Studies on oxamyl : analytical method development and investigation of fate in peach seedlings and corn seeds

A high performance liquid chromatographic method employing two columns connected in series and separated~y·a.switching valve has been developed for the analysis of the insecticide/ nematicide oxamyl (methyl-N' ,N'-dimethyl-N-[(methylcarbamoyl) oxy]-l-thiooxarnimidate) and two of its metabolites. A variation of this method involving two reverse phase columns was employed to monitor the persistence and translocation of oxamyl in treated peach seedlings. It was possible to simultaneously analyse for oxamyl and its corresponding oxime (methyl-N',N'-dimethyl-N-hydroxy-l-thiooxamimidate}, a major metabolite of oxamyl in plants, without prior cleanup of the samples. The method allowed detection of 0.058 pg oxamyl and 0.035 p.g oxime. On treated peach leaves oxamyl was found to dissipate rapidly during the first two-week period, followed by a period of slow decomposition. Movement of oxamyl or its oxime did not occur in detectable quantities to untreated leaves or to the root or soil. A second variation of the method which employed a size exclusion column as·the first column and a reverse phase column as the second was used to monitor the degradation of oxamyl in treated, planted corn seeds and was suitable for simultaneous analysis of oxamyl, its oxime and dimethylcyanoformamide (DMCF), a metabolite of oxamyl. The method allowed detection of 0.02 pg oxamyl, 0.02 p.g oxime and 0.005 pg DMCF. Oxamyl was found to persist for a period of 5 - 6 weeks, which is long enough to permit oxamyl seedtreatment to be considered as a potential means of protecting young corn plants from nematode attack. Decomposition was found to be more rapid in unsterilized soil than in sterililized soil. DMCF was found to have a nematostatic effect at high concentrations ( 2,OOOpprn), but at lower concentrations no effect on nematode mobility was observed. Oxamyl, on the other hand, was found to reduce the mobility of nematodes at concentrations down to 4 ppm.

Robert George Malcomson Papers, 1790s-2009 (non-inclusive)

Materials related to military and naval operations of the 1812 era, research of the late Robert Malcomson, Canadian author and historian. Materials include photocopies of materials relating to the War of 1812, photographs and detailed research notes Malcomson made regarding his approach to research (mainly found in Series VIII). Materials were originally arranged in binders relating to an area of research or a certain publication. Articles were removed from the binders and placed in folders using original titles from the binders as series or sub-series titles. Articles within the binders were separated by tabs indicating what the article related to in the publication or topic of interest. In order to avoid repetition, the writing on the tab was used for folder titles, as each folder would be a part of the Series under which it was grouped. The tab names could be authors, events, accounts etc. of the War. Series and sub-series titles were derived from the original titles on the binders. Original intellectual order was retained, grouping similar subjects into Series and Sub-series. Dates recorded were the publication dates of the articles; however, if no publication date was present the date of retrieval was used if from an academic database (ex. JSTOR). The black and white photos from various repositories are reproductions of paintings, microfilm etc. on photographic paper. The colour photographs from various repositories are actual photographs. All books donated by Malcomson were integrated into the University’s Special Collections book collection. These volumes are noted at the end of the finding aid under separated materials.

Why are we still at war? : or, The American question considered ; in a series of essays rejected by the journalists as unpopular ; recommended to a candid perusal /

In the Pamphleteer, vol. 4, p. 551-576. London, 1814.

Why are we still at war? : or, The American question considered ; in a series of essays rejected by the journalists as unpopular ; recommended to a candid perusal

In the Pamphleteer, vol. 4, p. 551-576. London, 1814