Method and apparatus for providing long term protection from intrusion by insects and other cold blooded animals

Information

  • Patent Grant
  • 6331308
  • Patent Number
    6,331,308
  • Date Filed
    Tuesday, June 29, 1999
    25 years ago
  • Date Issued
    Tuesday, December 18, 2001
    22 years ago
Abstract
Controlled release devices are shaped and placed in locations through which insects and/or other cold blooded animals generally enter an area or a structure sought to be protected. The controlled release devices include a polymeric matrix and a pesticide contained in the matrix. The pesticide is gradually released out of the matrix to the surface of the device. The pesticide on the surface of the device kills the intruding insects or other cold blooded animals that come in contact with the pesticide. In addition, if the device is in contact with a permeable structure or object, the pesticide released onto the surface of the device is absorbed by such permeable structure or object to provide a barrier to entry by the insects and/or other cold blooded animals.
Description




BACKGROUND OF THE INVENTION




This invention relates to methods and devices for preventing insects and other cold blooded animals from intruding into certain areas or certain structures. In particular, it relates to providing long term protection against such intrusions.




Insects and other cold blooded animals need to be kept out certain areas and/or certain structures. Their intrusions into such areas or structures can create problems ranging in severity from merely a nuisance to those having dire consequences. For example, fire ants have to be kept out of electrical power distribution enclosures. Their intrusion into such enclosures can cause damage or even destruction of the electrical power distribution system. Fire ants also create a nuisance or damage by entering into buildings through cracks in the walls. In addition, the existence of fire ants in a quarantine zone can cause considerable expense to the plant nurseries in such zone. The plants which are shipped outside the zone must be certified to be ant free. The procedures used to assure that potted plants do not contain fire ants are relatively expensive and time consuming.




Similarly, intrusions by spiders of houses often produce unsightly webs which may be difficult to reach and eliminate.




In some areas, cold blooded animal other than insects create problems. For example, the brown tree snake, a venomous constrictor is a problem in the Pacific Islands, such as Guam and Hawaii where they frequently invade homes in search of food. Their control has been limited because of the collateral impact any effective control, would have on the endangered species.




Finally, crawling insects and soil borne insects can destroy crops and can create a nuisance and damage living areas.




SUMMARY OF THE INVENTION




Controlled release devices are shaped and placed in locations through which insects and/or other cold blooded animals generally enter an area or a structure sought to be protected. For the devices to be effective the release rate of the pesticide must be at least 10 μg/cm


2


/day for insects and must be at least 40 μg/cm


2


/day for cold blooded vertebrae animals. The controlled release devices include a polymeric matrix and a pesticide contained in the matrix. The pesticide is gradually released out of the matrix to the surface of the device. The pesticide on the surface of the device kills the intruding insects or other cold blooded animals that come into contact with the pesticide. In addition, if the device is in contact with a permeable structure or object, the pesticide released onto the surface of the device is absorbed by such permeable structure or object to provide a barrier to entry by the insects and/or other cold blooded animals. The pesticides that have been found useful in connection with the present invention include pyrethrins and fenoxycarb. The polymeric matrices can be made from any polymer which provides desired release rates and incorporates the pesticide without effecting its pesticidal activity. The preferred polymers include silicones, EVA, urethanes, polyurethanes, acrylonitrile butadene, acrylic rubber, ois isoprene and styrene-vinyl rubber.




The present invention is particularly useful in preventing intrusions by fire ants, spiders, crawling insects and other cold blooded animals such as snakes and lizards.




DETAILED DESCRIPTION




It has been discovered that controlled release devices which gradually release pesticides can be constructed to prevent, for a prolonged period of time, intrusions by insects and/or other cold blooded animals into areas, structures or objects that are sought to be protected from intrusions. The protection offered by the controlled release devices constructed and used in accordance with the present invention generally lasts from about 6 months to about 5 years.




Any polymer which can provide the desired release rate and which does not destroy the pesticidal nature of the pesticide used in the device can be employed to provide a polymeric in accordance with the present invention. Generally, suitable polymers can include both thermoset and thermoplastic polymers. Currently preferred polymers are silicones, urethanes, polyurethanes, acrylonitrile butadiene, acrylic rubber, styrene-vinyl rubber EVA and polyethylenes. Especially preferred are the following polymers: RTV-41, Hytrel, Solithane, Nipol 1312, Nipol 1312 LV, Hycar X16, Kraton D1101, Ultra Clear, Aromatic 80A urethane, Pellethane 2102-80A, Pellethane 2102-55D Alipmtic PS-49-100, Polyurethane 3100, Polyurethane 2200, EVA 763, Polyethylene MA 7800, and Polyethylene MA 78000.




Pesticides that can be employed in the matrices of the present invention include those that provide desired release rates at least about 10 μg/cm


2


/day for insects and at least about 40 μg/cm2/day for cold blooded vertebras can be incorporated into a polymeric matrix and whose matricidal quality is not destroyed by incorporation in the matrix. The concentration of the pesticide in the matrix is generally in the range from about 2 to about 15 percent of the total weight of he matrix and preferably in the range from about 5 to about 10 percent.




In some control release devices of the present invention a carrier can be included to produce a desired release rate. A carrier can be carbon black clay or amorphous silica. Carbon black is currently preferred. The concentration of the carrier can range from about 2 to about 5 percent per total weight of the matrix, preferably it is in the range from about 3 to about 5 percent.




A description of general principles of making controlled release devices is given in U.S. patent application Ser. Nos. 06/555,113 filed Nov. 23, 1983 which is a continuation in part of Ser. Nos. 06/314,809 and 06/314,810 both filed on Oct. 26, 1981; Ser. No. 07/086,757, filed Aug. 18, 1987, Ser. No. 07/072,080 filed Jul. 10, 1987; and Ser. No. 07/091,918 filed Sep. 1, 1987. Methods for obtaining the release rates are described in patent application Ser. No. 07/303,707 filed on Jan. 30, 1989. The contents of these applications are being incorporated herein by reference.




The protection against intrusion is provided by the present invention as the result of the accumulation of the pesticide on the surface of the polymer matrix and/or the accumulation of the pesticide in an absorbent medium in contact with or in close proximity to the matrix, when the insect or other cold blooded animal comes in contact with pesticide it is repelled by it and/or killed by it. In case of insects, the pesticide is generally transferred to the feet of the insects and when the release rate of the pesticide is at least about 10 μg/cm2/day, sufficient amount of pesticide adheres to insect to kill it. It has been discovered that faster release rates are necessary for larger cold blooded animals. For snakes, and other cold blooded vertebrae animals, the pesticide release rates must be at least 40 μg/cm2/day.











EXAMPLE




The following controlled release devices were made and tested to obtain their release rates. The devices were made as follows. All devices, except for those employing S-113 urethane, were injection molded into a thin sheet about ⅛ inch thick. The device employing S-113 urethane was cast, a method typically used for thermoset polymers. All thermoplastics were formulated using sufficient amount of carbon black to carry pesticides. All thermoplastic polymers were formulated with 10 percent pesticide, 3 or 7 percent carbon black to absorb liquid pesticide and 87 to 83 percent by weight of polymer. Specifically, devices made from thermoplastic polymers and deltamethrin and lambdacyhalothrin contained 3 percent of carbon black. The devices made from the remaining pesticides and thermoplastic polymers contained 7 percent of carbon black.




The devices made from S-113 urethane (a thermoset polymer) were made from a polymer mix containing 60% S-113, 40% castor oil and 5% of TIPA catalyst by weight. The polymer mix comprised 90% of the total weight of the device. The pesticide, deltamethrin, comprised the remaining 10% of the device. No carbon black was used in this device. The polymer/pesticide mixture was cast, using a spin caster into a ⅛ inch thick sheet and heated at about 60° C. for about 40 to 60 minutes to cure the cast sheet.




On inch squares were then cut from the thin sheets that were injection molded or cast and the squares were tested for release rates. The following release rates were obtained:

















Pesticide




Polymer




Release Rate


























Deltamethrin




S-113 urethane




25.2




μg/cm


2


/day







Aromatic 80A




16.8




μ g/cm


2


/day







pellethane 2102-80A




8.8




μ g/cm


2


/day







pellethane 2102-55D




8.0




μ g/cm


2


/day







Alipmtic PS-49-100




7.2




μ g/cm


2


/day






Cypermethrin




polyurethane 3100




0.4




μ g/cm


2


/day







polyurethane 2200




0.7




μ g/cm


2


/day







EVA 763




27.3




μ g/cm


2


/day







Polyethylene MA7800




4.6




μ g/cm


2


/day






Lambdacyhalothrin




polyurethane 3100




0.7




μ g/cm


2


/day







polyurethane 2200




2.0




μ g/cm


2


/day







EVA 763




20.6




μ g/cm


2


/day







Polyethylene MA78000




5.2




μ g/cm


2


/day






Tefluthrin




polyurethane 3100




6.4




μ g/cm


2


/day







polyurethane 2200




25.0




μ g/cm


2


/day







EVA 763




40.4




μ g/cm


2


/day







Polyethylene MA78000




27.0




μ g/cm


2


/day






Permethrin




polyurethane 3100




1.4




μ g/cm


2


/day







polyurethane 2200




1.3




μ g/cm


2


/day







EVA 763




28.5




μ g/cm


2


/day







Polyethylene MA78000




4.0




μ g/cm


2


/day














From the foregoing description one skilled in the art can easily ascertain the essential characteristics of this invention and without department from the spirit and scope of the invention thereof can make changes and modifications of the invention in order to adapt it to the various usages and conditions. It is intended that the scope of the invention be defined by the following claims including all equivalents.



Claims
  • 1. A combination of a structure and a controlled release barrier, said combination comprising:a structure, said structure being free of crawling or soil borne insects; and a controlled release barrier, said barrier comprising 78-98 weight percent of polymeric matrix having an outside surface; 2-15 weight percent of pesticide, said pesticide being dispersed throughout said matrix; and 0-7 weight percent of a carrier, said barrier being placed at all entry points for accessing the structure by crawling or soil borne insects so as to prevent intrusion of said structure by the crawling or soil borne insects, said pesticide releasing to the surface of the polymeric matrix at a rate of least about 10 μg/cm2/day so as to repel or kill said crawling or soil borne insects coming in contact with the pesticide.
  • 2. The structure of claim 1 wherein the polymeric matrix is selected from the group consisting of silicones, EVA, urethanes, polyurethanes, acrylonitrile, butadiene, acrylic rubber, isoprene, polyethylenes, and styrene-vinyl rubber.
  • 3. The structure of claim 2 wherein the polymeric matrix further includes a carrier for controlling the release rate.
  • 4. The structure of claim 3 wherein the carrier is selected from the group consisting of carbon black, clay and amorphous silica.
  • 5. The structure of claim 4 wherein the carrier is carbon black.
  • 6. The structure of claim 3 wherein the concentration of the carrier is from about 2 to about 7 percent of the total weight of the matrix.
  • 7. The structure of claim 4 wherein the concentration of the carrier is from about 3 to about 5 percent of the total weight of the matrix.
  • 8. The structure of claim 1 wherein the concentration of the pesticide is in the range from about 2 to about 15 percent of the total weight of the matrix.
  • 9. The structure of claim 3 wherein the concentration of pesticide is from about 5 to about 10 percent of the total weight of the matrix.
  • 10. The structure of claim 8 wherein the pesticide is deltamethrin.
  • 11. The structure of claim 8 wherein the pesticide is cypermethrin.
  • 12. The structure of claim 8 wherein the pesticide is lambdacyhalothrin.
  • 13. The structure of claim 8 wherein the pesticide is tefluthrin.
  • 14. The structure of claim 8 wherein the pesticide is permethrin.
  • 15. The structure of claim 1 wherein the barrier is large enough to continue releasing the pesticide at a rate above 10 μg/cm2/day for a time period from about 6 months to about 5 years.
  • 16. A combination of a structure and a controlled release barrier, said combination comprising:a structure, said structure being free of cold-blooded vertebrae animals; and a controlled release barrier, said barrier comprising 78-98 weight percent of polymeric matrix having an outside surface; 2-15 weight percent of pesticide, said pesticide being dispersed throughout said matrix; and 0-7 weight percent of a carrier, said barrier being placed at all entry points for accessing the structure by cold-blooded vertebrae animals so as to prevent intrusion of said structure by the cold-blooded vertebrae animals, said pesticide releasing to the surface of the polymeric matrix at a rate of least about 40 μg/cm2/day so as to repel or kill cold-blooded vertebrae animals coming in contact with the pesticide.
  • 17. The structure of claim 16 wherein the polymeric matrix is selected from the group consisting of silicones, EVA, urethanes, polyurethanes, acrylonitrile butadiene, acrylic rubber, isoprene, polyethylenes, and styrene-vinyl rubber.
  • 18. The structure of claim 17 wherein the polymeric matrix further includes a carrier for controlling the release rate.
  • 19. The structure of claim 18 wherein the carrier is selected from the group consisting of carbon black, clay and amorphous silica.
  • 20. The structure of claim 19 wherein the carrier is carbon black.
  • 21. The structure of claim 18 wherein the concentration of the carrier is from about 2 to about 7 percent of the total weight of the matrix.
  • 22. The structure of claim 19 wherein the concentration of the carrier is from about 3 to about 5 percent of the total weight of the matrix.
  • 23. The structure of claim 16 wherein the concentration of the pesticide is in the range from about 2 to about 15 percent of the total weight of the matrix.
  • 24. The structure of claim 18 wherein the concentration of pesticide is from about 5 to about 10 percent of the total weight of the matrix.
  • 25. The structure of claim 23 wherein the pesticide is deltamethrin.
  • 26. The structure of claim 23 wherein the pesticide is cypermethrin.
  • 27. The structure of claim 23 wherein the pesticide is lambdacyhalothrin.
  • 28. The structure of claim 23 wherein the pesticide is tefluthrin.
  • 29. The structure of claim 23 wherein the pesticide is permethrin.
  • 30. The structure of claim 16 wherein the barrier is large enough to continue releasing the pesticide at a rate above 40 μg/cm2/day for a time period from about 6 months to about 5 years.
  • 31. The structure of claim 1, wherein the pesticide released to the surface of the polymeric matrix is absorbed by a permeable structure or object in contact with the barrier.
  • 32. The structure of claim 1, wherein the pesticide released to the surface of the polymeric matrix is absorbed by a permeable structure or object in proximity to the barrier.
  • 33. The structure of claim 1, wherein the pesticide is lambdacyhalothrin.
  • 34. The structure of claim 33, wherein the pesticide releases at a rate between 0.7 μg/cm2/day to 20.6 μg/cm2/day.
  • 35. The structure of claim 33, wherein the pesticide releases at a rate above 0.7 μg/cm2/day.
  • 36. The structure of claim 16, wherein the pesticide released to the surface of the polymeric matrix is absorbed by a permeable structure or object in contact with the barrier.
  • 37. The structure of claim 16, wherein the pesticide released to the surface of the polymeric matrix is absorbed by a permeable structure or object in proximity to the barrier.
  • 38. The structure of claim 16, wherein the pesticide is lambdacyhalothrin.
  • 39. The structure of claim 38, wherein the pesticide releases at a rate between 0.7 μg/cm2/day to 20.6 μg/cm2/day.
  • 40. The structure of claim 38, wherein the pesticide releases at a rate above 0.7 μg/cm2/day.
  • 41. A combination of a structure and a controlled release barrier, said combination comprising:a structure, said structure being free of crawling or soil borne insects; and a controlled release barrier, said barrier comprising 78-98 weight percent of polymeric matrix having an outside surface; 2-15 weight percent of pesticide, said pesticide being dispersed throughout said matrix; and 0-7 weight percent of a carrier, said barrier being placed at all entry points for accessing the structure by crawling or soil borne insects so as to prevent intrusion of said structure by the crawling or soil borne insects, said pesticide releasing to the surface of the polymeric matrix at a rate so as to repel said crawling or soil borne insects coming in contact with the pesticide.
  • 42. A combination of a structure and a controlled release barrier, said combination comprising:a structure, said structure being free of cold-blooded vertebrae animals; and a controlled release barrier, said barrier comprising 78-98 weight percent of polymeric matrix having an outside surface; 2-15 weight percent of pesticide, said pesticide being dispersed throughout said matrix; and 0-7 weight percent of a carrier, said barrier being placed at all entry points for accessing the structure by cold-blooded vertebrae animals so as to prevent intrusion of said structure by the cold-blooded vertebrae animals, said pesticide releasing to the surface of the polymeric matrix at a rate so as to repel said cold-blooded vertebrae animals coming in contact with the pesticide.
  • 43. The structure of claim 1, wherein the structure is an electrical power distribution system, a building, a plant nursery, a house, or a living area.
  • 44. The structure of claim 16, wherein the structure is an electrical power distribution system, a building, a plant nursery, a house, or a living area.
  • 45. The structure of claim 41, wherein the polymeric matrix is selected from the group consisting of silicones, EVA, urethanes, polyurethanes, acrylonitrile butadiene, acrylic rubber, isoprene, polyethylenes, and styrene-vinyl rubber.
  • 46. The structure of claim 45, wherein the polymeric matrix further includes a carrier for controlling the release rate.
  • 47. The structure of claim 46, wherein the carrier is selected from the group consisting of carbon black, clay and amorphous silica.
  • 48. The structure of claim 47, wherein the carrier is carbon black.
  • 49. The structure of claim 46, wherein the concentration of the carrier is from about 2 to about 7 percent of the total weight of the matrix.
  • 50. The structure of claim 47, wherein the concentration of the carrier is from about 3 to about 5 percent of the total weight of the matrix.
  • 51. The structure of claim 41, wherein the concentration of the pesticide is in the range from about 2 to about 15 percent of the total weight of the matrix.
  • 52. The structure of claim 46, wherein the concentration of pesticide is from about 5 to about 10 percent of the total weight of the matrix.
  • 53. The structure of claim 41, wherein the pesticide is selected from the group consisting of deltamethrin, cypermethrin, lambdacyhalothrin, tefluthrin, and permethrin.
  • 54. The structure of claim 41, wherein the barrier is large enough to continue releasing the pesticide at a rate so as to repel the crawling or soil borne insects coming in contact with the pesticide for a time period from about 6 months to about 5 years.
  • 55. The structure of claim 41, wherein the pesticide released to the surface of the polymeric matrix is absorbed by a permeable structure or object in contact with the barrier.
  • 56. The structure of claim 41, wherein the pesticide released to the surface of the polymeric matrix is absorbed by a permeable structure or object in proximity to the barrier.
  • 57. The structure of claim 41, wherein the pesticide is lambdacyhalothrin.
  • 58. The structure of claim 42, wherein the polymeric matrix is selected from the group consisting of silicones, EVA, urethanes, polyurethanes, acrylonitrile butadiene, acrylic rubber, isoprene, polyethylenes, and styrene-vinyl rubber.
  • 59. The structure of claim 58, wherein the polymeric matrix further includes a carrier for controlling the release rate.
  • 60. The structure of claim 59, wherein the carrier is selected from the group consisting of carbon black, clay and amorphous silica.
  • 61. The structure of claim 60, wherein the carrier is carbon black.
  • 62. The structure of claim 59, wherein the concentration of the carrier is from about 2 to about 7 percent of the total weight of the matrix.
  • 63. The structure of claim 60, wherein the concentration of the carrier is from about 3 to about 5 percent of the total weight of the matrix.
  • 64. The structure of claim 42, wherein the concentration of the pesticide is in the range from about 2 to about 15 percent of the total weight of the matrix.
  • 65. The structure of claim 59, wherein the concentration of pesticide is from about 5 to about 10 percent of the total weight of the matrix.
  • 66. The structure of claim 42, wherein the pesticide is selected from the group consisting of deltamethrin, cypermethrin, lambdacyhalothrin, tefluthrin, and permethrin.
  • 67. The structure of claim 42, wherein the barrier is large enough to continue releasing the pesticide at a rate so as to repel the crawling or soil borne insects coming in contact with the pesticide for a time period from about 6 months to about 5 years.
  • 68. The structure of claim 42, wherein the pesticide released to the surface of the polymeric matrix is absorbed by a permeable structure or object in contact with the barrier.
  • 69. The structure of claim 42, wherein the pesticide released to the surface of the polymeric matrix is absorbed by a permeable structure or object in proximity to the barrier.
  • 70. The structure of claim 42, wherein the pesticide is lambdacyhalothrin.
CROSS REFERENCE TO RELATED APPLICATIONS

This application is a continuation of U.S. patent application Ser. No. 08/482,300 filed Jun. 7, 1995, which issued as U.S. Pat. No. 6,060,076; which is a continuation-in-part of U.S. patent application Ser. No. 08/348,774 filed Dec. 1, 1994, abandoned; which is a continuation of U.S. patent application Ser. No. 08/117,877 filed Sep. 7, 1993 abandoned; which is a continuation of U.S. patent application Ser. No. 07/893,970 filed Jun. 4, 1992 abandoned; which is a continuation of U.S. patent application Ser. No. 07/401,955 filed Sep. 1, 1989 abandoned.

US Referenced Citations (138)
Number Name Date Kind
RE. 32356 Cardarelli Feb 1987
1999458 Hollister Apr 1935
2269626 Henry Jan 1942
2970404 Beaufils et al. Feb 1961
3111403 Soper Nov 1963
3231398 Pauli Jan 1966
3235366 Seymour et al. Feb 1966
3257190 Soper Jun 1966
3367065 Cravens Feb 1968
3384993 Kane May 1968
3502458 Schenk Mar 1970
3551192 Reinert Dec 1970
3592792 Newland et al. Jul 1971
3608062 Alfes et al. Sep 1971
3639583 Cardarelli et al. Feb 1972
3671548 Itaya et al. Jun 1972
3691683 Sterzik Sep 1972
3697253 MacMurray Oct 1972
3705938 Hyman et al. Dec 1972
3706161 Jenson Dec 1972
3716560 Taya et al. Feb 1973
3740419 Campbell Jun 1973
3741807 Horne Jun 1973
3759941 Sampei et al. Sep 1973
3835176 Matsuo et al. Sep 1974
3835220 Matsui et al. Sep 1974
3846500 Kitamura et al. Nov 1974
3851053 Cardarelli Nov 1974
3857934 Bernstein et al. Dec 1974
3864114 Green Feb 1975
3864388 Kitamura et al. Feb 1975
3867542 Ueda et al. Feb 1975
3876681 Okuno et al. Apr 1975
3880643 Cooke et al. Apr 1975
3891423 Stanley et al. Jun 1975
3899586 Okuno et al. Aug 1975
3906089 Okuno et al. Sep 1975
3939606 Vandemark et al. Feb 1976
3954814 Mizutani et al. May 1976
3966963 Okuno et al. Jun 1976
3970703 Kitamura et al. Jul 1976
3981903 Hirano et al. Sep 1976
3998868 Mitzutani et al. Dec 1976
4003945 Kitamura et al. Jan 1977
4007258 Cohen et al. Feb 1977
4021122 Krenmayr May 1977
4037352 Hennart et al. Jul 1977
4063919 Grano, Jr. Dec 1977
4065555 Potter Dec 1977
4066441 Lutz et al. Jan 1978
4077795 Cooke et al. Mar 1978
4082533 Wittenbrook et al. Apr 1978
4101582 Lutz et al. Jul 1978
4102991 Kydonieus Jul 1978
4104374 Reuther et al. Aug 1978
4118505 Kitamura et al. Oct 1978
4123250 Kupelian Oct 1978
4160335 Von Kohorn et al. Jul 1979
4172904 Young et al. Oct 1979
4176189 Itaya et al. Nov 1979
4190680 Young et al. Feb 1980
4193984 Kydonieus Mar 1980
4198441 Young et al. Apr 1980
4198782 Kydonieus et al. Apr 1980
4200664 Young et al. Apr 1980
4205096 Young et al. May 1980
4212879 Ohsumi et al. Jul 1980
4229469 Mizutani et al. Oct 1980
4235872 Tocker Nov 1980
4237113 Cardarelli Dec 1980
4237114 Cardarelli Dec 1980
4243703 Palvarini et al. Jan 1981
4260626 Carr et al. Apr 1981
4263463 Kitamura et al. Apr 1981
4269626 Gorke et al. May 1981
4272520 Kydonieus et al. Jun 1981
4279924 Suzuki et al. Jul 1981
4282207 Young et al. Aug 1981
4282209 Tocker Aug 1981
4293504 Suzuki et al. Oct 1981
4320113 Kydonieus Mar 1982
4327109 Mizutani et al. Apr 1982
4336194 Ohsumi et al. Jun 1982
4344250 Fahlstrom Aug 1982
4348218 Bond, Jr. Sep 1982
4350678 Palvarini et al. Sep 1982
4352833 Young et al. Oct 1982
4360376 Koestler Nov 1982
4374126 Cardarelli et al. Feb 1983
4376785 Matsuo et al. Mar 1983
4377675 Daudt et al. Mar 1983
4400374 Cardarelli Aug 1983
4405360 Cardarelli Sep 1983
4435383 Wysong Mar 1984
4457929 Kamachi et al. Jul 1984
4496586 Matsui et al. Jan 1985
4500337 Young et al. Feb 1985
4500338 Young et al. Feb 1985
4500339 Young et al. Feb 1985
4503071 Hirano et al. Mar 1985
4508568 Fox Apr 1985
4576801 Parry et al. Mar 1986
4579085 McGuire Apr 1986
4639393 Von Kohorn et al. Jan 1987
4666706 Farquharson et al. May 1987
4666767 Von Kohorn et al. May 1987
4680328 Dohrer et al. Jul 1987
4747902 Saitoh May 1988
4767812 Chapin et al. Aug 1988
4808454 Saitoh Feb 1989
4818525 Kamada et al. Apr 1989
4842860 Sugiura et al. Jun 1989
4886656 Obayashi et al. Dec 1989
4921703 Higuchi et al. May 1990
4929497 Mitchell et al. May 1990
4971796 Sjogren Nov 1990
5019998 Cowen et al. May 1991
5083408 Blom et al. Jan 1992
5104659 Fishbein et al. Apr 1992
5116414 Burton et al. May 1992
5135744 Alexander et al. Aug 1992
5139566 Zimmerman Aug 1992
5181952 Burton et al. Jan 1993
5201925 Itzel et al. Apr 1993
5292504 Cardin et al. Mar 1994
5296227 Norval et al. Mar 1994
5317834 Anderson Jun 1994
5439924 Mills Aug 1995
5449250 Burton et al. Sep 1995
5492696 Price et al. Feb 1996
5525147 Dunstan et al. Jun 1996
5801194 Voris et al. Sep 1998
5856271 Cataldo et al. Jan 1999
5860266 Martinet et al. Jan 1999
5898019 Van Voris et al. Apr 1999
5925368 Voris et al. Jul 1999
6060076 Voris et al. May 2000
6099850 Voris et al. Aug 2000
Foreign Referenced Citations (30)
Number Date Country
A 1698083 Jul 1983 AU
B-2342784 Aug 1984 AU
A 4865590 Aug 1990 AU
A 6232990 Mar 1991 AU
6232990 A Mar 1991 AU
B-8244391 Feb 1992 AU
B-1388695 Aug 1995 AU
A 5245496 Dec 1996 AU
2 070 231 A1 Dec 1992 CA
1 929 314 Jun 1969 DE
0 152 976 Aug 1985 EP
0 286 009 A2 Oct 1988 EP
0 594 892 A1 May 1994 EP
2 018 593 A Oct 1979 GB
2 098 541 A Nov 1982 GB
52-72802 Jun 1977 JP
58 39601 Mar 1983 JP
5811 3102 Jul 1983 JP
602 02801 A Oct 1985 JP
62-236937 Oct 1987 JP
64-58739A Mar 1989 JP
8302080 A Nov 1996 JP
1690654 Nov 1991 SU
WO 8402447 Jul 1984 WO
WO 9014004 Nov 1990 WO
WO 9203927 Mar 1992 WO
WO 9518532 Jul 1995 WO
WO 9747190 Dec 1997 WO
WO 9821960 May 1998 WO
861133 Feb 1986 ZA
Non-Patent Literature Citations (42)
Entry
Kemi Horutsu KK. Intellectual Property Network abstract of JP 6-294165 A2. Oct. 1994.*
Nihon Tokushu Noyaku Seizo KK. WPI/Derwent abstract 85-293614 of JP 60-020801 A. Oct. 1985.*
Baker and Lonsdale, “Controlled Delivery—an emerging use for membranes”, Chemtech, Nov. 1975, pp. 668-674.
Burton et al., “Application of Controlled Release Technology to Uranium Mill Tailings Stabilization”, presented at American Nuclear Society Topical Meeting on Waste Management, Feb. 23-26, 1981, Tucson, Arizona, pp. 1009-1021.
Burton et al., “A Controlled-Release Herbicide Device For Multiple-Year Control of Roots at Waste Burial Sites”, 10th International Symposium on Controlled Release of Bioactive Materials, Jul. 24-27, 1983, San Francisco, California, pp. 305-308.
Burton et al., “The Use of Controlled Release Herbicides in Waste Burial Sites”, presented at the Eigth International Controlled Release Symposium, Fort Lauderdale, Florida, Jul. 26-29, 1981.** A Copy of this Reference is not available.
PNL-3000-6 Nuclear Waste Management Quarterly Progress Report, Apr. through Jun. 1980. Sep. 1980. Prepared for the U.S. Department of Energy under Contract DE-AC06-76RLO 1830, pp. 22.1 and 22.1, “Application of Long-Term Chemical Biobarriers for Uranium Tailings”.** A Copy of this Reference is not available.
Kumar, et al., “The effect . . . treated wood,” J. Timber Dev . . . India (1977), 23(3), pp. 9-13.** A Copy of this Reference is not available.
French Pat. 2,358,831. Chem. Abst. vol. 89, (1978), 158777f. Index Citation.** A Copy of this Reference is not available.
The Agrochemical.s Handbook, 2nd Ed., D. Hartley, ed. The Royal. Society of Chemistry (1987).** A Copy of this Reference is not available.
The Pesticide Manual., 8th Ed., C. Worthington, Ed., British Crop Protection Council, 1987, pp. 7179-7180.** A Copy of this Reference is not available.
Offenlegunsschrift 1929314; Chem. Abstracts vol. 88 entry 75 506 V. **A Copy of this Reference is not available.
Morrell, J., Woodpole Conference Proceedings, 03/10-11/86.** A copy of this reference not available.
Hayes, W.C., Extending Woodpole Life: Solving a $5 Billion Dollar a Year Program, Electrical World, p. 41-47, Feb. 1986.
Shepherd, M., Managing America's Wood Pole Inventory, EPRI Journal., Sep. 1987, vol. 12, No. 6.
Zable, R. et al. The Fungal. Associates, Detection, and Fumigant Control of Decay in Treated Southern Pine Poles, Final. Report EL-27GA for EPRI Research Project 47191, State University of New York, 1982.** A Copy of this Reference is not available.
Graham et al. Controlling Biological. Deterioration of Wood with Volatile Chemicals, EPRI Report EL-1480 (Oregon State Unversity) 1980.** A Copy of this Reference is not available.
Boron as a Preservative Against Internal Decay, Dickinson, Morris, Calver, Distrib. Dev., Mar. 1989, v 89:1, p 9-14.** A Copy of this Reference is not available.
Gelatin Encapsulation of Methylisothiocyanate for Control of Wood-Decay Fungi, Zahora, Corden, Forest Products Journal, vol. 35 (7/8): pp: 64-69, 1985.** A Copy of this Reference is not available.
Groundline Repair for Wood Poles, EPRI Journal, Apr./May 1986.** A Copy of this Reference is not available.
N. N. Mel'nikov, Chemistry and Technology of Pesticide, Moscow, Khimiya, 1974, pp. 26-30 date unknown (translation).
A. Pajak et al., “Morphological and Cytological Effects Brought About By Trifluralin on Pea (Pisum Sativum L.)”, Biuletyn Warzywniczy, pp. 451-462, 1979, (abstract provided as first page).
Y. Eshel et al., “Effect of Dinitroanilines on Solanaceous Vegetables and Soil Fungi”, Weed Science, pp. 243-246, vol. 20, Issue 3, May 1972.
Burton, et al., “A Controlled-Release Herbicide Device for Multiple-Year Control of Roots at Waste Burial. Sites,” Journal of Controlled Release (1985), 8 pages.
Chang, et al.., “Control of Ant Damage to Polyethylene Tubes Used in Drip Irrigation Systems in Hawaiian Sugarcane Fields,” International. Society of Sugar Cane Technologies (Feb./1-11/80), pp. 1686-1692.
Chen, et al., “Approaches to the Improvement of Biological Resistance of Wood through Controlled Release Technology,” Proceedings of the 13th Int't Symposium on Controlled Release of Bioactive Material.s (Aug./3-6/1986), pp. 75-76.
Batelle Technology Transfer Bulletin, “Controlled-Release Chemical.s for Inhibiting Plant Roots,” 2 pp. (12/84).
Cline et al., “Biobarriers used in Shallow Burial. Ground Stabilization,” Nuclear Technology, vol. 58, pp. 150-153 (1982).
Hughes, “Controlled Release Technology Inhibits Root Growth,” Controlled Release Business and Technology, 1989, p. 15.
Jury et al., “Behaviour Assessment Model for Trace Organics in Soil: I. Model Description,” J. Environ. Qual., vol. 12, No. 4, pp. 558-564, (1983).
Jury et al., “Behaviour Assessment Model for Trace Organics in Soil: III Application of Screening Model,” J. Environ. Qual., vol. 13, No. 4, pp. 573-579, (1984).
Jury et al., “Behaviour Assessment Model for Trace Organics in Soil: IV. Review of Experimental. Evidence,” J.Environ. Qual., vol. 13, No. 4, pp. 580-586, (1984).
Roseman et al., “Chapter 18: The Use of Controlled Release Herbicides in Waste Burial. Sites,” Controlled Release Delivery Systems Marcel Dekker, NY, (1983).
“Soil Fumigants are Remarkably Effective in Stopping Decay of Wood,” Chemical. Week, p. 39, (Sep. 25, 1974). *Abstract.
Solie et al., “Simulation of Triflural in Diffusion in the Soil,” Transactions of the ASAE, pp. 1463-1467, (1984).
Steyaart, “Proceedings, Eighty-Second Annual Meeting of the American Wood-Preservers' Association: Address,” Crossties, vol. 68, No. 3, pp. 45-46, Mar. 1987.
Streile, “The Effect of Temperature on Pesticide Phase Partitioning, Trasnport, and Volatilization from Soil,” Abstract of the Dissertation, (1984), 37 pages.
Van Voris et al., “Long-Term Controlled Release of Herbicides: Root-Growth-Inhibiting Biobarrier Technology,” pp. 1-19, No Date.
Probst et al., “Fate of Trifluralin in Soils and Plants”, J. Agric. Food Chem., vol. 15, No. 4, Jul.-Aug. 1967, pp. 592-599.
Delcourt et al., Chem. Abst., Cytologia, vol. 41, No. 1, Jan. 1976, pp. 75-84.
Lignowski et al., “Trifluralin and Root Growth”, Chem. Abst., Plant and Cell Physiology, vol. 76 (1972), pp. 701-708.
Chemical Abstracts, 88, 1978: 154553m, p. 1177.
Continuations (4)
Number Date Country
Parent 08/482300 Jun 1995 US
Child 09/342529 US
Parent 08/117877 Sep 1993 US
Child 08/348774 US
Parent 07/893970 Jun 1992 US
Child 08/117877 US
Parent 07/401955 Sep 1989 US
Child 07/893970 US
Continuation in Parts (4)
Number Date Country
Parent 08/348774 Dec 1994 US
Child 08/482300 US
Parent 07/555113 Jul 1990 US
Child 07/401955 US
Parent 06/314809 Oct 1981 US
Child 07/555113 US
Parent 06/314810 Oct 1981 US
Child 06/314809 US