Diphenadione residues in milk of cattle

Rw, Bullard; Rd, Thompson; Kilburn,

doi:10.1021/jf60209a042

Cited by 9 publications

(15 citation statements)

References 4 publications

(9 reference statements)

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…The results reported here contrast with the findings of Bullard et al (1976) in terms of expected persistence of diphacinone in mammalian liver. While no comparable half-life estimates for other anticoagulants in pigs are available, the results here are consistent with the findings of Fisher et al (2003) in laboratory rats, indicating that diphacinone persistence in mammalian liver is relatively short, especially in comparison to second-generation anticoagulants.…”

Section: Range-finding Sublethal Diphacinone Exposurescontrasting

confidence: 99%

“…Secondary exposure of feral pigs to brodifacoum as the result of bait station applications has been reported (Morriss et al 2005), highlighting the need for a proactive evaluation of the likelihood of human exposure to diphacinone residues through feral pigs. Bullard et al (1976) reported that in cattle injected with 1 mg/kg diphacinone, residues were detectable in liver and kidney up to 90 days afterwards, which suggests that diphacinone could have a persistence in mammalian liver approaching that of the second-generation anticoagulants. While the maximum residue level (MRL) for brodifacoum in meat for human consumption has been set at 0.001 ppm (the current analytical limit of detection) in New Zealand (Clear 2003), no MRL has been set for diphacinone.…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

See 1 more Smart Citation

Diphacinone in Pigs: Sublethal Exposure and Residual Persistence in Tissues

PennyM¹

2006

vertebrate_pest_conference

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Current evaluations of the anticoagulant diphacinone for field control of introduced rodents in New Zealand include risk assessment with respect to non-target mortality, secondary poisoning, and environmental contamination. As non-target wildlife of rodent control operations, feral pigs may be exposed to vertebrate pesticides if they access toxic baits or scavenge the carcasses of poisoned animals. Feral pigs are also a significant resource for recreational hunters who harvest wild pork for food, hence the need to assess the risks of human exposure to diphacinone residues through feral pigs. Pen trials with domestic pigs were used to evaluate the potential for pig mortality through oral exposure to diphacinone and the residual persistence of diphacinone in pig tissues following a sublethal exposure. In the first trial, pigs were offered palatable food containing diphacinone doses of 12.5 mg/kg, 0.25 mg/kg/day for 3 days, or 0.5 mg/kg/day for 5 days. Significant elevations in coagulation time tests were measured 2 days after dosing, but these had returned to baseline values by 7 days. Two of the dosed pigs were euthanased due to lameness, which was accompanied by elevated prothrombin times and severe hemorrhage in a leg joint. In the second trial, pigs were dosed with 12.5 mg/kg diphacinone and then euthanased in groups for tissue sampling at Days 1, 4, and 10. Liver, muscle, and fat samples were analysed for diphacinone residues using an HPLC method. Data fitted to an exponential decay model estimated the hepatic elimination half-life as between 5.43 days (overall) and 14.12 days (terminal phase only). Half-lives of diphacinone in pig muscle and fat were 4.48 and 2.29 days respectively. A conservative withholding period of approximately 160 days is suggested before feral pigs should be taken for human consumption from areas where diphacinone baits have been used. This would minimize the likelihood of detectable diphacinone residues (≥0.02 µg/g) occurring in wild pork. Proc. 22 nd Vertebr. Pest Conf. (R. M. Timm and J. M. O'Brien, Eds.) Published at Univ. of Calif., Davis. 2006. Pp. 434-439.

show abstract

Section: Range-finding Sublethal Diphacinone Exposurescontrasting

confidence: 99%

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Diphacinone in Pigs: Sublethal Exposure and Residual Persistence in Tissues

PennyM¹

2006

vertebrate_pest_conference

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…If a 55-kg nursing mother ate an entire pound (0.454 kg) of pig liver with a concentration of 3.07 mg diphacinone/kg liver (the highest value reported in pig liver), her dose would be 0.025 mg/kg. This dose is 40 times lower than the lowest dose tested by Bullard et al (1977) at which no diphacinone residues were detected in the cows' milk and no negative effects in nursing calves were observed.…”

Section: Hazard To Humans From Game Meatmentioning

confidence: 80%

“…If a 55-kg nursing mother drank 3.59 liters of water from Hanawi Stream (0.038 ppm diphacinone), she would ingest 0.136 mg of diphacinone or a dose of 0.0025 mg/kg. A dose of 0.0025 mg/kg is 400 times lower than the lowest dose (1.0 mg diphacinone/kg body weight) tested by Bullard et al (1977) at which no diphacinone residues in cow's milk or negative effects in nursing calves were detected. Thus, the 3 exposure routes-direct consumption of contaminated stream water, consumption of formula mixed with diphacinonecontaminated water, or via mammillary transfer from an exposed mother-would not result in an infant ingesting amounts of diphacinone high enough to affect clotting times in surrogate animals.…”

Section: Hazard To Humans From Drinking Watermentioning

confidence: 82%

“…For younger nursing infants, risk can be evaluated if it is assumed that mammillary transfer of diphacinone is similar between cows and humans. Bullard et al (1977) administered doses of 1.0 mg diphacinone/kg body weight and 2.75 mg/kg to lactating cows and measured diphacinone levels in their milk for 6 days. No residues were detected in milk from the lower-dosed cows.…”

Section: Hazard To Humans From Drinking Watermentioning

confidence: 99%

See 1 more Smart Citation

Ecological and Human Health Hazards from Broadcast Application of 0.005% Diphacinone Rodenticide Baits in Native Hawaiian Ecosystems

Eisemann¹,

Swift²

2006

vertebrate_pest_conference

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

In the early 1990s, a coalition of federal and state agencies, NGOs, and private landowners in Hawaii agreed to pursue a Special Local Needs pesticide registration [24(c) FIFRA] for the aerial broadcast of a 0.005% diphacinone rodenticide for the control of rodents in native ecosystems. While there was recognition of the important role introduced rodents play in the decline and extinction of native species, there were concerns expressed about the potential non-target impacts of this technique. Over the next 10 years, numerous studies were undertaken to address specific non-target issues. This research, along with other published and unpublished research on diphacinone and its human pharmaceutical counterpart, Dipaxin, was compiled and analyzed in 4 hazard assessments (human dietary and drinking water consumption, aquatic and terrestrial non-target species) that comprise the foundation of Hawaii's registration application. Hazards to humans and other non-target terrestrial organisms were evaluated in terms of dietary intake of contaminated food or water required before lethal or sublethal effects might be anticipated. Hazard to aquatic organisms was assessed according to traditional risk quotient methods employed by the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. These assessments indicate the greatest human health hazard is to pregnant women drinking untreated stream water; however, even this risk is low. With a few exceptions, such as the Hawaiian crow, the ecological assessments indicate the acute risks to terrestrial or aquatic non-target species are minimal, even under the most conservative risk scenarios. However, there could be detectable physiological effects in birds exposed at sublethal levels. We believe that under proper supervision, this technique can be safely used in Hawaii, and elsewhere, to protect native species from the impacts of introduced rodents.

show abstract