Talk:Imidacloprid

message: The 3D image and the 2D in the article do not match: in the 3D there is an hydrogen linked to 1st N of the N=NO2 (as NH=NO2), in the 2D there is an hydrogen linked to the N in the 5-atom ring. According to http://scripts.iucr.org/cgi-bin/paper?S1600536804029824 , https://pubchem.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/compound/Imidacloprid , https://commonchemistry.cas.org/detail?cas_rn=138261-41-3 and https://echa.europa.eu/substance-information/-/substanceinfo/100.102.643 use the structure depicted in the 2D image.
----  — Preceding unsigned comment added by PauloEAbreu (talk • contribs) 11:38, 18 March 2022 (UTC)
thread_title: Untitled

message: The opening read "A chlorinated analog of nicotine, the compound therefore belongs to the class of chloronicotinyl insecticides, and acts on the nicotinic acetylcholine receptor; the chlorination inhibits degradation by acetylcholine-esterase. Imidacloprid is notable for its relatively low toxicity to most animals other than insects due to its specificity for this type of receptor, which is found more often in insect nervous systems and zooplankton than that of other animals"
It Imidacloprid and agonist or antagonist of the Nicotinic acetylcholine receptor?
More importantly, most animals have nicotinic receptors, and most of them rely on the for important functions like breathing. Presumably the real season for specificity is due to some molecular difference between insect and human nicotinic receptors.Bilz0r (talk) 00:12, 18 December 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Opening of biochemistry section must be wrong and could be improved 

message: Dear Author(s),
I am interested in adding an External Link for this product that directs users to its product information page on the Crop Protection Database (CPD). The CPD is a fact-based, neutral listing of technical information for crop protection products. The CPD listing for this product expands upon the information listed on Wikipedia and would be a valuable addition to the page. This includes experimental code numbers, action group, outside U.S. registration information, safety guidelines, emergency guidelines, and a comprehensive list of suppliers, brand names, premix partners, and discontinued products. 
Please strongly consider approving my request. For more information, visit: http://www.farmchemicalsinternational.com/cropprotection/cpd/
Regards,
Judygt (talk) 12:45, 8 April 2011 (UTC)
thread_title:  Adding New External Link 

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

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

message: The following information in this document is a small snippet from the article it was taken from ----- Imidacloprid is persistent and highly soluble in water. At a pH between 5 and 7, it is stable in water, and at pH 9, the half-life is about 1 year. In soil under aerobic conditions, imidacloprid is persistent with half-lives on the order of 1-3 years.   I propose we find a way to give a bigger picture and more accurate analysis - any suggestions?  I will be looking - using all the verbiage from the source article is too long and not helpful - but the snippet used is to broad a statement and does not give an accurate depiction.Tcprosser (talk) 15:28, 4 March 2012 (UTC)
replies: text: The sentence about food chain and fish was written by an employee United States Environmental Protection Agency and is now cited. It appears on pages 1 and 20 of the linked document.  – monolemma t – 04:13, 19 April 2012 (UTC)
thread_title:  Environmental fate and other changes made

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

message: To call this a neurotoxin may sound correct - but there are no citations that call it this.  This is because it is too broad a statement and is not scientifically descriptive.  The statement as it reads now is more scientifically accurate and thoroughTcpro4421 (talk) 14:56, 17 March 2012 (UTC)
replies: text: In late 2005, Michele Anatra-Cordone and Patrick Durkin of Syracuse Environmental Research Associates wrote the following guide for the USDA and the Forest Service: "Imidacloprid - Human Health and Ecological Risk Assessment – Final Report". It begins with an executive summary, "Imidacloprid is a neurotoxin that is selectively toxic to insects relative to vertebrates and most non-insect invertebrates." As you see, the word neurotoxin is in the first sentence, where I think it should be. The Canadian Council of Ministers of the Environment wrote the following in 2007: "Imidacloprid is a nicotinoid neurotoxin that acts by irreversibly blocking acetylcholine receptors." They wrote this in the first sentence of the third paragraph, part of the "Abstract" summarizing the pesticide. The word is used by our sources, it is correct and accurate, and it should stay in the lead section. Binksternet (talk) 15:14, 17 March 2012 (UTC)

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

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

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

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

message: Since the information about the use for trees is very important to Tcprosser, I wonder if we could all work together with info from this site and include a section on this chem's relationship to trees?  Gandydancer (talk) 07:00, 20 March 2012 (UTC)
replies: text: OK, the way the section reads right now is more like a "how to" section rather than an encyclopedia entry. Gandydancer (talk) 14:41, 22 March 2012 (UTC)
thread_title:  Imidacloprid use with trees 

message: From Science magazine tomorrow:
:"Five years ago, bees made headlines when a mysterious condition called colony collapse disorder decimated honey bee colonies in parts of the United States. Now bees are poised to be in the news again, this time because of evidence that systemic insecticides, a common way to protect crops, indirectly harm these important pollinators. Two field studies reported online this week in Science document problems. In bumble bees, exposure to one such chemical [imidacloprid] leads to a dramatic loss of queens and could help explain the insects' decline. In honey bees, another insecticide [thiamethoxam] interferes with the foragers' ability to find their way back to the hive. Researchers say these findings are cause for concern and will increase pressure to improve pesticide testing and regulation."
More popular treatment summarization is available from the BBC. 70.58.11.42 (talk) 23:38, 29 March 2012 (UTC)
replies: text: "Use of Common Pesticide, Imidacloprid, Linked to Bee Colony Collapse" in a Harvard School of Public Health study. 71.215.74.243 (talk) 18:27, 6 April 2012 (UTC)

text: What sources are you using for the varroa mite claim? ArtifexMayhem (talk) 02:29, 10 April 2012 (UTC)
replies: text: Google it - its everywhere.  If you cannot find the story then let me know.Tcpro52 (talk) 02:52, 11 April 2012 (UTC)
replies: text: I'm asking. Please. ArtifexMayhem (talk) 03:45, 11 April 2012 (UTC)

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

message: Based on its high water solubility (0.5-0.6 g/L) and persistence
Misleading in the absolute sense.
For imidacloprid in acetone the solubility it is 50g/L, and in DMSO is 200g/L.
Maybe a relative solubility compared to other pesticides would make more sense.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 97.81.29.81 (talk) 07:30, 28 July 2012 (UTC)
thread_title:  Solubility 

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

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified  on Imidacloprid. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20120526200724/http://www.hsph.harvard.edu/faculty/chensheng-lu/files/in-situ-replication-of-honey-bee-colony-collapse-disorder.pdf to http://www.hsph.harvard.edu/faculty/chensheng-lu/files/in-situ-replication-of-honey-bee-colony-collapse-disorder.pdf
When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at ).
Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 21:36, 20 July 2016 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified 

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified  on Imidacloprid. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20061009223131/http://beekeeping.com:80/articles/us/imidacloprid_bayer.htm to http://www.beekeeping.com/articles/us/imidacloprid_bayer.htm
When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at ).
Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 01:37, 11 November 2016 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified 

message: This section doesn't have any citations or references, does anyone know where this set of information can be attributed to? Also, this section seems to be extremely brief and non-comprehensive, so perhaps it could be added to the lead/overview as additional introductory information? Thoughts? --Bumblebee024 (talk) 18:59, 29 January 2017 (UTC)
replies: text: I've gone ahead and removed the section. Normally in pesticide articles, the brand names are so numerous with all the different formulations out there, it becomes undue weight to start mentioning them even with sources just for the sake of a list (i.e., WP:INDISCRIMINATE). I haven't had a chance to review much of this article yet, so I'm not sure if there are other instances like this. Kingofaces43 (talk) 19:15, 29 January 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  Citations for Brand Name section 

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified one external link on Imidacloprid. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20130615203559/http://stream.loe.org/images/120406/Lu%20final%20proof.pdf to http://stream.loe.org/images/120406/Lu%20final%20proof.pdf
When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 06:57, 12 November 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified 

message: "a significant decrease in spermatozoa count, motility and viability associated with a decrease in sexual hormones and severe testis histological damages were reported in rats treated with" imidacloprid. EllenCT (talk) 02:51, 21 January 2020 (UTC)
replies: text: That's not a WP:MEDRS source and wouldn't be relevant here. Kingofaces43 (talk) 04:53, 21 January 2020 (UTC)
replies: text: It's a citation of three unopposed independent studies in the literature review section of subsequent work, taken as noncontroversial. Any studies to the contrary? EllenCT (talk) 20:08, 21 January 2020 (UTC)

text: The relevant guideline is WP:MEDANIMAL, and these studies could be included in a way that makes clear that this not a human health claim.Dialectric (talk) 21:12, 21 January 2020 (UTC)
replies: text: MEDANIMAL is a part of MEDRS that specifically cautions against cherrypicking single studies like this one. If there is something to discuss on this page, that will be with secondary sources, not primary literature like this. Kingofaces43 (talk) 22:16, 21 January 2020 (UTC)
replies: text: Nothing secondary yet, but surprising unanimity over the past eight years at  including statements about humans, e.g. "neonicotinoid pesticides may pose reproductive risks on human reproductive health, especially in professional populations." EllenCT (talk) 22:35, 21 January 2020 (UTC)
thread_title:  Male reproductive toxicity 

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

message: — Assignment last updated by Nc1018! (talk) 17:23, 19 September 2022 (UTC)
thread_title: Wiki Education assignment: Toxicology