host plants. Wood et al. (1981) and
Farnsworth et al. (1981) showed that certain host plants could increase
the tolerance in the fall armyworm and cabbage and alfalfa loopers
when fed host plants that induced microsomal oxidases.
MFO induction appears to be age dependent. Yu (1982b, 1983a)
showed that MFO in young fall armyworm larvae were less inducible than
in older larvae. MFO induction also appears to be host plant and insect
specific. Brattsten et al. (1984) showed that certain monoterpenes
isolated from carrots induced MFO in the southern armyworm.
The significance of induction to the survival of an organism is yet
unclear (Busvine 1971; Oppenoorth and Welling 1976; Wilkinson 1983);
however, Perry et al. (1971) viewed chemical induction as a possible
enhancement to the development of insect resistance.
Hydrolases
Hydrolases are those enzymes that catalyze the cleavage of mole¬
cules with water thus producing an acid and a leaving group, usually an
alcohol or an amide. These include the esterases, phosphotases and
amidases (Temiere 1982). Each group contains several different kinds

22
of hydrolases. Oppenoorth and Welling (1976) and Dauterman (1976)
emphasized the importance of hydrolase attack on ester groups of many
insecticides such as organophosphates, carbamates and pyrethroids but
stated that the effects on organophosphates are most important in
resistance.
A. Phosphotriester Hydrolysis
Phosphotriester hydrolase has been named DFP-ase, paraoxonase,
A-esterase, phosphorylphosphatase, aryl esterase, phosphatase, etc.
(Dauterman 1983). This enzyme or enzyme complex catalyzes the hydro¬
lysis of organophosphate insecticides to produce phosphorus containing
molecules that are poor cholinesterase inhibitors and are generally
water soluble (Dauterman 1976, 1983).
B. Arylester Hydrolysis
Arylester hydrolases are implicated in the detoxication of aryl
esters of organophosphorus compounds such as parathion or paraoxon
(Dauterman 1976). Ahmad and Forgash (1976) described arylester hydro¬
lases as 1) preferentially reacting with phenolic esters, 2) being
inhibited by PCMB (parachloromercuribenzoate), 3) being activated by
Ca^+, and 4) readily hydrolyzing organophosphate compounds.
C. Carboxylester Hydrolysis
Carboxylesterases are known to catalyze the hydrolysis of aliphatic
and aromatic carboxyl esters (Dauterman 1976; Ahmad and Forgash 1976) in
many insecticides and is responsible for resistance. The hydrolysis of
malathion by carboxylesterases produces malathion acid(s) and an
alcohol(s). Zettler (1974) found that the carboxylesterase titre in a
malathion resistant Indian meal moth strain was greater than in that of
a susceptible strain. He also concluded that this strain of Indian meal

23
moth was resistant only to malathion and not other organophosphate
compounds. Devonshire and Moores (1982) characterized carboxylesterase
from the peach-potato aphid and found that the enzyme had broad sub¬
strate specificity thus contributing to organophosphate, carbamate and
possibly pyrethroid resistance.
Motoyama et al. (1980) described a house fly strain that had multi¬
ple resistant mechanisms responsible for organophosphorus resistance.
They concluded that a carboxylesterase from the nuclei, the mitochondria
and the microsomal fraction was predominantly responsible for malathion
resistance in this fly strain. Kao et al. (1984) selected two suscep¬
tible house fly strains with malathion and found that carboxylesterase
activities and values were significantly increased after treating
only three generations. Carboxylesterases were credited for rapid
development of resistance to malathion in this house fly strain.
Hemingway and Georghiou (1984) found a mosquito strain resistant to
organophosphorus insecticides by increased levels of esterase enzymes.
They were able to reverse resistance below the susceptible level by
treating the larvae with known esterase inhibitors, IBP (S-benzyl
0,0-diisopropyl phosphorothioate), DEF (S,S,S-tributyl phosphorotrithi-
oate) and TPP (triphenyl phosphate), thus partially confirming the
resistance mechanism.
Recent studies of synthetic pyrethroid resistance have shown that
hydrolases are responsible for flucythrinate, decamethrin, and fenva-
lerate resistance in an Egyptian cotton leafworm strain (Riskallah
1983). Resistance to another synthetic pyrethroid, permethrin, was
found in a predatory mite strain by Scott et al. (1983). Several mite
strains were investigated that had a prior exposure to DDT, azinphos-

24
methyl, carbaryl, and permethrin. In all cases, resistance was due to
either a kdr type resistance or to increased ester hydrolysis. Hydro¬
lase activity is generally measured with one of these commonly used
substrates, a-naphthyl acetate (a-NA), 3-naphthyl acetate (3-NA) and/or
p-nitrophenyl acetate (p-NPA). Comparison of hydrolase activities of
susceptible and resistant insects is a good measure of hydrolase resis¬
tance.
Glutathione S-transferases
Glutathione S-transferases are enzymes that catalyze the conjuga¬
tion of glutathione (GSH) with many foreign compounds (Chasseaud 1973).
Chasseaud (1973) and Dauterman (1983) explained the two main roles of
GSH S-transferase as the conjugation of potentially harmful electro¬
philes with the nucleophile, GSH, thus protecting cell nucleophilic
centers which occur in proteins and nucleic acids. Secondly, GSH
provides an avenue for excretion of the potentially harmful electrophile
through the formation of anionic, water-soluble products. GSH S-trans¬
ferases catalyzes two type of reactions, the conjugations of GSH with
epoxides and unsaturated compounds and the substitution of GSH with
alkyl and aryl halides (Dauterman 1983) .
There are many such transferases as described by Ahmad and Forgash
(1976). These authors listed all known transferases requiring GSH in
the metabolism of insecticides. GSH S-transferases act directly on the
insecticide without the need for hydroxylation by MFO.
Usui and Fukami (1977) found two transferases from cockroach fat
bodies active on diazinon and three transferases active on methyl
parathion. Wool et al. (1982) correlated high GSH S-transferase levels
with resistance to malathion in a flour beetle strain. Motoyama et al.
(1980) determined that resistance in a house fly strain was in part due

25
to elevated levels of GSH S-transferase. Oppenoorth et al. (1977) found
GSH S-transferase levels in a resistant house fly strain 9 to 120-fold
more than a susceptible strain to methyl parathion, parathion, methyl
paraoxon and paraoxon.
GSH S-transferases are known to be induced by allelochemicals (Yu
1982a) and insecticides. Xanthotoxin, an allelochemical from parsnip,
induced GSH S-transferase by 39-fold in an insecticide resistant and
susceptible strain of fall armyworm (Yu 1984). Permethrin, a synthetic
pyrethroid, induced GSH S-transferase 296% of the control when fed to
groups of adult honey bees for two days (Yu et al. 1984). Hayaoka and
Dauterman (1982) induced GSH S-transferases in a strain of house fly
with phenobarbital and several chlorinated hydrocarbon insecticides.
House fly pretreatment with phenobarbital afforded some protection from
toxicosis by several organophosphorus insecticides, thus further empha¬
sizing the importance of GSH S-transferases in insecticide detoxication.
Epoxide Hydrolases
Epoxide hydrolases are enzymes that hydrate epoxides of certain
arene, alkene and cyclodiene compounds to trans-diols by the inclusion
of water in the molecules (Dauterman 1976; Oesch et al. 1971). Enzyma¬
tic hydration of epoxides is recognized as an important metabolic
reaction in protecting organisms from potentially hazardous labile
epoxides which are considered carcinogens (Yu 1982, personal communica¬
tion; Dauterman 1976). I have not found literature articles where
epoxide hydrases contribute significantly to insect resistance; however,
their presence is unquestionably important in the detoxication of
cyclodienes such as dieldrin, enzymatically altered compounds such as
heptachlor epoxide, and other more stable deleterious epoxides.

26
History of Carbaryl Resistance
Carbaryl was introduced to the commercial market in 1956 to control
a variety of insect pest species including those that were highly
resistant to DDT (Harding and Dyar 1970). The first reported cases of
resistance to this compound were against the light brown apple moth in
1963 in New Zealand and in 1966 against the tobacco budworm in the U.S.
(Mount and Oehme 1981).
Since carbaryl controlled important agronomic and urban insects, it
was no surprise when Ku and Bishop (1967) reported that carbaryl resis¬
tance in a cockroach strain was due to three resistance mechanisms. The
primary mechanism was reduced cuticular penetration while increased
excretion and metabolism contributed significantly to the elevation of
resistance in this strain.
Roulston et al. (1968, 1969) reported insensitive AChE in a Biarra
strain of cattle tick while Schuntner et al. (1972) found increased
metabolism responsible for resistance in a Mackay strain of cattle tick.
Increased oxidative metabolism was found to be responsible for
carbaryl resistance in a resistant cabbage looper strain (Kuhr 1971).
Atallah (1971) selected several strains of Egyptian cotton leafworms
with carbaryl for 15 generations and found a 30-fold increase in resis¬
tance. Biochemical identification of the resistance mechanism proved to
be increased metabolism and restricted cuticular penetration (Hanna and
Atallah 1971). Atallah (1971) simultaneously selected individuals of
the same leafworm strain used for carbaryl selection with DDT. He found
that DDT resistance developed much more slowly than that of carbaryl.
DDT resistance was 24-fold after 26 generations. This work indicated
multifactorial resistance to carbaryl while DDT resistance was probably
due to a single mechanism.

27
Hama and Iwata (1971) found insensitive AChE responsible for
carbamate resistance, including carbaryl, in a resistant strain of green
rice leafhopper. Hama and Iwata (1978) described the heritability of
resistance in this leafhopper strain as being controlled by an incom¬
pletely dominant autosomal gene.
Wolfenbarger et al. (1981) reported increases in carbaryl LD^
values from the American bollworm, Heliothis armígera, from 1969 to 1973
in Thailand as 94 ug/g to 310 ug/g, respectively. Increases of this
magnitude over this period indicate the tremendous insecticidal selec¬
tion pressure applied to this insect.
Rose and Brindley (1985) showed that a carbaryl resistant Colorado
potato beetle strain from New Jersey was resistant due to an increase in
oxidative metabolism. Potato beetles in the northeastern U.S. are
subjected to tremendous insecticide selection pressures because they
have developed resistance to many of the highly toxic persistent insec¬
ticides including chlorinated hydrocarbons, organophosphates, and carba¬
mates .
Fall Armyworm Resistance to Carbaryl
The fall armyworm is a highly mobile phytophagous pest of many
grasses, corn, oats, rye, cotton, garden vegetables, and other succulent
plants (Quaintance 1897). This species migrates from the tropics,
Florida and Gulf coast states (Luginbill 1928; Vickery 1929) as far
north as Canada (Snow and Copeland 1969; Combs and Valerio 1980). In
1979, using diet spray bioassay techniques, Young (1979) found that the
fall armyworm was resistant to carbaryl. Many researchers believe that
wide-spread resistance in this species could prove devastating to
farmers from the tropics to Canada and west to southern California.

MATERIALS AND METHODS
Insects
R Strain
The carbaryl resistant strain of fall armyworm was collected near
Tifton, Georgia, by Dr. J. R. Young. Larvae were reared on a meridic
diet (Burton 1969) . Environmental conditions were 27 ± 2 degrees C with
50 ± 5% relative humidity and 16:8 light:dark photoperiod. Moths were
held in a separate environmental chamber whose atmospheric conditions
were 26 ± 2 degrees C, 50 - 70% relative humidity, and 16:8 light:dark
photoperiod.
S Strain
Eggs of the carbaryl susceptible strain were obtained twice weekly
from the United States Department of Agriculture (USDA), Gainesville,
Florida. Larvae were reared under the same conditions as the R strain;
however, old sixth instar larvae were discarded.
The rearing procedures utilized have been previously described by
Young (personal communication) and Shorey and Hale (1965). Modifica¬
tions to each were made to accommodate current laboratory conditions.
Moths of the R strain were housed in one-gallon cardboard ice-cream
containers. The lid was removed and fitted with an absorbent paper
towel. The moths were fed a 10% sucrose solution saturated on sterile
cotton in a 4 oz squat cup. Eggs were removed thrice weekly by anesthe¬
tizing the moths with 12 second bursts of CO^. The moths were
28

29
transferred to a clean container and provided clean towelling and fresh
sucrose solution (10%).
Eggs on paper towelling were sterilized in a 10% formaldehyde
solution, rinsed in tap water and allowed to dry. The paper towelling
was glued to tab lids of 16 oz plastic cups, each containing about Jg
inch of the artificial diet.
Chemicals
14
[ C] carbaryl was purchased from the California Bionuclear Cor-
14
poration, Sun Valley, CA, and [8- C] styrene oxide was purchased from
the Amersham Corporation. All insecticides and chemical reagents were
of the highest purity available commercially. Carbaryl metabolites were
a gift from The Union Carbide Corporation.
Bioassay
The bioassay methods used were as described by Mullins and Pieters
(1982). Twenty 4th instar Spodoptera frugiperda larvae (22 ± 3 mg in
weight) were placed into a four inch glass petri dish. An ISCO Model M
microapplicator was used to treat the larvae topically on the dorsal
prothorax with 1 ul of insecticide diluted with acetone. Controls were
treated with 1 ul of acetone only. After treatment, the larvae were
transferred individually to glass scintillation vials, each containing
about 1 gram of artificial diet. Mortality was recorded 24 and 48 hours
post-treatment with the end point being a completely moribund condition
unresponsive to prodding. Only 48 hour data were used in probit
analysis. All insecticides were tested at a minimum of five dosages, on
at least four different days. Probit analyses were made by a computer
program.
Protein Determinations
The protein content of each preparation, midgut microsomal suspen¬
sion or crude homogenate was measured by the method of Bradford (1976).

30
A protein reagent was made by adding precisely the ingredients described
by Bradford:
a). Coomassie Brilliant Blue G-250 dye (100 mg)
b). Ethanol-95% (50 ml)
c). Phosphoric acid-85% (100 ml)
This solution was brought to a final volume of 1 liter, stirred, filter¬
ed twice and used for all assays. A standard curve was made with
multiple determinations of known quantities of bovine serum albumin
(BSA), Fraction V.
A typical mixture included 0.1 ml of 10 ug BSA protein pipetted
into a test tube and 3.0 ml protein reagent added. This mixture was
shaken and incubated at room temperature for a minimum of 2 minutes. A
blank was prepared with 0.1 ml warm 0.1 M sodium phosphate buffer, pH
7.5, plus 3.0 ml protein reagent and handled as above.
A desk top Turner Model (330) single beam spectrophotometer was
used to measure optical densities (O.D.) at 595 nm. Each protein
concentration was replicated 3 times and run on at least 3 different
days. The average O.D. was plotted on graph paper against micrograms of
BSA protein to establish the standard curve.
To determine unknown protein quantities, 0.03 ml protein solution
and 0.07 ml of 0.1 M sodium phosphate buffer, pH 7.5, were added to a
standard test tube. A volume of 3.0 ml protein reagent was added, and
the tube shaken and incubated at room temperature for a minimum of 2
minutes. Optical densities were measured at 595 nm and compared to the
standard curve.
Epoxidation Assay
Aldrin epoxidation was assayed (Fig. 2) by the method of Yu et al.
(1979) and Yu and Terriere (1979). Aldrin epoxidation was assayed with

31
two types of enzyme preparations, crude homogenate and microsomal
fraction. Crude homogenates were uncentrifuged homogenates of fall
armyworm midguts. They were obtained by dissecting larval midguts,
removing the food containing peritrophic membrane and placing the
cleaned guts into ice-cold 1.15% KC1 solution. The clean guts were then
transferred to an ice-cold glass homogenizer tube into which 20.0 ml
ice-cold 0.1 M sodium phosphate buffer, pH 7.5, were added. The guts
were homogenized for about 30 seconds with a motor-driven teflon tissue
grinder. Homogenized guts were filtered through double layer cheese¬
cloth and used as the enzyme source. Microsomal isolation followed the
above steps except the homogenate was centrifuged in a Beckman L5-50E
ultracentrifuge at 10,000g max at 0 to 4 degrees C for 15 minutes. The
pellet containing mitochondria and cell debris was discarded and the
supernatant filtered through glass wool. The supernatant was recentri¬
fuged at 105,000g max for 65 minutes. The resulting microsomal pellet
was resuspended in ice-cold 0.1 M sodium phosphate buffer, pH 7.5, to
obtain a protein concentration 1.0 mg/ml and used immediately as the
enzyme source. A typical 5 ml incubation mixture contained 0.1 M sodium
phosphate buffer, pH 7.5, an NADPH generating system (1.8 umoles of
NADP; 18 umoles of glucose-6-phosphate; 1.0 unit of glucose-6-phosphate
dehydrogenase); 250 nmoles of aldrin in 0.1 ml methyl Cellosolve; and
2.0 ml of microsomal suspension (1 mg protein). Mixtures were incubated
in a water bath while being shaken at 30 degrees C in an atmosphere of
air for 15 minutes. Each incubation was duplicated and accompanied by a
blank or control which did not contain microsomes. After 15 minutes,
each reaction was stopped by adding 10 ml hexane and placing the incuba¬
tion tube on ice. The epoxidation product, dieldrin, was extracted

Fig. 2. The reaction of aldrin with midgut microsomes to produce the epoxide product, dieldrin.

oo
Aldrin epoxidase
Cl C1
U)
U>
Aldrin
Dieldrin

34
from the mixture by slowly shaking it for one hour. Dieldrin formation
was analyzed on a Varian Model 3740 gas chromatograph equipped with an
electron capture detector. The column was 4 ft. X 2 mm i.d. glass,
packed with a 1:1 mixture of 5% DC 11 and 5% QF 1 on 100 to 120 mesh
high performance Chromosorb W (Yu and Terriere 1974; Yu 1982).
Microsomal Biphenyl Hydroxylase Assay
Microsomal biphenyl hydroxylation (Fig. 3) is a mixed-function
oxidase system that plays a major role in the oxidative metabolism of
foreign substances in insects (Yu and Ing 1984). The activity of this
enzyme system in the fall armyworm was determined by the method of Yu
and Ing (1984) which used biphenyl as substrate.
Microsomes were isolated from 25 cleaned guts by homogenizing the
guts in 20 ml ice-cold 0.1 M sodium phosphate buffer, pH 7.5, and
centrifuging as above. The resulting microsomal pellet was resuspended
in ice-cold 0.1 M sodium phosphate buffer, pH 7.5, and used immediately
as the enzyme source. A typical 5.0 ml incubation mixture contained 0.3
ml of an NADPH generating system as mentioned above; 2.6 ml of a 0.1 M
sodium phosphate buffer, pH 7.5; 2.5 mg biphenyl in 0.1 ml methyl
Cellosolve, and 2.0 ml of microsomal suspension (1 mg protein).
Mixtures were incubated in duplicate in a water bath while being shaken
at 30 degrees C in an atmosphere of air for 30 minutes.
The reactions were stopped by adding 5.0 ml ethyl acetate and
placing incubation tubes on ice. The hydroxylated product, 4-hydroxybi-
phenyl, was extracted twice with 5.0 ml of ethyl acetate, each time,
dried over anhydrous sodium sulfate and analyzed by high performance
liquid chromatography (HPLC). Analyses were performed on a Beckman
Series 340 HPLC at 254 nm. The column was an Ultrasphere-Si measuring

Fig. 3
The reaction of biphenyl with microsomes to produce the oxidative metabolite
4-hydroxybiphenyl.

Biphenyl 4-hydroxylase
Biphenyl
4-hydroxybiphenyl

37
25 cm X 4.6 mm i.d. Isopropanol (5%) in hexane was used to elute the
column at a flow rate of 0.75 ml/minutes. Enzymes were denatured by
heat and tested as above to determine non-enzymatic product formation.
Microsomal N-Demethylase Assay
Microsomal N-demethylation of p-Chloro-N-methylaniline (PCMA) (Fig.
4) was carried out by the method of Kupfer and Bruggeman (1966).
Standard curves were obtained by measuring, spectrophotometrically,
known concentrations of p-Chloroaniline (PCA) in an aqueous solution at
445 nm. All assays, whether standard curve determinations or enzyme
activity determinations, consisted of a comparable blank, i.e., the
absence of PCA or the use of heat denatured protein. A Beckman Model
5260 spectrophotometer was used for all N-demethylation assays.
Microsomes were prepared as mentioned earlier and suspended in 0.1
M sodium phosphate buffer, pH 7.5. A 5.0 ml incubation mixture contain¬
ed 0.3 ml NADPH generating system (1.8 umoles of NADP; 18 umoles of
glucose-6-phosphate, and 0.5 unit of glucose-6-phosphate dehydrogenase);
0.1 ml PCMA (30 umoles in aqueous HC1); 2.6 ml of 0.1 M sodium phosphate
buffer, pH 7.5; and 2.0 ml microsomal preparation (0.5 to 1 mg protein/
ml). The incubation mixture was shaken at 34 degrees C for 20 minutes.
The reaction was stopped with 2.0 ml of a 6% aqueous p-dimethylamino-
benzldehyde and centrifuged for 15 minutes at 10,000 RPM in a refrige¬
rated Beckman Model JA-21 centrifuge. The incubation tubes were allowed
to reach ambient temperature before being analyzed spectrophotometrically
at 445 nm on a Beckman Model 5260 spectrophotometer. Each incubation
was duplicated and each experiment was repeated three times.
Cytochrome P-450 Measurement
Cytochrome P-450, a carbon monoxide-binding pigment of endoplasmic
reticulum, was determined by the method of Omura and Sato (1964).

Fig. 4
The reaction of p-Chloro-N-methyl aniline with microsomes to produce the demethylated product
p-Chloroaniline.

Microsomal N-Dealkylation
p-Chloro-N-methyl
Aniline
p-Chloro Aniline

40
Midgut microsomes from 20 cleaned guts were homogenized in 20 ml of
ice-cold 0.1 M sodium phosphate buffer, pH 7.5, and centrifuged as
above. The resulting microsomal pellet was resuspended in ice-cold 0.07
M sodium phosphate buffer, pH 7.5, containing 30% glycerol and used
immediately as the enzyme source.
Baseline scans of the microsomal suspension alone were run on a
Beckman Model 5260 uv/vis spectrophotometer equipped with a scattered
transmission accessory at 300 to 500 nm. After recording the baseline,
the sample cuvette was removed and carbon monoxide (CO) was gently
bubbled through the preparation for 1 minute. This sample was reduced
with a few milligrams of sodium dithionite (^2820^) , stirred with a
glass rod and again scanned from 300 to 500 nm. Scanning was continued
until a maximum spectrum was obtained. This assay was duplicated and
run on at least 3 different days on both insect strains (Yu 1982b).
Glutathione S-Transferase Assay
Glutathione S-transferases (Fig. 5) are enzymes that catalyze the
conjugation of glutathione (GSH) with many foreign compounds (Chausseaud
1973). Conjugation products are usually water soluble, readily excret-
able substances and their formation generally results in a decrease in
xenobiotic toxicity (Yang 1976).
Glutathione S-transferase activity was measured by the method of Yu
(1982a). Midgut soluble enzyme fractions were used in lieu of the
resuspended microsomal pellet. Twenty cleaned guts were homogenized in
20 ml of ice-cold 0.1 M Tris-HCl buffer, pH 9.0, and filtered through
double layered cheesecloth. The homogenate was centrifuged at 10,000g
max for 15 minutes. The resulting supernatant was filtered through
glass wool and recentrifuged at 105,000g max for 65 minutes. Prior to
decanting the supernatant from the centrifuge tube, all lipids were

Fig. 5
The reaction of 3,4-dichloronitrobenzene with glutathione by the enzyme Glutathione S-
aryltransferase to produce the conjugated product S-(2-chloro-4-nitrophenyl) glutathione.

Glutathione S-aryltransferase
+ GSH
+ h++ cr
3,4-dichloro-
nitrobenzene
S-(2-chloro-4-
nitrophenyl) glutathione

43
removed from the supernatant surface with a medicine dropper and
discarded. The supernatant was then gently poured into a large test
tube so as not to disturb the microsomal pellet and kept on ice for
immediate use. A typical 3.0 ml reaction mixture contained 1.0 ml of 15
mM glutathione and 2.0 ml soluble fraction (2.0 ml 0.1 M Tris-HCl
buffer, pH 9.0, served as blank) was first incubated for 3 minutes at 37
degrees C, after which 0.02 ml 150 mM 1,2-dichloro-4-nitrobenzene (DCNB)
was added and mixed. The change in absorbance at 340 nm for 5.0 minutes
was measured with a Beckman Model 5260 uv/vis spectrophotometer. The
enzyme activity was expressed as nmoles DCNB conjugated per minute per
milligram of protein using an extinction coefficient of 10 mM ^ cm ^ for
S-(2-chloro-4-nitrophenyl) glutathione.
In vitro Carbaryl Metabolism Study
Carbaryl was metabolized Tn vitro by modifications of the methods
of Kuhr and Davis (1975), Ruhr and Hessney (1977), and Yu and Terriere
(1978). Midgut homogenate was prepared, as described earlier, from 2
day-old sixth instar larvae to obtain 4-5 mg protein/ml.
Midgut homogenates of R and S larvae were incubated with carbaryl
in an atmosphere of air for 2 hours at 30 degrees C. The 5.0 ml incuba¬
tion mixture contained 0.3 ml of an NADPH generating system, as mention¬
ed above; 0.58 ml of 0.1 M sodium phosphate buffer, pH 7.5; 0.437 ug
14
[ C] carbaryl (100,000 dpm); 10 ug cold carbaryl; 10 mg bovine serum
albumin; 0.05 ml methyl Cellosolve; and 4.0 ml of midgut crude homoge¬
nates. The NADPH generating system was omitted from some incubations in
order to study nonoxidative metabolism of carbaryl. The incubation
mixture was stopped with 5.0 ml chloroform, and carbaryl and its metabo¬
lites were extracted by the solvent. The same extraction was repeated
again and the combined extracts were then dried over anhydrous sodium

44
sulfate. Two milliliter aliquots of chloroform were concentrated under
a stream of air to 0.2 ml and spotted on silica gel G thin layer
chromotographic (TLC) plates (0.25 mm). The TLC plates were developed
in a solution of acetic acid:ethyl acetate:benzene (1:10:33 by volume)
and scanned for radioactivity in a Packard Model 7220/21 radiochromato¬
gram scanner. Individual spots were identified by R^s of previously
chromatographed standard metabolites (see Table 2). Each peak was
scraped from the plates and counted in a Tracor Analytic Data 300 liquid
scintillation counter. The oxidative metabolites were combined due to
poor separation and resolution near the TLC plates' origin.
Epoxide Hydrolase Assay
Epoxide hydrolase (Fig. 6) was assayed by the method of Yu et al.
14
(1984) using [ C] styrene oxide as substrate. Microsomes were prepared
as previously described and suspended in 0.5 M Tris-HCl buffer, pH 9.0,
to make a final concentration of 0.4 mg protein/ml. Heat denatured
enzyme was used as the control to correct for any non-enzymatic glycol
formation.
Screw cap tubes were used to hold the incubation mixture which
14
contained 0.6 ug (100,000 dpm) [ C] styrene oxide, 8.0 ug cold styrene
oxide in 7.0 ul of acetonitrile, and 0.5 ml microsomal suspension. This
mixture was incubated in a shaking water bath at 37 degrees C for 5
minutes. The reactions were stopped by the addition of 10 ml petroleum
ether and the unreacted styrene oxide was extracted by the solvent. The
petroleum ether was readily decanted by freezing the aqueous phase in a
dry ice-acetone mixture. The same extraction was repeated again after
the aqueous phase was thawed. The aqueous solution which contained the
14
polar product, [8- C] styrene glycol, was then shaken with 2 ml ethyl

45
TABLE 2. R values of carbaryl and its metabolites on silica gel G
plates in a developmental solution of acetic acid:ethyl
acetate:benzene (1:10:33 by volume).
Compound
Rf
a-naphthol
0.79
Carbaryl
0.64
5-hydroxy-carbaryl
0.49
4-hydroxy-carbaryl
0.40
Methylol-carbaryl (N-hydroxymethyl)
0.29

Fig. 6.
14
The reaction of [ C] styrene oxide with water and microsomes to produce the water soluble
product, styrene glycol.

Epoxide hydrolase
Styrene oxide
Styrene glycol

48
acetate, and the product in the ethyl acetate was quantified by liquid
scintillation counting.
Esterase Assays
Esterases were assayed by the method of van Asperen (1962) (Fig. 7)
using a-naphthylacetate (a-NA) as substrate. Both midgut microsomes and
crude homogenates were used to perform this assay. A typical 6.0 ml
incubation mixture contained 4.95 ml of 0.04 M sodium phosphate buffer,
pH 7.0; 0.05 ml of a 0.03 M a-NA in acetone, and 1.0 ml of midgut
homogenate or microsomal preparation. To assay for carboxylesterase
-4 -4
activity, eserine (10 M) and p-hydroxymercuribenzoate (PHMB) (10 M)
were added to the incubation mixture to inhibit cholinesterase and
arylesterases, respectively.
This mixture was incubated for 30 minutes at 27 degrees C and the
reaction was stopped by placing each incubation tube on ice and intro¬
ducing 1.0 ml of diazoblue laurylsulfate solution (DBLS). A red color
developed and quickly changed to a dark blue color. The absorbance of
the reaction product, naphthol-diazoblue, was measured at 600 nm on a
Beckman Model 5260 spectrophotometer against a blank containing no
enzyme. Optical densities of the reaction products were compared to
known quantities of naphthol reacted with DBLS and plotted as a standard
curve.
All incubations were duplicated and each experiment was repeated
twice.
Acetylcholinesterase Assay
Acetylcholinesterase (AChE) (Fig. 8) was assayed by the method of
Ellman et al. (1961) using acetylthiocholine (ATC) as substrate.
Initially fall armyworm adult heads, whole larvae and larval heads were

Fig. 7. The reaction of a-naphthylacetate with esterases to form a-naphthol and acetic acid.

Esterases
o
ii
cx-naphthylacetate
oc-naphthol
Ln
O
-I- CH3C00H

Fig. 8.
The reaction of acetylthiocholine with acetylcholinesterase producing thiocholine which
produced a yellow color when combined, in reaction, with 5-dithiobis-2-nitrobenzoic acid.

Acetylcholinesterase
I. (CH ) +NCH.CH.S-
3 3 2 2
acetylthiocholine
2. (CH3)+NCH2CH2S_
thiocholine
(CH3) +NCH2CH2 S-
0
CCH + H„0 +NCHoCH,S_+CH,C00"42H
O c. ó ^ C. ¿ O
thiocholine
+ 02 N —^ jj— S — S
COO" COO"
5-dithiobis - 2-nitrobenzoic acid
+ °2N-0^S'
COO"
5-thio-2 - nitrobenzoic acid

53
assayed for AChE activity. Whole larvae larval heads showed low acti¬
vity and were not used. Adult heads contained the highest activity and
were subsequently used in this assay.
Two-day old adults of both R and S strains were frozen and their
heads removed with forceps. The heads were homogenized for 30 seconds
in ice-cold 0.1 M sodium phosphate buffer, pH 8.0, in a glass homoge-
nizer with a teflon pestle attached to a motorized grinder, for 30
seconds. The homogenate was filtered through doubled layered cheese¬
cloth and used as the enzyme source.
A typical 3.2 ml incubation mixture contained 2.75 ml of 0.1 M
sodium phosphate buffer, pH 8.0; 0.1 ml of 0.01 M 5,5-dithiobis-2-nitro-
benzoic acid (DTNB), 0.1 ml ice-cold 0.075 M acetylthiocholine (ATC);
and 0.2 ml enzyme. The reaction was initiated by adding 0.2 ml enzyme
to the incubation mixture. The blank contained all of the above rea¬
gents excluding the enzyme. The buffer was increased in the blank to
compensate for the lack of enzyme. The yellow colored reaction product
formation was measured for 5 minutes at 412 nm against the blank which
showed some non-enzymatic ATC hydrolysis.
Cuticular Penetration by Carbaryl
Cuticular penetration of carbaryl was measured by a method modified
from Ku and Bishop (1967). The cuticular penetration was assayed by
14
topically applying [ C] carbaryl to the dorso-prothorax of fall army-
worm larvae. The treated larvae were rinsed with acetone at different
time intervals after treatment. The excreta was extracted directly from
scintillation vials with Scinti-Verse I scintillation cocktail. Carbaryl
that penetrated larval cuticle was extracted by homogenizing whole
larvae at various time intervals and washing the remaining carcasses and

54
utensils with aliquots of acetone. Washes were collected, concentrated,
and radioactivity measured.
In a typical experiment, duplicate groups of 4 larvae each of
2-day-old sixth instar were placed into a glass petri dish. Each larva
14
was treated topically with 1.0 ul acetone containing 0.048 ug [ C]
carbaryl and 0.952 ug cold carbaryl. Those larvae that were assayed at
zero hour were rinsed immediately in three 5.0 ml aliquots of acetone in
3 separate scintillation vials. Those larvae requiring rinses at other
time intervals were treated and placed into separate pre-labelled vials.
Larvae were removed individually from each duplicate vial set at the
designated time interval and rinsed as above. After being rinsed, each
larva was cut into four pieces and placed into a glass homogenizer.
After all larvae had been rinsed, the larval pieces (two larval equiva¬
lents) were homogenized in 7.0 ml acetone. The pestle was rinsed with
another 5.0 ml acetone and the acetone was filtered into a 250 ml
Erlenmeyer flask. The filter paper (Whatman #1) and the precipitate
were rinsed twice into the same flask. The combined extracts were
concentrated to approximately 5.0 ml under a constant stream of air.
The Erlenmeyer flasks were rinsed 2 times with acetone, and the combined
rinses were concentrated and added to the original extract in the
scintillation vial.
Ten milliliters of Scinti-Verse I scintillation cocktail were added
and radioactivity was counted in a Tracor Analytic Data 300 liquid
scintillation counter.
Statistics
Computerized t- and F-tests were used to compute the significance
of the difference between means and to determine population normality,
respectively. All in vitro data, except carbaryl metabolism, were
analyzed by these methods.

RESULTS
Bioassays
All FAW bioassays were by the methods of Mullins and Pieters
(1982). Carbaryl, parathion, methomyl, diazinon, cypermethrin, and
permethrin were bioassayed initially to determine FAW susceptibility to
different insecticidal classes and to determine cross-resistance if any.
The LD,_o values (ug/g larva) for each insecticide are shown in Table 3
along with the relative resistance ratios in descending order of suscep¬
tibility. The resistant strain showed > 90X resistance to carbaryl but
remained susceptible to a related carbamate, methomyl (4.7X). The
resistant strain also showed tolerance to the organophosphates, para¬
thion (5.8X), and diazinon (2.9X). The R and S fall armyworm strains
showed no tolerance or cross-resistance to the synthetic pyrethroids,
cypermethrin and permethrin.
In Table 4, the toxicological responses are shown for larvae
treated with PB, a known microsomal oxidase inhibitor (Yu, 1982b).
Resistance was reduced to 6X in the R strain when PB was topically
applied in conjunction with carbaryl at a 5:1 ratio. These results
suggest that microsomal oxidases are involved in carbaryl resistance.
The synergized resistance level of the R strain did not approach that of
the susceptible strain, further suggesting that other factors are pos¬
sibly involved in carbaryl resistance. Also, the LD,_q of the suscep¬
tible strain was reduced by PB, suggesting that microsomal oxidases play
an important role in the detoxication of carbaryl in this insect strain.
55

56
TABLE 3. Comparison of toxicological responses of R and S fall armyworm
larvae topically treated with 6 insecticides.
Insecticide
g /
LD50 (ug/g Larva)
R S
R/S
Carbaryl
10343b/
115
90
Parathion
14.38
2.46
5.85
Methorny1
4.17
0.98
4.74
Diazinon
19.18
6.50
2.95
Cypermethrin
0.12
0.08
1.50
Permethrin
0.23
0.17
1.35
a/
b/
Each observation consisted of at least two different tests.
Computer estimate

57
TABLE 4. Comparison of toxicological responses of R and S fall armyworm
larvae
topically treated
with carbaryl + PB.
LD50
£ /
(ug/g Larva)
Insecticide
/Synergist
R
S
R/S
Carbaryl
10343b/
115
90
Carbaryl +
Piperonyl
Butoxide
400.43
67
5.98
a/
b/
Each observation consisted of at least two different tests.
Computer estimate

58
These jm vivo results may prove helpful in the discussion of results
found in in vitro detoxication assays. DEF, (S, S, S,tributyl phosphoro-
trithioate), a known esterase inhibitor, was too toxic when applied
alone for esterase comparisons. TOCP (tri-O-creosyl phosphate), another
known esterase inhibitor, had no effect on the LD^ levels in either
strain. These findings indicate that esterases do not play a role in
carbaryl resistance in this FAW strain.
Enzymatic Assays
A. Aldrin Epoxidase
The specific activities of aldrin epoxidase enzyme of various
larval instars are shown in Table 5. Larvae younger than fourth-instar
were not studied because of the difficulty in dissecting the midgut.
The R strain showed significantly higher epoxidase activity than the S
strain across all instars tested. These results support those of Yu
(1984) in that the R strain of fall armyworm possesses a higher level of
microsomal epoxidase activity than does the S strain.
B. Biphenyl Hydroxylase
The results summarized in Table 6 show that the biphenyl 4-hydroxy¬
lase activity was significantly higher in R larvae. Larvae younger than
4th instar were not examined because of the difficulty in dissecting
midguts. The activity of biphenyl 4-hydroxylase enzyme increased in
both strains from 4th to 2 day-old sixth instar larvae. Three day-old
sixth instar individuals showed a slight decrease in activity thus
confirming results from Yu (1984) that the activity of important detoxi¬
cation enzymes reached maximum capacity in the second day of the final
instar. High activity begins to decline with the onset of pupation.
Four day old sixth instar larvae were not observed feeding, and were

59
TABLE 5.
Aldrin epoxidase activities of midgut microsomes and homoge¬
nates from various instars of R and S fall armyworm larvae 3
Specific Activity
(pmol dieldrin min mg protein )
Larval
Instar R S
Microsomes
5thb/
483.23
+
1.58C’d/
237.94
+
1.41
5the/
709.35
+
1.22d/
445.67
+
3.17
6the/
694.52
+
3.83d/
475.67
+
3.37
Crude Homogenates
6the/
237.33
+
1.25
171.39
+
1.38
a/
b/
c/
d/
e/
f/
Larvae used in all assays were age synchronized.
Newly molted
Mean ± SE of at least three experiments, each assayed in duplicate.
Value significantly different (< 0.05) from S strain.
1 day old
2 day old.

60
TABLE 6.
Microsomal biphenyl 4-hydroxylas|/activity in various instars
of R and S fall armyworm larvae.
Specific Activity
(pmol min mg protein )
Larval
Instar
4th
663.76
+
2.25b'd/
177.28 ±
2.75
5th
959.23
+
29.15d/
548.27 ±
57.90
6th
1
Day
768.89
+
62.80d/
386.26 ±
16.14
2
Day
1045.28
+
62.70d/
634.08 ±
11.91
3
Day
730.37
+
28.78 '
529.75 ±
33.06
a/
b/
Larvae used in all assays were age synchronized.
Mean ± SE of at least three experiments, each assayed in duplicate.
d/
Value significantly different ( < 0.05) from S strain.
Value significantly different (p < 0.01 from S strain.

61
found to have clear guts and to be preparing cells in the artificial
diet for pupation.
The activities of microsomal biphenyl 4-hydroxylase of all R larval
instars in Table 6 were greater than in the S strain by the following
factors: 4th (3.74X), 5th (1.75X), one day-old 6th (2.09X), two day-old
6th (1.65X), three day-old 6th (1.38X). The activities of all larval
instars in the R strain on a per mg protein basis were statistically
different from the S strain at a probability of P < 0.01 except for
three day old 6th instar which showed a significance probability of P <
0.05.
C. N-demethylase
The activity of microsomal N-demethylase of two- day-old sixth
instar R and S fall armyworm larvae is summarized in Table 7. There are
no differences in activity on a per mg protein basis; however, the S
strain is significantly (P < 0.01) more active on a per midgut basis.
The maximum difference (3.2-fold) was observed in the sixth instar of R
and S larvae.
D. Cytochrome P-450
The results summarized in Table 8 show that there was no signifi¬
cant difference in the Cytochrome P-450 content between R and S strains,
although the R strain appeared to be consistently higher than the S
strain.
E. Glutathione S-transferase and Epoxide Hydrolase
From Table 9, it can be seen that there was no significant differ¬
ences in the glutathione S-aryltransferase activity between the R and S
strains. This is also true for the epoxide hydrolase activity (Table
10).

62
TABLE 7.
Microsomal N-demethyl^se activity from sixth-instar R and S
fall armyworm larvae
N-demethylase
Strain
pmol min ^
mg protein
pmol min^
midgut
R
849.38 ± 59.42b/
39.96 ± 2.78
S
883.35 ± 141.62
129.70 ± 25.24c/
3- /
. Larvae used in all assays were age synchronized.
, Mean ± SE of at least three experiments, each assayed in duplicate.
C Value significantly different (P < 0.01) from R strain.

63
TABLE 8.
Cytochrome P-450 activity from midgut microsomes
instar R and S fall armyworm larvae
of sixth-
Strain
pmol P-450
mg protein
pmol P-4^0
midgut
R
269.70 ± 12.40b/
17.97 ± 0.10
S
235.30 ± 6.60
11.53 ± 0.31
a/
b/
Larvae
Mean ±
used in all assays were age synchronized.
SE of at least three experiments, each assayed in duplicate.

64
TABLE 9. Glutathione S-aryltransferase activity of midgut soluble
enzyme fraction from sixth instar R and S fall armyworm
larvae.3
Specific activity
Strain
(nmol DCNB conjugated min ^ mg protein ^)
R
22.73 ± 0.45b/
S
24.12 ± 0.30
a/
b/
Larvae used in all assays were age synchronized.
Mean ± SE of at least three experiments, each assayed in duplicate.

65
TABLE 10. Microsomal epoxide hydrolase activity in sixth instar R and
S fall armyworm larvae.
Strain
Epoxid^ Hydrolase ^
(nmol min mg protein )
R
33.92 ± 0.69b/
S
30.63 ± 0.77
a/
b/
Larvae used in all assays were age synchronized.
Mean ± SE of at least three experiments, each assayed in duplicate.

TABLE 11.
General and carboxyle|terase activities from crude homogenates of sixth instar R and S
fall armyworm larvae.
nmo|-
a-naphthol
nmol a-naphthol
min
mg protein
mm
midgut
Strain
General
Carboxyl
General
Carbaryl
esterase
esterase
esterase
esterase
R
920.00 ± .007b/
202.10 ± 11.13
1540 ± .001
356.00 ± 22.63
S
1003.5 ± .02
217.75 ± 18.45
1036.5 ± 22.63
191.00 ± 2.10
a/
b/
Larvae used in all assays were age synchronized.
Mean ± SE of at least three experiments, each assayed in duplicate.
O'
O'

67
F. Esterase
The activities of general esterases and carboxylyesterase in the R
and S strains are summarized in Table 11. The results show that there
was no significant difference in the general esterase and carboxylester-
ase activities between the R and S strains when midgut crude homogenates
were used as the enzyme source. However, the activity of general
esterases from midgut microsomes are significantly higher in the S
strain compared to the R strain (Table 12).
G. AChE Kinetics
AChE activity was not significantly different bewteen the R and S
strains (Table 13). Studies of AChE enzyme kinetics (Fig. 9) show that
the K values from both the R and S strains are not different toward
m
ATC. Although the maximum reaction velocity (V ) is different (R-V
nicix iTicix
= 0.345 nmol min ^ my protein ^; S-V = 0.208 nmol min * ng protein ^)
toward the hydrolysis of ATC, their substrate binding affinities, K ,
are the same (K = 38.46). Attempts to obtain an inhibition constant
m
(K_) failed because carbaryl is a poor yet reversible inhibitor of
cholinesterase (Mount and Oehme 1981). Carbamates bind less tightly to
cholinesterase as compared to most organophosphorous insecticides (Mount
and Oehme 1981). At 10 ^ M to 10 ^ M concentrations, the inhibition
rate showed a flat, nonlinear response after 15 minutes of incubation
with carbaryl against moth head homogenate. A linear increase in
-4 -3
carbaryl inhibition from 10 to 10 M concentrations is shown in Fig.
10, thus verifying that high carbaryl molar concentrations are required
to inhibit AChE.
H. In vitro Carbaryl Metabolism
In vitro carbaryl metabolism studies showed that the R strain
produced 5.4X more carbaryl oxidative metabolites than did the S strain

68
TABLE 12. General and Carboxylesterase activities from microsomes of
sixth instar R and S fall armyworm larvae.
Specific
activity
(nmol a-naphthol
. -i „ . “Is
mm mg protein )
Strain
General esterase
Carboxylesterase
R
286.20 ± 11.15a/
196.23 ± 0.32
S
477.57 ± 6.88c/
261.73 ± 2.23
a/
b/
c/
Larvae used in all assays were age synchronized.
Mean ± SE of at least three experiments, each assayed in duplicate.
Value significantly different (P < 0.05) from R strain.

69
TABLE 13. Acetylcholinesterase activity from moth head^ of 1 to 2 day
old mixed population R and S fall armyworms
Specific activity
Strain
(nmol ATC metabolized min ^ mg protein^)
R
339.05 ± 4.93b/
S
253.21 ± 16.73
a/
b/
Larvae used in all assays were age synchronized.
Mean ± SE of at least three experiments, each assayed in duplicate.

Fig. 9. Lineweaver-Burke plot for the reactions of R and S fall armyworm moth head
acetylcholinesterase with acetylthiocholine. V = product formed (nmol min mg
protein ); [ATC] = substrate concentration (mM).

IB
1/ [ATC]
A RESISTANT
A SUSCEPTIBLE

Fig. 10. Carbaryl inhibition of AChE from heads of R and S fall armyworm adult moths.

INHIBITION
DOSE X (LOG 10 [-6])

TABLE 14. In vitro metabolism of carbaryl by midgut homogenate from R and S fall armyworm larvae
a/
Carbaryl metabolized
(pmol 2 hr ^ mg
protein
Esterase
Microsomal
Oxidases
Strain
Control
TOCP
(10 4 M)
DEF
(10 4 M)
Control
(10
M)
R
567.45 ±
114.90
2.81 ± 3.67
0
168.72 ± 28.28
13.28 ±
2.86
S
578.53 ±
108.21
200.78 ± 15.01b/ 159
.68 ± 26.73b/
32.73 ± 4.32b/
13.26 ±
2.84
a/
, Larvae used in this assay were 1-3 days old.
Value significantly different (P < 0.01) from the R strain.

75
(Table 14). A 1.76X decrease in oxidative metabolites was seen when
NADPH was not used in an incubation mixture. This suggests that oxida¬
tion depends on the NADPH cofactor for maximum reaction rate. The
-4 -4
addition of the esterase inhibitors, DEF (10 M) and TOCP (10 M), to
the incubation mixture reduced the esterase activity in the R strain by
99.5% and 100%, respectively. However, these inhibitors caused 65% and
72% reduction in esterase activity in the S strain suggesting that the S
strain has a different form of esterase than the R strain. Similarly,
microsomal oxidases which oxidized carbaryl were more susceptible to Pb
inhibition in the R strain (92%) than in the S strain (59%).
The most significant data in the jin vitro metabolism of carbaryl
are the production of oxidative metabolites. The R strain metabolizes
more carbaryl per unit time than does the S strain, thus confirming that
oxidative metabolism plays a major role in resistance in this strain.
Cuticular Penetration
14
The rate of disappearance of [ C] carbaryl from the exterior
cuticle of sixth instar fall armyworm larvae is shown in Figure 11.
After 24 hours, there remains almost 2X more carbaryl on the exterior
cuticle of R larvae than of S strain. Figure 12 shows that the amount
of carbaryl found internally in both R and S larvae is about the same at
13 and 14%, respectively, of the controls (immediate wash-off) (Fig.
12). Data in Figure 13 show that the S strain excretes more than 2X
more carbaryl than the R strain in 24 hours, however. This suggests
that more carbaryl enters S larvae and more is excreted either as
carbaryl or as carbaryl metabolites while 60% of the applied carbaryl
remains on the cuticle of R larvae.

Fig. 11.
Percent of applied dose of [ C] carbaryl remaining on the cuticle of sixth instar R and
S fall armyworm larvae.

HOURS AFTER TREATMENT

Fig. 12.
Percent of applied [ C] Carbaryl extracted from homogenate of sixth instar R and
armyworm larvae.
fall

[14]-C CARBARYL RECOVERY (DPM)

Fig. 13.
Percent of applied C-Carbaryl recovered from excreta of sixth instar R and S fall armyworm
larvae.

[14]-C CARBARYL RECOVERY (DPM)
o e 4 a a io 12 14 ib ib eo 22 24
—A EXCRETA-R
EXCRETA-S
HOURS AFTER TREATMENT

DISCUSSION
The results of this study show that the fall armyworm is resistant
to carbaryl and confirms the findings of Young and McMillian (1979) and
Wood et al. (1981). Young and McMillian (1979) also noted that R-FAW
larvae were resistant to carbaryl biochemically and behaviorally.
According to them, R-FAW larvae avoided carbaryl treated surfaces as
compared to a carbaryl susceptible strain. Lockwood et al. (1984) cited
this type of resistance as stimulus-dependent, i.e. requiring sensory
stimulation to exhibit avoidance in this case, to avoid carbaryl resi¬
dues. To further demonstrate the complexity of resistance in FAW, Wood
et al. (1981) showed that FAW larvae that fed on previously carbaryl
treated corn and signalgrass were resistant to carbaryl while those that
fed on bermudagrass and millet were susceptible. These data agree with
those of Yu (1984) where he found that midgut microsomes of a carbaryl
resistant strain of FAW were highly induced by the allelochemicals,
indole 3-carbinol and flavone.
In vivo data (Table 4) show that resistance could not be eliminated
entirely by topical treatments of PB-carbaryl. These findings suggest
that microsomal oxidases play a major role in resistance; however, there
are other factors involved in resistance in this strain. Rose and
Brindley (1985) showed that the Colorado potato beetle (CPB) was highly
resistant to carbaryl. The topical treatment of these beetles with
PB-carbaryl did not eliminate the resistance completely. They concluded
that monooxygenases and other resistance mechanisms may be involved in
82

83
CPB resistance to carbaryl and carbofuran. This work agrees with my
findings in FAW.
Results of vitro assays show that the activities of aldrin
epoxidase (Fig. 14) and biphenyl 4-hydroxylase (Fig. 15) are signifi¬
cantly higher in R-FAW larvae compared to S-FAW over all instars tested.
Higher aldrin epoxidase and biphenyl 4-hydroxylase activities in R-FAW
larvae were also observed by Yu (1984) and Yu and Ing (1984), respec¬
tively. These data further support Iji vivo findings that MFO enzymes
play a major role in resistance in this strain.
In vitro metabolism of carbaryl in the R strain showed a 5-fold
increase in oxidative metabolite production over the S strain (Table
14). The fact that differential inhibitions of carbaryl oxidation by PB
were observed between R and S strains suggests that the MFO enzymes from
the R strain were qualitatively different from the S strain. Kuhr
(1971) and Kuhr and Davis (1975) identified carbaryl metabolites pro¬
duced by midgut homogenates of R and S cabbage looper and European corn
borer strains. They found that the oxidative metabolite, hydroxymethyl
carbaryl, was the major metabolite produced jLn vivo and jin vitro.
Shrivastava et al. (1969) suggested that hydroxylation of substituted-
aryl methylcarbamate toxicants contributed significantly to the develop¬
ment of resistance in a house fly strain. These findings are in agree¬
ment with my observations from the fall armyworm.
In the present study, carbaryl metabolites produced ^n vitro were
not identified; however, those carbaryl metabolites that were found by
other researchers (Price and Kuhr 1969; Camp and Arthur 1967; Andrawes
and Dorough 1967; Kuhr 1970) were chromatographed by TLC and R^s were
recorded (Table 2). These R^s were used to isolate carbaryl radiocarbons

Fig. 14. Aldrin epoxidase activities of midgut microsomes from various instars of R and S fall
armyworm larvae.

LARVAL INSTAR
pMOL DIELDRIN/MIN/MG PROTEIN
58

Fig. 15. Microsomal biphenyl 4-hydroxylase activities from various instars of R and S fall armyworm
larvae.

BIPHENYL 4-HYDROXYLASE
pMOL/MIN/MG PROTEIN
1100-
1000--
900'
0 TH B TH
LARVAL INSTAR
Groups of 6 th represent 1 day. 2 day and 3 day old
larvae, respectively
RESISTANT
1 I SUSCEPTIBLE

88
by cochromatography on TLC plates and determine MFO activities. The
metabolic pathways of carbaryl in various species (Menzie 1978) are
summarized in Figure 16. Ruhr (1970) presented a partial carbaryl
metabolic pathway which included the above metabolites. Andrawes and
Dorough (1967) found hydrolytic and oxidative metabolism in the boll
weevil and the boll worm similar to those in the present study. However,
Andrawes and Dorough (1967) identified two additional metabolites from
both insects as 1-hydroxy-5,6-dihydroxy-l-naphthyl N-methyl carbamate
(see Fig. 16 for stuctures).
Additional radio-labelled compounds were found near the TLC plate
origin but no attempts were made to identify them. Ahmad et al. (1980)
and Andrawes and Dorough (1967) also found unknown radio-labelled
compounds in this position; however, they made no attempts to identify
them either.
The results obtained from carbaryl penetration studies are in
agreement with those of Ariaratnam and Georghiou (1975) who found that
carbaryl penetrated the cuticle of R Anopheles albimanus larvae about
one half the rate of S larvae after 60 minutes. However, the difference
was less apparent after 90 minutes. Another difference between their
findings and mine, is that the mosquitoes were contained in an aqueous
medium, in constant contact with the solublized insecticide. This
factor may account for rapid absorption in the mosquito compared to FAW
larvae. Hanna and Atallah (1971) described a consistant difference in
the rate of carbaryl penetration into R and S Egyptian cotton leafworm
larvae over a 72 hour period. These experiments show that Spodoptera
spp. possess the ability for becoming resistant by decreased cuticular
penetration.

Fig. 16. Metabolic pathways of carbaryl showing those enzyme systems that most likely produced
them.

Glue , a Sulfate
Conjugates
CO^CHjNH2
\
CO^HCOOH
CO¿ HjjO
o

91
The amount of radiocarbon recovered from internal extracts (Fig.
12) of R and S larvae were similar; however, the amount of radiocarbon
found in the excreta of S larvae was 2.4X higher than R larvae after
24 hours. These findings correspond well since the amount of carbaryl
entering R larvae was less than in S larvae; therefore, there was less
to excrete (Fig. 13). The levels of radiocarbon found in internal
extracts of both strains probably represents sublethal levels that could
be tolerated by larvae of both strains since no mortality was observed
after 24 hours.
In summary, this study shows that the fall armyworm can become
resistant to carbaryl via two mechanisms, increased metabolism and
reduced cuticular penetration. The former appears to be the major
factor and was likely to be caused by increased microsomal hydroxylation
and epoxidation of carbaryl resulting in detoxication. Since behavioral
mechanism (avoidance) was found to play a role in resistance, a combi¬
nation of physiological as well as behavioral mechanisms may be respon¬
sible for carbaryl resistance in this insect.
In view of the findings presented here, the scope of carbaryl
resistance in FAW would be completed if further research was performed
on behavioral resistance mechanisms. Genetic investigations of inheri¬
tance, allelic contributions and chromosome location(s) of genes respon¬
sible for behavioral, metabolic and penetration resistance is also
required. This information will provide researchers with greater
knowledge of the complexities of insect resistance and contribute to the
understanding of ways to circumvent it.

LITERATURE CITED
Ahmad, S. and A. J. Forgash. 1976. Nonoxidative enzymes in the
metabolism of insecticides. Drug Metab. Rev. 5(1): 141-164.
Ahmad, S., A. J. Forgash, and Yesu T. Das. 1980. Penetration and
metabolism of C carbaryl in larvae of the gypsy moth Lymantria
dispar (L.) Pestic. Biochem. 14: 236-248.
Andrawes, N. R^and H. W. Dorough. 1967. Metabolic fate of carbaryl-
naphthyl- C in boll weevils and boll worms. J. Econ. Entomol.
60(2): 453-456.
Anonymous. 1957. World Health Organization expert committee on
insecticides. 7th report, WHO Technical Report Series No. 125.
Ariaratnam, V. and George P. Georghiou. 1975. Carbamate resistance in
Anopheles albimanus: penetration and metabolism of carbaryl in
propoxur-selected larvae. Bull. World Health Organization. 52:
91-96.
Atallah, Yousef H. 1971. Status of carbaryl and DDT resistance in
laboratory-reared Egyptian cotton leafworm. J. Econ. Entomol.
64(5): 1018-1021.
Bass, M. H. 1978. Fall armyworm: evaluation of insecticides for
control. Ala. Agrie. Exp. Stn. Leaflet 93. 7 p.
Berry, R. E., S. J. Yu and L. C. Terriere. 1980. Influence of host
plants on insecticide metabolism and management of variegated
cutworm. J. Econ. Entomol. 73: 771-774.
Bradford, M. M. 1976. A rapid and sensitive method for the
quantitation of microgram quantities of protein utilizing the
principle of protein-dye binding. Anal. Biochem. 72: 248-253.
Brattsten, L. B., C. K. Evans, S. Bonetti and L. H. Zalkow. 1984.
Induction by carrot allelochemicals of insecticide-metabolizing
enzymes in the southern armyworm (Spodoptera eridania). Comp.
Biochem. Physiol. 77C(1): 29-37.
Brattsten, L. B., S. L. Price and C. A. Gunderson. 1980. Microsomal
oxidases in midgut and fatbody tissues of a broadly herbivorous
insect larva, Spodoptera eridania Cramer (Noctuidae). Comp.
Biochem. Physiol. 66C: 231-237.
Brattsten, L. B., C. F. Wilkinson and T. Eisner. 1977. Herbivore-plant
interactions: mixed-function oxidases and secondary plant
substances. Science 196: 1349-1352.
92

93
Brown, Thomas M. 1981. Countermeasures for insecticide resistance. J.
Econ. Entomol. Bull. 27(3): 198-201.
Bull, D. L. 1981. Factors that influence tobacco budworm resistance to
organophosphorus insecticides. Bull. Entomol. Soc. Am. 27(3):
193-197.
Burton, R. L. 1969. Mass rearing the corn earworm in the laboratory.
USDA, Agrie. Res. Serv. ARS 33-134, 8 p.
Busvine, J. R. 1971. The biochemical and genetic bases of insecticide
resistance. Pans 17(2): 135-146.
Camp, H. B. and B. W. Arthur. 1967. Absorption and metabolism of
carbaryl by several insect species. J. Econ. Entomol. 60(3):
803-807.
Chasseaud, L. F. 1973. The nature and distribution of enzymes
catalyzing the conjugation of glutathione with foreign compounds.
Drug Metab. Rev. 2(2): 185-220.
Clark, A. G., N. A. Shamaan, W. C. Dauterman and T. Hayaoka. 1984.
Characterization of multiple glutathione transferases from the
house fly, Musca domestica (L.). Pestic. Biochem. Physiol. 22:
51-59.
Combs, R. L. Jr. and Jose R. Valerio. 1980. Biology of the fall
armyworm on four varieties of bermudagrass when held at constant
temperature. Environ. Entomol. 9: 393-396.
Dauterman, W. C. 1976. Extramicrosomal metabolism of insecticides.
pages 149-176 in C. F. Wilkinson, ed. Insecticide Biochemistry and
Physiology, Plenum Press, New York, N.Y.
Dauterman, W. C. 1983. Role of hydrolases and glutathione
S-transferases in insecticide resistance, pages 229-247 in G. P.
Georghiou and T. Saito, eds. Pest Resistance to Pesticides. Plenum
Press, New York.
Devonshire, Alan L. 1973. The biochemical mechanisms of resistance to
insecticides with especial reference to the housefly, Musca
domestica and Aphid, Myzus perscae. Pestic. Sci. 4: 521-529.
Devonshire, A. L. 1975. Studies of the acetylcholinesterase from
houseflies (Musca domestica L.) resistant and susceptible to
organophosphorus insecticides. Biochem. J. 149: 463-469.
Devonshire, A. L. and G. D. Moores. 1982. A carboxylesterase with
broad substrate specificity causes organophosphorus, carbamate and
pyrethroid resistance in peach-potato aphids (Myzus persicae).
Pestic. Biochem. Physiol. 18: 235-246.
Devonshire, Alan L. and G. D. Moores. 1984. Different forms of
insensitive acetylcholinesterase in insecticide resistant house
flies (Musca domestica). Pestic. Biochem. Physiol. 21: 336-340.

94
DeVries, D. H. and G. P. Georghiou. 1981a. Absence of enhanced
detoxication of permethrin in pyrethroid-resistant house flies.
Pestic. Biochem. Physiol. 15: 242-252.
DeVries, D. H. and G. P. Georghiou. 1981b. Decreased nerve sensitivity
and decreased cuticular penetration as mechanisms of resistance to
pyrethroids in (lR)-trans-permethrin-selected strain of the
house fly. Pestic. Biochem. Physiol. 15: 234-241.
Dowd, P. F., C. M. Smith and T. C. Sparks. 1983. Detoxication of plant
toxins by insects. Insect Biochem. 13(5): 453-468.
Edwards, Alasdair. 1980. Cholinesterase activity in the cockroach
central nervous system. Insect Biochem. 10: 387-392.
Eldefrawi, M. E. and W. M. Hoskins. 1961. Relation of the rate of
penetration and metabolism to the toxicity of sevin to three insect
species. J. Econ. Entomol. 54(3): 401-405.
Ellman, G. L., K. D. Corurtney, V. Andres, Jr., and R. M. Featherstone.
1961. A new and rapid colormetric determination of
acetylcholinesterase activity. Biochem. Pharmacol. 7: 88-96.
Farnham, A. W. 1973. Genetics of resistance of pyrethroid selected
houseflies, Musca domestica L. Pestic. Sci. 4: 513-520.
Farnsworth, D. E., R. E. Berry, S. J. Yu and L. C. Terriere. 1981.
Aldrin epoxidase activity and cytochrome P-450 content of
microsomes prepared from alfalfa and cabbage looper larvae fed
various plants diets. Pestic. Biochem. Physiol. 15: 158-165.
Feyereisen, R. 1983. Polysubstrate monooxygenases (Cytochrome P-450)
in larvae of susceptible and resistant strains of house flies.
Pestic. Biochem. Physiol. 19: 262-269.
Forgash, A. J. 1984. History, evolution and consequence of insecticide
resistance. Pestic. Biochem. Physiol. 22: 178-186.
Georghiou, G. P. 1962. Carbamate insecticides: toxic action of
synergized carbamates against twelve resistant strains of the house
fly. J. Econ. Entomol. 55(5): 768-772.
Georghiou, G. P. 1980. Insecticide resistance and prospects for its
management. Residue Review. 76: 131-145.
Georghiou, G. P. and Roni B. Mellon. 1983. Pesticide resistance in
time and space, pages 1-46 in G. P. Georghiou and Tetsuo Saito,
eds. Pest Resistance to Pesticides. Plenum Press, New York, N.Y.
Georghiou, G. P., R. L. Metcalf and R. B. March. 1961. The development
and characterization of resistance to carbamate insecticides in the
house fly, Musca domestica. J. Econ. Entomol. 54(1): 132-140.

95
Graham-Bryce, Ian J. 1983. Novel chemical approaches to crop
protection: needs and solutions. Pestic. Sci. 14: 261-271.
Hama, Hiroshi and Toshikazu Iwata. 1971. Insensitive cholinesterase in
the Nakagawara strain of the green rice leafhopper, Nephotettix
cincticeps Uhler (Hemiptera:cicadellidae), as a cause of resistance
to carbamate insecticides. Appl. Ent. Zool. 6(4): 183-191.
Hama, Hiroshi and Toshikazu Iwata. 1978. Studies on the inheritance of
carbamate resistance in the green rice leafhopper, Nephotettix
cincticeps Uhler (Hemiptera:Cicadellidae). Relationships between
insensitivity of acetylcholinesterase and cross-resistance to
carbamate and organophosphate insecticides. Appl. Ent. Zool.
13(3): 190-202.
Hanna, M. A. and Y. H. Atallah. 1971. Penetration and biodegradation
of carbaryl in susceptible and resistant strains of the Egyptian
cotton leafworm. J. Econ. Entomol. 64(6): 1391-1394.
Harding, J. A. and R. C. Dyar. 1970. Resistance induced in European
corn borers in the laboratory by exposing successive generations to
DDT, diazinon, or carbaryl. J. Econ. Entomol. 63(1): 250-253.
Hayaoka, T. and W. C. Dauterman. 1982. Induction of glutathione
S-transferase by phenobarbital and pesticides in various house fly
strains and its effect on toxicity. Pestic. Biochem. Physiol. 17:
113-119.
Hemingway, J. and G. P. Georghiou. 1984. Differential suppression of
organophosphorus resistance in Culex quinquefasciatus by the
synergists IBP, DEF and TPP. Pestic. Biochem. Physiol. 21: 1-9.
Hodgson, Ernest and Naoki Motoyama. 1984. Biochemical mechanisms of
resistance to insecticides, pages 167-189 in D. Evered, ed.
Origins and Development of Adaptations. Pitman Books, London.
Hollingworth, R. M. 1976. The biochemical and physiological basis of
selective toxicity. Pages 431-506 in C. F. Wilkinson, ed.
Insecticide Biochemistry and Physiology. Plenum Press, New York.
Hughes, P. B. 1982. Organophosphorus resistance in the sheep blowfly,
Lucilia cuprina (Wiedemann) (Diptera:Calliphoridae): a genetic
study incorporating synergists. Bull. Ent. Res. 72: 573-582.
Ivie, G. W., D. L. Bull, R. C. Beier, N. W. Pryor and E. H. Oertli.
1983. Metabolic detoxication: mechanism of insect resistance to
plant psoralens. Science 221: 374-376.
Iwata, Toshikazu and Hiroshi Hama. 1972. Insensitivity of
cholinesterase and organophosphorus insecticides. J. Econ.
Entomol. 65(3): 643-644.
Kao, L. R., N. Motoyama and W. C. Dauterman. 1984. Studies on
hydrolases in various house fly strains and their role in malathion
resistance. Pestic. Biochem. Physiol. 22: 86-92.

96
Krieger, R. I. and C. F. Wilkinson. 1969. Microsomal mixed-function
oxidases in insects. I. Localization and properties of an enzyme
system affecting aldrin epoxidation in larvae of the southern
armyworm (Prodenia eridania). Biochem. Pharmacol. 18: 1403-1415.
Ru, Te-yeh and J. L. Bishop. 1967. Penetration, excretion, and
metabolism of carbaryl in susceptible and resistant German
cockroaches. J. Econ. Entomol. 60(5): 1328-1332.
Ruhr, R. J. 1970. Metabolism of carbamate insecticide chemicals in
plants and insects. J. Agr. Food Chem. 18(6): 1023-1030.
Ruhr, R. J. 1971. Comparative metabolism of carbaryl by resistant and
suceptible strains of the cabbage looper. J. Econ. Entomol.
64(6): 1373-1378.
Ruhr, R. J. and A. C. Davis. 1975. Toxicity and metabolism of carbaryl
in the European corn borer. Pestic. Biochem. Physiol. 5: 330-337.
Ruhr, R. J. and C. W. Hessney. 1977. Toxicity and metabolism of
methomyl in the European corn borer. Pestic. Biochem. Physiol. 7:
301-308.
Rupfer, D. and L. L. Bruggeman. 1966. Determination of enzymatic
demethylation of p-chloro-N-methylaniline. Assay of aniline and
p-chloroaniline. Anal. Biochem. 17: 502-512.
Laufer, J., M. Roche, M. Pelhate, M. Elliott, N. F. James and D. B.
Sattelle. 1984. Pyrethroid insecticides: action of deltamethrin
and related compounds on insect axonal sodium channels. J. Insect
Physiol. 30(5): 341-349.
Lockwood, J. A., T. C. Sparks and R. N. Story. 1984. Evolution of
insect resistance to insecticides: a reevaluation of the roles of
physiology and behavior. Bull. Entomol. Soc. Am. 30(4): 41-51.
Lovell, J. B. and C. W. Reams. 1959. Inheritance of DDT-dehydrochlo-
rinase in the housefly. J. Econ. Entomol. 52(5): 931-935.
Luginbill, Philip. 1928. The fall armyworm. U.S.D.A. Technical Bull.
#34.
Matthews, Wendy A. 1980. The metabolism of malathion in vivo by two
strains of Rhyzopertha dominica (F.), the lesser grain borer.
Pestic. Biochem. Physiol. 13: 303-312.
Menzie, Calvin M. 1978. Metabolism of pesticides: update II. U.S.
Dept, of the Interior, Fish and Wildlife Ser. Special Scientific
Report - Wildlife No. 212. pp. 56-59.
Moldenke, A. F., D. R. Vincent, D. E. Farnsworth and L. C. Terriere.
1984. Cytochrome P-450 in insects: 4. Reconstitution of
cytochrome P-450-dependent monooxygenase activity in the house fly.
Pestic. Biochem. Physiol. 21: 358-367.

97
Motoyama, Naoki, Tatsumi Hayaoka, Ken'Ichi Nomura and W. C. Dauterman.
1980. Multiple factors for organophosphorus resistance in the
housefly, Musca domestica L. J. Pestic. Sci. 5: 393-402.
Mount, M. E. and F. W. Oehme, 1981. Carbaryl: a literature review.
Residue Review. 80: 1-64.
Mullins, Walton and E. P. Pieters. 1982. Weight versus toxicity: a
need for revision of the standard method of testing for resistance
of the tobacco budworm to insecticides. J. Econ. Entomol. 75:
40-42.
O'Brien, R. D. 1967. Insecticides: action and metabolism. Academic
Press Inc., New York. 332 pp.
Oesch, F., D. M. Jerina and J. Daly. 1971. A^radiometric assay for
hepatic epoxide hydrase activity with [7- H] styrene oxide.
Biochemica et Biophysica Acta. (Biochim. Biophys. Acta.) 227:
685-691.
Omura, T. and R. Sato. 1964. The carbon monoxide-binding pigment of
liver microsomes. J. Biol. Chem. 239: 2370-2378.
Oppenoorth, F. J. 1965. Biochemical genetics of insecticide resistance.
Ann. Rev. Entomol. 10: 185-206.
Oppenoorth, F. J. 1984. Biochemistry of insecticide resistance.
Pestic. Biochem. Physiol. 27: 187-193.
Oppenoorth, F. J., H. R. Smissaret, W. Welling, L. T. J. van der Pas and
K. T. Hitman. 1977. Insensitive acetylcholinesterase, high
glutathione-S-transferase, and hydrolytic activity as resistance
factors in a tetrachlorvinphos-resistant strain of house fly.
Pestic. Biochem. Physiol. 7: 34-47.
Oppenoorth, F. J. and W. Welling. 1976. Biochemistry and physiology
of resistance, pages 507-551 in C. F. Wilkinson, ed. Insecticide
Biochemistry and Physiology, Plenum Press, New York, N.Y.
Patil, V. L. and F. E. Guthrie. 1979. Effects of anomalous cuticular
phospholipids on penetration of insecticides in susceptible and
resistant house flies. Pestic. Biochem. Physiol. 11: 13-19.
Perry, A. S., W. E. Dale and A. J. Buckner. 1971. Induction and
repression of microsomal mixed-function oxidases and cytochrome
P-450 in resistant and susceptible houseflies. Pestic. Biochem.
Physiol. 1: 131-142.
Plapp, F. W., Jr. 1970. Inheritance of dominant factors of resistance
to carbamate insecticides in the house fly. J. Econ. Entomol.
63(1): 138-141.
Plapp, F. W. 1976. Biochemical genetics of insecticide resistance.
Ann. Rev. Entomol. 21: 179-197.

98
Plapp, F. W., Jr. 1984. The genetic basis
the house fly: evidence that a single
metabolic resistance to insecticides.
22: 194-201.
of insecticide resistance in
locus plays a major role in
Pestic. Biochem. Physiol.
Plapp, F. W., Jr. and J. E. Casida. 1969. Genetic control of house fly
NADPH-dependent oxidases: relation to insecticide chemical
metabolism and resistance. J. Econ. Entomol. 62(5): 1174-1179.
Plapp, F. W., Jr. and R. F. Hoyer. 1968a. Possible pleiotropism of a
gene conferring resistance to DDT, DDT analogs, and pyrethrins in
the house fly and Culex tarsalis. J. Econ. Entomol. 61(3):
761-765.
Plapp, F. W., Jr. and R. F. Hoyer. 1968b. Insecticide resistance in
the house fly: decrease rate of absorption as the mechanism of
action of a gene that acts as an intensifier of resistance. J.
econ. Entomol. 61(5): 1298-1303.
Price, G. M. and R. J. Ruhr. 1969. The metabolism of the insecticide
carbaryl (1-Naphthyl-N-methylcarbamate) by fat body of the blowfly
larva, Calliphora erythrocephala. Biochem. J. 112: 133-138.
Priester, Thomas Martin. 1979. Pyrethroid resistance and cross¬
resistance in Culex quinquefasciatus Say (Diptera: Culicidae).
Ph.D. Dissertation. University of California, Riverside, CA.
Quaintance, A. L. 1897. The fall army-worm: southern grass worm.
Fla. Agr. Expt. Sta. Bull. 40, p. 507-512. illus.
Riskallah, M. R. 1983. Esterases and resistance to synthetic
pyrethroids in the Egyptian cotton leafworm. Pestic. Biochem.
Physiol. 19: 184-189.
Rose, R. L. and W. A. Brindley. 1985. An evaluation of the role of
oxidative enzymes in Colorado potato beetle resistance to carbamate
insecticide. Pestic. Biochem. Physiol. 23: 74-84.
Rose, R. L. and T. C. Sparks. 1984. Acephate toxicity, metabolism, and
anticholinesterase activity in Heliothis virescens (F.) and
Anthonomus grandis (Boheman). Pestic. Biochem. Physiol. 22:
69-77.
Roulston, W. J., H. J. Schnitzerling and C. A. Schuntner. 1968.
Acetylcholinesterase insensitivity in the biarra strain of the
cattle tick, Boophilus microplus, as a cause of resistance to
organophosphorus and carbamate insecticides. Aust. J. Biol. Sci.
21: 759-767.
Roulston, W. J., C. A. Schuntner, H. J. Schnitzerling and J. T. Wilson.
1969. Detoxification as a mechanism of resistance in a strain of
the cattle tick, Boophilus microplus (Canestrini) resistant to
organophosphorus and carbamate compounds. Aust. J. Biol. Sci. 22:
1585-1589.

99
Sawicki, R. M. and I. Denholm. 1984. Adaptation of insects to
insecticides. pages 152-166 in D. Evered, ed. Origins and develop¬
ment of adaptations. Pitman books, London.
Schunter, C. A., H. J. Schnitzerling and W. J. Roulston. 1972.
Carbaryl metabolism in larvae of organophosphorus and
carbamate-susceptible and -resistant strains of cattle tick,
Boophilus microplus. Pestic. Biochem. Physiol. 1: 424-433.
Scott, J. G., B. A. Croft and S. W. Wagner. 1983. Studies on the
mechanisms of permethrin resistance in Amblyseius fallacis
(Acariña: Phytoseiidae) relative to previous insecticide use on
apple. J. Econ. Entomol. 76: 6-10.
Shankland, D. L. 1976. The nervous system: comparative physiology and
pharmacology, pages 229-270 in C. F. Wilkinson, ed. Insecticide
biochemistry and physiology. Plenum Press, New York.
Shorey, H. H. and R. L. Hale. 1965. Mass-rearing of the larvae of nine
noctuid species on a simple artificial medium. J. Econ. Entomol.
58(3): 522-524.
Shrivastava, S. P.,^. Tsukamato and J. E. Casida. 1969. Oxidative
metabolism of C-labeled Baygon by living house flies and by house
fly enzyme preparations. J. Econ. Entomol. 62(2): 483-498.
Sinchaisri, N., T. Miyata and T. Saito. 1978. Mechanism of the
selective toxicity of organophosphorus compound in the armyworm,
Leucania separata Walker. J. Pestic. Sci. 3: 249-255.
Snow, J. W. and W. W. Copeland. 1969. Fall armyworm: use of virgin
female traps to detect males and to determine seasonal
distribution. U.S.D.A. Prod. Res. Rep. No. 110. 9 p.
Sparks, A. N. 1980. Pheromones: potential for use in monitoring and
managing populations of the fall armyworm. Fla. Entomol. 63(4):
406-410.
Sparks, T. C. 1981. Development of insecticide resistance in Heliothis
zea and Heliothis virescens in North America. Bull. Entomol. Soc.
Am. 27(3): 186-192^
Terriere, L. C. 1982. The biochemistry and toxicology of insecticides.
Oregon State University, Corvallis, Oregon, 246 pp.
Terriere, L. C., R. D. Schonbrod and S. J. Yu. 1975. Abnormalities in
the microsomal oxidases of the WHO standard reference strain of
Musca domestica. Bull. World. Health Organization. 52: 101-108.
Usui, Kenji and Jun-ichi Fukami. 1977. Insect glutathione-S-transfe-
rase: separation of transferases from fat bodies of American
cockroaches active on organophosphorus triesters. Pestic. Biochem.
Physiol. 7: 249-260.

100
van Asperen, K. 1962. A study of housefly esterases by means of a
sensitive colorimetric method. J. Insect Physiol. 8: 401-416.
Vickery, R. A. 1929. Sudies on the fall armyworm in the Gulf coast
district of Texas. U.S.D.A. Tech. Bull. 138, 64 pp.
Voss, G. 1980. Cholinesterase autoanalysis: a rapid method for
biochemical studies on susceptible and resistant insects. J. Econ
Entomol. 73: 189-192.
Wilkinson, C. F. 1983. Role of mixed-function oxidases in insecticide
resistance. pages 175-205 in G. P. Georghiou and T. Saito, eds.
Pest resistance to pesticides. Plenum Press, New York.
Wilkinson, C. F. and L. B. Brattsten. 1972. Microsomal drug
metabolizing enzymes in insects. Drug metabol. Rev. 1(2): 153-228
Wolfenbarger, D. A., P. R. Bodegas V. and R. Flores G. 1981.
Development of resistance in Heliothis spp. in the Americas,
Australia, Africa, and Asia. Bull. Econ. Entomol. Soc. Am. 27(3)
181-192.
Wood, K. A., B. H. Wilson and J. B. Graves. 1981. Influence of host
plant on the susceptibility of the fall armyworm to insecticides.
J. Econ. Entomol. 74: 96-98.
Wool, D., S. Noiman, Ora Manheim and E. Cohen. 1982. Malathion
resistance in Tribolium strains and their hybrids: inheritance
patterns and possible enzymatic mechanisms (Coleóptera:
Tenebrionidae). Biochem. Genetics. 20(7/8): 621-636.
Yamamoto, I., N. Kyomura and Y. Takahashi. 1977. Aryl N-propylcarba-
mates, a potent inhibitor of acetylcholinesterase from the
resistant green rice leafhopper, Nephotettix cincticeps. J.
Pestic. Sci. 2: 463-466.
Yang, R. S. H. 1976. Enzymatic conjugation and insecticide metabolism
pages 177-225 in C. F. Wilkinson, ed. Insecticide biochemistry and
physiology. Plenum Press, New York.
Yang, R. S. H., E. Hodgson and W. C. Dauterman. 1971. Metabolism in
vitro of diazinon and diazoxon in susceptible and resistant
houseflies. J. Agr. Food Chem. 19(1): 14-19.
Yeoh, C. L, E. Kuwano and M. Eto. 1981. Studies on the mechanisms of
organophosphate resistance in oriental houseflies, Musca domestica
vicina MacQuart. (Diptera: Muscidae). Appl. Ent. Zool. 16(3):
247-257.
Young, J. R. 1979. Assessing the movement of the fall armyworm
(Spodoptera frugiperda) using insecticide resistance and wind
patterns, pages 344-351 in R. L. Rabb and G. G. Kennedy, eds.
Movement of highly mobile insects: concepts and methodology in
research. North Carolina State University, Raleigh. 456 pp.

101
Young, J. R. and W. W. McMillian. 1979. Differential feeding by two
strains of fall armyworm larvae on carbaryl treated surfaces. J.
Econ. Entomol. 72: 202-203.
Yu, S. J. 1982a. Host plant induction of glutathione S-transferase in
the fall armyworm. Pestic. Biochem. Physiol. 18: 101-106.
Yu, S. J. 1982b. Induction of microsomal oxidases by host plants in
the fall armyworm, Spodoptera frugiperda (J. E. Smith). Pestic.
Biochem. Physiol. 17: 59-67.
Yu, S. J. 1983a. Age variation in insecticide susceptibility and
detoxification capacity of fall armyworm (Lepidoptera: Noctuidae)
larvae. J. Econ. Entomol. 76(2): 219-222.
Yu, S. J. 1983b. Induction of detoxifying enzymes by allelochemicals
and host plants in the fall armyworm. Pestic. Biochem. Physiol.
19: 330-336.
Yu, S. J. 1984. Interactions of allelochemicals with detoxication
enzymes of insecticide-susceptible and resistant fall armyworms.
Pestic. Biochem. Physiol. 22: 60-68.
Yu, S. J., R. E. Berry and L. C. Terriere. 1979. Host plant stimula¬
tion of detoxifying enzymes in a phytophagous insect. Pestic.
Biochem. Physiol. 12: 280-284.
Yu, S. J. and R. T. Ing. 1984. Microsomal biphenyl hydroxylase of fall
armyworm larvae and its induction by allelochemicals and host
plants. Comp. Biochem. Physiol. 78C(1): 145-152.
Yu, S. J., F. A. Robinson and J. L. Nation. 1984. Detoxication
capacity in the honey bee, Apis mellifera L. Pestic. Biochem.
Physiol. 22: 360-368.
Yu, S. J. and L. C. Terriere. 1979. Cytochrome P-450 in insects: 1.
Differences in the forms present in insecticide resistant and
susceptible house flies. Pestic. Biochem. Physiol. 12: 239-248.
Yu, S. J. and L. C. Terriere. 1975. Microsomal metabolism of juvenile
hormone analogs in the house fly, Musca domestica L. Pestic.
Biochem. Physiol. 5: 418-430.
Yu, S. J. and L. C. Terriere. 1978. Metabolism of juvenile hormone I
by microsomal oxidase, esterase, and epoxide hydrase of Musca
domestica and some comparisons with Phormia regina and Sarcophaga
bullata. Pestic. Biochem. Physiol. 9: 237-246.
Zettler, Larry J. 1974. Esterases in a malathion-susceptible and a
malathion-resistant strain of Plodia interpunctella (Lepidoptera:
Phycitidae). J. Ga. Entomol. Soc. 9(4): 207-213.

BIOGRAPHICAL SKETCH
Elzie McCord, Jr., was born on May 6, 1949, in Vidalia, Georgia.
He is the son of Elzie and Pearlene Calliberdena who have three other
children; Euteria, Arlene LaVerne and Phyllis Olivia. Elzie attended
public school at the James D. Dickerson High school where he earned the
high school diploma with honors.
Elzie entered Savannah State College in 1967 to pursue a B.S.
degree in biology with a minor in chemistry. He successfully completed
that four year program, married the former Pinkie B. Wilmore, and
immediately began postbacculaureate studies at the University of Florida
with the assistance from a Rockefeller Grant. He was formally admitted
to the graduate program of IFAS's (Institute of Food and Agricultural
Sciences) Department of Entomology and Nematology in 1972 to pursue an
M.S. degree with an emphasis on economic entomology.
Elzie received the M.S. degree in June of 1974 and accepted a
one-year interim position with the Florida Cooperative Extension Service
as Assistant in Extension Entomology. He was accepted to the doctoral
program at the University of Florida in 1975; however, in June of 1976
he accepted a position as Biologist with the E. I. Du Pont de Nemours &
Company, Wilmington, Delaware.
Elzie and Pinkie welcomed the birth of two sons, Rogers Christopher
(2/1/77) and Timothy Ryan (7/9/78) who continue to provide them with
many hours of happiness.
However, in January 1982, Elzie was granted a 18 months leave of
absence from the Du Pont Company and his family to return to the
doctoral program at the University of Florida. There he was fortunate
102

103
to work on carbaryl resistance in the fall armyworm under the direct
supervision of Dr. Simon S. J. Yu.
Elzie completed the Ph.D. degree in Entomology specializing on
August 10, 1985, and he returned to his Research Biologist's postion at
Du Pont in Wilmington, Delaware. His area of specialization was insect
toxicology.
Elzie McCord, Jr. is a member of the Entomological Society of
America and the Florida Entomological Society.

I certify that I have read this study and that in my opinion it
conforms to acceptable standards of scholarly presentation and is fully
adequate, in scope and quality, as a dissertation for the degree of
Doctor of Philosophy.
Entomology and Nematology
I certify that I have read this study and that in my opinion it
conforms to acceptable standards of scholarly presentation and is fully
adequate, in scope and quality, as a dissertation for the degree of
Doctor of Philosophy.
I certify that I have read this study and that in my opinion it
conforms to acceptable standards of scholarly presentation and is fully
adequate, in scope and quality, as a dissertation for the degree of
Doctor of Philosophy.
S. H. Kerr
Professor of Entomology
and Nematology

I certify that I have read this study and that in my opinion it
conforms to acceptable standards of scholarly presentation and is fully
adequate, in scope and quality, as a dissertation for the degree of
Doctor of Philosophy.
R.' B. Shi reman
Associate Professor of
Food Science
This dissertation was submitted to the Graduate Faculty of the College
of Agriculture and to the Graduate School, and was accepted as partial
fulfillment of the requirements for the degree of Doctor of Philosophy.
August 1985
Dean,
Cc/i'lege of Agriculture
u
Dean, Graduate School

UNIVERSITY OF FLORIDA
II III HI III! HIM . .Ml'* '.M _ -
3 1262 08556 7591


H0026
jlp*? 56 P3'PI -(I
39 39 mechanismsofcarbOOmcco



H0026
M?*? 5(o 2*4-3 3'PJ-d
39 39 mechanismsofcarbOOmcco



PAGE 2

0(&+$1,606 2) &$5%$5
PAGE 3

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

PAGE 4

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n JUDGXDWH VWXGLHV DW WKH 8QLYHUVLW\ RI )ORULGD R 'U 6LPRQ 6
PAGE 5

R 'UV $ % 0HDGH 6 $PXWL 'HU, :DQJ 7 0 3ULHVWHU 0V %DELUHWWH %DELQHDX[ 0V & 1 6HO] 0U 0DWWKHZ 0F*LUU DQG RWKHUV ZKR KDYH FRQWULEXWHG PRUDO VXSSRUW LGHDV FRQVWUXFWLYH FULWLFLVPV GUDZLQJV FRPSXWHU ZL]DUGU\ HWF R 7KH $JULFXOWXUDO &KHPLFDOV 'HSDUWPHQW RI WKH ( 'X 3RQW GH 1HPRXUV t &RPSDQ\ 'UV 'DOH :ROI $ 6DHJHEDUWK +LOO + 0 /RX[ : 6HDUF\ ( 6RERF]HQVNL DQG RWKHUV ZKR DVVLVWHG LQ P\ OHDYH RI DEVHQFH UHTXHVW DQG WKRVH ZKR DSSURYHG WKH JUDQWLQJ RI WKDW UHTXHVW R 0U 3KLOLS 1 &KDQH\ DQG 0U / -HQNLQV IRU EHLQJ WKH WUXH IULHQGV DOZD\V ZDQWHG DQG QHHGHG R 0UV -R $QQ /HGIRUG DQG 0UV *OLQGD %XUQHWW IRU WKHLU FRQWLQXHG IULHQGVKLS DQG DVVLVWDQFH VLQFH DQG R /DVW EXW QRW OHDVW P\ ZLIH 3LQNLH : DQG P\ VRQV 5RJHUV &KULVWRSKHU DQG 7LPRWK\ 5\DQ IRU HQGXULQJ WKH KDUGVKLSV RI GDLO\ DFWLYLWLHV ZLWKRXW PH IRU PRQWKV IRU WROHUDWLQJ P\ DEVHQFH ZKLOH LQ )ORULGD DQG ZKLOH ZDV ORFNHG DZD\ LQ P\ KRPH RIILFH LY

PAGE 6

7$%/( 2) &217(176 3DJH $&.12:/('*(0(176 LLL /,67 2) 7$%/(6 YLLL /,67 2) ),*85(6 [ /,67 2) $%%5(9,$7,216 [LL $%675$&7 [LY ,1752'8&7,21 /,7(5$785( 5(9,(: 6WDWXV RI 5HVLVWDQFH *HQHWLFV RI 5HVLVWDQFH 5HVLVWDQFH 0HFKDQLVPV 5HGXFHG 3HQHWUDWLRQ $OWHUHG 6LWH ,QVHQVLWLYLW\ ,, ,QFUHDVHG 'HWR[LFDWLRQ &\WRFKURPH 3 0RQRR[\JHQDVHV +\GURODVHV $ 3KRVSKRWULHVWHU +\GURO\VLV % $U\OHVWHU +\GURO\VLV & &DUER[\OHVWHU +\GURO\VLV *OXWDWKLRQH 6WUDQVIHUDVHV (SR[LGH +\GURODVHV +LVWRU\ RI &DUEDU\O 5HVLVWDQFH )DOO $UP\ZRUP 5HVLVWDQFH WR &DUEDU\O Y

PAGE 7

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

PAGE 8

* $&K( .LQHWLFV + ,Q YLWUR &DUEDU\O 0HWDEROLVP &XWLFXODU 3HQHWUDWLRQ ',6&866,21 /,7(5$785( &,7(' %,2*5$3+,&$/ 6.(7&+ YLL

PAGE 9

/,67 2) 7$%/(6 3DJH 7KH SULPDU\ DFWLRQ RI 0)2 V\VWHPV RQ VSHFLILF FKHPLFDO FRQILJXUDWLRQV IRXQG LQ [HQRELRWLF PROHFXOHV 5M YDOXHV RI FDUEDU\O DQG LWV PHWDEROLWHV RQ VLOLFD JHO SODWHV LQ D GHYHORSPHQWDO VROXWLRQ RI DFHWLF DFLG HWK\O DFHWDWHUEHQ]HQH E\ YROXPHf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n JHQDWHV RI VL[WKLQVWDU 5 DQG 6 IDOO DUP\ZRUP ODUYDH f *HQHUDO DQG FDUER[\OHVWHUDVH DFWLYLWLHV IURP PLFURVRPHV RI VL[WKLQVWDU 5 DQG 6 IDOO DUP\ZRUP ODUYDH $FHW\OFKROLQHVWHUDVH DFWLYLW\ IURP PRWK KHDGV RI WR GD\ ROG PL[HG SRSXODWLRQ 5 DQG 6 IDOO DUP\ZRUPV YLLL

PAGE 10

,Q YLWUR PHWDEROLVP RI FDUEDU\ E\ PLGJXW KRPRJHQDWH IURP 5 DQG 6 IDOO DUP\ZRUP ODUYDH

PAGE 11

/,67 2) ),*85(6 3DJH 0HWDEROLVP RI OLSRSKLOLF IRUHLJQ FRPSRXQGV 7KH UHDFWLRQ RI DOGULQ ZLWK PLGJXW PLFURVRPHV WR SURGXFH WKH HSR[LGH SURGXFW GLHOGULQ 7KH UHDFWLRQ RI ELSKHQ\O ZLWK PLFURVRPHV WR SURGXFH WKH R[LGDWLYH PHWDEROLWH K\GUR[\ELSKHQ\O 7KH UHDFWLRQ RI S&KORUR1PHWK\O DQLOLQH ZLWK PLFURVRPHV WR SURGXFH WKH GHPHWK\ODWHG SURGXFW S&KORURDQLOLQH f 7KH UHDFWLRQ RI GLFKORURQLWUREHQ]HQH ZLWK JOXWDWKLRQH 6DU\OWUDQVIHUDVH WR SURGXFH WKH FRQMXJDWHG SURGXFW 6f§f§ &KORURQLWURSKHQ\Of JOXWDWKLRQH 7KH UHDFWLRQ RI > &@ VW\UHQH R[LGH ZLWK ZDWHU DQG PLFURVRPHV WR SURGXFH WKH ZDWHU VROXEOH SURGXFW VW\UHQH JO\FRO 7KH UHDFWLRQ RI DQDSKWK\ODFHWDWH ZLWK HVWHUDVHV WR IRUP DQDSKWKRO DQG DFHWLF DFLG 7KH UHDFWLRQV RI DFHW\OWKLRFKROLQH ZLWK DFHW\OFKROLQn HVWHUDVH SURGXFLQJ WKLRFKROLQH ZKLFK SURGXFHV D \HOORZ FRORU ZKHQ FRPELQHG LQ UHDFWLRQ ZLWK GLWKLRELV QLWUREHQ]RLF DFLG /LQHZHDYHU%XUNH SORW IRU WKH UHDFWLRQ RI 5 DQG 6 IDOO DUP\ZRUP PRWK KHDG DFHW\OFKROLQHVWHUDVH ZLWK DFHW\AWKLR FKROLQH 9 SURGXFW IRUPHG QPRO PLQ PJ SURWHLQ f >$7&@ VXEVWUDWH FRQFHQWUDWLRQ P0f &DUEDU\O LQKLELWLRQ RI $&K( IURP KHDGV RI 5 DQG 6 IDOO DUP\ZRUP DGXOW PRWKV 3HUFHQW RI DSSOLHG GRVH RI > &@ FDUEDU\O UHPDLQLQJ RQ WKH FXWLFOH RI VL[WKLQVWDU 5 DQG 6 IDOO DUP\ZRUP ODUYDH 3HUFHQW RI DSSOLHG > &@ FDUEDU\O H[WUDFWHG IURP KRPRJHn QDWH RI VL[WKLQVWDU 5 DQG 6 IDOO DUP\ZRUP ODUYDH 3HUFHQW RI DSSOLHG > &@ FDUEDU\O UHFRYHUHG IURP H[FUHWD RI VL[WKLQVWDU 5 DQG 6 IDOO DUP\ZRUP ODUYDH

PAGE 12

$OGULQ HSR[LGDVH DFWLYLWLHV RI PLGJXW PLFURVRPHV IURP YDULRXV LQVWDUV RI 5 DQG 6 IDOO DUP\ZRUP ODUYDH 0LFURVRPDO ELSKHQ\O K\GUR[\ODVH DFWLYLWLHV IURP YDULRXV LQVWDUV RI 5 DQG 6 IDOO DUP\ZRUP ODUYDH 0HWDEROLF SDWKZD\V RI FDUEDU\O

PAGE 13

/,67 2) $%%5(9,$7,216 $&K( $FHW\OFKROLQHVWHUDVH HQ]\PH $7& $FHW\OWKLRFKROLQH %+& %HQ]HQH KH[DFKORULGH 6HH +&+f %6$ %RXLQH VHUXP DOEXPLQ &3% &RORUDGR SRWDWR EHHWOH '%/6 'LD]REOXH ODXU\OVXOIDWH '&1% GLFKORURQLWUREHQ]HQH ''7 SSn GLFKORURGLSKHQ\O WULFKORURHWKDQH '() 666WULEXW\O SKRVSKRURWULWKLRDWH ')3DVH 3KRVSKRWULHVWHU K\GURODVH '0& ELVSFKORURSKHQ\Of PHWK\O FDUELQRO '71% GLWKLRELVQLWUREHQ]RLF DFLG )$: )DOO DUP\ZRUP *6+ *OXWDWKLRQH +&+ +H[DFKORURKH[DQH VHH %+&f +& +\GURFKORULF DFLG +3/& +LJK SHUIRUPDQFH OLTXLG FKURPDWRJUDSK\ ,%3 6EHQ]\O GLVRSURS\O SKRVSKRURWKLRDWH .GU .QRFNGRZQ UHVLVWDQFH L ,QKLELWLRQ FRQVWDQW P %LQGLQJ DIILQLW\ 0)2 0LFURVRPDO PL[HGIXQFWLRQ R[LGDVH D1$ DQDSKWK\ODFHWDWH %1$ QDSKWK\ODFHWDWH [LL

PAGE 14

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

PAGE 15

$EVWUDFW RI 'LVVHUWDWLRQ 3UHVHQWHG WR WKH *UDGXDWH 6FKRRO RI WKH 8QLYHUVLW\ RI )ORULGD LQ 3DUWLDO )XOILOOPHQW RI WKH 5HTXLUHPHQWV IRU WKH 'HJUHH RI 'RFWRU RI 3KLORVRSK\ 0(&+$1,606 2) &$5%$5 &@ FDUEDU\O VKRZHG WKDW b RI WKH DSSOLHG UDGLRDFWLYLW\ UHPDLQHG RQ WKH FXWLFOH RI UHVLVWDQW ODUYDH ZKLOH b UHPDLQHG RQ VXVFHSWLEOH ODUYDH KU DIWHU WRSLFDO WUHDWPHQW 7KHUH ZDV QR GLIIHUHQFH LQ WKH DPRXQW RI UDGLRDFWLYLW\ IRXQG LQWHUQDOO\ LQ WKH WZR VWUDLQV 6XVFHSWLEOH ODUYDH KRZHYHU H[FUHWHG WLPHV PRUH [LY

PAGE 16

UDGLRDFWLYLW\ WKDQ UHVLVWDQW ODUYDH ,W LV FRQFOXGHG WKDW HQKDQFHG R[LGDWLYH PHWDEROLVP RI FDUEDU\O SOD\V DQ LPSRUWDQW UROH LQ WKH FDUEDU\O UHVLVWDQFH 6ORZHU SHQHWUDWLRQ RI FDUEDU\O LQ WKH UHVLVWDQW DUP\ZRUP PD\ EH D PLQRU IDFWRU FRQWULEXWLQJ WR UHVLVWDQFH [Y

PAGE 17

,1752'8&7,21 5HVLVWDQFH KDV EHHQ GHILQHG DV WKH GHYHORSHG DELOLW\ LQ D VWUDLQ RI LQVHFW WR WROHUDWH GRVHV RI WR[LFDQWV ZKLFK ZRXOG SURYH OHWKDO WR WKH PDMRULW\ RI LQGLYLGXDOV LQ D QRUPDO SRSXODWLRQ RI WKH VDPH VSHFLHV $QRQ\PRXV f ,W LV SUHDGDSWLYH LQ QDWXUH UHSUHVHQWLQJ D VHOHFWLRQ RI JHQHV DOUHDG\ SUHVHQW LQ WKH SRSXODWLRQ $V VXVFHSWLEOH LQGLYLGXDOV DUH NLOOHG IURP WKH VHOHFWHG SRSXODWLRQ UHVLVWDQW LQGLYLGXDOV EUHHG DQG SDVV UHVLVWDQFH JHQHV WR WKHLU SURJHQ\ 7KH FRQWLQXHG XVH RI WKH VDPH RU VLPLODU LQVHFWLFLGHV LQFUHDVHV WKH VHOHFWLRQ SUHVVXUH RQ WKH SRSXODn WLRQ DQG FDXVHV UHVLVWDQFH H[SUHVVLRQ LQ WKH PDMRULW\ RI WKH LQGLYLGXDOV LQ WKDW SRSXODWLRQ *HRUJKLRX DQG 0HOORQ f UHSRUWHG WKDW D WRWDO RI LQVHFW DQG DFDULD VSHFLHV ZHUH UHVLVWDQW WR RQH RU PRUH LQVHFWLFLGH FODVVHV LQFOXGLQJ WKRVH FRPPRQO\ XVHG WRGD\ 7KHVH LQVHFWLn FLGH FODVVHV LQFOXGH ''7DQDORJXHV F\FORGLHQH%+& RUJDQRSKRVSKDWHV 23nVf FDUEDPDWHV LQVHFW JURZWK UHJXODWRUV S\UHWKULQV DQG WKH QHZHU V\QWKHWLF S\UHWKURLGV 3ULHVWHU :ROIHQEDUJHU HW DO 6SDUNV %XOO %URZQ f ,QVHFW UHVLVWDQFH WR LQVHFWLFLGHV FDQ EH GLYLGHG LQWR WZR W\SHV EHKDYLRUDO UHVLVWDQFH DQG SK\VLRORJLFDO UHVLVWDQFH 5HFHQW HYLGHQFH VKRZV WKDW ERWK W\SHV RI UHVLVWDQFH RIWHQ FRH[LVW LQ UHVLVWDQW LQGLYLGn XDOV /RFNZRRG HW DO f %HKDYLRUDO UHVLVWDQFH LV PRVWO\ VWLPXOXV GHSHQGHQW UHTXLULQJ VHQVRU\ VWLPXODWLRQ WR DFKLHYH DYRLGDQFH ,QVHFWV ZLWK EHKDYLRUDO UHVLVWDQFH DUH PRUH VHQVLWLYH DQG DUH DEOH WR UHVSRQG WR ORZHU FRQFHQWUDWLRQV RI LQVHFWLFLGHV WKDQ DUH VXVFHSWLEOH LQVHFWV

PAGE 18

7KHUH DUH WKUHH PDLQ W\SHV RI SK\VLRORJLFDO UHVLVWDQFH QDPHO\ LQn FUHDVHG GHWR[LFDWLRQ UHGXFHG SHQHWUDWLRQ DQG WDUJHW VLWH LQVHQVLWLYLW\ ,QFUHDVHG LQVHFWLFLGH PHWDEROLVP E\ VSHFLILF GHWR[LFDWLRQ HQ]\PHV ZDV IRXQG WR FRQIHU FDUEDPDWH RUJDQRSKRVSKDWH DQGRU FKORULQDWHG K\GURFDUERQ UHVLVWDQFH LQ QXPHURXV VSHFLHV RI LQVHFWV +XJKHV
PAGE 19

7KH IDOO DUP\ZRUP 6SRGRSWHUD IUXJOSHUGD ( 6PLWKf LV D YRUDn FLRXV SK\WRSKDJRXV LQVHFW SHVW RI WKH VRXWKHDVWHUQ 86 DQG WKH WURSLFV /XJLQELOO 9LFNHU\ f 7KH IDOO DUP\ZRUP )$:f GDPDJHV PDQ\ FURS SODQWV E\ IHHGLQJ RQ OHDYHV DQG IUXLW RIWHQ FRQVXPLQJ WKH HQWLUH OHDI H[FHSW WKH PLGULE RU SURGXFLQJ KROHV LQ WKH OHDYHV 9LFNHU\ f DV D UHVXOW RI VSRUDGLF IHHGLQJ
PAGE 20

/,7(5$785( 5(9,(: 6WDWXV RI 5HVLVWDQFH ,QVHFW UHVLVWDQFH WR LQVHFWLFLGHV KDV EHHQ NQRZQ VLQFH WKH HDUO\ V 0HODQGHU UHSRUWHG 6DQ -RVH VFDOH UHVLVWDQFH WR OLPHVXOIXU LQ DQG 4XD\OH UHSRUWHG UHVLVWDQFH LQ WKH &DOLIRUQLD UHG VFDOH WR F\DQLGH LQ 2n%ULHQ )RUJDVK f 6LQFH WKHVH HDUO\ UHSRUWV UHVLVWDQFH KDV EHHQ UHSRUWHG LQ RUJDQLVPV RWKHU WKDQ LQVHFWV VXFK DV EDFWHULD VSRUR]RD DQG PDPPDOV *HRUJKLRX DQG 0HOORQ f 1RZKHUH KDV WKH LPSDFW RI RUJDQLVPV H[SUHVVLQJ UHVLVWDQFH EHHQ DV JUHDW DV ZLWK LQVHFWV *HRUJKLRX DQG 0HOORQ f UHSRUWHG FRQVHUYDWLYHO\ NQRZQ LQVHFW DQG DFDULD VSHFLHV ZRUOGZLGH WKDW KDYH GHYHORSHG UHVLVWDQFH *HRUJKLRX f HPSKDVL]HG WKDW WKH QXPEHU RI UHVLVWDQW LQVHFW VSHFLHV LV QRW DV VWDJJHULQJ DV WKH QXPEHU RI FKHPLFDOV WKDW PDQ\ LQVHFW VWUDLQV FDQ QRZ WROHUDWH DQG WKH LQFUHDVHG JHRJUDSKLFDO GLVWULEXn WLRQ RI UHVLVWDQW LQVHFW SRSXODWLRQV 7KH ZLGH GLVWULEXWLRQ RI UHVLVWDQW VSHFLHV VXJJHVWV D FRPPRQ SKHQRPHQRQ FDOOHG FURVVUHVLVWDQFH ZKLFK DOORZV RQH RUJDQLVP WR EHFRPH UHVLVWDQW WR LQVHFWLFLGHV RI WKH VDPH DQG GLIIHUHQW FODVVHV GXH WR WKH VDPH UHVLVWDQW PHFKDQLVP 2SSHQRRUWK DQG :HOOLQJ f 3ULHVWHU f UHSRUWHG FURVVUHVLVWDQFH LQ &XOH[ TXLQTXHIDVFLDWXV 6D\ WR V\QWKHWLF S\UHWKURLGV ZLWK LPSOLFDWLRQ RI SULRU ''7 H[SRVXUH 6FRWW HW DO f UHSRUWHG FURVVUHVLVWDQFH LQ VL[ SUHGDWRU\ PLWH VWUDLQV WR SHUPHWKULQ WKDW DOVR KDG SUHYLRXV H[SRVXUH WR ''7 D]LQSKRVPHWK\O SDUDWKLRQ DQG FDUEDU\O

PAGE 21

5HVLVWDQFH WKDW LV UHODWHG WR SUHYLRXV H[SRVXUH VXJJHVWV D JHQHWLF FKDQJH WKDW LQIOXHQFHV PDVVLYH SK\VLRORJLFDO DQG ELRFKHPLFDO FKDQJHV LQ DQ RUJDQLVP 3ODSS S f VWDWHV WKDW LW LV EHFRPLQJ DSSDUHQW WKDW FKDQJHV DW RQO\ D IHZ ORFL DUH UHVSRQVLEOH IRU UHVLVWDQFH WR PDQ\ LQVHFWLFLGHV 7KDW LV WKH JHQHWLF EDVLV IRU UHVLVWDQFH LV UHODWLYHO\ VLPSOH 7KLV LV ZK\ FURVVUHVLVWDQFH WR LQVHFWLFLGHV LV VXFK D VHYHUH SUREOHP 6HOHFWLRQ IRU UHVLVWDQFH WR D VSHFLILF FKHPLFDO RIWHQ FRQIHUV UHVLVWDQFH QRW RQO\ WR WKH VHOHFWLQJ DJHQW EXW VRPHWLPHV WR DOO LQVHFn WLFLGHV KDYLQJ WKH VDPH PRGH RI DFWLRQ DQG RWKHU WLPHV WR YLUWXDOO\ DOO FKHPLFDOV PHWDEROL]HG E\ RQH RU PRUH RI WKH PDMRU GHWR[LILFDWLRQ HQ]\PH V\VWHPV :ROIHQEDUJHU HW DO f UHSRUWHG JHRJUDSKLFDO ORFDWLRQV RI UHVLVWDQW +HOLRWKLV ]HD %RGGLHf + YLUHVFHQV )f DUPJHUD +XEQHUf DQG + SXQWLJHUD :DOOHQJUHQf LQ 0H[LFR &HQWUDO $PHULFD 6RXWK $PHULFD $XVWUDOLD $IULFD DQG $VLD :ROIHQEDUJHUnV VXUYH\ LQFOXGHG FRXQWULHV RU FRQWLQHQWV ZKHUH HDFK VSHFLHV ZDV LQGLJHQRXV 6SDUNV f HPSKDVL]HG WKH VHYHULW\ DQG LPSRUWDQFH RI UHVLVWDQW +HOLRWKLV ]HD %RGGLHf DQG + YLUHVFHQV )f LQ 1RUWK $PHULFD FRQFOXGLQJ WKDW WKHVH VSHFLHV DUH WZR RI WKH PRVW VHULRXV DJULFXOWXUDO SHVWV %XOO f QRWHG WKDW B+ YLUHVFHQV )f KDG EHFRPH UHVLVWDQW WR PDQ\ RI WKH ROGHU FKORULQDWHG K\GURFDUERQ DQG RUJDQRSKRVSKRUXV LQVHFWLFLGHV DQG DSSDUHQWO\ KDV VRPH FURVV WROHUDQFH WR FHUWDLQ RI WKH QHZ V\QWKHWLF S\UHWKURLGV DQG RUJDQRn SKRVSKRUXV LQVHFWLFLGHV UHFHQWO\ GHYHORSHG IRU LWV FRQWURO *UDKDP%U\FH f FRQFOXGHG WKDW LQFUHDVHV LQ UHVLVWDQFH WR FRQYHQWLRQDO SHVWLFLGHV UHTXLUH LQYHVWLJDWLRQ RI QRYHO FKHPLFDO DSn SURDFKHV WR FURS SURWHFWLRQ +H VXJJHVWHG WKH LQYHVWLJDWLRQ RI

PAGE 22

XQH[SORLWHG WDUJHW VLWHV WKH PRGLILFDWLRQ RI FKHPLFDO SURSHUWLHV RI SHVWLFLGHV WR LQFUHDVH PRELOLW\ DQG DYDLODELOLW\ WKH H[SORUDWLRQ RI QRYHO IRUPXODWLRQV DQG WKH LQYHVWLJDWLRQ RI FKHPLFDO FRPSRXQGV WKDW VXSSUHVV FKHPLFDOO\ PHGLDWHG SURFHVVHV UDWKHU WKDQ IXQFWLRQLQJ E\ GLUHFW WR[LF DFWLRQ 7KH DSSURDFKHV VXJJHVWHG E\ *UDKDP%U\FH f ZRXOG VHUYH WR VORZ GRZQ UHVLVWDQFH SURGXFH VHOHFWLYH FRPSRXQGV UHGXFH PDPPDOLDQ WR[LFLW\ DQG DIIRUG FRQWURO FRPSDUDEOH WR PRUH WR[LF HQYLURQn PHQWDOO\ SHUVLVWHQW FRPSRXQGV QRZ LQ XVH *HQHWLFV RI 5HVLVWDQFH 7KH :RUOG +HDOWK 2UJDQL]DWLRQnV :+2f GHILQLWLRQ RI UHVLVWDQFH GHQRWHV UHVLVWDQFH DV D SURSHUW\ RI D SRSXODWLRQ DQG QRW WKH UHVXOW RI DOWHUDWLRQV ZLWKLQ LQGLYLGXDO LQVHFWV 2SSHQRRUWK DQG :HOOLQJ f ,W LV WKH LQGLYLGXDO LQVHFW WKDW SRVVHVVHV WKH SUHDGDSWLYH DELOLW\ WR ZLWKVWDQG KLJKHU WKDQ QRUPDO WR[LF GRVHV RI SHVWLFLGHV 5HVLVWDQFH LV DVVXPHG WR EH SUHDGDSWLYH DULVLQJ WKURXJK UHFXUUHQW PXWDWLRQ RI H[LVWLQJ DOOHOHV 6DZLFNL DQG 'HQKROP f 0XWDWLRQV RI JHQHV FDQ EH PRQRJHQLF RU SRO\JHQLF DQG WKRVH WHUPV DUH V\QRQ\PRXV ZLWK PRQR DQG PXOWLIDFn WRULDO UHVSHFWLYHO\ PHDQLQJ UHVLVWDQFH LV XQGHU WKH FRQWURO RI RQH RU VHYHUDO JHQHV ,W LV QRW NQRZQ ZKLFK PXWDWLRQ ZLOO RFFXU XQGHU ZKLFK LQVHFWLFLGDO SUHVVXUH IRU D JLYHQ LQVHFWLFLGH +RZHYHU 2SSHQRRUWK DQG :HOOLQJ f SUHGLFW PRQRJHQLF UHVLVWDQFH ZLOO RFFXU LI D VLQJOH JHQH FDQ FRQIHU KLJK UHVLVWDQFH LQ DQ RUJDQLVP 3RO\JHQLF UHVLVWDQFH LV OHVV OLNHO\ WR RFFXU EXW PD\ RFFXU LQ RUJDQLVPV H[SRVHG WR WKH VHOHFWLQJ DJHQW RYHU ORQJ SHULRGV RI WLPH *HQHWLFV RIIHU D YDOXDEOH WRRO LQ DQDO\VLV RI UHVLVWDQFH 2SSHQn RRUWK DQG :HOOLQJ f *HQHWLFV FDQ DLG WKH VHSDUDWLRQ RI GLIIHUHQW UHVLVWDQFH PHFKDQLVPV WKDW RFFXU VLPXOWDQHRXVO\ LQ D VWUDLQ $OVR FRQWLQXRXV HQYLURQPHQWDO VHOHFWLRQ FDQ SURYLGH UHVHDUFKHUV ZLWK UDUH

PAGE 23

PXWDQWV WKDW ZLWKRXW JHQHWLF DQDO\VLV ZRXOG QRW EH GHWHFWHG 2SSHQRRUWK f 7R XVH JHQHWLFV DV D WRRO UHVHDUFKHUV KDYH GHYHORSHG YDULRXV F\WRJHQLF WHFKQLTXHV ZKHUHE\ PDUNHU JHQHV FDQ EH ORFDWHG RQ FKURPRVRPHV DQG WKHVH FKURPRVRPHV PDSSHG WR GHWHUPLQH VSHFLILF ORFDWLRQ RI DOOHOHV RQ WKRVH FKURPRVRPHV 3ULHVWHU f XVHG JHQHWLF FURVVHV RI &XOH[ TXLQTXIDVFLDWXV 6D\ WR VWXG\ LQKHULWDQFH RI S\UHWKURLG UHVLVWDQFH WR LVRPHUV RI SHUPHWKULQ )DUQKDP f LVRODWHG IRXU JHQHWLF UHVLVWDQFH IDFWRUV IURP WKH KRXVH IO\ 0XVFD GRPHVWLFD /f WR QDWXUDO S\UHWKULQV DQG UHVPHWKULQ 3ULHVWHU f DQG )DUQKDP f XVHG ELRDVVD\ WHFKQLTXH WR GHWHUPLQH WKH SUHVHQFH RU DEVHQFH RI H[SHFWHG UHVLVWDQFH JHQHV DFTXLUHG GXULQJ FURVVLQJV )DUQKDP f IRXQG WKDW WKH UHVLVWDQFH JHQHV FDUULHG QR PDUNHUV +H UHSODFHG WKH PDUNHG DXWRVRPHV RI D TXDGUXSOH VXVFHSWLEOH VWUDLQ ZLWK XQPDUNHG UHVLVWDQFH JHQHV LQ DQ DWWHPSW WR DVVRFLDWH YLVLEOH SKHQRW\SLF FKDUDFWHUV ZLWK UHVLVWDQW FKDUDFWHULVWLFV %\ FURVVLQJ DQG EDFNFURVVn LQJ SURJHQ\ IURP ERWK IO\ VWUDLQV KH GHYHORSHG IRXU VWUDLQV ZKLFK ZHUH YLVLEO\ GLVWLQFW DQG ZKLFK FRQIHUUHG UHVLVWDQFH IDFWRUV VSHFLILF IRU SHQHWUDWLRQ NGU NQRFNGRZQ UHVLVWDQFHf QDWXUDO S\UHWKULQ UHVLVWDQFH DQG UHVLVWDQFH WR V\QHUJL]HG S\UHWKULQV 7KHVH JHQHV ZHUH ORFDWHG RQ FKURPRVRPHV DQG UHVSHFWLYHO\ 3UHGHFHVVRUV RI WKH DERYH WHFKQLTXHV ZHUH SHUIRUPHG VRRQ DIWHU WKH GLVFRYHU\ RI RUJDQLF LQVHFWLFLGH UHVLVWDQFH /RYHOO DQG .HDUQV f VHOHFWHG KRXVH IOLHV 0XVFD GRPHVWLFD /f ZLWK ''7 DQG '0& ELVS FKORURSKHQ\Of PHWK\O FDUELQROf 7KH DPRXQW RI ''7DVH SUHVHQW LQ WKH IO\ VWUDLQ VHOHFWHG ZLWK ''7 DORQH ZDV PXFK OHVV WKDQ LQ WKRVH VHOHFWHG ZLWK ''7 DQG '0& 6XEVHTXHQW EDFN FURVVHV SURYLGHG LQLWLDO FOXHV WKDW

PAGE 24

''7 UHVLVWDQFH PD\ EH JRYHUQHG E\ D VLQJOH SDUWLDOO\ GRPLQDQW JHQH ZKLFK EHKDYHG DFFRUGLQJ WR VLPSOH 0HQGHOLDQ SULQFLSOHV *HRUJKLRX HW DO f DQG *HRUJKLRX f VHOHFWHG ODERUDWRU\ KRXVH IOLHV ZLWK YDULRXV FDUEDPDWHV DQG WULHG WR UHYHUVH UHVLVWDQFH ZLWK SLSHURQ\O EXWR[LGH 3%f 7KH\ FRQFOXGHG WKDW VRPH XQNQRZQ IDFWRU LQ WKH IO\ ZDV LQVHQVLWLYH WR 3% EHFDXVH UHVLVWDQFH FRXOG QRW EH HOLPLQDWHG HQWLUHO\ 7KH\ DOVR UHFRJQL]HG WKDW IDFWRUV RWKHU WKDQ WKRVH LQKLELWHG E\ 3% SOD\HG D PDMRU UROH LQ FDUEDPDWH UHVLVWDQFH LQ KLJKO\ UHVLVWDQW IO\ VWUDLQV 3ODSS DQG +R\HU Df LQYHVWLJDWLQJ UHVLVWDQFH LQ WKH PRVTXLWR &XOH[ WDUVDOLV &RTXLOOHW DQG WKH KRXVH IO\ IRXQG WKDW D NGU JHQH IRU ''7 UHVLVWDQFH DOVR FRQIHUUHG UHVLVWDQFH WR ''7 DQDORJXHV DQG S\UHWKULQV 3% %\ FURVVLQJ JURXSV RI LQGLYLGXDOV LQ ERWK VSHFLHV DQG XVLQJ GLVFULPLQDWLQJ LQVHFWLFLGDO GRVHV WR LVRODWH WKH GHVLUDEOH JHQRW\SHV 3ODSS DQG +R\HU UHORFDWHG XQPDUNHG JHQHV LQ LQGLYLGXDOV ZLWK SKHQRW\SLF PDUNHU 1R PHWDEROLF GLIIHUHQFHV ZHUH IRXQG LQ WKH 5HVLVWDQW 5f RU 6XVFHSWLEOH 6f VWUDLQ RI WKH PRVTXLWR RU KRXVH IO\ WKDW FRXOG H[SODLQ WKH KLJK GHJUHH RI UHVLVWDQFH IRXQG WR ''7 DQG S\UHWKULQ 7KLV H[SHULn PHQW VKRZHG WKDW UHVLVWDQFH FRXOG RFFXU ZLWKRXW WKH SUHVHQFH RI KLJK OHYHOV RI GHWR[LFDWLRQ HQ]\PHV DQG SRLQWHG WRZDUG VRPH LQVHQVLWLYH UHVLVWDQFH PHFKDQLVP 3ODSS DQG &DVLGD f UHSRUWHG WKDW JHQHV RQ DXWRVRPH DQG LQ WZR KRXVH IO\ VWUDLQV FRQWUROOHG WKH WLVVXH OHYHO RI 1$'3+ UHGXFHG QLFRWLQDPLGH DGHQLQH GLQXFOHRWLGH SKRVSKDWHf 1$'3+ OHYHOV ZHUH FRQWUROOHG JHQHWLFDOO\ WR FRQIHU UHVLVWDQFH WR FKORULQDWHG K\GURFDUERQ S\UHWKURLG RUJDQRSKRVSKDWH DQG PHWK\O FDUEDPDWH LQVHFWLFLGHV

PAGE 25

3ODSS f XVHG EDFN FURVVHV RI WZR FDUEDPDWH UHVLVWDQW KRXVH IO\ VWUDLQV WR GHPRQVWUDWH UHVLVWDQFH LQKHULWDQFH %\ LVRODWLQJ KHWHUR]\JRn WHV ZLWK ,VRODQ DQG FDUEDU\O 3ODSS GLVWLQJXLVKHG UHVLVWDQW IOLHV SKHQRW\SLFDOO\ DQG FKHPLFDOO\ ,VRODWHG JHQHV ZHUH ORFDWHG RQ FKURPRn VRPH KRZHYHU JHQHV RQ FKURPRVRPH DQG FRQWULEXWHG LQVLJQLILFDQWO\ 5HVLVWDQFH 0HFKDQLVPV 7KH PHFKDQLVPV RI SHVWLFLGH UHVLVWDQFH DUH FODVVLILHG LQWR WZR FDWHJRULHV EHKDYLRUDO DQG SK\VLRORJLFDO %HKDYLRUDO UHVLVWDQFH LV GHILQHG DV WKRVH DFWLRQV WKDW KDYH HYROYHG DV WKH UHVXOW RI SHVWLFLGH VHOHFWLRQ ZKLFK DLG WKH RUJDQLVP LQ DYRLGLQJ WR[LFRVLV /RFNZRRG HW DO f ,QVHFWV WKDW DUH EHKDYLRUDOO\ UHVLVWDQW XVXDOO\ DYRLG SHVWLFLGH UHVLGXHV DQG WUHDWHG VXUIDFHV HLWKHU E\ GLUHFW VWLPXODWLRQ RU KRVW DQGRU KDELWDW VHOHFWLRQ 3K\VLRORJLFDO UHVLVWDQFH LV FDWHJRUL]HG DV IROORZV 3K\VLFDO RU UHVWULFWHG FXWLFXODU SHQHWUDWLRQ ,, ,QFUHDVHG HQ]\PDWLF GHWR[LFDWLRQ DQG ,,, $OWHUHG VLWH RU UHGXFHG VHQVLWLYLW\ RI D SK\VLRORJLFDO HQGRJHn QRXV WDUJHW %XVYLQH 'HYRQVKLUH 3ODSS 2SSHQRRUWK DQG :HOOLQJ 2SSHQRRUWK +RGJVRQ DQG 0RWR\DPD f 5HGXFHG 3HQHWUDWLRQ (DUO\ UHVHDUFKHUV LQYHVWLJDWLQJ WKH UDWH DW ZKLFK LQVHFWLFLGHV SHQHWUDWHG WKH FXWLFOH RI YDULRXV LQVHFWV (OGHIUDZL DQG +RVNLQV 3ODSS DQG +R\HU E .X DQG %LVKRS &DPS DQG $UWKXU +DQQD DQG $WDOODK $KPDG HW DO f FRUUHODWHG WKDW UDWH ZLWK WKH UDWH RI LQWHUQDO PHWDEROLVP 5HVLVWDQFH DWWULEXWHG WR WKH UDWH RI SHQHWUDn WLRQ SURGXFHG D FRPSDUDEOH UDWH RI PHWDEROLVP H[FHSW LQ WKRVH VSHFLHV WKDW ZHUH GHHPHG KLJKO\ UHVLVWDQW .X DQG %LVKRS f %XVYLQH f

PAGE 26

UHSRUWHG RQ ZRUN RI RWKHU UHVHDUFKHUV ZKR WULHG WR H[SODLQ UHVLVWDQFH E\ WKLV URXWH 6HYHUDO UHVHDUFKHUV PHDVXUHG FXWLFOH WKLFNQHVV LQ 5 DQG 6 LQVHFW VWUDLQV ZKLOH RWKHUV PHDVXUHG WKH SURWHLQ DQG OLSLG FRQWHQW LQ WKH FXWLFOH RI 5 DQG 6 LQVHFW VWUDLQV 2SSHQRRUWK DQG :HOOLQJ f 3DWLO DQG *XWKULH f DOWHUHG WKH OLSLG FRPSRVLWLRQ RI KRXVH IO\ FXWLFOH E\ IHHGLQJ DUWLILFLDO GLHWV ZLWK DQG ZLWKRXW '/FDUQLWLQH DQG GLPHWK\ODPLQRHWKDQRO +RXVH IOLHV ZLWK DEQRUPDOO\ KLJK FXWLFXODU SKRVSKROLSLGV GLG QRW DOZD\V VKRZ D GHFUHDVH LQ LQVHFWLFLGH DEVRUSWLRQ 6WUDLQ DQG LQVHFWLFLGH GLIIHUHQFHV VKRZHG WUHQGV WRZDUG UHGXFHG SHQHWUDn WLRQ WKXV SDUWLDOO\ VXSSRUWLQJ WKH WKHRU\ WKDW D JHQH IRU SHQHWUDWLRQ UHVLVWDQFH FDQ DOWHU WKH FXWLFXODU FRPSRVLWLRQ WR VORZ WKH UDWH RI LQVHFWLFLGH PRYLQJ LQWR RUJDQLVPV *HQHUDOO\ WKH VORZHU SHQHWUDWLRQ UDWH DOORZV WKH XVXDOO\ VORZ PHWDEROLF GHWR[LFDWLRQ SURFHVV WR SURWHFW WKH RUJDQLVP IURP WR[LFRVLV %XVYLQH f DOVR FLWHG RQH FDVH ZKHUH H[FHVVLYH SHULWURSKLF PHPEUDQH GHYHORSPHQW DFFRXQWHG IRU WKH UDSLG H[FUHWLRQ RI ''7 LQ D PRVTXLWR VWUDLQ $ULDUDWQDP DQG *HRUJKLRX f UHSRUWHG VOLJKW EXW QRW VWDWLVWLFDOO\ VLJQLILFDQW GLIIHUHQFHV LQ UDWHV RI PHWDEROLVP LQ 5 DQG 6 VWUDLQV RI $QRSKHOHV DOELPDQXV :LHGHPDQQ WR FDUEDU\O 7KH\ FRQFOXGHG WKDW KLJK UHVLVWDQFH LQ WKLV PRVTXLWR VWUDLQ ZDV \HW XQLGHQn WLILHG EXW DOOXGHG WR UHGXFHG SHQHWUDWLRQ DV WKH SUREDEOH FDXVH 'H9ULHV DQG *HRUJKLRX Ef IRXQG GHFUHDVHG FXWLFXODU SHQHWUDWLRQ DV RQH RI WKH UHVLVWDQFH PHFKDQLVPV LQ D SHUPHWKULQ VHOHFWHG VWUDLQ RI KRXVH IO\ 'HYRQVKLUH f VKRZHG WKDW WKH JHQH IRU KRXVH IO\ SHQHn WUDWLRQ UHVLVWDQFH ZDV ORFDWHG RQ FKURPRVRPH 6LQFKDLVUL HW DO f UHSRUWHG FXWLFXODU SHQHWUDWLRQ DV D SRVVLEOH PHFKDQLVP RI UHVLVWDQFH LQ /HXFDQLD VHSDUDWD :DONHU WR PHWK\O

PAGE 27

SDUDWKLRQ IHQLWKURWKLRQ GLD]LQRQ DQG SKHQWKRDWH EHFDXVH HDFK FKHPLFDO VKRZHG YDULDEOH UDWHV RI SHQHWUDWLRQ 7KH\ FRQFOXGHG WKDW SHQHWUDELOLW\ FDQ EH LQIOXHQFHG E\ VROXELOLW\ OLSRSKLOLFLW\ DQG K\GURSKLOLFLW\ RI D FRPSRXQG WKXV DFFRXQWLQJ IRU WKH YDULDELOLW\ LQ SHQHWUDWLRQ UDWHV LQ WKLV LQVHFW VWUDLQ 2SSHQRRUWK DQG :HOOLQJ f DOVR DJUHHG WKDW WKH HIIHFWLYHQHVV RI WKH SHQHWUDWLRQ JHQH LV GHSHQGHQW RQ WKH QDWXUH RI WKH LQVHFWLFLGH DQG LWV DYHQXH RI DGPLQLVWUDWLRQ $OWHUHG 6LWH ,QVHQVLWLYLW\ $OWHUHG VLWH LQVHQVLWLYLW\ YDULHV DPRQJ RUJDQLVPV DQG EHWZHHQ SHVWLFLGHV $OWHUHG VLWH LQVHQVLWLYLW\ FDQ WDNH WKH IRUP RI R /HVV VHQVLWLYH $&K( WR LQKLELWLRQ E\ FDUEDPDWH DQG 23 &RPSRXQGV 2SSHQRRUWK f R .GU NQRFNGRZQ UHVLVWDQFHf ZKHUH WKH LPPHGLDWH LPPRELOLW\ RI DQ RUJDQLVP WUHDWHG ZLWK ''7 RU S\UHWKURLGV GRHV QRW RFFXU 7KLV SKHQRPHQRQ ZDV ILUVW REVHUYHG LQ WKH KRXVH IO\ 2SSHQRRUWK DQG :HOOLQJ f DQG KDV VXEVHTXHQWO\ EHHQ IRXQG LQ WKH FDWWOH WLFN %XVYLQH f R 7DUJHW VLWH FKDQJH (YLGHQFH RI +&+ DQG GLHOGULQ F\FORGLHQHVf UHVLVWDQFH LQ VHYHUDO PRVTXLWR KRXVH IO\ DQG EHG EXJ VWUDLQV VXJJHVWV WDUJHW VLWH FKDQJH EHFDXVH QR GLIIHUHQFHV LQ PHWDEROLVP RU FXWLFXODU SHQHWUDWLRQ ZDV IRXQG EHWZHHQ 5 DQG 6 VWUDLQV 2SSHQRRUWK 2SSHQRRUWK DQG :HOOLQJ f 7KH QHUYRXV V\VWHP LV DQ LQWHJUDO SDUW RI DQ RUJDQLVP WKXV PDNLQJ LW D VXLWDEOH WDUJHW IRU DOWHUDWLRQ LQKLELWLRQ RU GLUHFW SRLVRQLQJ 7KH QHUYRXV V\VWHP RI ERWK YHUWHEUDWHV DQG LQYHUWHEUDWHV LV WKH PRVW H[SORLWHG WDUJHW VLWH IRU QDWXUDO SRLVRQV DQG WKH PDMRULW\ RI RUJDQLF

PAGE 28

LQVHFWLFLGHV FDUEDPDWHV RUJDQRSKRVSKDWHV DQG FKORULQDWHG K\GURFDUERQVf 6KDQNODQG f 7KHUH LV D PXOWLWXGH RI SDSHUV GHVFULELQJ WKH IXQFWLRQ RI WKLV FKHPLFDOO\ PHGLDWHG FKROLQHUJLF V\VWHP $OVR UHFHQW UHYLHZV HPSOR\LQJ HOHFWURSK\VLRORJLFDO WHFKQLTXHV IRU PHDVXULQJ HOHFWULFDO LPSXOVHV DQG WKH HIIHFWV RI VXEVWUDWHV RQ D[RQDO VRGLXP FKDQQHOV KDYH EHHQ SXEOLVKHG 6KDQNODQG (GZDUGV /DXIHU HW DO f ,Q YLHZ RI WKH DERYH SXEOLVKHG ZRUNV GHVFULSWLRQ DQG RSHUDWLRQV RI WKH QHUYRXV V\VWHP ZLOO QRW EH GHVFULEHG KHUH ,W LV JHQHUDO NQRZOHGJH WKDW FDUEDPDWH DQG RUJDQRSKRVSKRUXV LQVHFWLFLGHV H[HUW WKHLU WR[LF DFWLRQ RQ WKH QHUYRXV V\VWHP E\ LQKLELWLQJ DFHW\OFKROLQHVWHUDVH $&K(f 2SSHQRRUWK DQG :HOOLQJ +RGJVRQ DQG 0RWR\DPD f .LQHWLF VWXGLHV KDYH VKRZQ WKDW $&K( RI VRPH 5 VSHFLHV LV OHVV VHQVLWLYH WR LQKLELWLRQ WKDQ WKHLU 6 FRXQWHUSDUWV +RGJVRQ DQG 0RWR\DPD 3ODSS 2SSHQRRUWK f LQGLFDWLQJ DQ DOWHUDWLRQ RU VLWH FKDQJH 2SSHQRRUWK DQG :HOOLQJ %XVYLQH f 6LWH FKDQJHV RU DOWHUDWLRQV FDQ RFFXU TXDQWLWDWLYHO\ RU TXDOLWDn WLYHO\ LH PRUH VLWHV RI DFWLRQ RU OHVV VHQVLWLYH VLWHV 2SSHQRRUWK f 6LWH DOWHUDWLRQV KDYH RQO\ EHHQ IRXQG LQ $&K( 7KH ILUVW HYLGHQFH RI DOWHUHG $&K( ZDV IRXQG LQ WKH UHG VSLGHU PLWH 7HWUDQ\FKXV XUWLFDH .RFK E\ 6PLVVDUHW LQ 3ODSS %XVYLQH 2SSHQRRUWK DQG :HOOLQJ 2SSHQRRUWK f 2WKHU PLWH VWUDLQV VKRZLQJ DOWHUHG $&K( KDG VOLJKW FKDQJHV LQ DQ LPLGD]ROH UHVLGXH UHODWLYH WR WKH VHULQH K\GUR[\O QHFHVVDU\ IRU DFHW\OFKROLQH K\GURO\VLV 3ODSS f

PAGE 29

5RXOVWRQ HW DO f VKRZHG WKDW WKH 5$&K( RI D %LDUUD VWUDLQ RI FDWWOH WLFN %RRSKLOXV PLFURSOXV &DQHVWULQLf ZDV OHVV VHQVLWLYH WR LQKLELWLRQ E\ RUJDQRSKRVSKDWH DQG FDUEDPDWH LQVHFWLFLGHV WKDQ D ZDV VXVFHSWLEOH VWUDLQ 5$&K( RI WKH %LDUUD WLFN VWUDLQ DOVR VKRZHG b OHVV DFWLYLW\ WRZDUG DFHW\OWKLRFKROLQH WKDQ GLG WKH VXVFHSWLEOH VWUDLQ VXJJHVWLQJ WKDW WKHLU HQ]\PHV ZHUH GLIIHUHQW +DPD DQG ,ZDWD DQG f DQG
PAGE 30

%RLVGXYDO ZDV UHVLVWDQW E\ WKLV PHFKDQLVP 7KHVH ILQGLQJV LQGLFDWH WKDW OHSLGRSWHURXV ODUYDH WKDW DUH H[SRVHG WR KHDY\ VHOHFWLRQ SUHVVXUHV IURP YDULRXV LQVHFWLFLGDO FODVVHV SRVVHVV WKH FDSDELOLW\ RI DOWHUHG $&K( UHVLVWDQFH 2SSHQRRUWK HW DO f IRXQG KRXVH IO\ 5$&K( LQ FRPELQDWLRQ ZLWK RWKHU PHWDEROLF GHWR[LFDWLRQ PHFKDQLVPV SURYLGLQJ UHVLVWDQFH WR SDUDR[RQ DQG WHWUDFKORUYLQSKRV 'H9ULHV DQG *HRUJKLRX D Ef IRXQG WKDW GHFUHDVHG QHUYH VHQVLWLYLW\ WR SHUPHWKULQ FRPELQHG ZLWK UHGXFHG FXWLFXODU SHQHWUDWLRQ SURYLGHG UHVLVWDQFH LQ DQRWKHU KRXVH IO\ VWUDLQ $&K( LQKLELWLRQ DQG D[RQDO VRGLXP FKDQQHO LQWHUIHUHQFH E\ SHVWLn FLGHV FDQ VHOHFWLYHO\ SURGXFH RUJDQLVPV WKDW DUH UHVLVWDQW $OVR LPSRUWDQW DUH WKH QHZ WHFKQLTXHV DYDLODEOH IRU GHWHUPLQLQJ HIIHFWV RQ WKHVH LQVHFW V\VWHPV E\ H[WUDSRODWLRQV IURP JLDQW D[RQV RI FUD\ILVK RU VTXLGV ,QFUHDVHG 'HWR[LFDWLRQ $ FRPSRXQG ZKLFK LV ELRORJLFDOO\ DFWLYH E\ YLUWXH RI LQWHUDFWLRQV ZLWK ELRFKHPLFDO V\VWHPV VXFK DV HQ]\PHV DQG PHPEUDQHV ZLOO EH YXOQHUDEOH WR DWWDFN E\ RWKHU HQ]\PHV LQ WKH VDPH FHOOV DQG WLVVXHV 7HUULHUH f $WWDFN GHQRWHV PHWDEROLVP RI WKH FRPSRXQG 0HWDEROLVP JHQHUn DOO\ UHVXOWV LQ GHWR[LFDWLRQ DQG VXEVHTXHQW HOLPLQDWLRQ RI WKH PHWDERn OL]HG FRPSRXQG IURP WKH RUJDQLVPnV V\VWHP 7KH RULJLQDO IXQFWLRQ RI WKH 0)2 V\VWHP LV DVVXPHG WR EH WKDW RI PHWDEROL]LQJ WR[LF DOOHORFKHPLFDOV 'RZG HW DO f DQG WR D OHVVHU H[WHQW MXYHQLOH KRUPRQHV
PAGE 31

)LJXUH 0HWDEROLVP RI OLSRSKLOLF IRUHLJQ FRPSRXQGV

PAGE 32

/,323+,/,& +<'523+,/,& 'UXJV ,QVHFWLFLGHV 2WKHU )RUHLJQ &RPSRXQGV )LJXUH 0HWDEROLVP RI OLSRSKLOLF IRUHLJQ FRPSRXQGV

PAGE 33

0RVW RI WKH PRUH DFWLYH LQVHFWLFLGHV DUH QRQSRODU OLSRSKLOLF IDW VROXEOH FRPSRXQGV ZKLFK UHDGLO\ SHQHWUDWH LQVHFW FXWLFOH DQG JXW ZDOOV 1RQSRODU FRPSRXQGV DUH XVXDOO\ LQVROXEOH LQ ZDWHU WKHUHIRUH WKH\ DUH GLIILFXOW WR H[FUHWH ZLWKRXW VRPH ELRFKHPLFDO PRGLILFDWLRQV +RZHYHU VRPH LQVHFWV KDYH GHYHORSHG WKH DELOLW\ RI UDSLGO\ H[FUHWLQJ LQWDFW XQFKDQJHG WR[LF PROHFXOHV 'HYRQVKLUH 0DWWKHZV ,YLH HW DO f ,QVHFWV WKDW SRVVHVV WKLV DELOLW\ DUH FRQVLGHUHG KLJKO\ UHVLVn WDQW E\ YLUWXH RI UDSLG HOLPLQDWLRQ 0HWDEROLVP RI OLSRSKLOLF FRPSRXQGV PD\ IROORZ SULPDU\ DQGRU VHFRQGDU\ SDWKZD\V )LJ f :LONLQVRQ DQG %UDWWVWHQ f 3ULPDU\ PHWDEROLVP RI OLSRSKLOLF FRPSRXQGV WDNHV WKH IRUP RI R[LGDWLRQ UHGXFn WLRQ JURXS WUDQVIHU RU K\GURO\VLV 6RPH SULPDU\ SURGXFWV DUH ELRn WUDQVIRUPHG LQWR K\GURSKLOLF ZDWHU VROXEOH SURGXFWV DQG DUH UHDGLO\ H[FUHWHG 7KRVH SULPDU\ SURGXFWV WKDW DUH QRW UHDGLO\ H[FUHWDEOH DUH ELRWUDQVIRUPHG LQWR VHFRQGDU\ SURGXFWV ZKLFK DUH FRQMXJDWHG HLWKHU ZLWK VXJDUV DPLQR DFLGV SKRVSKDWHV VXOIDWHV JOXWDWKLRQH RU RWKHU HQGRJHQn RXV FRQMXJDWLYH FRPSRXQGV DQG H[FUHWHG :LONLQVRQ 7HUULHUH +ROOLQJZRUWK f &\WRFKURPH 3 0RQRR[\JHQDVHV 7KH PRVW LPSRUWDQW R[LGDVH HQ]\PHV DUH IRXQG LQ WKH HQGRSODVPLF UHWLFXOXP PHPEUDQHV RI FHOOV &HOOV ZKLFK FRQWDLQ WKH PRVW DEXQGDQW R[LGDVH HQ]\PHV DUH VSHFLHV VSHFLILF 7KDW LV WR VD\ VRPH RUJDQLVPV VKRZ KLJKHU R[LGDWLYH DFWLYLW\ IURP SUHSDUDWLRQV RI WKH PLGJXW .ULHJHU DQG :LONLQVRQ
PAGE 34

)UDJPHQWHG HQGRSODVPLF UHWLFXOXP PHPEUDQHV DUH FDOOHG PLFURVRPHV DQG DUH WKH UHVXOWV RI WLVVXH JULQGLQJ RU KRPRJHQDWLRQ 7KH R[LGDVH HQ]\PHV DVVRFLDWHG ZLWK PLFURVRPHV DUH WHUPHG PLFURVRPDO R[LGDVHV
PAGE 35

7DEOH 7KH SULPDU\ DFWLRQ RI 0)2 V\VWHPV RQ VSHFLILF FKHPLFDO FRQILJXUDWLRQV IRXQG LQ [HQRELRWLF PROHFXOHV 5HDFWLRQ &KHPLFDO 5HDFWLRQ &RQVHTXHQFHr 7\SH &RQILJXUDWLRQ 3URGXFWV ? (SR[LGDWLRQ & & & & $FWLYDWLRQ 6XOIR[LGDWLRQ FVF FVF ,, $FWLYDWLRQ ,, V ,, ,, 3KRVSKRURWKLRDWH !S !S $FWLYDWLRQ 2[LGDWLRQ &+f + 1'HDON\ODWLRQ 1 1 'HDFWLYDWLRQ ? ? + 2'HDON\ODWLRQ &+ &2+ 'HDFWLYDWLRQ +\GUR[\ODWLRQ &+ &2+ 'HDFWLYDWLRQ r $FWLYDWLRQ PHDQV WKH PHWDEROLWH LV PRUH WR[LF WKDQ WKH SDUHQW FRPSRXQG GHDFWLYDWLRQ PHDQV WKH PHWDEROLWH LV OHVV WR[LF WKDQ WKH SDUHQW FRPSRXQG

PAGE 36

WKDW UDWH LV KLJK HQRXJK WR SURWHFW WKH RUJDQLVP IURP WR[LFRVLV ,QGHHG WKLV SKHQRPHQRQ RFFXUV ZLGHO\ LQ WKH LQVHFW ZRUOG ,QVHFWLFLGHV GHWR[LILHG E\ LQFUHDVHG R[LGDWLRQ LQFOXGH ''7 FDUEDPDWHV RUJDQRSKRV SKDWHV DQG S\UHWKURLGV 'HYRQVKLUH f ,QFUHDVHG 0)2 GHDFWLYDWLRQ RI GLD]LQRQ DQG GLD]R[RQ LQ D UHVLVWDQW KRXVH IO\ VWUDLQ FRPSDUHG WR D VXVFHSWLEOH VWUDLQ ZDV GHPRQVWUDWHG E\
PAGE 37

7KH 0)2 V\VWHP LV HYHQ PRUH IOH[LEOH LQ WKH PHWDEROLVP RI YDULRXV FKHPLFDO FRPSRXQGV 7KH LQGXFWLRQ RI 0)2 V\VWHPV SURYLGHV WKLV IOH[Ln ELOLW\ %UDWWVWHQ HW DO f
PAGE 38

RI K\GURODVHV 2SSHQRRUWK DQG :HOOLQJ f DQG 'DXWHUPDQ f HPSKDVL]HG WKH LPSRUWDQFH RI K\GURODVH DWWDFN RQ HVWHU JURXSV RI PDQ\ LQVHFWLFLGHV VXFK DV RUJDQRSKRVSKDWHV FDUEDPDWHV DQG S\UHWKURLGV EXW VWDWHG WKDW WKH HIIHFWV RQ RUJDQRSKRVSKDWHV DUH PRVW LPSRUWDQW LQ UHVLVWDQFH $ 3KRVSKRWULHVWHU +\GURO\VLV 3KRVSKRWULHVWHU K\GURODVH KDV EHHQ QDPHG ')3DVH SDUDR[RQDVH $HVWHUDVH SKRVSKRU\OSKRVSKDWDVH DU\O HVWHUDVH SKRVSKDWDVH HWF 'DXWHUPDQ f 7KLV HQ]\PH RU HQ]\PH FRPSOH[ FDWDO\]HV WKH K\GURn O\VLV RI RUJDQRSKRVSKDWH LQVHFWLFLGHV WR SURGXFH SKRVSKRUXV FRQWDLQLQJ PROHFXOHV WKDW DUH SRRU FKROLQHVWHUDVH LQKLELWRUV DQG DUH JHQHUDOO\ ZDWHU VROXEOH 'DXWHUPDQ f % $U\OHVWHU +\GURO\VLV $U\OHVWHU K\GURODVHV DUH LPSOLFDWHG LQ WKH GHWR[LFDWLRQ RI DU\O HVWHUV RI RUJDQRSKRVSKRUXV FRPSRXQGV VXFK DV SDUDWKLRQ RU SDUDR[RQ 'DXWHUPDQ f $KPDG DQG )RUJDVK f GHVFULEHG DU\OHVWHU K\GURn ODVHV DV f SUHIHUHQWLDOO\ UHDFWLQJ ZLWK SKHQROLF HVWHUV f EHLQJ LQKLELWHG E\ 3&0% SDUDFKORURPHUFXULEHQ]RDWHf f EHLQJ DFWLYDWHG E\ &DA DQG f UHDGLO\ K\GURO\]LQJ RUJDQRSKRVSKDWH FRPSRXQGV & &DUER[\OHVWHU +\GURO\VLV &DUER[\OHVWHUDVHV DUH NQRZQ WR FDWDO\]H WKH K\GURO\VLV RI DOLSKDWLF DQG DURPDWLF FDUER[\O HVWHUV 'DXWHUPDQ $KPDG DQG )RUJDVK f LQ PDQ\ LQVHFWLFLGHV DQG LV UHVSRQVLEOH IRU UHVLVWDQFH 7KH K\GURO\VLV RI PDODWKLRQ E\ FDUER[\OHVWHUDVHV SURGXFHV PDODWKLRQ DFLGVf DQG DQ DOFRKROVf =HWWOHU f IRXQG WKDW WKH FDUER[\OHVWHUDVH WLWUH LQ D PDODWKLRQ UHVLVWDQW ,QGLDQ PHDO PRWK VWUDLQ ZDV JUHDWHU WKDQ LQ WKDW RI D VXVFHSWLEOH VWUDLQ +H DOVR FRQFOXGHG WKDW WKLV VWUDLQ RI ,QGLDQ PHDO

PAGE 39

PRWK ZDV UHVLVWDQW RQO\ WR PDODWKLRQ DQG QRW RWKHU RUJDQRSKRVSKDWH FRPSRXQGV 'HYRQVKLUH DQG 0RRUHV f FKDUDFWHUL]HG FDUER[\OHVWHUDVH IURP WKH SHDFKSRWDWR DSKLG DQG IRXQG WKDW WKH HQ]\PH KDG EURDG VXEn VWUDWH VSHFLILFLW\ WKXV FRQWULEXWLQJ WR RUJDQRSKRVSKDWH FDUEDPDWH DQG SRVVLEO\ S\UHWKURLG UHVLVWDQFH 0RWR\DPD HW DO f GHVFULEHG D KRXVH IO\ VWUDLQ WKDW KDG PXOWLn SOH UHVLVWDQW PHFKDQLVPV UHVSRQVLEOH IRU RUJDQRSKRVSKRUXV UHVLVWDQFH 7KH\ FRQFOXGHG WKDW D FDUER[\OHVWHUDVH IURP WKH QXFOHL WKH PLWRFKRQGULD DQG WKH PLFURVRPDO IUDFWLRQ ZDV SUHGRPLQDQWO\ UHVSRQVLEOH IRU PDODWKLRQ UHVLVWDQFH LQ WKLV IO\ VWUDLQ .DR HW DO f VHOHFWHG WZR VXVFHSn WLEOH KRXVH IO\ VWUDLQV ZLWK PDODWKLRQ DQG IRXQG WKDW FDUER[\OHVWHUDVH DFWLYLWLHV DQG YDOXHV ZHUH VLJQLILFDQWO\ LQFUHDVHG DIWHU WUHDWLQJ RQO\ WKUHH JHQHUDWLRQV &DUER[\OHVWHUDVHV ZHUH FUHGLWHG IRU UDSLG GHYHORSPHQW RI UHVLVWDQFH WR PDODWKLRQ LQ WKLV KRXVH IO\ VWUDLQ +HPLQJZD\ DQG *HRUJKLRX f IRXQG D PRVTXLWR VWUDLQ UHVLVWDQW WR RUJDQRSKRVSKRUXV LQVHFWLFLGHV E\ LQFUHDVHG OHYHOV RI HVWHUDVH HQ]\PHV 7KH\ ZHUH DEOH WR UHYHUVH UHVLVWDQFH EHORZ WKH VXVFHSWLEOH OHYHO E\ WUHDWLQJ WKH ODUYDH ZLWK NQRZQ HVWHUDVH LQKLELWRUV ,%3 6EHQ]\O GLLVRSURS\O SKRVSKRURWKLRDWHf '() 666WULEXW\O SKRVSKRURWULWKL RDWHf DQG 733 WULSKHQ\O SKRVSKDWHf WKXV SDUWLDOO\ FRQILUPLQJ WKH UHVLVWDQFH PHFKDQLVP 5HFHQW VWXGLHV RI V\QWKHWLF S\UHWKURLG UHVLVWDQFH KDYH VKRZQ WKDW K\GURODVHV DUH UHVSRQVLEOH IRU IOXF\WKULQDWH GHFDPHWKULQ DQG IHQYD OHUDWH UHVLVWDQFH LQ DQ (J\SWLDQ FRWWRQ OHDIZRUP VWUDLQ 5LVNDOODK f 5HVLVWDQFH WR DQRWKHU V\QWKHWLF S\UHWKURLG SHUPHWKULQ ZDV IRXQG LQ D SUHGDWRU\ PLWH VWUDLQ E\ 6FRWW HW DO f 6HYHUDO PLWH VWUDLQV ZHUH LQYHVWLJDWHG WKDW KDG D SULRU H[SRVXUH WR ''7 D]LQSKRV

PAGE 40

PHWK\O FDUEDU\O DQG SHUPHWKULQ ,Q DOO FDVHV UHVLVWDQFH ZDV GXH WR HLWKHU D NGU W\SH UHVLVWDQFH RU WR LQFUHDVHG HVWHU K\GURO\VLV +\GURn ODVH DFWLYLW\ LV JHQHUDOO\ PHDVXUHG ZLWK RQH RI WKHVH FRPPRQO\ XVHG VXEVWUDWHV DQDSKWK\O DFHWDWH D1$f QDSKWK\O DFHWDWH 1$f DQGRU SQLWURSKHQ\O DFHWDWH S13$f &RPSDULVRQ RI K\GURODVH DFWLYLWLHV RI VXVFHSWLEOH DQG UHVLVWDQW LQVHFWV LV D JRRG PHDVXUH RI K\GURODVH UHVLVn WDQFH *OXWDWKLRQH 6WUDQVIHUDVHV *OXWDWKLRQH 6WUDQVIHUDVHV DUH HQ]\PHV WKDW FDWDO\]H WKH FRQMXJDn WLRQ RI JOXWDWKLRQH *6+f ZLWK PDQ\ IRUHLJQ FRPSRXQGV &KDVVHDXG f &KDVVHDXG f DQG 'DXWHUPDQ f H[SODLQHG WKH WZR PDLQ UROHV RI *6+ 6WUDQVIHUDVH DV WKH FRQMXJDWLRQ RI SRWHQWLDOO\ KDUPIXO HOHFWURn SKLOHV ZLWK WKH QXFOHRSKLOH *6+ WKXV SURWHFWLQJ FHOO QXFOHRSKLOLF FHQWHUV ZKLFK RFFXU LQ SURWHLQV DQG QXFOHLF DFLGV 6HFRQGO\ *6+ SURYLGHV DQ DYHQXH IRU H[FUHWLRQ RI WKH SRWHQWLDOO\ KDUPIXO HOHFWURSKLOH WKURXJK WKH IRUPDWLRQ RI DQLRQLF ZDWHUVROXEOH SURGXFWV *6+ 6WUDQVn IHUDVHV FDWDO\]HV WZR W\SH RI UHDFWLRQV WKH FRQMXJDWLRQV RI *6+ ZLWK HSR[LGHV DQG XQVDWXUDWHG FRPSRXQGV DQG WKH VXEVWLWXWLRQ RI *6+ ZLWK DON\O DQG DU\O KDOLGHV 'DXWHUPDQ f 7KHUH DUH PDQ\ VXFK WUDQVIHUDVHV DV GHVFULEHG E\ $KPDG DQG )RUJDVK f 7KHVH DXWKRUV OLVWHG DOO NQRZQ WUDQVIHUDVHV UHTXLULQJ *6+ LQ WKH PHWDEROLVP RI LQVHFWLFLGHV *6+ 6WUDQVIHUDVHV DFW GLUHFWO\ RQ WKH LQVHFWLFLGH ZLWKRXW WKH QHHG IRU K\GUR[\ODWLRQ E\ 0)2 8VXL DQG )XNDPL f IRXQG WZR WUDQVIHUDVHV IURP FRFNURDFK IDW ERGLHV DFWLYH RQ GLD]LQRQ DQG WKUHH WUDQVIHUDVHV DFWLYH RQ PHWK\O SDUDWKLRQ :RRO HW DO f FRUUHODWHG KLJK *6+ 6WUDQVIHUDVH OHYHOV ZLWK UHVLVWDQFH WR PDODWKLRQ LQ D IORXU EHHWOH VWUDLQ 0RWR\DPD HW DO f GHWHUPLQHG WKDW UHVLVWDQFH LQ D KRXVH IO\ VWUDLQ ZDV LQ SDUW GXH

PAGE 41

WR HOHYDWHG OHYHOV RI *6+ 6WUDQVIHUDVH 2SSHQRRUWK HW DO f IRXQG *6+ 6WUDQVIHUDVH OHYHOV LQ D UHVLVWDQW KRXVH IO\ VWUDLQ WR IROG PRUH WKDQ D VXVFHSWLEOH VWUDLQ WR PHWK\O SDUDWKLRQ SDUDWKLRQ PHWK\O SDUDR[RQ DQG SDUDR[RQ *6+ 6WUDQVIHUDVHV DUH NQRZQ WR EH LQGXFHG E\ DOOHORFKHPLFDOV
PAGE 42

+LVWRU\ RI &DUEDU\O 5HVLVWDQFH &DUEDU\O ZDV LQWURGXFHG WR WKH FRPPHUFLDO PDUNHW LQ WR FRQWURO D YDULHW\ RI LQVHFW SHVW VSHFLHV LQFOXGLQJ WKRVH WKDW ZHUH KLJKO\ UHVLVWDQW WR ''7 +DUGLQJ DQG '\DU f 7KH ILUVW UHSRUWHG FDVHV RI UHVLVWDQFH WR WKLV FRPSRXQG ZHUH DJDLQVW WKH OLJKW EURZQ DSSOH PRWK LQ LQ 1HZ =HDODQG DQG LQ DJDLQVW WKH WREDFFR EXGZRUP LQ WKH 86 0RXQW DQG 2HKPH f 6LQFH FDUEDU\O FRQWUROOHG LPSRUWDQW DJURQRPLF DQG XUEDQ LQVHFWV LW ZDV QR VXUSULVH ZKHQ .X DQG %LVKRS f UHSRUWHG WKDW FDUEDU\O UHVLVn WDQFH LQ D FRFNURDFK VWUDLQ ZDV GXH WR WKUHH UHVLVWDQFH PHFKDQLVPV 7KH SULPDU\ PHFKDQLVP ZDV UHGXFHG FXWLFXODU SHQHWUDWLRQ ZKLOH LQFUHDVHG H[FUHWLRQ DQG PHWDEROLVP FRQWULEXWHG VLJQLILFDQWO\ WR WKH HOHYDWLRQ RI UHVLVWDQFH LQ WKLV VWUDLQ 5RXOVWRQ HW DO f UHSRUWHG LQVHQVLWLYH $&K( LQ D %LDUUD VWUDLQ RI FDWWOH WLFN ZKLOH 6FKXQWQHU HW DO f IRXQG LQFUHDVHG PHWDEROLVP UHVSRQVLEOH IRU UHVLVWDQFH LQ D 0DFND\ VWUDLQ RI FDWWOH WLFN ,QFUHDVHG R[LGDWLYH PHWDEROLVP ZDV IRXQG WR EH UHVSRQVLEOH IRU FDUEDU\O UHVLVWDQFH LQ D UHVLVWDQW FDEEDJH ORRSHU VWUDLQ .XKU f $WDOODK f VHOHFWHG VHYHUDO VWUDLQV RI (J\SWLDQ FRWWRQ OHDIZRUPV ZLWK FDUEDU\O IRU JHQHUDWLRQV DQG IRXQG D IROG LQFUHDVH LQ UHVLVn WDQFH %LRFKHPLFDO LGHQWLILFDWLRQ RI WKH UHVLVWDQFH PHFKDQLVP SURYHG WR EH LQFUHDVHG PHWDEROLVP DQG UHVWULFWHG FXWLFXODU SHQHWUDWLRQ +DQQD DQG $WDOODK f $WDOODK f VLPXOWDQHRXVO\ VHOHFWHG LQGLYLGXDOV RI WKH VDPH OHDIZRUP VWUDLQ XVHG IRU FDUEDU\O VHOHFWLRQ ZLWK ''7 +H IRXQG WKDW ''7 UHVLVWDQFH GHYHORSHG PXFK PRUH VORZO\ WKDQ WKDW RI FDUEDU\O ''7 UHVLVWDQFH ZDV IROG DIWHU JHQHUDWLRQV 7KLV ZRUN LQGLFDWHG PXOWLIDFWRULDO UHVLVWDQFH WR FDUEDU\O ZKLOH ''7 UHVLVWDQFH ZDV SUREDEO\ GXH WR D VLQJOH PHFKDQLVP

PAGE 43

+DPD DQG ,ZDWD f IRXQG LQVHQVLWLYH $&K( UHVSRQVLEOH IRU FDUEDPDWH UHVLVWDQFH LQFOXGLQJ FDUEDU\O LQ D UHVLVWDQW VWUDLQ RI JUHHQ ULFH OHDIKRSSHU +DPD DQG ,ZDWD f GHVFULEHG WKH KHULWDELOLW\ RI UHVLVWDQFH LQ WKLV OHDIKRSSHU VWUDLQ DV EHLQJ FRQWUROOHG E\ DQ LQFRPn SOHWHO\ GRPLQDQW DXWRVRPDO JHQH :ROIHQEDUJHU HW DO f UHSRUWHG LQFUHDVHV LQ FDUEDU\O /'A YDOXHV IURP WKH $PHULFDQ EROOZRUP +HOLRWKLV DUPJHUD IURP WR LQ 7KDLODQG DV XJJ WR XJJ UHVSHFWLYHO\ ,QFUHDVHV RI WKLV PDJQLWXGH RYHU WKLV SHULRG LQGLFDWH WKH WUHPHQGRXV LQVHFWLFLGDO VHOHFn WLRQ SUHVVXUH DSSOLHG WR WKLV LQVHFW 5RVH DQG %ULQGOH\ f VKRZHG WKDW D FDUEDU\O UHVLVWDQW &RORUDGR SRWDWR EHHWOH VWUDLQ IURP 1HZ -HUVH\ ZDV UHVLVWDQW GXH WR DQ LQFUHDVH LQ R[LGDWLYH PHWDEROLVP 3RWDWR EHHWOHV LQ WKH QRUWKHDVWHUQ 86 DUH VXEMHFWHG WR WUHPHQGRXV LQVHFWLFLGH VHOHFWLRQ SUHVVXUHV EHFDXVH WKH\ KDYH GHYHORSHG UHVLVWDQFH WR PDQ\ RI WKH KLJKO\ WR[LF SHUVLVWHQW LQVHFn WLFLGHV LQFOXGLQJ FKORULQDWHG K\GURFDUERQV RUJDQRSKRVSKDWHV DQG FDUEDn PDWHV )DOO $UP\ZRUP 5HVLVWDQFH WR &DUEDU\O 7KH IDOO DUP\ZRUP LV D KLJKO\ PRELOH SK\WRSKDJRXV SHVW RI PDQ\ JUDVVHV FRUQ RDWV U\H FRWWRQ JDUGHQ YHJHWDEOHV DQG RWKHU VXFFXOHQW SODQWV 4XDLQWDQFH f 7KLV VSHFLHV PLJUDWHV IURP WKH WURSLFV )ORULGD DQG *XOI FRDVW VWDWHV /XJLQELOO 9LFNHU\ f DV IDU QRUWK DV &DQDGD 6QRZ DQG &RSHODQG &RPEV DQG 9DOHULR f ,Q XVLQJ GLHW VSUD\ ELRDVVD\ WHFKQLTXHV
PAGE 44

0$7(5,$/6 $1' 0(7+2'6 ,QVHFWV 5 6WUDLQ 7KH FDUEDU\O UHVLVWDQW VWUDLQ RI IDOO DUP\ZRUP ZDV FROOHFWHG QHDU 7LIWRQ *HRUJLD E\ 'U 5
PAGE 45

WUDQVIHUUHG WR D FOHDQ FRQWDLQHU DQG SURYLGHG FOHDQ WRZHOOLQJ DQG IUHVK VXFURVH VROXWLRQ bf (JJV RQ SDSHU WRZHOOLQJ ZHUH VWHULOL]HG LQ D b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f 7ZHQW\ WK LQVWDU 6SRGRSWHUD IUXJLSHUGD ODUYDH s PJ LQ ZHLJKWf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n VLRQ RU FUXGH KRPRJHQDWH ZDV PHDVXUHG E\ WKH PHWKRG RI %UDGIRUG f

PAGE 46

$ SURWHLQ UHDJHQW ZDV PDGH E\ DGGLQJ SUHFLVHO\ WKH LQJUHGLHQWV GHVFULEHG E\ %UDGIRUG Df &RRPDVVLH %ULOOLDQW %OXH G\H PJf Ef (WKDQROb POf Ff 3KRVSKRULF DFLGb POf 7KLV VROXWLRQ ZDV EURXJKW WR D ILQDO YROXPH RI OLWHU VWLUUHG ILOWHUn HG WZLFH DQG XVHG IRU DOO DVVD\V $ VWDQGDUG FXUYH ZDV PDGH ZLWK PXOWLSOH GHWHUPLQDWLRQV RI NQRZQ TXDQWLWLHV RI ERYLQH VHUXP DOEXPLQ %6$f )UDFWLRQ 9 $ W\SLFDO PL[WXUH LQFOXGHG PO RI XJ %6$ SURWHLQ SLSHWWHG LQWR D WHVW WXEH DQG PO SURWHLQ UHDJHQW DGGHG 7KLV PL[WXUH ZDV VKDNHQ DQG LQFXEDWHG DW URRP WHPSHUDWXUH IRU D PLQLPXP RI PLQXWHV $ EODQN ZDV SUHSDUHG ZLWK PO ZDUP 0 VRGLXP SKRVSKDWH EXIIHU S+ SOXV PO SURWHLQ UHDJHQW DQG KDQGOHG DV DERYH $ GHVN WRS 7XUQHU 0RGHO f VLQJOH EHDP VSHFWURSKRWRPHWHU ZDV XVHG WR PHDVXUH RSWLFDO GHQVLWLHV 2'f DW QP (DFK SURWHLQ FRQFHQWUDWLRQ ZDV UHSOLFDWHG WLPHV DQG UXQ RQ DW OHDVW GLIIHUHQW GD\V 7KH DYHUDJH 2' ZDV SORWWHG RQ JUDSK SDSHU DJDLQVW PLFURJUDPV RI %6$ SURWHLQ WR HVWDEOLVK WKH VWDQGDUG FXUYH 7R GHWHUPLQH XQNQRZQ SURWHLQ TXDQWLWLHV PO SURWHLQ VROXWLRQ DQG PO RI 0 VRGLXP SKRVSKDWH EXIIHU S+ ZHUH DGGHG WR D VWDQGDUG WHVW WXEH $ YROXPH RI PO SURWHLQ UHDJHQW ZDV DGGHG DQG WKH WXEH VKDNHQ DQG LQFXEDWHG DW URRP WHPSHUDWXUH IRU D PLQLPXP RI PLQXWHV 2SWLFDO GHQVLWLHV ZHUH PHDVXUHG DW QP DQG FRPSDUHG WR WKH VWDQGDUG FXUYH (SR[LGDWLRQ $VVD\ $OGULQ HSR[LGDWLRQ ZDV DVVD\HG )LJ f E\ WKH PHWKRG RI
PAGE 47

WZR W\SHV RI HQ]\PH SUHSDUDWLRQV FUXGH KRPRJHQDWH DQG PLFURVRPDO IUDFWLRQ &UXGH KRPRJHQDWHV ZHUH XQFHQWULIXJHG KRPRJHQDWHV RI IDOO DUP\ZRUP PLGJXWV 7KH\ ZHUH REWDLQHG E\ GLVVHFWLQJ ODUYDO PLGJXWV UHPRYLQJ WKH IRRG FRQWDLQLQJ SHULWURSKLF PHPEUDQH DQG SODFLQJ WKH FOHDQHG JXWV LQWR LFHFROG b .& VROXWLRQ 7KH FOHDQ JXWV ZHUH WKHQ WUDQVIHUUHG WR DQ LFHFROG JODVV KRPRJHQL]HU WXEH LQWR ZKLFK PO LFHFROG 0 VRGLXP SKRVSKDWH EXIIHU S+ ZHUH DGGHG 7KH JXWV ZHUH KRPRJHQL]HG IRU DERXW VHFRQGV ZLWK D PRWRUGULYHQ WHIORQ WLVVXH JULQGHU +RPRJHQL]HG JXWV ZHUH ILOWHUHG WKURXJK GRXEOH OD\HU FKHHVHn FORWK DQG XVHG DV WKH HQ]\PH VRXUFH 0LFURVRPDO LVRODWLRQ IROORZHG WKH DERYH VWHSV H[FHSW WKH KRPRJHQDWH ZDV FHQWULIXJHG LQ D %HFNPDQ /( XOWUDFHQWULIXJH DW J PD[ DW WR GHJUHHV & IRU PLQXWHV 7KH SHOOHW FRQWDLQLQJ PLWRFKRQGULD DQG FHOO GHEULV ZDV GLVFDUGHG DQG WKH VXSHUQDWDQW ILOWHUHG WKURXJK JODVV ZRRO 7KH VXSHUQDWDQW ZDV UHFHQWULn IXJHG DW J PD[ IRU PLQXWHV 7KH UHVXOWLQJ PLFURVRPDO SHOOHW ZDV UHVXVSHQGHG LQ LFHFROG 0 VRGLXP SKRVSKDWH EXIIHU S+ WR REWDLQ D SURWHLQ FRQFHQWUDWLRQ PJPO DQG XVHG LPPHGLDWHO\ DV WKH HQ]\PH VRXUFH $ W\SLFDO PO LQFXEDWLRQ PL[WXUH FRQWDLQHG 0 VRGLXP SKRVSKDWH EXIIHU S+ DQ 1$'3+ JHQHUDWLQJ V\VWHP XPROHV RI 1$'3 XPROHV RI JOXFRVHSKRVSKDWH XQLW RI JOXFRVHSKRVSKDWH GHK\GURJHQDVHf QPROHV RI DOGULQ LQ PO PHWK\O &HOORVROYH DQG PO RI PLFURVRPDO VXVSHQVLRQ PJ SURWHLQf 0L[WXUHV ZHUH LQFXEDWHG LQ D ZDWHU EDWK ZKLOH EHLQJ VKDNHQ DW GHJUHHV & LQ DQ DWPRVSKHUH RI DLU IRU PLQXWHV (DFK LQFXEDWLRQ ZDV GXSOLFDWHG DQG DFFRPSDQLHG E\ D EODQN RU FRQWURO ZKLFK GLG QRW FRQWDLQ PLFURVRPHV $IWHU PLQXWHV HDFK UHDFWLRQ ZDV VWRSSHG E\ DGGLQJ PO KH[DQH DQG SODFLQJ WKH LQFXEDn WLRQ WXEH RQ LFH 7KH HSR[LGDWLRQ SURGXFW GLHOGULQ ZDV H[WUDFWHG

PAGE 48

)LJ 7KH UHDFWLRQ RI DOGULQ ZLWK PLGJXW PLFURVRPHV WR SURGXFH WKH HSR[LGH SURGXFW GLHOGULQ

PAGE 49

RR $OGULQ HSR[LGDVH &O & 8f 8! $OGULQ 'LHOGULQ

PAGE 50

IURP WKH PL[WXUH E\ VORZO\ VKDNLQJ LW IRU RQH KRXU 'LHOGULQ IRUPDWLRQ ZDV DQDO\]HG RQ D 9DULDQ 0RGHO JDV FKURPDWRJUDSK HTXLSSHG ZLWK DQ HOHFWURQ FDSWXUH GHWHFWRU 7KH FROXPQ ZDV IW ; PP LG JODVV SDFNHG ZLWK D PL[WXUH RI b '& DQG b 4) RQ WR PHVK KLJK SHUIRUPDQFH &KURPRVRUE :
PAGE 51

)LJ 7KH UHDFWLRQ RI ELSKHQ\O ZLWK PLFURVRPHV WR SURGXFH WKH R[LGDWLYH PHWDEROLWH K\GUR[\ELSKHQ\O

PAGE 52

%LSKHQ\O K\GUR[\ODVH %LSKHQ\O K\GUR[\ELSKHQ\O

PAGE 53

FP ; PP LG ,VRSURSDQRO bf LQ KH[DQH ZDV XVHG WR HOXWH WKH FROXPQ DW D IORZ UDWH RI POPLQXWHV (Q]\PHV ZHUH GHQDWXUHG E\ KHDW DQG WHVWHG DV DERYH WR GHWHUPLQH QRQHQ]\PDWLF SURGXFW IRUPDWLRQ 0LFURVRPDO 1'HPHWK\ODVH $VVD\ 0LFURVRPDO 1GHPHWK\ODWLRQ RI S&KORUR1PHWK\ODQLOLQH 3&0$f )LJ f ZDV FDUULHG RXW E\ WKH PHWKRG RI .XSIHU DQG %UXJJHPDQ f 6WDQGDUG FXUYHV ZHUH REWDLQHG E\ PHDVXULQJ VSHFWURSKRWRPHWULFDOO\ NQRZQ FRQFHQWUDWLRQV RI S&KORURDQLOLQH 3&$f LQ DQ DTXHRXV VROXWLRQ DW QP $OO DVVD\V ZKHWKHU VWDQGDUG FXUYH GHWHUPLQDWLRQV RU HQ]\PH DFWLYLW\ GHWHUPLQDWLRQV FRQVLVWHG RI D FRPSDUDEOH EODQN LH WKH DEVHQFH RI 3&$ RU WKH XVH RI KHDW GHQDWXUHG SURWHLQ $ %HFNPDQ 0RGHO VSHFWURSKRWRPHWHU ZDV XVHG IRU DOO 1GHPHWK\ODWLRQ DVVD\V 0LFURVRPHV ZHUH SUHSDUHG DV PHQWLRQHG HDUOLHU DQG VXVSHQGHG LQ 0 VRGLXP SKRVSKDWH EXIIHU S+ $ PO LQFXEDWLRQ PL[WXUH FRQWDLQn HG PO 1$'3+ JHQHUDWLQJ V\VWHP XPROHV RI 1$'3 XPROHV RI JOXFRVHSKRVSKDWH DQG XQLW RI JOXFRVHSKRVSKDWH GHK\GURJHQDVHf PO 3&0$ XPROHV LQ DTXHRXV +&f PO RI 0 VRGLXP SKRVSKDWH EXIIHU S+ DQG PO PLFURVRPDO SUHSDUDWLRQ WR PJ SURWHLQ POf 7KH LQFXEDWLRQ PL[WXUH ZDV VKDNHQ DW GHJUHHV & IRU PLQXWHV 7KH UHDFWLRQ ZDV VWRSSHG ZLWK PO RI D b DTXHRXV SGLPHWK\ODPLQR EHQ]OGHK\GH DQG FHQWULIXJHG IRU PLQXWHV DW 530 LQ D UHIULJHn UDWHG %HFNPDQ 0RGHO -$ FHQWULIXJH 7KH LQFXEDWLRQ WXEHV ZHUH DOORZHG WR UHDFK DPELHQW WHPSHUDWXUH EHIRUH EHLQJ DQDO\]HG VSHFWURSKRWRPHWULFDOO\ DW QP RQ D %HFNPDQ 0RGHO VSHFWURSKRWRPHWHU (DFK LQFXEDWLRQ ZDV GXSOLFDWHG DQG HDFK H[SHULPHQW ZDV UHSHDWHG WKUHH WLPHV &\WRFKURPH 3 0HDVXUHPHQW &\WRFKURPH 3 D FDUERQ PRQR[LGHELQGLQJ SLJPHQW RI HQGRSODVPLF UHWLFXOXP ZDV GHWHUPLQHG E\ WKH PHWKRG RI 2PXUD DQG 6DWR f

PAGE 54

)LJ 7KH UHDFWLRQ RI S&KORUR1PHWK\O DQLOLQH ZLWK PLFURVRPHV WR SURGXFH WKH GHPHWK\ODWHG SURGXFW S&KORURDQLOLQH

PAGE 55

0LFURVRPDO 1'HDON\ODWLRQ S&KORUR1PHWK\O $QLOLQH S&KORUR $QLOLQH

PAGE 56

0LGJXW PLFURVRPHV IURP FOHDQHG JXWV ZHUH KRPRJHQL]HG LQ PO RI LFHFROG 0 VRGLXP SKRVSKDWH EXIIHU S+ DQG FHQWULIXJHG DV DERYH 7KH UHVXOWLQJ PLFURVRPDO SHOOHW ZDV UHVXVSHQGHG LQ LFHFROG 0 VRGLXP SKRVSKDWH EXIIHU S+ FRQWDLQLQJ b JO\FHURO DQG XVHG LPPHGLDWHO\ DV WKH HQ]\PH VRXUFH %DVHOLQH VFDQV RI WKH PLFURVRPDO VXVSHQVLRQ DORQH ZHUH UXQ RQ D %HFNPDQ 0RGHO XYYLV VSHFWURSKRWRPHWHU HTXLSSHG ZLWK D VFDWWHUHG WUDQVPLVVLRQ DFFHVVRU\ DW WR QP $IWHU UHFRUGLQJ WKH EDVHOLQH WKH VDPSOH FXYHWWH ZDV UHPRYHG DQG FDUERQ PRQR[LGH &2f ZDV JHQWO\ EXEEOHG WKURXJK WKH SUHSDUDWLRQ IRU PLQXWH 7KLV VDPSOH ZDV UHGXFHG ZLWK D IHZ PLOOLJUDPV RI VRGLXP GLWKLRQLWH AAf VWLUUHG ZLWK D JODVV URG DQG DJDLQ VFDQQHG IURP WR QP 6FDQQLQJ ZDV FRQWLQXHG XQWLO D PD[LPXP VSHFWUXP ZDV REWDLQHG 7KLV DVVD\ ZDV GXSOLFDWHG DQG UXQ RQ DW OHDVW GLIIHUHQW GD\V RQ ERWK LQVHFW VWUDLQV
PAGE 57

)LJ 7KH UHDFWLRQ RI GLFKORURQLWUREHQ]HQH ZLWK JOXWDWKLRQH E\ WKH HQ]\PH *OXWDWKLRQH 6 DU\OWUDQVIHUDVH WR SURGXFH WKH FRQMXJDWHG SURGXFW 6FKORURQLWURSKHQ\Of JOXWDWKLRQH

PAGE 58

*OXWDWKLRQH 6DU\OWUDQVIHUDVH *6+ K FU GLFKORUR QLWUREHQ]HQH 6FKORUR QLWURSKHQ\Of JOXWDWKLRQH

PAGE 59

UHPRYHG IURP WKH VXSHUQDWDQW VXUIDFH ZLWK D PHGLFLQH GURSSHU DQG GLVFDUGHG 7KH VXSHUQDWDQW ZDV WKHQ JHQWO\ SRXUHG LQWR D ODUJH WHVW WXEH VR DV QRW WR GLVWXUE WKH PLFURVRPDO SHOOHW DQG NHSW RQ LFH IRU LPPHGLDWH XVH $ W\SLFDO PO UHDFWLRQ PL[WXUH FRQWDLQHG PO RI P0 JOXWDWKLRQH DQG PO VROXEOH IUDFWLRQ PO 0 7ULV+&O EXIIHU S+ VHUYHG DV EODQNf ZDV ILUVW LQFXEDWHG IRU PLQXWHV DW GHJUHHV & DIWHU ZKLFK PO P0 GLFKORURQLWUREHQ]HQH '&1%f ZDV DGGHG DQG PL[HG 7KH FKDQJH LQ DEVRUEDQFH DW QP IRU PLQXWHV ZDV PHDVXUHG ZLWK D %HFNPDQ 0RGHO XYYLV VSHFWURSKRWRPHWHU 7KH HQ]\PH DFWLYLW\ ZDV H[SUHVVHG DV QPROHV '&1% FRQMXJDWHG SHU PLQXWH SHU PLOOLJUDP RI SURWHLQ XVLQJ DQ H[WLQFWLRQ FRHIILFLHQW RI P0 A FP A IRU 6FKORURQLWURSKHQ\Of JOXWDWKLRQH ,Q YLWUR &DUEDU\O 0HWDEROLVP 6WXG\ &DUEDU\O ZDV PHWDEROL]HG 7Q YLWUR E\ PRGLILFDWLRQV RI WKH PHWKRGV RI .XKU DQG 'DYLV f 5XKU DQG +HVVQH\ f DQG &@ FDUEDU\O GSPf XJ FROG FDUEDU\O PJ ERYLQH VHUXP DOEXPLQ PO PHWK\O &HOORVROYH DQG PO RI PLGJXW FUXGH KRPRJHn QDWHV 7KH 1$'3+ JHQHUDWLQJ V\VWHP ZDV RPLWWHG IURP VRPH LQFXEDWLRQV LQ RUGHU WR VWXG\ QRQR[LGDWLYH PHWDEROLVP RI FDUEDU\O 7KH LQFXEDWLRQ PL[WXUH ZDV VWRSSHG ZLWK PO FKORURIRUP DQG FDUEDU\O DQG LWV PHWDERn OLWHV ZHUH H[WUDFWHG E\ WKH VROYHQW 7KH VDPH H[WUDFWLRQ ZDV UHSHDWHG DJDLQ DQG WKH FRPELQHG H[WUDFWV ZHUH WKHQ GULHG RYHU DQK\GURXV VRGLXP

PAGE 60

VXOIDWH 7ZR PLOOLOLWHU DOLTXRWV RI FKORURIRUP ZHUH FRQFHQWUDWHG XQGHU D VWUHDP RI DLU WR PO DQG VSRWWHG RQ VLOLFD JHO WKLQ OD\HU FKURPRWRJUDSKLF 7/&f SODWHV PPf 7KH 7/& SODWHV ZHUH GHYHORSHG LQ D VROXWLRQ RI DFHWLF DFLGHWK\O DFHWDWHEHQ]HQH E\ YROXPHf DQG VFDQQHG IRU UDGLRDFWLYLW\ LQ D 3DFNDUG 0RGHO UDGLRFKURPDWRn JUDP VFDQQHU ,QGLYLGXDO VSRWV ZHUH LGHQWLILHG E\ 5AV RI SUHYLRXVO\ FKURPDWRJUDSKHG VWDQGDUG PHWDEROLWHV VHH 7DEOH f (DFK SHDN ZDV VFUDSHG IURP WKH SODWHV DQG FRXQWHG LQ D 7UDFRU $QDO\WLF 'DWD OLTXLG VFLQWLOODWLRQ FRXQWHU 7KH R[LGDWLYH PHWDEROLWHV ZHUH FRPELQHG GXH WR SRRU VHSDUDWLRQ DQG UHVROXWLRQ QHDU WKH 7/& SODWHVn RULJLQ (SR[LGH +\GURODVH $VVD\ (SR[LGH K\GURODVH )LJ f ZDV DVVD\HG E\ WKH PHWKRG RI &@ VW\UHQH R[LGH DV VXEVWUDWH 0LFURVRPHV ZHUH SUHSDUHG DV SUHYLRXVO\ GHVFULEHG DQG VXVSHQGHG LQ 0 7ULV+&O EXIIHU S+ WR PDNH D ILQDO FRQFHQWUDWLRQ RI PJ SURWHLQPO +HDW GHQDWXUHG HQ]\PH ZDV XVHG DV WKH FRQWURO WR FRUUHFW IRU DQ\ QRQHQ]\PDWLF JO\FRO IRUPDWLRQ 6FUHZ FDS WXEHV ZHUH XVHG WR KROG WKH LQFXEDWLRQ PL[WXUH ZKLFK FRQWDLQHG XJ GSPf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

PAGE 61

7$%/( 5 YDOXHV RI FDUEDU\O DQG LWV PHWDEROLWHV RQ VLOLFD JHO SODWHV LQ D GHYHORSPHQWDO VROXWLRQ RI DFHWLF DFLGHWK\O DFHWDWHEHQ]HQH E\ YROXPHf &RPSRXQG 5I DQDSKWKRO &DUEDU\O K\GUR[\FDUEDU\O K\GUR[\FDUEDU\O 0HWK\OROFDUEDU\O 1K\GUR[\PHWK\Of

PAGE 62

)LJ 7KH UHDFWLRQ RI > &@ VW\UHQH R[LGH ZLWK ZDWHU DQG PLFURVRPHV WR SURGXFH WKH ZDWHU VROXEOH SURGXFW VW\UHQH JO\FRO

PAGE 63

(SR[LGH K\GURODVH 6W\UHQH R[LGH 6W\UHQH JO\FRO

PAGE 64

DFHWDWH DQG WKH SURGXFW LQ WKH HWK\O DFHWDWH ZDV TXDQWLILHG E\ OLTXLG VFLQWLOODWLRQ FRXQWLQJ (VWHUDVH $VVD\V (VWHUDVHV ZHUH DVVD\HG E\ WKH PHWKRG RI YDQ $VSHUHQ f )LJ f XVLQJ DQDSKWK\ODFHWDWH D1$f DV VXEVWUDWH %RWK PLGJXW PLFURVRPHV DQG FUXGH KRPRJHQDWHV ZHUH XVHG WR SHUIRUP WKLV DVVD\ $ W\SLFDO PO LQFXEDWLRQ PL[WXUH FRQWDLQHG PO RI 0 VRGLXP SKRVSKDWH EXIIHU S+ PO RI D 0 D1$ LQ DFHWRQH DQG PO RI PLGJXW KRPRJHQDWH RU PLFURVRPDO SUHSDUDWLRQ 7R DVVD\ IRU FDUER[\OHVWHUDVH DFWLYLW\ HVHULQH 0f DQG SK\GUR[\PHUFXULEHQ]RDWH 3+0%f 0f ZHUH DGGHG WR WKH LQFXEDWLRQ PL[WXUH WR LQKLELW FKROLQHVWHUDVH DQG DU\OHVWHUDVHV UHVSHFWLYHO\ 7KLV PL[WXUH ZDV LQFXEDWHG IRU PLQXWHV DW GHJUHHV & DQG WKH UHDFWLRQ ZDV VWRSSHG E\ SODFLQJ HDFK LQFXEDWLRQ WXEH RQ LFH DQG LQWURn GXFLQJ PO RI GLD]REOXH ODXU\OVXOIDWH VROXWLRQ '%/6f $ UHG FRORU GHYHORSHG DQG TXLFNO\ FKDQJHG WR D GDUN EOXH FRORU 7KH DEVRUEDQFH RI WKH UHDFWLRQ SURGXFW QDSKWKROGLD]REOXH ZDV PHDVXUHG DW QP RQ D %HFNPDQ 0RGHO VSHFWURSKRWRPHWHU DJDLQVW D EODQN FRQWDLQLQJ QR HQ]\PH 2SWLFDO GHQVLWLHV RI WKH UHDFWLRQ SURGXFWV ZHUH FRPSDUHG WR NQRZQ TXDQWLWLHV RI QDSKWKRO UHDFWHG ZLWK '%/6 DQG SORWWHG DV D VWDQGDUG FXUYH $OO LQFXEDWLRQV ZHUH GXSOLFDWHG DQG HDFK H[SHULPHQW ZDV UHSHDWHG WZLFH $FHW\OFKROLQHVWHUDVH $VVD\ $FHW\OFKROLQHVWHUDVH $&K(f )LJ f ZDV DVVD\HG E\ WKH PHWKRG RI (OOPDQ HW DO f XVLQJ DFHW\OWKLRFKROLQH $7&f DV VXEVWUDWH ,QLWLDOO\ IDOO DUP\ZRUP DGXOW KHDGV ZKROH ODUYDH DQG ODUYDO KHDGV ZHUH

PAGE 65

)LJ 7KH UHDFWLRQ RI DQDSKWK\ODFHWDWH ZLWK HVWHUDVHV WR IRUP DQDSKWKRO DQG DFHWLF DFLG

PAGE 66

(VWHUDVHV R LL DQDSKWK\ODFHWDWH RFQDSKWKRO /Q 2 &+&+

PAGE 67

)LJ 7KH UHDFWLRQ RI DFHW\OWKLRFKROLQH ZLWK DFHW\OFKROLQHVWHUDVH SURGXFLQJ WKLRFKROLQH ZKLFK SURGXFHG D \HOORZ FRORU ZKHQ FRPELQHG LQ UHDFWLRQ ZLWK GLWKLRELVQLWUREHQ]RLF DFLG

PAGE 68

$FHW\OFKROLQHVWHUDVH &+1&+&+6 DFHW\OWKLRFKROLQH &+f1&+&+6B WKLRFKROLQH &+f 1&+&+ 6 &&+ + VLW/DIHW&+f 1&+R&+6B&+&+ 2 F M M   WKLRFKROLQH 1 f§A MMf§ 6 f§ 6 &22 &22 GLWKLRELV QLWUREHQ]RLF DFLG r1A`A6n &22 WKLR QLWUREHQ]RLF DFLG

PAGE 69

DVVD\HG IRU $&K( DFWLYLW\ :KROH ODUYDH ODUYDO KHDGV VKRZHG ORZ DFWLn YLW\ DQG ZHUH QRW XVHG $GXOW KHDGV FRQWDLQHG WKH KLJKHVW DFWLYLW\ DQG ZHUH VXEVHTXHQWO\ XVHG LQ WKLV DVVD\ 7ZRGD\ ROG DGXOWV RI ERWK 5 DQG 6 VWUDLQV ZHUH IUR]HQ DQG WKHLU KHDGV UHPRYHG ZLWK IRUFHSV 7KH KHDGV ZHUH KRPRJHQL]HG IRU VHFRQGV LQ LFHFROG 0 VRGLXP SKRVSKDWH EXIIHU S+ LQ D JODVV KRPRJH QL]HU ZLWK D WHIORQ SHVWOH DWWDFKHG WR D PRWRUL]HG JULQGHU IRU VHFRQGV 7KH KRPRJHQDWH ZDV ILOWHUHG WKURXJK GRXEOHG OD\HUHG FKHHVHn FORWK DQG XVHG DV WKH HQ]\PH VRXUFH $ W\SLFDO PO LQFXEDWLRQ PL[WXUH FRQWDLQHG PO RI 0 VRGLXP SKRVSKDWH EXIIHU S+ PO RI 0 GLWKLRELVQLWUR EHQ]RLF DFLG '71%f PO LFHFROG 0 DFHW\OWKLRFKROLQH $7&f DQG PO HQ]\PH 7KH UHDFWLRQ ZDV LQLWLDWHG E\ DGGLQJ PO HQ]\PH WR WKH LQFXEDWLRQ PL[WXUH 7KH EODQN FRQWDLQHG DOO RI WKH DERYH UHDn JHQWV H[FOXGLQJ WKH HQ]\PH 7KH EXIIHU ZDV LQFUHDVHG LQ WKH EODQN WR FRPSHQVDWH IRU WKH ODFN RI HQ]\PH 7KH \HOORZ FRORUHG UHDFWLRQ SURGXFW IRUPDWLRQ ZDV PHDVXUHG IRU PLQXWHV DW QP DJDLQVW WKH EODQN ZKLFK VKRZHG VRPH QRQHQ]\PDWLF $7& K\GURO\VLV &XWLFXODU 3HQHWUDWLRQ E\ &DUEDU\O &XWLFXODU SHQHWUDWLRQ RI FDUEDU\O ZDV PHDVXUHG E\ D PHWKRG PRGLILHG IURP .X DQG %LVKRS f 7KH FXWLFXODU SHQHWUDWLRQ ZDV DVVD\HG E\ WRSLFDOO\ DSSO\LQJ > &@ FDUEDU\O WR WKH GRUVRSURWKRUD[ RI IDOO DUP\ ZRUP ODUYDH 7KH WUHDWHG ODUYDH ZHUH ULQVHG ZLWK DFHWRQH DW GLIIHUHQW WLPH LQWHUYDOV DIWHU WUHDWPHQW 7KH H[FUHWD ZDV H[WUDFWHG GLUHFWO\ IURP VFLQWLOODWLRQ YLDOV ZLWK 6FLQWL9HUVH VFLQWLOODWLRQ FRFNWDLO &DUEDU\O WKDW SHQHWUDWHG ODUYDO FXWLFOH ZDV H[WUDFWHG E\ KRPRJHQL]LQJ ZKROH ODUYDH DW YDULRXV WLPH LQWHUYDOV DQG ZDVKLQJ WKH UHPDLQLQJ FDUFDVVHV DQG

PAGE 70

XWHQVLOV ZLWK DOLTXRWV RI DFHWRQH :DVKHV ZHUH FROOHFWHG FRQFHQWUDWHG DQG UDGLRDFWLYLW\ PHDVXUHG ,Q D W\SLFDO H[SHULPHQW GXSOLFDWH JURXSV RI ODUYDH HDFK RI GD\ROG VL[WK LQVWDU ZHUH SODFHG LQWR D JODVV SHWUL GLVK (DFK ODUYD ZDV WUHDWHG WRSLFDOO\ ZLWK XO DFHWRQH FRQWDLQLQJ XJ > &@ FDUEDU\O DQG XJ FROG FDUEDU\O 7KRVH ODUYDH WKDW ZHUH DVVD\HG DW ]HUR KRXU ZHUH ULQVHG LPPHGLDWHO\ LQ WKUHH PO DOLTXRWV RI DFHWRQH LQ VHSDUDWH VFLQWLOODWLRQ YLDOV 7KRVH ODUYDH UHTXLULQJ ULQVHV DW RWKHU WLPH LQWHUYDOV ZHUH WUHDWHG DQG SODFHG LQWR VHSDUDWH SUHODEHOOHG YLDOV /DUYDH ZHUH UHPRYHG LQGLYLGXDOO\ IURP HDFK GXSOLFDWH YLDO VHW DW WKH GHVLJQDWHG WLPH LQWHUYDO DQG ULQVHG DV DERYH $IWHU EHLQJ ULQVHG HDFK ODUYD ZDV FXW LQWR IRXU SLHFHV DQG SODFHG LQWR D JODVV KRPRJHQL]HU $IWHU DOO ODUYDH KDG EHHQ ULQVHG WKH ODUYDO SLHFHV WZR ODUYDO HTXLYDn OHQWVf ZHUH KRPRJHQL]HG LQ PO DFHWRQH 7KH SHVWOH ZDV ULQVHG ZLWK DQRWKHU PO DFHWRQH DQG WKH DFHWRQH ZDV ILOWHUHG LQWR D PO (UOHQPH\HU IODVN 7KH ILOWHU SDSHU :KDWPDQ f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

PAGE 71

5(68/76 %LRDVVD\V $OO )$: ELRDVVD\V ZHUH E\ WKH PHWKRGV RI 0XOOLQV DQG 3LHWHUV f &DUEDU\O SDUDWKLRQ PHWKRP\O GLD]LQRQ F\SHUPHWKULQ DQG SHUPHWKULQ ZHUH ELRDVVD\HG LQLWLDOO\ WR GHWHUPLQH )$: VXVFHSWLELOLW\ WR GLIIHUHQW LQVHFWLFLGDO FODVVHV DQG WR GHWHUPLQH FURVVUHVLVWDQFH LI DQ\ 7KH YDOXHV XJJ ODUYDf IRU HDFK LQVHFWLFLGH DUH VKRZQ LQ 7DEOH DORQJ ZLWK WKH UHODWLYH UHVLVWDQFH UDWLRV LQ GHVFHQGLQJ RUGHU RI VXVFHSn WLELOLW\ 7KH UHVLVWDQW VWUDLQ VKRZHG ; UHVLVWDQFH WR FDUEDU\O EXW UHPDLQHG VXVFHSWLEOH WR D UHODWHG FDUEDPDWH PHWKRP\O ;f 7KH UHVLVWDQW VWUDLQ DOVR VKRZHG WROHUDQFH WR WKH RUJDQRSKRVSKDWHV SDUDn WKLRQ ;f DQG GLD]LQRQ ;f 7KH 5 DQG 6 IDOO DUP\ZRUP VWUDLQV VKRZHG QR WROHUDQFH RU FURVVUHVLVWDQFH WR WKH V\QWKHWLF S\UHWKURLGV F\SHUPHWKULQ DQG SHUPHWKULQ ,Q 7DEOH WKH WR[LFRORJLFDO UHVSRQVHV DUH VKRZQ IRU ODUYDH WUHDWHG ZLWK 3% D NQRZQ PLFURVRPDO R[LGDVH LQKLELWRU
PAGE 72

7$%/( &RPSDULVRQ RI WR[LFRORJLFDO UHVSRQVHV RI 5 DQG 6 IDOO DUP\ZRUP ODUYDH WRSLFDOO\ WUHDWHG ZLWK LQVHFWLFLGHV ,QVHFWLFLGH J /' XJJ /DUYDf 5 6 56 &DUEDU\O E 3DUDWKLRQ 0HWKRUQ\ 'LD]LQRQ &\SHUPHWKULQ 3HUPHWKULQ D E (DFK REVHUYDWLRQ FRQVLVWHG RI DW OHDVW WZR GLIIHUHQW WHVWV &RPSXWHU HVWLPDWH

PAGE 73

7$%/( &RPSDULVRQ RI WR[LFRORJLFDO UHVSRQVHV RI 5 DQG 6 IDOO DUP\ZRUP ODUYDH WRSLFDOO\ WUHDWHG ZLWK FDUEDU\O 3% /' e XJJ /DUYDf ,QVHFWLFLGH 6\QHUJLVW 5 6 56 &DUEDU\O E &DUEDU\O 3LSHURQ\O %XWR[LGH D E (DFK REVHUYDWLRQ FRQVLVWHG RI DW OHDVW WZR GLIIHUHQW WHVWV &RPSXWHU HVWLPDWH

PAGE 74

7KHVH LML YLYR UHVXOWV PD\ SURYH KHOSIXO LQ WKH GLVFXVVLRQ RI UHVXOWV IRXQG LQ LQ YLWUR GHWR[LFDWLRQ DVVD\V '() 6 6 6 WULEXW\O SKRVSKRUR WULWKLRDWHf D NQRZQ HVWHUDVH LQKLELWRU ZDV WRR WR[LF ZKHQ DSSOLHG DORQH IRU HVWHUDVH FRPSDULVRQV 72&3 WUL2FUHRV\O SKRVSKDWHf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
PAGE 75

7$%/( $OGULQ HSR[LGDVH DFWLYLWLHV RI PLGJXW PLFURVRPHV DQG KRPRJHn QDWHV IURP YDULRXV LQVWDUV RI 5 DQG 6 IDOO DUP\ZRUP ODUYDH D 6SHFLILF $FWLYLW\ SPRO GLHOGULQ PLQ PJ SURWHLQ f /DUYDO ,QVWDU 5 6 0LFURVRPHV WKE &fG WKH G WKH G &UXGH +RPRJHQDWHV WKH D E F G H I /DUYDH XVHG LQ DOO DVVD\V ZHUH DJH V\QFKURQL]HG 1HZO\ PROWHG 0HDQ s 6( RI DW OHDVW WKUHH H[SHULPHQWV HDFK DVVD\HG LQ GXSOLFDWH 9DOXH VLJQLILFDQWO\ GLIIHUHQW f IURP 6 VWUDLQ GD\ ROG GD\ ROG

PAGE 76

7$%/( 0LFURVRPDO ELSKHQ\O K\GUR[\ODV_DFWLYLW\ LQ YDULRXV LQVWDUV RI 5 DQG 6 IDOO DUP\ZRUP ODUYDH 6SHFLILF $FWLYLW\ SPRO PLQ PJ SURWHLQ f /DUYDO ,QVWDU WK EnG s WK G s WK 'D\ G s 'D\ G s 'D\ n s D E /DUYDH XVHG LQ DOO DVVD\V ZHUH DJH V\QFKURQL]HG 0HDQ s 6( RI DW OHDVW WKUHH H[SHULPHQWV HDFK DVVD\HG LQ GXSOLFDWH G 9DOXH VLJQLILFDQWO\ GLIIHUHQW f IURP 6 VWUDLQ 9DOXH VLJQLILFDQWO\ GLIIHUHQW S IURP 6 VWUDLQ

PAGE 77

IRXQG WR KDYH FOHDU JXWV DQG WR EH SUHSDULQJ FHOOV LQ WKH DUWLILFLDO GLHW IRU SXSDWLRQ 7KH DFWLYLWLHV RI PLFURVRPDO ELSKHQ\O K\GUR[\ODVH RI DOO 5 ODUYDO LQVWDUV LQ 7DEOH ZHUH JUHDWHU WKDQ LQ WKH 6 VWUDLQ E\ WKH IROORZLQJ IDFWRUV WK ;f WK ;f RQH GD\ROG WK ;f WZR GD\ROG WK ;f WKUHH GD\ROG WK ;f 7KH DFWLYLWLHV RI DOO ODUYDO LQVWDUV LQ WKH 5 VWUDLQ RQ D SHU PJ SURWHLQ EDVLV ZHUH VWDWLVWLFDOO\ GLIIHUHQW IURP WKH 6 VWUDLQ DW D SUREDELOLW\ RI 3 H[FHSW IRU WKUHH GD\ ROG WK LQVWDU ZKLFK VKRZHG D VLJQLILFDQFH SUREDELOLW\ RI 3 & 1GHPHWK\ODVH 7KH DFWLYLW\ RI PLFURVRPDO 1GHPHWK\ODVH RI WZR GD\ROG VL[WK LQVWDU 5 DQG 6 IDOO DUP\ZRUP ODUYDH LV VXPPDUL]HG LQ 7DEOH 7KHUH DUH QR GLIIHUHQFHV LQ DFWLYLW\ RQ D SHU PJ SURWHLQ EDVLV KRZHYHU WKH 6 VWUDLQ LV VLJQLILFDQWO\ 3 f PRUH DFWLYH RQ D SHU PLGJXW EDVLV 7KH PD[LPXP GLIIHUHQFH IROGf ZDV REVHUYHG LQ WKH VL[WK LQVWDU RI 5 DQG 6 ODUYDH &\WRFKURPH 3 7KH UHVXOWV VXPPDUL]HG LQ 7DEOH VKRZ WKDW WKHUH ZDV QR VLJQLILn FDQW GLIIHUHQFH LQ WKH &\WRFKURPH 3 FRQWHQW EHWZHHQ 5 DQG 6 VWUDLQV DOWKRXJK WKH 5 VWUDLQ DSSHDUHG WR EH FRQVLVWHQWO\ KLJKHU WKDQ WKH 6 VWUDLQ ( *OXWDWKLRQH 6WUDQVIHUDVH DQG (SR[LGH +\GURODVH )URP 7DEOH LW FDQ EH VHHQ WKDW WKHUH ZDV QR VLJQLILFDQW GLIIHUn HQFHV LQ WKH JOXWDWKLRQH 6DU\OWUDQVIHUDVH DFWLYLW\ EHWZHHQ WKH 5 DQG 6 VWUDLQV 7KLV LV DOVR WUXH IRU WKH HSR[LGH K\GURODVH DFWLYLW\ 7DEOH f

PAGE 78

7$%/( 0LFURVRPDO 1GHPHWK\OAVH DFWLYLW\ IURP VL[WKLQVWDU 5 DQG 6 IDOO DUP\ZRUP ODUYDH 1GHPHWK\ODVH 6WUDLQ SPRO PLQ A A PJ SURWHLQ SPRO PLQA PLGJXW 5 s E s 6 s s F /DUYDH XVHG LQ DOO DVVD\V ZHUH DJH V\QFKURQL]HG 0HDQ s 6( RI DW OHDVW WKUHH H[SHULPHQWV HDFK DVVD\HG LQ GXSOLFDWH & 9DOXH VLJQLILFDQWO\ GLIIHUHQW 3 f IURP 5 VWUDLQ

PAGE 79

7$%/( &\WRFKURPH 3 DFWLYLW\ IURP PLGJXW PLFURVRPHV LQVWDU 5 DQG 6 IDOO DUP\ZRUP ODUYDH RI VL[WK 6WUDLQ SPRO 3A PJ SURWHLQ SPRO 3A PLGJXW 5 s E s 6 s s D E /DUYDH XVHG LQ DOO DVVD\V ZHUH DJH V\QFKURQL]HG 0HDQ s 6( RI DW OHDVW WKUHH H[SHULPHQWV HDFK DVVD\HG LQ GXSOLFDWH

PAGE 80

7$%/( *OXWDWKLRQH 6DU\OWUDQVIHUDVH DFWLYLW\ RI PLGJXW VROXEOH HQ]\PH IUDFWLRQ IURP VL[WK LQVWDU 5 DQG 6 IDOO DUP\ZRUP ODUYDH 6SHFLILF DFWLYLW\ 6WUDLQ QPRO '&1% FRQMXJDWHG PLQ A PJ SURWHLQ Af 5 s E 6 s D E /DUYDH XVHG LQ DOO DVVD\V ZHUH DJH V\QFKURQL]HG 0HDQ s 6( RI DW OHDVW WKUHH H[SHULPHQWV HDFK DVVD\HG LQ GXSOLFDWH

PAGE 81

7$%/( 0LFURVRPDO HSR[LGH K\GURODVH DFWLYLW\ LQ VL[WK LQVWDU 5 DQG 6 IDOO DUP\ZRUP ODUYDH 6WUDLQ (SR[LGA +\GURODVH A QPRO PLQ PJ SURWHLQ f 5 s E 6 s D E /DUYDH XVHG LQ DOO DVVD\V ZHUH DJH V\QFKURQL]HG 0HDQ s 6( RI DW OHDVW WKUHH H[SHULPHQWV HDFK DVVD\HG LQ GXSOLFDWH

PAGE 82

7$%/( *HQHUDO DQG FDUER[\OH_WHUDVH DFWLYLWLHV IURP FUXGH KRPRJHQDWHV RI VL[WK LQVWDU 5 DQG 6 IDOO DUP\ZRUP ODUYDH QPR_ DQDSKWKRO QPRO DQDSKWKRO PLQ PJ SURWHLQ PLQ PLGJXW 6WUDLQ *HQHUDO &DUER[\O *HQHUDO &DUEDU\O HVWHUDVH HVWHUDVH HVWHUDVH HVWHUDVH 5 s E s s s 6 s s s s D E /DUYDH XVHG LQ DOO DVVD\V ZHUH DJH V\QFKURQL]HG 0HDQ s 6( RI DW OHDVW WKUHH H[SHULPHQWV HDFK DVVD\HG LQ GXSOLFDWH 2n 2n

PAGE 83

) (VWHUDVH 7KH DFWLYLWLHV RI JHQHUDO HVWHUDVHV DQG FDUER[\O\HVWHUDVH LQ WKH 5 DQG 6 VWUDLQV DUH VXPPDUL]HG LQ 7DEOH 7KH UHVXOWV VKRZ WKDW WKHUH ZDV QR VLJQLILFDQW GLIIHUHQFH LQ WKH JHQHUDO HVWHUDVH DQG FDUER[\OHVWHU DVH DFWLYLWLHV EHWZHHQ WKH 5 DQG 6 VWUDLQV ZKHQ PLGJXW FUXGH KRPRJHQDWHV ZHUH XVHG DV WKH HQ]\PH VRXUFH +RZHYHU WKH DFWLYLW\ RI JHQHUDO HVWHUDVHV IURP PLGJXW PLFURVRPHV DUH VLJQLILFDQWO\ KLJKHU LQ WKH 6 VWUDLQ FRPSDUHG WR WKH 5 VWUDLQ 7DEOH f $&K( .LQHWLFV $&K( DFWLYLW\ ZDV QRW VLJQLILFDQWO\ GLIIHUHQW EHZWHHQ WKH 5 DQG 6 VWUDLQV 7DEOH f 6WXGLHV RI $&K( HQ]\PH NLQHWLFV )LJ f VKRZ WKDW WKH YDOXHV IURP ERWK WKH 5 DQG 6 VWUDLQV DUH QRW GLIIHUHQW WRZDUG P $7& $OWKRXJK WKH PD[LPXP UHDFWLRQ YHORFLW\ 9 f LV GLIIHUHQW 59 ,7; ,7OFO; QPRO PLQ A P\ SURWHLQ A 69 QPRO PLQ r QJ SURWHLQ Af WRZDUG WKH K\GURO\VLV RI $7& WKHLU VXEVWUDWH ELQGLQJ DIILQLWLHV DUH WKH VDPH f $WWHPSWV WR REWDLQ DQ LQKLELWLRQ FRQVWDQW P .Bf IDLOHG EHFDXVH FDUEDU\O LV D SRRU \HW UHYHUVLEOH LQKLELWRU RI FKROLQHVWHUDVH 0RXQW DQG 2HKPH f &DUEDPDWHV ELQG OHVV WLJKWO\ WR FKROLQHVWHUDVH DV FRPSDUHG WR PRVW RUJDQRSKRVSKRURXV LQVHFWLFLGHV 0RXQW DQG 2HKPH f $W A 0 WR A 0 FRQFHQWUDWLRQV WKH LQKLELWLRQ UDWH VKRZHG D IODW QRQOLQHDU UHVSRQVH DIWHU PLQXWHV RI LQFXEDWLRQ ZLWK FDUEDU\O DJDLQVW PRWK KHDG KRPRJHQDWH $ OLQHDU LQFUHDVH LQ FDUEDU\O LQKLELWLRQ IURP WR 0 FRQFHQWUDWLRQV LV VKRZQ LQ )LJ WKXV YHULI\LQJ WKDW KLJK FDUEDU\O PRODU FRQFHQWUDWLRQV DUH UHTXLUHG WR LQKLELW $&K( + ,Q YLWUR &DUEDU\O 0HWDEROLVP ,Q YLWUR FDUEDU\O PHWDEROLVP VWXGLHV VKRZHG WKDW WKH 5 VWUDLQ SURGXFHG ; PRUH FDUEDU\O R[LGDWLYH PHWDEROLWHV WKDQ GLG WKH 6 VWUDLQ

PAGE 84

7$%/( *HQHUDO DQG &DUER[\OHVWHUDVH DFWLYLWLHV IURP PLFURVRPHV RI VL[WK LQVWDU 5 DQG 6 IDOO DUP\ZRUP ODUYDH 6SHFLILF DFWLYLW\ QPRO DQDSKWKRO L f f,V PP PJ SURWHLQ f 6WUDLQ *HQHUDO HVWHUDVH &DUER[\OHVWHUDVH 5 s D s 6 s F s D E F /DUYDH XVHG LQ DOO DVVD\V ZHUH DJH V\QFKURQL]HG 0HDQ s 6( RI DW OHDVW WKUHH H[SHULPHQWV HDFK DVVD\HG LQ GXSOLFDWH 9DOXH VLJQLILFDQWO\ GLIIHUHQW 3 f IURP 5 VWUDLQ

PAGE 85

7$%/( $FHW\OFKROLQHVWHUDVH DFWLYLW\ IURP PRWK KHDGA RI WR GD\ ROG PL[HG SRSXODWLRQ 5 DQG 6 IDOO DUP\ZRUPV 6SHFLILF DFWLYLW\ 6WUDLQ QPRO $7& PHWDEROL]HG PLQ A PJ SURWHLQAf 5 s E 6 s D E /DUYDH XVHG LQ DOO DVVD\V ZHUH DJH V\QFKURQL]HG 0HDQ s 6( RI DW OHDVW WKUHH H[SHULPHQWV HDFK DVVD\HG LQ GXSOLFDWH

PAGE 86

)LJ /LQHZHDYHU%XUNH SORW IRU WKH UHDFWLRQV RI 5 DQG 6 IDOO DUP\ZRUP PRWK KHDG DFHW\OFKROLQHVWHUDVH ZLWK DFHW\OWKLRFKROLQH 9 SURGXFW IRUPHG QPRO PLQ PJ SURWHLQ f >$7&@ VXEVWUDWH FRQFHQWUDWLRQ P0f

PAGE 87

>$7&@ $ 5(6,67$17 $ 686&(37,%/(

PAGE 88

)LJ &DUEDU\O LQKLELWLRQ RI $&K( IURP KHDGV RI 5 DQG 6 IDOO DUP\ZRUP DGXOW PRWKV

PAGE 89

,1+,%,7,21 '26( ; /2* >@f

PAGE 90

7$%/( ,Q YLWUR PHWDEROLVP RI FDUEDU\O E\ PLGJXW KRPRJHQDWH IURP 5 DQG 6 IDOO DUP\ZRUP ODUYDH D &DUEDU\O PHWDEROL]HG SPRO KU A PJ SURWHLQ (VWHUDVH 0LFURVRPDO 2[LGDVHV 6WUDLQ &RQWURO 72&3 0f '(( 0f &RQWURO 0f 5 s s s s 6 s s E s E s E s D /DUYDH XVHG LQ WKLV DVVD\ ZHUH GD\V ROG 9DOXH VLJQLILFDQWO\ GLIIHUHQW 3 f IURP WKH 5 VWUDLQ

PAGE 91

7DEOH f $ ; GHFUHDVH LQ R[LGDWLYH PHWDEROLWHV ZDV VHHQ ZKHQ 1$'3+ ZDV QRW XVHG LQ DQ LQFXEDWLRQ PL[WXUH 7KLV VXJJHVWV WKDW R[LGDn WLRQ GHSHQGV RQ WKH 1$'3+ FRIDFWRU IRU PD[LPXP UHDFWLRQ UDWH 7KH DGGLWLRQ RI WKH HVWHUDVH LQKLELWRUV '() 0f DQG 72&3 0f WR WKH LQFXEDWLRQ PL[WXUH UHGXFHG WKH HVWHUDVH DFWLYLW\ LQ WKH 5 VWUDLQ E\ b DQG b UHVSHFWLYHO\ +RZHYHU WKHVH LQKLELWRUV FDXVHG b DQG b UHGXFWLRQ LQ HVWHUDVH DFWLYLW\ LQ WKH 6 VWUDLQ VXJJHVWLQJ WKDW WKH 6 VWUDLQ KDV D GLIIHUHQW IRUP RI HVWHUDVH WKDQ WKH 5 VWUDLQ 6LPLODUO\ PLFURVRPDO R[LGDVHV ZKLFK R[LGL]HG FDUEDU\O ZHUH PRUH VXVFHSWLEOH WR 3E LQKLELWLRQ LQ WKH 5 VWUDLQ bf WKDQ LQ WKH 6 VWUDLQ bf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b UHVSHFWLYHO\ RI WKH FRQWUROV LPPHGLDWH ZDVKRIIf )LJ f 'DWD LQ )LJXUH VKRZ WKDW WKH 6 VWUDLQ H[FUHWHV PRUH WKDQ ; PRUH FDUEDU\O WKDQ WKH 5 VWUDLQ LQ KRXUV KRZHYHU 7KLV VXJJHVWV WKDW PRUH FDUEDU\O HQWHUV 6 ODUYDH DQG PRUH LV H[FUHWHG HLWKHU DV FDUEDU\O RU DV FDUEDU\O PHWDEROLWHV ZKLOH b RI WKH DSSOLHG FDUEDU\O UHPDLQV RQ WKH FXWLFOH RI 5 ODUYDH

PAGE 92

)LJ 3HUFHQW RI DSSOLHG GRVH RI > &@ FDUEDU\O UHPDLQLQJ RQ WKH FXWLFOH RI VL[WK LQVWDU 5 DQG 6 IDOO DUP\ZRUP ODUYDH

PAGE 93

+2856 $)7(5 75($70(17

PAGE 94

)LJ 3HUFHQW RI DSSOLHG > &@ &DUEDU\O H[WUDFWHG IURP KRPRJHQDWH RI VL[WK LQVWDU 5 DQG DUP\ZRUP ODUYDH IDOO

PAGE 95

>@& &$5%$5
PAGE 96

)LJ 3HUFHQW RI DSSOLHG &&DUEDU\O UHFRYHUHG IURP H[FUHWD RI VL[WK LQVWDU 5 DQG 6 IDOO DUP\ZRUP ODUYDH

PAGE 97

>@& &$5%$5
PAGE 98

',6&866,21 7KH UHVXOWV RI WKLV VWXG\ VKRZ WKDW WKH IDOO DUP\ZRUP LV UHVLVWDQW WR FDUEDU\O DQG FRQILUPV WKH ILQGLQJV RI
PAGE 99

&3% UHVLVWDQFH WR FDUEDU\O DQG FDUERIXUDQ 7KLV ZRUN DJUHHV ZLWK P\ ILQGLQJV LQ )$: 5HVXOWV RI -UL YLWUR DVVD\V VKRZ WKDW WKH DFWLYLWLHV RI DOGULQ HSR[LGDVH )LJ f DQG ELSKHQ\O K\GUR[\ODVH )LJ f DUH VLJQLILn FDQWO\ KLJKHU LQ 5)$: ODUYDH FRPSDUHG WR 6)$: RYHU DOO LQVWDUV WHVWHG +LJKHU DOGULQ HSR[LGDVH DQG ELSKHQ\O K\GUR[\ODVH DFWLYLWLHV LQ 5)$: ODUYDH ZHUH DOVR REVHUYHG E\
PAGE 100

)LJ $OGULQ HSR[LGDVH DFWLYLWLHV RI PLGJXW PLFURVRPHV IURP YDULRXV LQVWDUV RI 5 DQG 6 IDOO DUP\ZRUP ODUYDH

PAGE 101

2 72 1(:/
PAGE 102

)LJ 0LFURVRPDO ELSKHQ\O K\GUR[\ODVH DFWLYLWLHV IURP YDULRXV LQVWDUV RI 5 DQG 6 IDOO DUP\ZRUP ODUYDH

PAGE 103

%,3+(1
PAGE 104

E\ FRFKURPDWRJUDSK\ RQ 7/& SODWHV DQG GHWHUPLQH 0)2 DFWLYLWLHV 7KH PHWDEROLF SDWKZD\V RI FDUEDU\O LQ YDULRXV VSHFLHV 0HQ]LH f DUH VXPPDUL]HG LQ )LJXUH 5XKU f SUHVHQWHG D SDUWLDO FDUEDU\O PHWDEROLF SDWKZD\ ZKLFK LQFOXGHG WKH DERYH PHWDEROLWHV $QGUDZHV DQG 'RURXJK f IRXQG K\GURO\WLF DQG R[LGDWLYH PHWDEROLVP LQ WKH EROO ZHHYLO DQG WKH EROO ZRUP VLPLODU WR WKRVH LQ WKH SUHVHQW VWXG\ +RZHYHU $QGUDZHV DQG 'RURXJK f LGHQWLILHG WZR DGGLWLRQDO PHWDEROLWHV IURP ERWK LQVHFWV DV K\GUR[\GLK\GUR[\OQDSKWK\O 1PHWK\O FDUEDPDWH VHH )LJ IRU VWXFWXUHVf $GGLWLRQDO UDGLRODEHOOHG FRPSRXQGV ZHUH IRXQG QHDU WKH 7/& SODWH RULJLQ EXW QR DWWHPSWV ZHUH PDGH WR LGHQWLI\ WKHP $KPDG HW DO f DQG $QGUDZHV DQG 'RURXJK f DOVR IRXQG XQNQRZQ UDGLRODEHOOHG FRPSRXQGV LQ WKLV SRVLWLRQ KRZHYHU WKH\ PDGH QR DWWHPSWV WR LGHQWLI\ WKHP HLWKHU 7KH UHVXOWV REWDLQHG IURP FDUEDU\O SHQHWUDWLRQ VWXGLHV DUH LQ DJUHHPHQW ZLWK WKRVH RI $ULDUDWQDP DQG *HRUJKLRX f ZKR IRXQG WKDW FDUEDU\O SHQHWUDWHG WKH FXWLFOH RI 5 $QRSKHOHV DOELPDQXV ODUYDH DERXW RQH KDOI WKH UDWH RI 6 ODUYDH DIWHU PLQXWHV +RZHYHU WKH GLIIHUHQFH ZDV OHVV DSSDUHQW DIWHU PLQXWHV $QRWKHU GLIIHUHQFH EHWZHHQ WKHLU ILQGLQJV DQG PLQH LV WKDW WKH PRVTXLWRHV ZHUH FRQWDLQHG LQ DQ DTXHRXV PHGLXP LQ FRQVWDQW FRQWDFW ZLWK WKH VROXEOL]HG LQVHFWLFLGH 7KLV IDFWRU PD\ DFFRXQW IRU UDSLG DEVRUSWLRQ LQ WKH PRVTXLWR FRPSDUHG WR )$: ODUYDH +DQQD DQG $WDOODK f GHVFULEHG D FRQVLVWDQW GLIIHUHQFH LQ WKH UDWH RI FDUEDU\O SHQHWUDWLRQ LQWR 5 DQG 6 (J\SWLDQ FRWWRQ OHDIZRUP ODUYDH RYHU D KRXU SHULRG 7KHVH H[SHULPHQWV VKRZ WKDW 6SRGRSWHUD VSS SRVVHVV WKH DELOLW\ IRU EHFRPLQJ UHVLVWDQW E\ GHFUHDVHG FXWLFXODU SHQHWUDWLRQ

PAGE 105

)LJ 0HWDEROLF SDWKZD\V RI FDUEDU\O VKRZLQJ WKRVH HQ]\PH V\VWHPV WKDW PRVW OLNHO\ SURGXFHG WKHP

PAGE 106

*OXHIW 6XOIDWH &RQMXJDWHV &2&+M1+ ? &2Jr +&A22+ &2 + 92 R

PAGE 107

7KH DPRXQW RI UDGLRFDUERQ UHFRYHUHG IURP LQWHUQDO H[WUDFWV )LJ f RI 5 DQG 6 ODUYDH ZHUH VLPLODU KRZHYHU WKH DPRXQW RI UDGLRFDUERQ IRXQG LQ WKH H[FUHWD RI 6 ODUYDH ZDV ; KLJKHU WKDQ 5 ODUYDH DIWHU KRXUV 7KHVH ILQGLQJV FRUUHVSRQG ZHOO VLQFH WKH DPRXQW RI FDUEDU\O HQWHULQJ 5 ODUYDH ZDV OHVV WKDQ LQ 6 ODUYDH WKHUHIRUH WKHUH ZDV OHVV WR H[FUHWH )LJ f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f ZDV IRXQG WR SOD\ D UROH LQ UHVLVWDQFH D FRPELn QDWLRQ RI SK\VLRORJLFDO DV ZHOO DV EHKDYLRUDO PHFKDQLVPV PD\ EH UHVSRQn VLEOH IRU FDUEDU\O UHVLVWDQFH LQ WKLV LQVHFW ,Q YLHZ RI WKH ILQGLQJV SUHVHQWHG KHUH WKH VFRSH RI FDUEDU\O UHVLVWDQFH LQ )$: ZRXOG EH FRPSOHWHG LI IXUWKHU UHVHDUFK ZDV SHUIRUPHG RQ EHKDYLRUDO UHVLVWDQFH PHFKDQLVPV *HQHWLF LQYHVWLJDWLRQV RI LQKHULn WDQFH DOOHOLF FRQWULEXWLRQV DQG FKURPRVRPH ORFDWLRQVf RI JHQHV UHVSRQn VLEOH IRU EHKDYLRUDO PHWDEROLF DQG SHQHWUDWLRQ UHVLVWDQFH LV DOVR UHTXLUHG 7KLV LQIRUPDWLRQ ZLOO SURYLGH UHVHDUFKHUV ZLWK JUHDWHU NQRZOHGJH RI WKH FRPSOH[LWLHV RI LQVHFW UHVLVWDQFH DQG FRQWULEXWH WR WKH XQGHUVWDQGLQJ RI ZD\V WR FLUFXPYHQW LW

PAGE 108

/,7(5$785( &,7(' $KPDG 6 DQG $ )RUJDVK 1RQR[LGDWLYH HQ]\PHV LQ WKH PHWDEROLVP RI LQVHFWLFLGHV 'UXJ 0HWDE 5HY f $KPDG 6 $ )RUJDVK DQG
PAGE 109

%URZQ 7KRPDV 0 &RXQWHUPHDVXUHV IRU LQVHFWLFLGH UHVLVWDQFH (FRQ (QWRPRO %XOO f %XOO / )DFWRUV WKDW LQIOXHQFH WREDFFR EXGZRUP UHVLVWDQFH WR RUJDQRSKRVSKRUXV LQVHFWLFLGHV %XOO (QWRPRO 6RF $P f %XUWRQ 5 / 0DVV UHDULQJ WKH FRUQ HDUZRUP LQ WKH ODERUDWRU\ 86'$ $JULH 5HV 6HUY $56 S %XVYLQH 5 7KH ELRFKHPLFDO DQG JHQHWLF EDVHV RI LQVHFWLFLGH UHVLVWDQFH 3DQV f &DPS + % DQG % : $UWKXU $EVRUSWLRQ DQG PHWDEROLVP RI FDUEDU\O E\ VHYHUDO LQVHFW VSHFLHV (FRQ (QWRPRO f &KDVVHDXG / ) 7KH QDWXUH DQG GLVWULEXWLRQ RI HQ]\PHV FDWDO\]LQJ WKH FRQMXJDWLRQ RI JOXWDWKLRQH ZLWK IRUHLJQ FRPSRXQGV 'UXJ 0HWDE 5HY f &ODUN $ 1 $ 6KDPDDQ : & 'DXWHUPDQ DQG 7 +D\DRND &KDUDFWHUL]DWLRQ RI PXOWLSOH JOXWDWKLRQH WUDQVIHUDVHV IURP WKH KRXVH IO\ 0XVFD GRPHVWLFD /f 3HVWLF %LRFKHP 3K\VLRO &RPEV 5 / -U DQG -RVH 5 9DOHULR %LRORJ\ RI WKH IDOO DUP\ZRUP RQ IRXU YDULHWLHV RI EHUPXGDJUDVV ZKHQ KHOG DW FRQVWDQW WHPSHUDWXUH (QYLURQ (QWRPRO 'DXWHUPDQ : & ([WUDPLFURVRPDO PHWDEROLVP RI LQVHFWLFLGHV SDJHV LQ & ) :LONLQVRQ HG ,QVHFWLFLGH %LRFKHPLVWU\ DQG 3K\VLRORJ\ 3OHQXP 3UHVV 1HZ
PAGE 110

'H9ULHV + DQG 3 *HRUJKLRX D $EVHQFH RI HQKDQFHG GHWR[LFDWLRQ RI SHUPHWKULQ LQ S\UHWKURLGUHVLVWDQW KRXVH IOLHV 3HVWLF %LRFKHP 3K\VLRO 'H9ULHV + DQG 3 *HRUJKLRX E 'HFUHDVHG QHUYH VHQVLWLYLW\ DQG GHFUHDVHG FXWLFXODU SHQHWUDWLRQ DV PHFKDQLVPV RI UHVLVWDQFH WR S\UHWKURLGV LQ O5fWUDQVSHUPHWKULQVHOHFWHG VWUDLQ RI WKH KRXVH IO\ 3HVWLF %LRFKHP 3K\VLRO 'RZG 3 ) & 0 6PLWK DQG 7 & 6SDUNV 'HWR[LFDWLRQ RI SODQW WR[LQV E\ LQVHFWV ,QVHFW %LRFKHP f (GZDUGV $ODVGDLU &KROLQHVWHUDVH DFWLYLW\ LQ WKH FRFNURDFK FHQWUDO QHUYRXV V\VWHP ,QVHFW %LRFKHP (OGHIUDZL 0 ( DQG : 0 +RVNLQV 5HODWLRQ RI WKH UDWH RI SHQHWUDWLRQ DQG PHWDEROLVP WR WKH WR[LFLW\ RI VHYLQ WR WKUHH LQVHFW VSHFLHV (FRQ (QWRPRO f (OOPDQ / &RUXUWQH\ 9 $QGUHV -U DQG 5 0 )HDWKHUVWRQH $ QHZ DQG UDSLG FRORUPHWULF GHWHUPLQDWLRQ RI DFHW\OFKROLQHVWHUDVH DFWLYLW\ %LRFKHP 3KDUPDFRO )DUQKDP $ : *HQHWLFV RI UHVLVWDQFH RI S\UHWKURLG VHOHFWHG KRXVHIOLHV 0XVFD GRPHVWLFD / 3HVWLF 6FL )DUQVZRUWK ( 5 ( %HUU\ 6
PAGE 111

*UDKDP%U\FH ,DQ 1RYHO FKHPLFDO DSSURDFKHV WR FURS SURWHFWLRQ QHHGV DQG VROXWLRQV 3HVWLF 6FL +DPD +LURVKL DQG 7RVKLND]X ,ZDWD ,QVHQVLWLYH FKROLQHVWHUDVH LQ WKH 1DNDJDZDUD VWUDLQ RI WKH JUHHQ ULFH OHDIKRSSHU 1HSKRWHWWL[ FLQFWLFHSV 8KOHU +HPLSWHUDFLFDGHOOLGDHf DV D FDXVH RI UHVLVWDQFH WR FDUEDPDWH LQVHFWLFLGHV $SSO (QW =RRO f +DPD +LURVKL DQG 7RVKLND]X ,ZDWD 6WXGLHV RQ WKH LQKHULWDQFH RI FDUEDPDWH UHVLVWDQFH LQ WKH JUHHQ ULFH OHDIKRSSHU 1HSKRWHWWL[ FLQFWLFHSV 8KOHU +HPLSWHUD&LFDGHOOLGDHf 5HODWLRQVKLSV EHWZHHQ LQVHQVLWLYLW\ RI DFHW\OFKROLQHVWHUDVH DQG FURVVUHVLVWDQFH WR FDUEDPDWH DQG RUJDQRSKRVSKDWH LQVHFWLFLGHV $SSO (QW =RRO f +DQQD 0 $ DQG < + $WDOODK 3HQHWUDWLRQ DQG ELRGHJUDGDWLRQ RI FDUEDU\O LQ VXVFHSWLEOH DQG UHVLVWDQW VWUDLQV RI WKH (J\SWLDQ FRWWRQ OHDIZRUP (FRQ (QWRPRO f +DUGLQJ $ DQG 5 & '\DU 5HVLVWDQFH LQGXFHG LQ (XURSHDQ FRUQ ERUHUV LQ WKH ODERUDWRU\ E\ H[SRVLQJ VXFFHVVLYH JHQHUDWLRQV WR ''7 GLD]LQRQ RU FDUEDU\O (FRQ (QWRPRO f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
PAGE 112

.ULHJHU 5 DQG & ) :LONLQVRQ 0LFURVRPDO PL[HGIXQFWLRQ R[LGDVHV LQ LQVHFWV /RFDOL]DWLRQ DQG SURSHUWLHV RI DQ HQ]\PH V\VWHP DIIHFWLQJ DOGULQ HSR[LGDWLRQ LQ ODUYDH RI WKH VRXWKHUQ DUP\ZRUP 3URGHQLD HULGDQLDf %LRFKHP 3KDUPDFRO 5X 7H\HK DQG / %LVKRS 3HQHWUDWLRQ H[FUHWLRQ DQG PHWDEROLVP RI FDUEDU\O LQ VXVFHSWLEOH DQG UHVLVWDQW *HUPDQ FRFNURDFKHV (FRQ (QWRPRO f 5XKU 5 0HWDEROLVP RI FDUEDPDWH LQVHFWLFLGH FKHPLFDOV LQ SODQWV DQG LQVHFWV $JU )RRG &KHP f 5XKU 5 &RPSDUDWLYH PHWDEROLVP RI FDUEDU\O E\ UHVLVWDQW DQG VXFHSWLEOH VWUDLQV RI WKH FDEEDJH ORRSHU (FRQ (QWRPRO f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f /RFNZRRG $ 7 & 6SDUNV DQG 5 1 6WRU\ (YROXWLRQ RI LQVHFW UHVLVWDQFH WR LQVHFWLFLGHV D UHHYDOXDWLRQ RI WKH UROHV RI SK\VLRORJ\ DQG EHKDYLRU %XOO (QWRPRO 6RF $P f /RYHOO % DQG & : 5HDPV ,QKHULWDQFH RI ''7GHK\GURFKOR ULQDVH LQ WKH KRXVHIO\ (FRQ (QWRPRO f /XJLQELOO 3KLOLS 7KH IDOO DUP\ZRUP 86'$ 7HFKQLFDO %XOO 0DWWKHZV :HQG\ $ 7KH PHWDEROLVP RI PDODWKLRQ LQ YLYR E\ WZR VWUDLQV RI 5K\]RSHUWKD GRPLQLFD )f WKH OHVVHU JUDLQ ERUHU 3HVWLF %LRFKHP 3K\VLRO 0HQ]LH &DOYLQ 0 0HWDEROLVP RI SHVWLFLGHV XSGDWH ,, 86 'HSW RI WKH ,QWHULRU )LVK DQG :LOGOLIH 6HU 6SHFLDO 6FLHQWLILF 5HSRUW :LOGOLIH 1R SS 0ROGHQNH $ ) 5 9LQFHQW ( )DUQVZRUWK DQG / & 7HUULHUH &\WRFKURPH 3 LQ LQVHFWV 5HFRQVWLWXWLRQ RI F\WRFKURPH 3GHSHQGHQW PRQRR[\JHQDVH DFWLYLW\ LQ WKH KRXVH IO\ 3HVWLF %LRFKHP 3K\VLRO

PAGE 113

0RWR\DPD 1DRNL 7DWVXPL +D\DRND .HQn,FKL 1RPXUD DQG : & 'DXWHUPDQ 0XOWLSOH IDFWRUV IRU RUJDQRSKRVSKRUXV UHVLVWDQFH LQ WKH KRXVHIO\ 0XVFD GRPHVWLFD / 3HVWLF 6FL 0RXQW 0 ( DQG ) : 2HKPH &DUEDU\O D OLWHUDWXUH UHYLHZ 5HVLGXH 5HYLHZ 0XOOLQV :DOWRQ DQG ( 3 3LHWHUV :HLJKW YHUVXV WR[LFLW\ D QHHG IRU UHYLVLRQ RI WKH VWDQGDUG PHWKRG RI WHVWLQJ IRU UHVLVWDQFH RI WKH WREDFFR EXGZRUP WR LQVHFWLFLGHV (FRQ (QWRPRO 2n%ULHQ 5 ,QVHFWLFLGHV DFWLRQ DQG PHWDEROLVP $FDGHPLF 3UHVV ,QF 1HZ +@ VW\UHQH R[LGH %LRFKHPLFD HW %LRSK\VLFD $FWD %LRFKLP %LRSK\V $FWDf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
PAGE 114

3ODSS ) : -U 7KH JHQHWLF EDVLV WKH KRXVH IO\ HYLGHQFH WKDW D VLQJOH PHWDEROLF UHVLVWDQFH WR LQVHFWLFLGHV RI LQVHFWLFLGH UHVLVWDQFH LQ ORFXV SOD\V D PDMRU UROH LQ 3HVWLF %LRFKHP 3K\VLRO 3ODSS ) : -U DQG ( &DVLGD *HQHWLF FRQWURO RI KRXVH IO\ 1$'3+GHSHQGHQW R[LGDVHV UHODWLRQ WR LQVHFWLFLGH FKHPLFDO PHWDEROLVP DQG UHVLVWDQFH (FRQ (QWRPRO f 3ODSS ) : -U DQG 5 ) +R\HU D 3RVVLEOH SOHLRWURSLVP RI D JHQH FRQIHUULQJ UHVLVWDQFH WR ''7 ''7 DQDORJV DQG S\UHWKULQV LQ WKH KRXVH IO\ DQG &XOH[ WDUVDOLV (FRQ (QWRPRO f 3ODSS ) : -U DQG 5 ) +R\HU E ,QVHFWLFLGH UHVLVWDQFH LQ WKH KRXVH IO\ GHFUHDVH UDWH RI DEVRUSWLRQ DV WKH PHFKDQLVP RI DFWLRQ RI D JHQH WKDW DFWV DV DQ LQWHQVLILHU RI UHVLVWDQFH HFRQ (QWRPRO f 3ULFH 0 DQG 5 5XKU 7KH PHWDEROLVP RI WKH LQVHFWLFLGH FDUEDU\O 1DSKWK\O1PHWK\OFDUEDPDWHf E\ IDW ERG\ RI WKH EORZIO\ ODUYD &DOOLSKRUD HU\WKURFHSKDOD %LRFKHP 3ULHVWHU 7KRPDV 0DUWLQ 3\UHWKURLG UHVLVWDQFH DQG FURVVn UHVLVWDQFH LQ &XOH[ TXLQTXHIDVFLDWXV 6D\ 'LSWHUD &XOLFLGDHf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f DQG $QWKRQRPXV JUDQGLV %RKHPDQf 3HVWLF %LRFKHP 3K\VLRO 5RXOVWRQ : + 6FKQLW]HUOLQJ DQG & $ 6FKXQWQHU $FHW\OFKROLQHVWHUDVH LQVHQVLWLYLW\ LQ WKH ELDUUD VWUDLQ RI WKH FDWWOH WLFN %RRSKLOXV PLFURSOXV DV D FDXVH RI UHVLVWDQFH WR RUJDQRSKRVSKRUXV DQG FDUEDPDWH LQVHFWLFLGHV $XVW %LRO 6FL 5RXOVWRQ : & $ 6FKXQWQHU + 6FKQLW]HUOLQJ DQG 7 :LOVRQ 'HWR[LILFDWLRQ DV D PHFKDQLVP RI UHVLVWDQFH LQ D VWUDLQ RI WKH FDWWOH WLFN %RRSKLOXV PLFURSOXV &DQHVWULQLf UHVLVWDQW WR RUJDQRSKRVSKRUXV DQG FDUEDPDWH FRPSRXQGV $XVW %LRO 6FL

PAGE 115

6DZLFNL 5 0 DQG 'HQKROP $GDSWDWLRQ RI LQVHFWV WR LQVHFWLFLGHV SDJHV LQ (YHUHG HG 2ULJLQV DQG GHYHORSn PHQW RI DGDSWDWLRQV 3LWPDQ ERRNV /RQGRQ 6FKXQWHU & $ + 6FKQLW]HUOLQJ DQG : 5RXOVWRQ &DUEDU\O PHWDEROLVP LQ ODUYDH RI RUJDQRSKRVSKRUXV DQG FDUEDPDWHVXVFHSWLEOH DQG UHVLVWDQW VWUDLQV RI FDWWOH WLFN %RRSKLOXV PLFURSOXV 3HVWLF %LRFKHP 3K\VLRO 6FRWW % $ &URIW DQG 6 : :DJQHU 6WXGLHV RQ WKH PHFKDQLVPV RI SHUPHWKULQ UHVLVWDQFH LQ $PEO\VHLXV IDOODFLV $FDULD 3K\WRVHLLGDHf UHODWLYH WR SUHYLRXV LQVHFWLFLGH XVH RQ DSSOH (FRQ (QWRPRO 6KDQNODQG / 7KH QHUYRXV V\VWHP FRPSDUDWLYH SK\VLRORJ\ DQG SKDUPDFRORJ\ SDJHV LQ & ) :LONLQVRQ HG ,QVHFWLFLGH ELRFKHPLVWU\ DQG SK\VLRORJ\ 3OHQXP 3UHVV 1HZ
PAGE 116

YDQ $VSHUHQ $ VWXG\ RI KRXVHIO\ HVWHUDVHV E\ PHDQV RI D VHQVLWLYH FRORULPHWULF PHWKRG ,QVHFW 3K\VLRO 9LFNHU\ 5 $ 6XGLHV RQ WKH IDOO DUP\ZRUP LQ WKH *XOI FRDVW GLVWULFW RI 7H[DV 86'$ 7HFK %XOO SS 9RVV &KROLQHVWHUDVH DXWRDQDO\VLV D UDSLG PHWKRG IRU ELRFKHPLFDO VWXGLHV RQ VXVFHSWLEOH DQG UHVLVWDQW LQVHFWV (FRQ (QWRPRO :LONLQVRQ & ) 5ROH RI PL[HGIXQFWLRQ R[LGDVHV LQ LQVHFWLFLGH UHVLVWDQFH SDJHV LQ 3 *HRUJKLRX DQG 7 6DLWR HGV 3HVW UHVLVWDQFH WR SHVWLFLGHV 3OHQXP 3UHVV 1HZ
PAGE 117


PAGE 118

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nV ,QVWLWXWH RI )RRG DQG $JULFXOWXUDO 6FLHQFHVf 'HSDUWPHQW RI (QWRPRORJ\ DQG 1HPDWRORJ\ LQ WR SXUVXH DQ 06 GHJUHH ZLWK DQ HPSKDVLV RQ HFRQRPLF HQWRPRORJ\ (O]LH UHFHLYHG WKH 06 GHJUHH LQ -XQH RI DQG DFFHSWHG D RQH\HDU LQWHULP SRVLWLRQ ZLWK WKH )ORULGD &RRSHUDWLYH ([WHQVLRQ 6HUYLFH DV $VVLVWDQW LQ ([WHQVLRQ (QWRPRORJ\ +H ZDV DFFHSWHG WR WKH GRFWRUDO SURJUDP DW WKH 8QLYHUVLW\ RI )ORULGD LQ KRZHYHU LQ -XQH RI KH DFFHSWHG D SRVLWLRQ DV %LRORJLVW ZLWK WKH ( 'X 3RQW GH 1HPRXUV t &RPSDQ\ :LOPLQJWRQ 'HODZDUH (O]LH DQG 3LQNLH ZHOFRPHG WKH ELUWK RI WZR VRQV 5RJHUV &KULVWRSKHU f DQG 7LPRWK\ 5\DQ f ZKR FRQWLQXH WR SURYLGH WKHP ZLWK PDQ\ KRXUV RI KDSSLQHVV +RZHYHU LQ -DQXDU\ (O]LH ZDV JUDQWHG D PRQWKV OHDYH RI DEVHQFH IURP WKH 'X 3RQW &RPSDQ\ DQG KLV IDPLO\ WR UHWXUQ WR WKH GRFWRUDO SURJUDP DW WKH 8QLYHUVLW\ RI )ORULGD 7KHUH KH ZDV IRUWXQDWH

PAGE 119

WR ZRUN RQ FDUEDU\O UHVLVWDQFH LQ WKH IDOO DUP\ZRUP XQGHU WKH GLUHFW VXSHUYLVLRQ RI 'U 6LPRQ 6
PAGE 120

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

PAGE 121

, FHUWLI\ WKDW KDYH UHDG WKLV VWXG\ DQG WKDW LQ P\ RSLQLRQ LW FRQIRUPV WR DFFHSWDEOH VWDQGDUGV RI VFKRODUO\ SUHVHQWDWLRQ DQG LV IXOO\ DGHTXDWH LQ VFRSH DQG TXDOLW\ DV D GLVVHUWDWLRQ IRU WKH GHJUHH RI 'RFWRU RI 3KLORVRSK\ 6n 9 5n % 6KL UHPDQ $VVRFLDWH 3URIHVVRU RI )RRG 6FLHQFH 7KLV GLVVHUWDWLRQ ZDV VXEPLWWHG WR WKH *UDGXDWH )DFXOW\ RI WKH &ROOHJH RI $JULFXOWXUH DQG WR WKH *UDGXDWH 6FKRRO DQG ZDV DFFHSWHG DV SDUWLDO IXOILOOPHQW RI WKH UHTXLUHPHQWV IRU WKH GHJUHH RI 'RFWRU RI 3KLORVRSK\ $XJXVW 'HDQ &Xƒ e! &FLnOHJH RI $JULFXOWXUH X 'HDQ *UDGXDWH 6FKRRO

PAGE 122

81,9(56,7< 2) )/25,'$ ,, LQ LOO XQ PXL

PAGE 124

+ 0"r" R r n3-G PHFKDQLVPVRIFDUE22PFFR