ITEM No. 24 
FILE No. XXVII—4 
COPY No.. 
INSECTICIDES AND FUNGICIDES 
AT THE 
LG. FARBENINDUSTRIE PLANT, HOCHST 
COMBINED INTELLIGENCE OBJECTIVES 
SUB-COMMITTEE INSECTICIDES AND FUNGICIDES 
AT THE 
I. G. PARBENINDUSTRIE PLANT, HOCHST 
Reported by 
Stanley A. HALL, Ph.D. 
U. 3, Civilian, Hq.USFET 
CIOS Target Number 2k/k • 
Medical 
COMBINED INTELLIGENCE OBJECTIVES SUB-COMMITTEE 
6-2 Division, SHAEF 'Rear) APO 4-13 TA3LS OP CONTENTS 
Subject No» 
I* INTRODUCTION 3 
II• INSECTICIDES 4 
!• H6 2474 or "Gix" 4 
a. Composition 4 
b* Manufacture 4 
c* "Gix" vs* DDT Against Insects 6 
d* Pharmacological Testing of "GixM 11 
2* Use of nGix* and DDT Preparations Against 
the Ox garble 13 
3» "Nirosan" 13 
a. Composition 13 
b* Preparation of Active Ingredient 14 
c* Use 14 
4* *Dizantt 14 
a* Composition 14 
b* Preparation of Active Ingredient 14 
c* Use 14 
5. "RaupedLeim" (Caterpillar glue) 14 
a* Composition 14 
b# Use 14 
III* FUNGICIDES 14 
1* "2317W" 14 
2* "Brassicol" and "Tritisan-5" 15 
3. "Bulbosan" 15 
4. "srassisan" 15 I* INTRODUCTION 
A* Outline of trip: The undersigned, an investigator 
attached to the Isfedical Intelligence Branch, Office of the 
Chief Surgeon, Hq* USFET, was ordered on 30 June 1945 to 
proceed by aircraft to Frankfurt a/M and thence to HOchst 
(Target 24/4), Germany, for the purpose of investigating 
the I* G* Farbenindustrie plant at that location# The 
subjects covered in this investigation comprise insecticides 
and fungicides* No rodenticides were found at this target* 
Upon arrival at Frankfurt on 5 July, the undersigned 
joined a CIOS team composed of Drs* KLeiderer, Conquest 
and Williams, who were investigating pharmaceutical 
products of thja HOchst plant* The team was joined by Dr* 
Hie© on 9 July* Investigation of the target was completed 
13 July 1945* 
Q« Summary of Investigation: The insecticide knoim as 
"Six" containing as the active ingredient 60# of 1-trlchloro- 
2*2-bis (p-fluorophenyli ethane % was investigated in con- 
detail as to its composition, method of manufac- 
ture* action against several insect species, modes of 
application against houseflies, alleged advantages over 
DDT, and pharmacological action on warm-blooded animals 
and also on frogs# 
The biological testing methods at the HSchst laboratories 
were generally poor, so that the results obtained are not 
at all conclusive* In discussions with Drs* Pfaff, Wagner 
and Lanz of the HBchst staff there was a tendency on their 
part to interpret-their testing results as unduly favorable 
to the performance of "Gix" as compared to that of DDT* 
Their testing methods and procedures were definitely 
inferior to those employed by the U* S* Department of 
Agriculture, Bureau of Entomology and Plant Quarantine* 
Dr* Wagner carried out a few preliminary tests against 
the ox warble (Hypo derma line at urn) using applications of 
"Gix* or DDT preparations on cattle to prevent the flies 
from.laying their eggs* No results could be obtained, 
in field trials of his preparations, because of disruption 
caused by the war# The formulae of the preparations that 
he used are reported for what they may be worth* 
Other insecticides investigated are as follows; 
"Mrosan* containing IjSiSsQ-tetranitrocarbazole es 
the active ingredient# "Dizan" containing N-(phenyldiazo) piperidine as the 
active ingredient# 
An adhesive caterpillar bait known as "Raupenleim", 
for use on the* bark of fruit trees to trap the larvae 
of the winter moth, was developed at the HBchst labora- 
tories* Castor oil and resins unobtainable by Germany 
during the war were substituted largely by a mixture of 
chlorinated aliphatic hydrocarbons in the formulation 
of this caterpillar glue* 
The following fungicides were investigated: 
Nam 
Active Ingredient 
*2317 vr 
1-Thio cyano-8,4-dinitrobenzene 
*3rassicoln ) 
and 
"Tritisan 5*) 
*Bulbosan* 
Pent achloronitrobenzene 
1,3,5-Trichloro-2,4,6-trinitrobenzene 
*Brassiaan 
1,2,4-Trichloro-3f3-clinit robe nzene 
XI* BBSEOTICIPBS 
!• H8 2474 or wGlx" 
a* Composition"* 
The active ingredient is 60$ l-trichloro-2,2- 
his (p-fluorophenyl) ethane, 20% nLohauer Gas8lw (a petro- 
leum fraction with initial boiling-point 240°C end 93% 
distilling up to 360°C) plus 20$ of an emulsifying agent 
of the polyhydroxyethylated iso-octylphenol type* 
The l-trichloro-2,2-bis (p-fluorophenyl) 
ethane is a liquid boiling at 160-180°C under 8 mm pressure* 
It is made by condensing chloral acetal with fluorobenzene 
in the presence of chlorosulfonic acid* The chloral acetal 
is made by chlorinating diethyl acetal* The fluorobenzene 
is made by diazotizing aniline hydrochloride in anhydrous 
hydrogen fluoride* 
b* Manufacture 
[1] FluofoBenzene 
Into a reaction vessel of 5 cu. m* 
capacity containing 3000 kg of hydrogen fluoride (97-100$) 
1250 kg of aniline hydrochloride are introduced* Diazo- 
tizetion is accomplished by the addition of 720 kg of 
solid sodium nitrite, keeping the reaction mixture cooled 
to 10°C* The diazotized solution is then transferred to 
34*5 cu* m* reaction vessel equipped with a reflux 
condenser where slow decomposition is allowed to take place 
at 40°• After nitrogen has ceasedto evolve the upper layer 
of fluorobenzene is drawn off into a 2 cu* m* vessel where it is washed with alkali until neutral and then distilled* 
The excess EF in the reaction vessel is recovered by 
distillation from oleum (100$ for use in the next batch 
reaction* 
Yield of fluorobenzene: 700-750 kg (77-82$ of theory) 
(2) Chloral acetal 
Into a 2 cu. m* enamel vessel containing 
590 kg of diethyl acetal chlorine is added as fast as it 
is absorbed at a temperature of 20-50°C during the addition 
of the first 1000 kg of chlorine. The reaction mixture is 
then transferred to a ceramic reaction vessel when a 
second 1000 kg of chlorine are added while 270 kg of water 
are run in at the same time. The reaction temperature 
is held at 50-85°• A third 1000 kg of chlorine is added 
at a temperature of 90-95°* The finished reaction product 
solidifies at 12-15°* This is distilled into a cast-iron 
reaction vessel* 1150 kg of sulfuric acid (100$) are 
added and the mixture distilled at 90° a condenser 
made of lead coils* The inside temperature of the vessel 
is raised to 130° at the end of the distillation* 
Yield*1380-1450 kg (62-65$ of theory) 
(3) Condensation of Fluorobenzene with 
Chloral Acetal 
Into a 2 cu* m* cast iron vessel there is 
added 485 kg chloral acetal and 690 kg fluorobenzene* With 
stirring and good outside cooling 415 kg chlorosulfonic 
acid are introduced during 5 to 7 hours so that the 
reaction temperature does not exceed 12°* After the 
reaction has ended, it is stirred for an additional 12 
hours. The reaction mixture is then run into a 7 cu. m. 
ceramic vessel containing 3000 kg water* It is heated to 
100° by blowing in steam. On standing, an aqueous acid 
layer separates, Which is drawn off and disposed of* The 
reaction product is washed twice with water and finally 
neutralized with 33$ alkali* The product is then dried by 
applying a vacuum and heating to 60°. 
Yield of clear anhydrous oil; 900 kg (85$ theory) 
(4) Formulation of nGlxw 
The condensation product (900 kg) is 
mixed with 300 kg of wetting agent ("Igepal" or poly- 
hydroxyethylated iso-octyl phenol) and 300 kg of "Lobauer 
Gas8ln (petroleum boiling at 240-360°c) to give 1500 kg of 
"Gix"• 
(5) Modifications in Manufacturing Procedure 
(a) FlUQrobenze~ne 
To prevent corrosion of the steel 
reaction vessels and condenser coils Dr. Lanz has proposed 
that instead of using aniline hydrochloride, aniline base 
and hydrofluoric acid be used to eliminate the HC1 which 
is more corrosive to iron than HF* The use of condensers made from Vj&A steel (Krupp) has also been proposed, as 
well as coating the condenser surfaces with carbon# 
(b) Chloral Acetal 
- Hie diethyl acetal produced in the 
acetone-acetic acid Division was not of uniform quality. 
Instead, Dr# Lanz has proposed using as a starting material 
the half-acetal which is more easily prepared from acetal- 
dehyde and ethanol# 
(c) Condensation 
Dr# Lanz has found- that chlorosulfonic 
acid gives somewhat better yields (80-82$) of condensation 
product than vhen sulfuric acid is used. -There is also a 
saving in the sulfuric acid consumed by this modification 
of the Bayer condensation# 
o# *Glx* vs# DDT against Insects 
til Terminology and boncentrations 
The following terminology has been used 
at tne HOchst laboratories; 
(a) Gix -Containing 60$ active ipgra- 
(b) Fluorgesarol- » 5$ « dignt 
(o) Bromgesarol « 5$ " w 
(d) Gesarol « 5$ DDE 
The concentration of a preparation referred 
to in their entomological data means the concentration 
of the preparation used and not the concentration of active 
ingredient, unless other wise noted# Thus 1$ Fluorgesarol 
is equivalent to 0,05$ active ingredient; 0#1$ Gix is 
equivalent to 0#06$ active ingredient; Gesarol is 
equivalent to 0*06$ active ingredient (DDE)# 
(2) Contact Poison Experiments Against the 
Q^psy fopth 
±n general the effects of Flurogesarol 
and Gesarol as resulting in final kill after several days, 
was about the same for both preparations# The initidl 
symptoms of loss of ability to crawl and climb were 
exhibited by fourth-instar larvae of the gipsy moth sooner 
when Fluorgesarol was used than with Gesarol at the same 
concentrations# The onset of symptoms was observed after 
several minutes when Fluorgesarol preparations were used 
while it required one or more hours using Gesarol# Two 
chambers were dusted respectively with Fluorgesarol diluted 
with talc 1;1 and with Gesarol also diluted with talc 1;1# 
The effect on fourth-instar larvae of the gipsy moth is 
given in the following table: Preparation;Q,uantity:$Kill(in parenthesis after: 
: ;24 Hours*2 Days:3 Days;4 Days;5 Days 
50(50) 
;60{40) 
: —- ;90(0) ;90(0) 
♦talo(ljl) 20(30 
i50130 
:60(20); --- :80(0) 
Gesarol ♦ :2.5te/ha: 10(905 
;50(5P 
; — : 70 (0) :90(0) 
talc (1 ;1J 0(01 
:lQ(lo! 
:20(0) ; :20(0) 
*ha«hectare«10,000 sq« coeters 
In another experiment the larvae were 
dustad respectively with Fluorgesarol and Gesarol: 
Preparation; 
♦ 
Concn* 
parenthesis 
: 24 hours : 2 Days ; 
$af fe cted)after; 
5 Days : 5 Days; 
Fluor gesarcii 
W 
. : 100 .0 
• I 
— 
• mm m» 
• 
mmMm 
s lOO (oi 
* ——— # 
—— 
Gesarol : 
s5 
nHien 
— 
; 90(0) 
• 
B f 
Hsicn 
s so to) ; 
96 (6;■ 
ilOoioS 
'3) Stomach Poison Experiments Against the 
Brown Tail koth 
Gesarol and Fluorgesarol respectively 
were sprayed on larvae of the brown tail moth 
and also on their food in parallel experiments. The 
following results were obtained; 
Reparation;Concn. : %Kill (Affected) 
: ; 2 Days : 3 Days 
After; 
5 Days; 10 Days 
FluoraesaroU \% : 5 
95 
: 45 
55) 
f—* 
o 
0 
• • 
1 
1 
1 
Gesarol : 1$ t 0 
: 25 
25) 
100 : 
Fluorgesarol Mixed ; 70 
k30] : 90 
o 
1—1 
• 100 : 
Gesarol ;with fxd; 10 
[Oj : so 
20 J 
Won 86(0] . 
(4) Against the Grain Weevil 
Fluorgesarol is faster-acting than 
Gesarol# After 10 days Gesarol gave 74$ kill and 6$ 
of the insects were unaffected# Fluorgesarol gave 100$ 
kill in the same period# A Fluorgesarol preparation 
containing 3$ active ingredient is as effective as 
Gesarol (5$ active ingredient) according to a report 
received from the Biologische Reichsanstalt in Berlin, 
(5) Against Cockroaches 
The 3$ active ingredient Fluorgesarol 
was just as effective as the 5$ active ingredient Gesarol 
against Phyllodromia germanica and Periplaneta americana# 
There was no difference in the speed of action of Fluor- 
gesarol and Gesarol at the seme concentration. 
(6) Against Sohildl&use (Aspiodotus duplex) 
Gesarol is ineffective against SchildlRuse# Using a preparation containing 40$- l-trichloro-2,2-hia 
(p-fluorophenyl) ethane, 25$ acetone and 35$ emulsifier 
an emulsion was made up containing 2$ active ingredient 
and sprayed on over-wintered ZwetschenschildlBuse# The 
spray was completely effective"! A similar spray con- 
taining DDT (Gesarol) in the same concentration was 
ineffective# Control experiments using acetone and 
emulsifier only were likewise ineffective against this 
insect# 
(7) Stomach Poison Experiments Against 
Houseflies 
Curds (Quark) were sprayed with 
Fluorgesarol and Gesarol respectively* Houseflies 
were allowed to feed on the material thus treated# The 
results are given in the following table; 
Preparation ; 
• 
. - ♦ 
Concn. 
; $ Kill 
: 1 Day : 
after 
2 Days 
; 4 Days 
nuorpesarol; 
0.25$ 
: 66 ; 
95 
! l&J 
• 
* 
o.08%‘ 
5S ; 
TOO 
Gesarol : 
0.£5* 
; 30 ; 
“W” 
; IT 
• 
0*05% 
; 4 ; 
6& 
5 96 
(0) Contact Sprays Against Houseflies 
Houseflies confined in chambers were 
sprayed with petroleum solutions of Fluorgesarol and with 
Gesarol respectively* Hesuits were as follows; 
Preparation; 
• 
quantity Used 
Knockdown after 
: 15 Minutes 
5% Gesarol j 
1 cc/cu. meter 
! 66.1 
in petroleum; 
2 cc/cu. meter 
f 69.9 
5<P’|u< 
?rgea-; 
1 cc/cu. meter 
S 91.0 
arol , 
pe tr-g 
■ • 
,enm * 
2 cc/cu. meter 
; 95.6 
Water emulsions containing 2$ and 3$ active 
ingredient were tasted as sprays in the same manner with 
the following results; ' 
preparation : 
• 
t 
. . . ♦ 
Con- 
in*-: 
• 
• 
• 
• 
quantity Used 
; jo Knockdown after 
: 15 liinutes 
:iixp . 1: Exp. 2 ;£xp * 3;iSxp • 4 
Gesarol : 
~W 
• 
• 
1 cc/ciumeter 
s 5.0 : 0.0 ill.9 :12.8 
emulsion ; 
• 
. • _. 
w 
:51,3 ;4S .6 sll.O :14.2 
riuorgesarol; 
If 
• 
f 
If 
;49.1 :73.8 :45,8 :49.5 
emulsion ; 
rz.’jr 
Kj'jQ 
• 
t 
?V 
;70.5 ;72.7 :80,6 ;65.7 
(9 ] As He s 1 tua 1 Spray s Agai n st File s 
[ "jU ie ye nf us sg if We rsuchetf) Deposits of Fluorgesarol and of Gesarol 
respectively on the inside surface of glass jars were tested 
against houseflies* The quantity used per unit area was not 
given* Presumably an attempt was made to apply approximately 
equivalent amounts of the substances tested over the same 
surface* The number of flies usdd is not given for this or 
any of the other experiments* Results are reported as 
follows; 
Preparation : Concn* 
% Kill (Affected) after 48 Hours 
0«5% 
98 (2) 
; 0.5& 
78 122. 
Gesarol : 0*5% 
SO 120 
: 0751 
50 t50, 
In the following tests, conducted in 
the same way, the time interval for the first fly to be 
knocked down and for the last fly to fall was observed; 
Preparation : 
♦ 
• 
Concn. 
• 
• 
• 
Elapsed Time 
First Fly 
for 
0 
Knockdown of; 
Last Fly 
Fluorsesarol: 
IT 
• 
11 Min. 
0 
_ . 9 
46 Min. 
♦ 
• 
• 
§ R 
0 
• . .. 
“SS *“ 
Gesarol : 
"1% 
• 
155 *“ 
• 
0 
~5S 
* 
, -1— 
2% 
♦ 
JU. 
“32 *“ 
• 
■ ■■-I 
~75 "" 
Emulsions containing the insecticide in 
a 10$ lime suspension were found advantageous in prolonging 
the lasting effect of residual sprays* In the following 
experiment the chambers were tested against flies after 1, 
14, 28 and 50 days* The time interval, after introduction 
of the flies into the chamber, for the first fly to fall is 
given in minutes* The time interval for the last fly to 
fall is also given in minutes in most eases, but in some 
cases where the knockdown of the last fly was unduly 
prolonged, it is given as a percentage knockdown during 
a stated time of observation* The data are as follows: 
Preparation 
Conn# 
Elapsed Time for Knockdown o 1 
fly/Last fly v&en Residue Te£ 
1 Day : 14 Days : 28 Days 
* First 
rbed After 
50 Days 
Gix (6 5$ 
active ingre- 
dient ) in 
10$ lime and 
water 
0.1% - 
- 
14*/27* 
87T /260T :100V57% 
:in l.Qhrs 
0% in 
3 hrs. 
0.5$) 
7'/l3' 
\ 
V 
11*/2X* :27'/76' 
• 
• - 
• 
86*’/54$ 
in-9.5 
hrs. 
Cesaroll5$ 
active in- 
gredient in 
10$ lime and 
water 
1.2$ 
’26«/46» 
51VS0'1 ;50*/5S» 
62V180' 
6$ 
50T/165' 
38!/105*:35»/70» 
• 
• 
• 
• 
• 
1 ——a 
39?/68*- The above results indicate that DDT (Gesarol) has a longer 
lasting action than the fluor-DDT (Gix)* 
(D) As Impregnated in Cloth Against Flies . 
Acetone solutions of Fluorgesarol and.of 
Gesarol respectively (each containing 10$ of active ingred- 
ient) were used to impregnate strips of cloth which were 
then-tested for their contact-action against flies up to 
six months* time after impregnation# The details of the 
technique used were not clearly given# Presumably the 
method employed was similar to the one used at Leverkusen 
(see report on Elberfeld and Leverkusen) to get all flies 
to walk on the treated cloth# The following results were 
obt ained; 
ireparation 
Impregnated ; Flapsed Time in Minutes for 
on • Knockdown of First Fly/Last Fly 
j when tested on* 
:22/12/42:17/3/43:10/5/43:7/6/43 
Fluorgesarol 
5/12/42 : 6f/22T s 7f/27*ill*/40*il4»/65» 
Gesarol 
5/12/42 :12t/i52» ;14l/4(5isl0'/38' sl4!/40* 
(ll) As a Soil Insecticide Using Plies as 
Tesi Insects* 
The insecticide was worked into soil in 
flower pots which were then placed in glass jars into 
which flies were introduced* It is claimed that Fluor- 
gesarol in these tests was substantially longer-lasting 
than Gesarol when applied as a soil insecticide* In these 
experiments "Gesapon" (containing 3$ DDT) obtained from the 
Qeigy Co* was used to compare with Fluorgesarol at the 
same concentration* In the following table the results 
were obtained from soil impregnated on 16/12/43. Four liters 
of a water emulsion in the concentration indicated were used 
per cubic meter of soil; 
preparation 
Con on* 
Elapsed Time in Minutes for Knockdown 
of First Fly/Last Fly when Tested On; 
11/12/45; 10/1/43; gl/l/AS;l/3/44 
"Gesapon* 
(centfg* 
358 DDT) 
2$ 
25T/30I 
195'/3601; o% in ;140'/300» 
: 3 hrs» : 
• • 
Flu or ge sard 
{cont'g* 
3$fluor-DET) 
14' /17' 
60'/12of 115' /155';65' /ISO' 
• # 
♦ • 
Ge s arol 
(cont*g* 
H DDT) 
1S»/24T 
300f/4SO; 0$ in ;" 0$ in 
: 3 hrs* ; 3 hrs* 
• • 
Gix (cont'g. 
60$fluor-DDT); 
6. if. 
1 
L — --1 
9*/12' 
45»/55'j 36’/ll5'; 35'/55‘ 
• • Plant lice and several species of beetles were tested 
on the treated soil but the tests were unsuccessful and gave 
no clear results ("keine eindeutigen Brgebnisse") 
(12) "Bromgesarol* 
Dr# Pfaff stated in in several tests against 
flies* beetles/and cockroaches, Bromgesarol (the p-bromo- 
analog of DDT) was always somewhat inferior to Gesarol (DDT). 
(13) Summary of Testing 
The conclusions drawn by Dr. Pfaff and Dr. 
Wagner from the above results were given as follows; 
(a) As an agricultural .insecticide 
Fluorgesarol, because of its desirable physicalproperties, 
is superior to Gesarol at the same concentration of active 
ingredient because of its faster crippling and killing 
action. 
(b) In many cases Fluorgesarol at a 
concentration of 3$ active ingredient is equivalent to 
Gesarol containing 5 and 6$ active ingredient. 
(c) Fluorgesarol has less long-lasting 
action than Gesarol. This is an advantage where the 
desideratum is the vanishing of the insecticide after it 
has done its job on infestations of plants, stored grain, 
etc. It is a disadvantage, however, mfaere a prolonged 
prophylactic action is desired. In the presence of chalk 
and probably by special means of application (e.g«, by 
impregnation of textiles) the lasting effect of Fluorgesarol 
can be prolonged. For mixing in the soil against soil 
insects the Fluorgesarol lasts appreciably longer than 
Gesarol. 
(d) Bromgesarol. is consistently inferior 
to Gesarol against all insects tested. 
(14) Comment 
The conclusions drawn above by Dr. Pfaff 
and Dr. Wagner are for the most part not justified by 
their testing data. A strong tendency to exaggerate the 
virtues of their own product in contrast to the Geigy Go. 
product is quite evident. 
d. Pharmacological Testing of Gix 
Dr. DSrzbach had preparedtwo reports on the 
pharmacological action of Gix on warm-blooded animals and 
on frogs. 
(l) Eis first report dated 25 May 1943 is 
as follows: 
A water emulsion containing 3% Gix,i.e., 
1*8$ l-trichloro-2,2-bis(p-fluorpphenyl) ethane, was 
sprayed in the amount of 140 cc into the air of a large 
room of 71 cu. m. capacity. 
It was found that houseflies exposed in 
cages in the room on the third to fourth day after spraying 
were only slightly affected, while if exposed on the first or second day, the flies were killed* Therefore it 
was decided to spray the room on every third day. 
At the start of the experiment on 12 
February 1943 the following animals were placed in the room* 
1 small dog 
2 cats 
3 rabbits 
3 capons 
3 pigeons 
6 guinea pigs 
5 rats 
10 mice 
3 frogs 
Several hours after the initial spraying 
the frogs died. A repetition of the experiment with frogs 
gave the same result* Of the 10 mice. 7 had died up to 
24 May 1943* They died on the following dates; 16 February, 
25 February, 27 February, 11 March, 16 March, 24 March, and 
19 April 1943# The rats weTe all living on 25 May 1943. 
Of the 6 guinea pigs one died 14 days after the start of 
the experiment* The pigeons, capons and rabbits were all 
alive at the end of the first test period. One of the cats 
expired after 1 month* The dog was alive. 
All surviving animals gained weight and 
exhibited no symptoms* Of the animals that died the 
mortality of the mice exceeded the normal; it was, however, 
about as great as among untreated mice of the same strain* 
One may conclude that the high mortality that was encountered 
exclusively among the mice was not a result of the treatment 
but was caused by an intercurrent sickness* 
The experiment was continued until the 
warm summer months and further reported* 
(2) Dr* D8rzbachfs second report dated 14 
September 1943 is as follows; 
The spraying every third day was continued 
up to 22 July 1943* 
The small growing dog gained 0.9 kg 
in weight. He was very lively and appeared to have suffered 
no ill effects. The blood picture of this animal was normal. 
The surviving cat gained 1 kg in weight 
and was very lively. The blood picture of this animal was 
normal* 
Of the 3 rabbits, 2 survived; they were 
lively and healthy-looking. They gained veight and had a 
normal blood picture. The third rabbit died of an unknown 
cause on 3 June* 
Of the 3 capons, 1 died during a period 
of very hot weather; two survived* 
Of the 3 pigeons, 2 were still in the experiment; the third pigeon had to be removed on -8 June 
because of its belligerence towards the other 2 pigeons* 
The 5 surviving guinea pigs were lively, 
healthy-looking and had produced healthy litters that 
developed normally. One guinea pig was sacrificed for the 
examination of its organs* No pathology was found* 
The rats all survived. One rat was 
sacrificed for dissection* No pathology was found. 
The results with the mice have already 
been reported* The mortality certainly was not a result 
of the experiment, but probably due to- an infection, since 
the untreated animals of the same strain showed the same 
mortality* 
Prom the foregoing results it was 
concluded that the toxicity of "Gix* under the conditions 
applied is not detectable* The ad exitum animals, almost 
without exception, died from causes that cannot be attri- 
buted to the insecticide preparation* 
2* Use of "Gix* and DDT Preparations Against the 
Ox Garble 
£r* Wagner experimented with "Grix1* and DDT in . 
attempting to find a preparation that could be applied to 
cattle to prevent the ox warble (Hypodema line at um) from 
laying its eggs and to hinder the entrance of the newly 
emerged larva into the hide of the animal• As a result 
of preliminary trials against stable flies (Stomoxys 
celclbrans) in the stalls of the Parasitology Division 
ai E&chst, he made up three preparations to be used on 
cattle and in the pasture* They were as follows; 
a« Qix - 15% water emulsion, 
b. Preparation 2494 containing 
£b% l-trichloro-2,2-bis(p-fluorophenyl) ethane 
10$ paraffin wax 
' 70$ UVM-oil (petroleum oil) 
c. Preparation 2495 containing 
10% l-trichloro-2,2-bis(p-chlorophenyl) ethane 
90% 17TO oil (petroleum oil) 
In August 1944 field tests were started on pasture 
cattle in the region of Hilders* Because of the yearly cycle 
of the ox warble larvae in the host the evaluation of the • 
results of application in August 1944 was contemplated for 
the Spring or Summer of 1945, It was not possible for 
Dr, Vagner to examine the cattle, due to the conditions of 
war which prevailed. 
3* "Nirosan" 
a* Composition 
25%-' Tetranitro carbazole 
10% Sulfite pulp 
0.25% Wetting agent ("Igepal") The remainder is inert material, i,e., kaolin 
and chalk# 
b. Preparation of Active Ingredient 
Qaroazole is nitrated with nitrating mixture 
to give 1, 3, 6, 8-tetranitro carbazole# 100 kg cerbazole 
yields 170 kg of the tetranitro compound# 
c# Use 
TKe chief use of this insecticide has been in 
vineyards* It is claimed to be a good substitute for 
arsenic insecticides against the first and second generation 
of the vine moth# 
4* *Dlzan* 
a# Composition 
2#b% N-(piienyldiazo) piperidine 
97.5$ talc 
b# Reparation of Active Ingredient 
Aniline is diazotized ana coupled with piperidine 
c# Use 
It is claimed to be very effective against cock* 
roaches and is non-toxic to man and domestic animals# 
5* "Raupgjeim (Caterpillar glue) 
iu Composition 
80#7% chlorinated "Kogasin"* 
15*0% oxycresyl cemphane 
0*8$ Phenoxy propenoxide 
3.5$ I# G* Wax S 
*Kogasin is a mixture of aliphatic hydrocarbons 
ffom synthetic gasoline which has been chlorinated to 52$ 
chlorine content* 
• Oxycresyl camphane is made by condensation of 
cresol with camphane# rr-0-r 
Phenoxy propenoxide, is added 
as a stabilizer to inhibit the splitting out of HC1 from 
the "Kogasin"# 
b# Use 
It has been used to trap the larvae of the winter 
moth* It is applied to the bark of fruit trees* 
III* FUNGICIDES 
1713321““ 
a# Composition 
1fe#0$ l-thiocyano-2,4-dinitrobenzene 
2*5$ Cu in the form of copper oxychloride 
I. "Makulatur 1093 b"* 
II. Sulfite pulp 
The rest is kaolin and chalk# 
* "Makulatur 1093 b" contains 11$ oxidized methyl 
cellulose, 89$.kaolin plus sticking agent# b* Preparation of Active Ingredient 
l-Thiocyano-£,4-dinitro Benzene, m.p. 138°, 
is prepared by treating l-chloro-2,4-dinitrobenzene with 
NE4SCN in the aqueous phase in the presence of a wetting 
agent. 
o« Use 
It is claimed to be very effective against 
Peronospora in vineyards and on hops; it is also effective 
against Phytophora of potatoes. 
2# "Brassicol” and "Trltlsan 5* 
a> Composition . 
(1} Srassicol contains 20$ pentachlor©nitro- 
benzene plus 80$ talc. 
(2) Tritisan-5 contains 15$ pentachloronitro- 
- benzene plus 83$ talc plus 2$ maschine oil. 
b. Preparation of Active Ingredient 
Nitrobenzene is chlorinated in chiorosulfonic 
acid using iron and iodine as catalysts. 
c. Use 
TTT Brassicol is used as a soil disinfectant 
and against Salatflule (a disease of lettuce). 
i2J 'tritisan-5 is used as a dry-seed dressing 
against stinking smut of Wheat (Weizenstelnbrand). 
3. "Bulbosan" 
a. Composition 
1, S,5-trichloro-2, 4, 6-trinitrobenzene 
92.5$ talc 
b. Preparation of Active Ingredient 
The triciiloro-trinitrobenzene, because of its 
explosive properties, has been made only in limited quan- 
tities by nitration of 1, 3, 5-trichlorobenzene» 
c. Use 
It is reported to be extremely effective in 
controlling tomato leaf mold (Cladosporium fulouml. 
4. "Brassiaan* 
lu Composition 
20$ 1,2,4-Tri ch1or o-3,5-dinit robe nzene 
3$ Maschine oil 
77$ Talc 
b. Preparation of Active Ingredient 
1,2,4-1^1chloro-3,5-d in itr obe nze ne is prepared 
by nitration of 1,2,4-trichlorobenzene• 
c. Use 
claimed to be very effective in controlling 
finger and toe club root (Kohlhernie) of cabbage plants.