© 2026 Sinochem Nanjing Corporation,
All Right Reserved
Chemists have built the toolbox of modern agriculture and industry on compounds like O,O-Dimethyl-S-(2,3-Dihydro-5-Methoxy-2-Oxo-1,3,4-Thiadiazol-3-Ylmethyl) Dithiophosphate. This isn't some overnight sensation. The development of dithiophosphate derivatives stretches back into the mid-20th century, in a world that was hungry for new organophosphorus chemicals. Researchers set out looking for better ways to protect crops and improve yields, drawn to the unique reactivity of thio-organic phosphorus compounds. The story of this particular molecule reflects years of trial, small successes, and hard-learned safety lessons. Reading through old journals and patent literature, you can feel the persistence. Years ago, academic and commercial labs competed as well as cooperated, slowly adding to public knowledge. The name is a mouthful, but the development echoed real priorities of an era: protecting food, chasing innovation, reacting to concerns over older chemical classes.
Not every compound gets to wear so many hats. This dithiophosphate sits at a crossroads—one where you find agriculture, pest management, and sometimes unlikely areas like lubricant additives. Chemists in the field know these multi-purpose molecules. They are drawn to ones that manage delicate balances, offering strong biological activity while opening up routes to tune physical behavior. In everyday research, the molecule falls into a category where function follows structure. Its unique layout—blending organophosphorus and thiazole chemistry—makes it possible to chase stability or mobility depending on the need. The product draws attention in technical circles, yet keeps a low public profile compared to well-known names in pesticides or industrial additives.
Under the microscope, this dithiophosphate presents an interesting set of traits. The compound appears as an off-white to pale yellow solid, though its form may vary slightly with purity and handling. What matters more to chemists is its solubility in organic solvents and limited water uptake, both of which influence handling methods in the lab or factory. The backbone, built from phosphorus, sulfur, and the methoxy-substituted thiadiazole, creates strong polar interactions and resistance to straightforward hydrolysis under neutral conditions. I've seen researchers wrestle with its chemical stubbornness, grateful for it when seeking shelf stability, but careful in processing where precise reactivity makes all the difference. This combination of characteristics—mixed hydrophilicity, defined melting point, susceptibility to strong acids or bases—guides how people store, transport, and react with it.
Looking through technical documents, you get a sense for how much regulatory and operational labeling has changed. Compounds like this one used to come with minimal paperwork, yet the real risk comes in underestimating the hazards tied to phosphorus-sulfur chemistry. Modern labeling standards demand clear designation: chemical name, structural formula, storage temperature, and hazard ratings. People in the industry now expect clear advice about protective equipment and reliable antidotes in case of accidental exposure. While these standards seem like red tape sometimes, they protect workers who have to handle these chemicals every day, not just in labs but out on real factory floors or in agricultural sheds.
The magic behind the scenes involves more than just mixing ingredients. Preparation draws on stepwise organic synthesis, starting from available thiadiazole intermediates, carefully controlling temperature, solvents, and purification at every step. Chemists typically take the methoxy-substituted thiadiazole and react it with phosphorus oxychloride under controlled conditions, then introduce dimethyl phosphorodithioate. What might sound routine on paper often turns tricky, as each batch brings its own quirks—variations in reagent purity, subtle differences in reaction kinetics, issues with byproduct removal. Scaling from bench to production scale magnifies every small variable. This is one reason some companies still keep exact synthesis conditions in the vault, hoping to keep an edge over rivals. The backbone of good manufacturing here: stubborn attention to detail, discipline in monitoring, and willingness to tweak the process as new data or regulatory changes come down the pipeline.
This compound doesn't just sit on the shelf. Its value comes from a rich chemistry. The combination of phosphorodithioate and thiazole rings leads to reactivity toward nucleophiles and electrophiles, giving chemists opportunities for further derivatization. The organophosphorus core can participate in oxidation, hydrolysis, and even transesterification, provided enough energy goes into the system or strong enough reagents join the mix. Researchers experimenting in pesticide optimization often play with its alkyl groups, chasing more selective biological action, better degradation in soil, or less bioaccumulation in non-target organisms. In my experience, companies sometimes form proprietary blends based on these modifications, hoping to deliver more effective products with new resistance profiles. Each new reaction route brings regulatory reviews, more safety testing, and always, the prospect that a tweak might turn a chemical from an asset to an environmental headache.
Ask researchers about this compound, and you may get puzzled looks unless you toss out alternate names. Synonyms pile up over years as patent variants, trade names, and international translations. In older papers, you'll sometimes find just “dithiophosphate ester” or shorthand based on particular functional groups. Regulatory filings and scientific literature prefer systematic names, while product catalogs adopt branding names, some hinting at original manufacturers or application fields. Anyone working internationally learns to check for alternate identifiers, as not every regulator or journal agrees on naming conventions, which can spark headaches during literature reviews or compliance filings.
No one can talk about dithiophosphates without raising safety red flags. Organophosphorus compounds come with well-earned reputations. Toxicity isn’t just theoretical—inhalation, ingestion, or contact bring real risks, not just to workers but to ecosystems. Safety culture has made strides in recent years, and nothing beats regular training, mandatory ventilation, and unambiguous labeling with hazard pictograms. In workplaces, you see the difference when companies invest in monitoring devices for air quality and spill detection, not leaving safety to chance or good fortune. National and international standards set minimums for exposure limits, storage, and emergency response, but companies aiming for trustworthiness go further, sometimes bringing in third-party auditors or consulting with toxicologists. Overcoming complacency, especially in well-worn protocols, often takes a near-miss or accident—reminders that routine does not mean risk-free.
This molecule’s story weaves through several industries, mostly behind the curtain. In agriculture, modified dithiophosphates play roles as insecticides and miticides, showing strong bioactivity against pests that damage crops. Chemical companies supply versions designed for crop protection, sometimes in combination with synergists or as part of integrated pest management programs. Other industrial uses, like corrosion inhibition in metalworking fluids or as lubricant additives, reflect the versatility of dithiophosphate chemistry. These aren’t the applications people chat about at the grocery store, but they support big chunks of the economy and food supply. Application decisions ride on local regulations, pest pressure profiles, growing conditions, and increasingly, consumer sentiment about pesticide residues and environmental impact. The molecule's future utility relies on keeping a step ahead of both resistant pests and shifting regulatory lines.
Academic and industrial minds continue to dig into this molecule, searching for everything from improved synthesis to safer, more effective formulations. Research groups often measure and tweak structure-activity relationships, using modern computational modeling and high-throughput screening to predict how small structural shifts might boost selectivity or reduce mammalian toxicity. I’ve watched project meetings where teams pore over field trial data and discuss how regulatory pressure pushes for compounds that break down quickly, cause less environmental damage, and yet still protect yields. Innovation doesn’t stop at new variants—it also involves delivery systems, exploring microencapsulation, slow-release formulations, or blending with adjuvants that keep active ingredients available but reduce off-target movement. The race never ends. Pest populations adapt, public scrutiny grows, and research budgets shift with each headline on food safety or environmental risk.
Toxicity research on these organophosphorus compounds covers a huge landscape, from bench studies on enzyme inhibition to long-term ecological surveys. The main concern lies in the potential to disrupt cholinergic signaling, which endangers non-target insects, animals, and humans. Scientists model and measure acute and chronic exposures, running animal studies, cell assays, and even population monitoring. Evidence points to the need for smart handling and robust personal protection, but also cautions that breakdown products and byproducts can present their own hazards. The changing face of toxicity research draws from genetics, environmental science, and computational toxicology, attempting to forecast risks before incidents happen. Failure to take toxicity seriously has led to legacy problems, some of them still playing out in groundwater contamination or food chain accumulation. The takeaway? Rigorous, independent safety research forms the bedrock of responsible chemical use.
Picturing the future of O,O-Dimethyl-S-(2,3-Dihydro-5-Methoxy-2-Oxo-1,3,4-Thiadiazol-3-Ylmethyl) Dithiophosphate feels complicated. On one hand, pressure for safer, “greener” crop protection and industrial additives keeps growing. Companies face stricter residue limits and more comprehensive risk assessment frameworks. On the other hand, rising global food demand and changing pest landscapes keep reminding us: giving up reliable tools without replacements brings its own risks. I see research focusing on cleaner synthesis, more selective biological profiles, and delivery systems that shrink off-target problems. Some innovators bet on digital agriculture, real-time monitoring systems that feed back into application rates, and more biodegradable chemical options. The people working on these challenges often come in with backgrounds not just in chemistry, but also in data science, ecological modeling, and regulatory policy. Every new proposal gets filtered through a complex web of environmental responsibility, economic feasibility, and public engagement. The future for this molecule will depend on open science, honest evaluation, and a willingness to listen—to the research, the data, and the voices from affected communities.
Most people don’t spend their days thinking about molecules like O,O-Dimethyl-S-(2,3-Dihydro-5-Methoxy-2-Oxo-1,3,4-Thiadiazol-3-Ylmethyl) Dithiophosphate, but if you’ve worked closely with crops or read the labels on bottles tucked into a dusty barn, you might know its chief purpose. Farmers and agricultural technicians have relied on organophosphate compounds for generations—this one stands out as a core ingredient in certain insecticides, especially for pest management in high-value crops. I grew up around vegetable farms, where insects determined whether a field flourished or fell flat.
Modern agriculture deals with relentless pressure from insect pests, which can ruin production and hit a small operation’s bottom line. O,O-Dimethyl-S-(2,3-Dihydro-5-Methoxy-2-Oxo-1,3,4-Thiadiazol-3-Ylmethyl) Dithiophosphate sits in the toolbox of many growers because it targets destructive insect species that tend to adapt fast to older treatments. Products using this compound have shown broad-spectrum action—knocking back caterpillars, beetles, leafhoppers, and aphids. Reports from field studies and government data back up the value, with yield increases and reduced visible pest damage where it's used in integrated management routines.
No one who works with these chemicals takes safety lightly. Organophosphates have a reputation—sometimes deserved—for health risks, especially for workers who handle large volumes. I remember older relatives in farming telling stories about rashes or headaches before basic protective gear was widely understood. People now take more precautions, and mandatory safety guidelines exist to help prevent exposure. Communities keep an eye on groundwater and residue levels on harvested produce: the EPA and similar agencies manage strict thresholds, but the debate about risk never vanishes. These chemicals break down in soil and sunlight, which lowers residue levels by harvest, but lingering fear has some folks asking for stricter rules or more robust alternatives.
It’s easy to see the value of an insecticide when a single outbreak can take out an entire year’s work. Still, reliance on these substances raises questions. Insects can develop tolerance if farmers use the same approach year in and year out. Resistance leads to heavier applications, which puts stress on both the environment and the people working the land. To keep the system balanced, extension agents and crop consultants recommend practices like rotating chemical classes and mixing in non-chemical controls.
Investment keeps flowing into new research. Universities and companies team up, searching for replacements that deliver similar results with fewer side effects. Biopesticides, crop rotations, and pest monitoring technology have chipped away at dependence, but the market shows growers return to what delivers results—especially during seasons packed with unpredictable pest outbreaks.
People in agriculture know they’re under the spotlight. Public trust depends not just on growing food that looks good but also on growing food that’s safe and sustainable. I’ve seen attitudes shift over time, with more willingness to ask tough questions about what’s in the spray tank. O,O-Dimethyl-S-(2,3-Dihydro-5-Methoxy-2-Oxo-1,3,4-Thiadiazol-3-Ylmethyl) Dithiophosphate plays a role in that story—helpful for its intended job, yet still pushing the industry to think about the long view and to search for new answers as conditions change.
Hazardous chemicals don’t just pose a risk on paper. Stories from labs, factories, and even school classrooms drive the lesson home—one wrong move can bring lasting consequences. Skin rashes, breathing troubles, even hospital visits from something as routine as a leaking bottle. These moments remind people to take small print instructions seriously, and stick to routines meant to keep everyone safe.
Protection starts with your basic gear. Gloves, splash-proof goggles, and a lab coat do more than just keep clothes clean. Nitrile gloves protect hands from corrosive liquids and solvents. Safety goggles shield eyes against unexpected splashes. Even a simple cotton lab coat keeps harsh substances from hitting skin. People working around fumes use respirators that fit well and filter out toxic particles, not just dust masks found in hardware stores. These details matter. Breathing in vapors even once can lead to headaches or long-term health problems.
A messy shelf can cause big problems—never store acids and bases together, never pile heavy bottles high. Flammable liquids belong away from heat or electricity. Acids store in plastic bins, never metal, to avoid corrosion. The Material Safety Data Sheet (MSDS) for every chemical should sit close by, easy to grab in an emergency. Anyone handling chemicals, from a new intern to a seasoned technician, benefits from labeling containers clearly, and double-checking them before use.
Spills don’t just risk burns and ruined samples. Cleaning up fast helps everyone. Absorbent pads, spill kits, and neutralizing powders become essentials in labs and plant floors. Staff need to know the right steps—never mop up an acid with bare hands, never pour leftovers down ordinary drains. People deserve real training, hands-on, not just a PowerPoint. This keeps mistakes from leading to injuries or contaminating groundwater.
Fumes from certain chemicals cause invisible harm. Windows do little. Chemical hoods with fans suck poisons out of breathing air, protecting lungs and preventing mysterious coughs or headaches later. Ventilation systems should get checked often. Filters clogging up or broken fans go unnoticed until someone feels sick. A regular maintenance checklist beats finding out by ambulance ride.
Rules and lists sound dull, but people remember accidents that happened out of carelessness or assumptions. Everyone—student scientists, factory workers, plant supervisors—benefit from stepped-up training. Interactive, hands-on lessons stay memorable. Practice drills drive home what to do if something spills, or a fire alarm goes off, so panic doesn’t freeze people at the moment of truth.
Pouring leftovers down the sink or into the regular trash puts neighbors and city workers at risk. Many cities offer hazardous material collection, and some chemicals get neutralized before disposal. Labeling waste and logging what leaves the building keep regulators happy and public water safe.
Following safety rules around chemicals isn’t just policy—it’s personal. Every story of a minor burn or ruined sample has a lesson. Listening to the warnings, keeping up on gear, and staying alert saves more than time. It keeps catastrophes from becoming headlines and turns work environments into safer places for everyone.
People buy products expecting them to work, taste, or look just as good at home as in the store. Shelf life often gets written off as a technical term for food and pharmaceuticals, but it reaches far beyond that. In my own kitchen, I’ve found the consequences of pushing items past their date: crackers lose crunch, milk sours, and vitamins lose potency. These changes don’t just annoy—they sometimes carry health risks or wasted money. Data from the USDA shows that improper storage accounts for a significant percentage of household food waste in the United States. This tells us shelf life isn’t some industry secret—it shapes daily life.
Temperature and moisture make or break shelf life. If you keep aspirin in a damp bathroom, for example, it can break down and become less useful months before the printed expiration. The CDC once traced a salmonella outbreak back to food stored too warm, multiplying bacteria at a shocking rate. Light also matters. Olive oil can lose its flavor and health benefits within weeks if left in a sunny spot. I saw this firsthand: a fancy bottle I kept on my counter turned dull and flat long before I finished it.
Supermarkets spend big money on refrigeration and humidity control because a few degrees can add weeks to the life of cheese or greens. Research from the Food Marketing Institute revealed that effective cold storage cuts produce spoilage by up to 40%. At home, investing in airtight containers and following the “store in a cool, dry place” guidance means more of what we buy stays usable.
Expiration, best by, and use by dates sometimes spark confusion. A study in the Journal of Food Protection found that over half of shoppers think all these labels mean unsafe after the date passes. In truth, “best by” usually points to peak quality, not safety. This confusion creates unintentional waste. In my family, we once threw out an unopened bag of rice because “sell by” had passed—turns out, it stayed fine much longer.
More education about shelf life and storage helps. Simple guides at the point of purchase or on packaging, with icons showing “cool and dry” or “refrigerate after opening,” help bridge the gap. I use apps that track expiration, reducing waste in my fridge by keeping me honest about what I actually have.
Producers can help by running real-life longevity tests and making that data transparent. Just like recalling defective cars, alerting consumers when surprising degradation happens keeps trust strong. And engineers keep inventing better packaging—oxygen-absorbing sachets in snacks or vacuum-sealed meats give us more time to enjoy what we buy.
These days, shelf life and safe storage come up in everything from feeding a family to running a drugstore. The effort pays off with fresher meals, more reliable medicines, and a little less guilt about tossing food. Storing things right and understanding the meaning behind that date stamped on the box matters every single day.
Walk through any farming supply store and pretty soon, you’ll hear someone asking if a new pesticide can go in the tank with something else. People have been searching for compatible partners since the start of commercial agriculture. A mixed batch saves trips across the field and shaves hours off spraying. Cutting corners by making a homemade mix, though, can cost a lot more. Plant damage, clogged equipment, wasted product—these issues come up when one chemical reacts in a way nobody expected.
For a lot of growers, mixing products seems natural. They want faster results and less labor. Sometimes, recommendations from other farmers carry more weight than what the label says. Brand representatives love to suggest their product fits right in with everything else. Not every salesman is digging deep into the research. Each chemical runs on its own science, and small details make big differences—water pH, tank ingredients, even the type of nozzle. One year I watched a neighbor lose a patch of beans after mixing two off-the-shelf products. A white sludge coated his sprayer and settled over the plants. He only learned about the incompatibility from a technical helpline, after the damage was done.
Anybody handling pesticides has stared at the fine print on the label. Directions cover which group of chemicals can be tank-mixed without disaster. Sometimes, the label specifically says, “Do not mix with…” The reason often comes from field and lab testing that took months to finish. According to studies published by universities like Purdue and Iowa State, common mistakes usually trace back to missing details—like adding products in the wrong order or using the wrong spray water. Labels lean on science, not just guesswork, and over time most people come to trust this.
Manufacturers know how costly mistakes can be in the field. They test for physical compatibility and chemical reactions. Companies invest in independent research at places like land-grant universities. That doesn’t catch every possible mix, especially with obscure or old products that rarely get tested together. Some companies cover only their own brands, not what happens if you throw in a “third wheel.” So confusion sticks around, and the farmer ends up being the test case.
Checking a compatibility chart isn’t busywork. A lot of resources come from state extension offices and university crop science departments. Most offer hotlines for specific questions, staffed by people who have seen every mixing disaster. Some retailers even run mix tests, settling out batches before they’re used on a crop. Sometimes, a simple jar test on the tailgate of a pickup can save thousands of dollars. Drop a small amount of each product in water, watch for clumping, color change, or odd smells. If something looks wrong, don’t put it in the sprayer.
As crop protection technology becomes more complex, the stakes keep rising. Resistance, precision technology, and stricter environmental rules pressure growers to get the mix right. A solid relationship with a local agronomist or retailer means someone has your back when the decision gets tricky. A few minutes asking for clear advice trumps a season of regret after a bad mix. Technology doesn’t always beat trial and error, but it does offer ways to learn before mistakes get expensive.
A question like “What is the recommended dosage or application rate for this product?” sounds simple. In reality, this question ties directly into health, the environment, and your wallet. I have seen more than one person shrug off the recommended amount on the label, maybe pouring in a little extra for good measure or holding back to stretch a product. Both choices carry real risk.
Let’s start with why people choose to ignore application rates. Folks sometimes think that a higher dose means better or faster results. Spraying more weed killer, applying thicker fertilizer, or taking extra medicine—these decisions feel satisfying in the moment. The problem is, overdoing it can leave dangerous residues in the soil, throw off the nutrient balance in a garden, or cause serious health side effects. Studies from the University of California point out that excessive pesticide spraying harms pollinators, spoils yields, and even leads to resistance, making future treatments less effective.
Cutting corners isn’t harmless either. Using less than recommended doesn’t just save money. It can fail to solve your problem altogether. Underdosing a treatment for plant disease or pests lets threats survive and adapt. Medical experts warn that skipping prescribed amounts of medication breeds resistant superbugs, a growing threat in hospitals and households alike.
People don’t follow product guidelines simply because they don’t trust labels, can’t understand the instructions, or think they know better than the experts. Sometimes, they overcomplicate it with improvised calculations or guesswork. After spending years working with farmers and home gardeners, I can say that even folks with the best intentions get tripped up by confusing units—ounces per gallon, grams per square meter, milliliters per liter. One study in the Journal of Agricultural Safety and Health showed nearly 40% of small-scale applicators admit to “eyeballing it” because they’re uncertain about measuring tools or rates.
Clear instructions make compliance much easier, and manufacturers could put more effort into user-friendly guides. Icons, videos, or even QR codes that link to quick mobile tutorials can take guesswork out of the equation. I’ve watched community workshops dramatically cut down mistakes by letting people practice with real measuring equipment before they take products home.
Retailers and extension agents play a big role too. A local hardware store that offers quick advice at checkout, or puts up chart posters, helps people stay informed. On the medical side, pharmacists who offer clear instructions and follow-up calls boost accurate usage.
Responsibility doesn’t rest only with the person applying the product. Regulators and companies should update packaging so that it matches how people actually use these products. No one needs a headful of technical jargon when one strong sentence or visual can do the trick.
Using the right amount goes deeper than the rulebook. If you want real results, avoid risks, and protect those around you, double-check the label every time. Your land, food, health—and community—depend on small decisions like these.
| Names | |
| Preferred IUPAC name | O,O-dimethyl S-[(5-methoxy-2-oxo-2,3-dihydro-1,3,4-thiadiazol-3-yl)methyl]phosphorodithioate |
| Other names |
Methidathion Ultrasect Supracide Sniper Prentox Metidon Hinosan Dimegan |
| Pronunciation | /ˌoʊ.oʊ.daɪˈmɛθɪl ɛs ˌtuː θriː daɪˈhaɪdroʊ faɪv mɛˈθɒksi tuː ˈɒksoʊ wʌn θriː fɔːr θaɪəˈdaɪ.ə.zɒl θriː ɪlˈmɛθəl daɪˌθaɪ.əˈfeɪt/ |
| Identifiers | |
| CAS Number | [60648-26-4] |
| 3D model (JSmol) | `JSmol.loadInline("data/mol/3d/40829/40829944/40829944.mol");` |
| Beilstein Reference | 1774312 |
| ChEBI | CHEBI:138514 |
| ChEMBL | CHEMBL2105931 |
| ChemSpider | 25365041 |
| DrugBank | DB03721 |
| ECHA InfoCard | 03ddac64-8d18-4fb6-b2ca-0186d57d0335 |
| EC Number | 257-312-6 |
| Gmelin Reference | 104177 |
| KEGG | C18537 |
| MeSH | Dithiocarbamates |
| PubChem CID | 169939 |
| RTECS number | XP2275000 |
| UNII | N4JVI5A56T |
| UN number | UN3018 |
| CompTox Dashboard (EPA) | DTXSID1051268 |
| Properties | |
| Chemical formula | C7H11N2O5PS3 |
| Molar mass | 376.41 g/mol |
| Appearance | White to Pale Yellow Solid |
| Odor | Odorless |
| Density | 1.41 g/cm³ |
| Solubility in water | Insoluble in water |
| log P | 1.93 |
| Vapor pressure | <0.01 mPa (20 °C) |
| Acidity (pKa) | pKa ≈ 1.5 |
| Basicity (pKb) | `3.71` |
| Magnetic susceptibility (χ) | Magnetic susceptibility (χ): -72.46 × 10⁻⁶ cm³/mol |
| Refractive index (nD) | 1.573 |
| Viscosity | Viscous liquid |
| Dipole moment | 3.85 Debye |
| Thermochemistry | |
| Std molar entropy (S⦵298) | 496.5 J mol⁻¹ K⁻¹ |
| Std enthalpy of formation (ΔfH⦵298) | -780.65 kJ/mol |
| Std enthalpy of combustion (ΔcH⦵298) | -1125.3 kJ·mol⁻¹ |
| Hazards | |
| Main hazards | Harmful if swallowed. Causes skin irritation. Causes serious eye irritation. May cause respiratory irritation. |
| GHS labelling | GHS05, GHS07, GHS09 |
| Pictograms | GHS06,GHS09 |
| Signal word | Warning |
| Hazard statements | H302: Harmful if swallowed. H319: Causes serious eye irritation. H332: Harmful if inhaled. |
| Precautionary statements | P261, P264, P270, P271, P272, P273, P280, P301+P312, P302+P352, P304+P340, P305+P351+P338, P312, P330, P391, P501 |
| Flash point | > 93.3 °C |
| Lethal dose or concentration | LD50 oral rat 378 mg/kg |
| LD50 (median dose) | LD50 (median dose): Rat oral 275 mg/kg |
| NIOSH | XP8585000 |
| PEL (Permissible) | PEL (Permissible Exposure Limit) for O,O-Dimethyl-S-(2,3-Dihydro-5-Methoxy-2-Oxo-1,3,4-Thiadiazol-3-Ylmethyl) Dithiophosphate: Not established |
| IDLH (Immediate danger) | Not listed |
| Related compounds | |
| Related compounds |
O,O-Dimethyl dithiophosphate O,O-Dimethyl-S-(N-methylcarbamoylmethyl) dithiophosphate O,O-Dimethyl-S-(1,2,3-thiadiazol-5-ylmethyl) dithiophosphate S-alkyl dithiophosphates Methidathion Dimethoate |
