Environmental Fate, Ecological Risk and 

Endangered Species Assessment 

in Support of the Registration Review of 

Nithiazine (PC 441300) 

Chemical Name(s): Nithiazine (2H-1,3-thiazine, tetrahydro-2-(nitromethylene)) 

Chemical Abstracts Service (CAS) Number: 58842-20-9 

Chemical Family: Nitromethylene heterocycle; Neonicotinoid insecticide 

Pesticidal Mode of Action (MoA): Acts selectively on an insect’s cholinergic central 

nervous system as an agonist of the post-synaptic nicotinic acetylcholine 

receptors (nAChRs), its molecular target site. In order to be effective, it 

must be ingested. 

Empirical Formula: C5H8N2O2S (molecular mass 160.19 g/mol) 

End-use Product: Sandoz 9023 Fly Bait Station (EPA Reg. # 2724-461) 

Target Pest(s): House fly (Musca domestica), Lesser house fly (Fannia canicularis) 

Prepared by:

James K. Wolf, Environmental Scientist 

Tanja Crk, Biologist 

Reviewed by: 

Mark Corbin, Senior Fate Scientist 

Stephanie Syslo, RAPL

Through: 

Dana Spatz, Branch Chief

U. S. Environmental Protection Agency

Office of Pesticide Programs

Environmental Fate and Effects Division

Environmental Risk Branch III

1200 Pennsylvania Ave., NW

Mail Code 7507P

Washington, DC 20460

February 23, 2010 
1.0 Executive Summary 

1.1 Nature of Stressor 

Nithiazine is an insecticide used to target and kill house flies and the lesser house flies. In 

the single registered end-use product, nithiazine is formulated into a sugar matrix which 

is applied as solid coating to a sheet, or strip, of moisture-free non-absorptive material. 

The strip containing the nithiazine is then set into a protective pouch. A container of a fly 

attractant with a pungent odor is crushed at the time of application. The label states that 

the bait strip should be placed low to the ground, and out of reach of children and 

animals. The bait is less effective at heights greater than 4 ft above ground, in moist areas 

or in direct sunlight. Nithiazine is in a class of chemicals called the neonicotinoids. 

Nithiazine, like other neonicotinoids, acts selectively on the insect’s cholinergic central 

nervous system as an agonist of the post-synaptic nicotinic acetylcholine receptors 

(nAChRs), its molecular target site. 

The label notes that effectiveness is likely to diminish within 8 weeks (56 days). 

Nithiazine is subject to rapid photodegradation (photolysis half-life of 0.6 hours). 

Nithiazine is stable to hydrolysis at environmentally relevant pHs (i.e., pH 7), with a halflife of greater than 90 days. However, hydrolysis rates increase with both decreasing and 

increasing pH conditions. Volatilization is also not a significant route of dissipation with 

a vapor pressure value of 4.6 x 10-7 mm Hg. The acute toxicity data indicate that 

technical grade nithiazine is practically non-toxic to birds, mammals, and fish, and 

slightly toxic to aquatic invertebrates. No environmental fate or ecological effects 

information is available on degradation products or formulations. 

One of the ingredients of the fly attractant is (Z)-9-tricosene (also known as cis-9-

tricosene, muscalure, and muscamone), a registered active ingredient (PC 103201). (Z)-9-

Tricosene is classified as a biochemical pesticide because, even though chemically 

synthesized, it is identical to the sex pheromone of the female house fly Musca 

domestica. It is used as an insect attractant with a "non-toxic" mode of action. (Z)-9-

tricosene is included in this assessment because of its specific attraction to flies. 

The risk conclusions for (Z)-9-tricosene are presented in the Registration Eligibility 

Decision (RED) (USEPA, 1994a, 1994b). In the RED, the Agency had concerns about 

potential risks to avian species because the (Z)-9-tricosene was formulated as a granular. 

However, in this case, because the attractant (Z)-9-tricosene is formulated as a liquid 

instead of a granular, the expected exposure to birds should be minimal. 

In addition, the submitted ecological effects studies indicated that (Z)-9-tricosene is 

highly toxic to aquatic invertebrates but practically non-toxic to freshwater fish. 

However, risk to aquatic organisms was expected to be minimal from the uses of 

products specified in the RED because of low exposure potential. The Agency believes 

2
that the exposure of non-target animals to (Z)-9-tricosene, when used as fly attractant for 

the nithiazine bait strip, will be also be minimal and potential risk to listed and non-listed 

non-target species is expected to be low. 

1.2 Potential Risk 

Chemical Properties 

Likely as a result of its rapid degradation when exposed to sunlight, the label language 

recommends that the bait be protected from moisture and direct sunlight. Because the bait 

is to be placed above the ground and protected from moisture, the likelihood of exposure 

to non-target animals is reduced as is the potential to be transported to a non-target site. 

Ecological Risk Conclusions

The bait is most likely to impact target insects (flies) at the point of treatment. Given its 

environmental fate properties and the method of application, it is less likely that nontarget insects will be impacted at the point of treatment. 

Other than flies, one could assume that honey bees might be exposed to nithiazine. 

However, there are no toxicological effects data for beneficial insects (i.e., pollinators 

such as honey bees) to estimate risk. Generally in the absence of data, the Agency 

assumes risk. However, a study by Iwasa et al., (2004) suggests that the occurrence of 

differential toxicity of honey bees to neonicotinoid insecticides is based upon chemical 

structure. Nithiazine is a nitromethylene, a less toxic structural class of the 

nitroguanidine class of neonicotinoids. In addition, the solid sugar matrix does not 

represent a desirable feeding medium for honey bees and the bait pheromone attractant is 

highly specific to flies (USEPA, 1994a). Hence, exposure to honey bees should be 

minimal. 

If the baits are located close to the ground, small mammals (and birds) could be exposed 

to the nithiazine. The label does not specify a minimum height, only that the bait not be 

placed higher than 4 feet. However, if used as directed on the product label, the 

likelihood of exposure to non-target wildlife is minimal. Similarly, the likelihood of 

exposure to aquatic and terrestrial plants is minimal. 

In conclusion, beyond the point of treatment, direct or indirect exposure to ecological 

receptors is not expected. If used as directed on the product label, the likelihood of 

exposure to non-target wildlife and flora is minimal. Therefore, ecological exposure and 

effects are not expected from this use. 

1.3 Endangered Species Assessment 

Environmental exposure to nithiazine is expected to be negligible to non-target terrestrial 

and aquatic organisms. This is based on the registered use of nithiazine as a bait station 

that is required to be out of sunlight and moisture to be effective. Therefore, the use 

directions, product placement, and product construction will minimize or prevent 

movement and exposure to non-target organisms or their food sources. The point of use is 

3
the only place where direct exposure could occur. Therefore, the anticipated 

environmental concentrations for nithiazine are expected to be below levels which could 

be of toxicological significance to non-target terrestrial and aquatic organisms. 

In addition, the submitted toxicity data indicate that nithiazine is practically non-toxic to 

slightly toxic to freshwater aquatic organisms and terrestrial birds and mammals. The 

reported toxicity values for aquatic invertebrates also suggest low toxicity from exposure 

to nithiazine. Overall, nithiazine is not expected to have direct adverse effects to nonlisted and listed terrestrial mammals, birds, or reptiles and land-phase amphibians, 

terrestrial beneficial and listed insects or terrestrial plants. Nithiazine is not expected to 

cause direct adverse effects to non-listed and listed fish, aquatic invertebrates or aquatic 

plants. Since direct effects are not expected for any taxa, indirect effects are also not 

expected. No adverse modification of critical habitat is expected from use of nithiazine. 

The following table lists the potential direct and indirect effects to listed species from use 

of nithiazine. 

4
5

Table 1. Potential Risks to Non-target Non-listed and Listed Species Associated with Direct or 

Indirect Effects from the Proposed Application of Nithiazine. 

Direct Effects2 Indirect Effects to Listed Species

Taxonomic 

Group Effects Endpoint1

Non-listed Listed Potential Indirect Effects Due 

to Direct Effect to:3

Aquatic vascular 

plants Measures of biomass-NA No No No Not applicable 

Dicot terrestrial 

plants Measures of biomass-NA No No No Not applicable 

Monocot 

terrestrial plants Measures of biomass-NA No No No Not applicable 

Freshwater 

Vertebrates 

Acute: mortality LC50 

Chronic: growth & 

reproduction– NA 

No No No Not applicable 

Estuarine/Marine 

Vertebrates 

Acute: mortality- NA 

Chronic: growth & 

reproduction-NA 

No No No Not applicable 

Freshwater 

invertebrates 

Acute: mortality EC50

Chronic: growth & 

reproduction-NA 

No No No Not applicable 

Estuarine/Marine 

Invertebrates 

Acute: mortality –NA 

Chronic: growth & 

reproduction –NA 

No No No Not applicable 

Mammals 

Acute oral dose: mortality 

LD50 

Chronic: growth and 

reproduction-NA 

No No No Not applicable 

Birds 

Acute oral dose: mortality 

LD50 

Sub-Acute dietary: 

mortality and growth 

LC50 

Chronic: growth and 

reproduction- NA 

No No No Not applicable 

Terrestrial 

invertebrates 

Acute contact and oral: 

mortality-NA No No No Not applicable 

1

Abbreviations: NA = toxicity data not available 2

 Negligible exposures to non-target organisms due to nithiazine use as a bait (no spray drift, runoff, or spillage). Only 

possible exposure at point of use. Therefore adverse effects not expected. 3 Due to bait use specifications, and method of application of nithiazine, exposure is not expected. 

Therefore, a No-Effect determination was concluded regarding the potential for the 

registered use of nithiazine to affect federally listed species. 
2.0 Problem Formulation 

The problem formulation for this risk assessment and effects determination was provided 

in the following document: USEPA Registration Review Problem Formulation for 

Nithiazine, dated January 28, 2009. Based on the label use of nithiazine, this assessment 

focuses on the most relevant chemical properties, exposure routes, and endpoints as well 

as the assumptions and risk hypothesis in the Problem Formulation document. 

Under the Federal Insecticide, Fungicide, and Rodenticide Act (FIFRA), all pesticides 

distributed or sold in the United States generally must be registered by the United States 

Environmental Protection Agency (U.S. EPA). To determine whether a pesticide can be 

registered, the U.S. EPA evaluates its safety to non-target species based on a wide range 

of environmental and health effects studies. In 1996, FIFRA was amended by the Food 

Quality Protection Act (FQPA), and EPA was mandated to implement a new program for 

the periodic review of pesticides, i.e., registration review1

. The registration review 

program is intended to ensure that, as the ability to assess risk evolves and as policies and 

practices change, all registered pesticides continue to meet the statutory standard of no 

unreasonable adverse effects to human health and the environment. Changes in science, 

public policy, and pesticide use practices will occur over time. Through the new 

registration review program, the Agency periodically reevaluates pesticides to make sure 

that as change occurs, products in the marketplace can be used safely. Nithiazine, which 

was first registered by the EPA in 1995, is undergoing just such a reevaluation. 

 

2.1 Stressor Description 

Nithiazine (Figure 1) is an insecticide used to target and kill house flies (Musca 

domestica) and the lesser house fly (Fannia canicularis). The Sandoz 9023 Fly Bait 

Station (EPA Reg. # 2724-461) contains the active ingredient in a sugar-based matrix 

(solid) on a (non-absorptive) strip set in a protective plastic pouch (bait station) (Figure 

2). The label indicates that the bait strip contains 1% nithiazine (active ingredient (a.i.)) 

(114-120 mg nithiazine per strip2) and 99% other ingredients. The active ingredient is 

contained in a sugar-based matrix which is attractive to flies and potentially non-target 

insects. An ampoule containing a fly attractant with a pungent odor is crushed at the time 

of application. The insect attractant, which includes (Z)-9-tricosene, is contained in a 

glass ampoule that is attached to each bait strip. (Z)-9-tricosene is a pheromone that is 

released into the air by crushing the ampoule onto an absorbent pad, which slowly 

releases the attractant into the air. 

The label states that the bait station should be placed low to the ground, and out of reach 

of children and animals. The bait station is less effective at heights greater than 4 ft above 

ground, in rafters, if mobile (i.e., blows in the wind or is placed on moving objects), in 

moist areas or in direct sunlight. Nithiazine is subject to rapid photodegradation 

 

1 http://www.epa.gov/oppsrrd1/registration_review/

2 From: S.R. Spaulding, Senior Director, Regulatory Affairs, Central Life Sciences, Wellmark 

International. To: Jill Bloom, PRD, USEPA. Date: 11/18/09.

6
(photolysis half-life of 0.6 hours). Due to a low vapor pressure, volatilization is not a 

significant route of dissipation for nithiazine. Excessive moisture will reduce the residual 

life of the fly bait station. The product label states that the fly bait station should be 

protected from moisture and direct sunlight, when possible. 

Figure 1. Chemical structure of nithiazine. 

Figure 2. Picture of Quikstrike Baitstrip. 

Also known as cis-9-tricosene, muscalure, or muscamone, (Z)-9-Tricosene (CAS # 

27519-02-4) is classified as a biochemical pesticide because, even though chemically 

synthesized, it is identical to the sex pheromone of the female house fly. As an insect 

attractant it has a "non-toxic" mode of action. A Reregistration Eligibility Decision 

(RED) was completed by the Agency on the active ingredient (Z)-9-tricosene in 1994 

(USEPA, 1994a). The risk assessment conducted for the RED was based upon a granular 

7
formulation of (Z)-9-tricosene, rather than a liquid formulation as is used with nithiazine 

in the fly bait station. 

2.2 Environmental Fate Summary 

The major route of nithiazine dissipation appears to be photolysis. The photolysis halflife is 0.6 hours. Hydrolysis appears to play a less significant role at expected pH 

conditions (around pH 7) where the hydrolysis half-life is > 90 days. Metabolism should 

be minimal due to anticipated use pattern (isolated from microbes found in soil and 

water). The vapor pressure (4.6 x 10-7 mm Hg) indicates that volatilization will not be an 

important route of dissipation. The directions on the label suggest that the bait strip limits 

the potential for offsite transport to terrestrial areas and water bodies. Transport from the 

use site by runoff and drift will be negligible due to use practices (covered and off the 

ground) and formulation (solid). There is no information as to what degradation products 

are formed and the relevant environmental fate properties. 

Based upon the labeled use, no additional environmental fate studies per 40 CFR Part 158 

were required by the Agency (USEPA, 1994c). Data were extracted from submitted 

studies and the Pesticide Fact Sheet (USEPA, 1994c); see Table 2 which is a summary of 

the available environmental fate properties of nithiazine. 

. 

Table 2. Environmental Fate Properties of Nithiazine 

Property Value (units) MRID or Data Source 

Vapor pressure 4.6 x 10-7 mm Hg at 25 oC 41397701 

Solubility in water 40% at 23oC 40661301 

Kow 0.4 00065944 

pKa 10.4 41650002 

Hydrolysis half-life (T1/2) 

pH 1: 0.125 days 

pH 7: >90.0 days 

pH 9: 13.0 days 

00065944 

Photolysis half-life (T1/2) 0.6 hours Pesticide Fact Sheet (1994) 

. 

2.3 Mode of Action 

Nithiazine, like other neonicotinoids, acts selectively on an insect’s cholinergic central 

nervous system as an agonist of the post-synaptic nicotinic acetylcholine receptors 

(nAChRs), its molecular target site. In order to be effective, nithiazine must be ingested. 

8
2.4 Use Characterization 

Nithiazine is an insecticide used to target and kill house flies and the lesser house fly. 

The nithiazine is located in a bait strip which contains 1% nithiazine (a.i.) and 99% other 

ingredients. The mass of nithiazine in a bait strip is not specified on the label, but the 

registrant has indicated that each strip contains 114-120 mg nithiazine3

, or 2.65 x 10-4 lbs 

a.i. per strip. The use rate is 1 station per 300 ft2

 (8.82 x 10-7 lb a.i./ft2) for enclosed areas 

where fly populations are low and 1 station per 100-150 ft2 (2.65 x 10-6 lb a.i./ft2) in open 

areas where fly populations are high. The bait is less effective at heights greater than 4 ft 

above ground, in rafters, if mobile (i.e., blows in the wind or is placed on moving 

objects), in moist areas or in direct sunlight. Based upon information submitted by the 

registrant approximately 100 lbs a.i. are sold per year4. 

Suggested use sites include: garbage chutes, dumpsters, loading docks, waste containers, 

grease pits, rest areas, outdoor restroom facilities, in and around stables, dairy barns, 

milking parlors, loafing sheds, kennels, poultry houses, aviaries, swine houses, feedlots, 

refuse and recycling facilities, around commercial food-handling facilities, restaurants, 

bars, groceries, stores, and other facilities where house flies are a nuisance. 

Current nithiazine registrations are summarized in Table 3. 

Table 3. Current Nithiazine Registrations 

Product Name 

(Registrant) 

EPA Registration 

Number 

(latest label date) 

Active Ingredients 

(% w/w) USE 

Section 3 End Use Products 

Sandoz 9023 Fly Bait 

Station 

2724-461 

(09/06/05) 1.0 

The Sandoz 9023 fly 

bait station can be used 

in a variety of areas. 

Technical 2724-472 

Technical A0159 

Insecticide 

2724-472 97.0 An insecticide for 

formulating use only 

2.5 Assessment Endpoints 

This assessment considers the potential for adverse effects as a result of nithiazine use per 

label specifications. As described in the Agency’s Overview Document (U.S. USEPA, 

2004), the most sensitive endpoint for each taxon is evaluated. Assessment endpoints are 

selected based on ecosystems typically at risk from pesticide use and include direct toxic 

effects on the survival, reproduction, and growth of terrestrial and aquatic life. 

 

 

3 From: S.R. Spaulding, Senior Director, Regulatory Affairs, Central Life Sciences, Wellmark 

International. To: Jill Bloom, PRD, USEPA. Date 11/18/09. 

4

 Based upon information submitted by the Registrant (dated 10-07-08) provided by Jill Bloom, PRD, 

USEPA on 09-25-09. 

9
Toxicity data for nithiazine are available from three bird studies, two freshwater fish 

studies, and one freshwater invertebrate study. Table 4 summarizes the available 

registrant-submitted, ecological toxicity studies for nithiazine including endpoint toxicity 

values. 

Table 4. Summary of Assessment Endpoints and Measures of Ecological Effect 

Assessment Endpoint Measures of Ecological Effect1

Aquatic Environments 

Survival and reproduction of individuals and 

communities of freshwater fish 

96-hr Fish acute toxicity2 LC50:

Rainbow Trout (Oncorhynchus mykiss) 

Bluegill Sunfish (Lepomis macrochirus) 

Survival and reproduction of individuals and 

communities of freshwater invertebrates 

48-hr Aquatic Invertebrate toxicity2 EC50:

Water Flea (Daphnia magna) 

Terrestrial Environments 

Avian acute oral toxicity2 LD50: 

Northern Bobwhite Quail (Colinus virginianus)

Abundance (i.e. survival, reproduction, and 

growth) of individuals and populations of birds 

and mammals) 

Avian dietary toxicity2 LC50: 

Northern Bobwhite Quail (Colinus virginianus) 

Mallard Duck (Anas platyrhynchos) 

Acute oral toxicity2 LD50:

Rat 

Acute Dermal toxicity2 LD50:

Rabbit

1

All studies used technical grade IN A0159-26 (purity >99%) except when otherwise stated (see table 

footnote #2) 

2

 Acute study also exists for (Z)-9-tricosene (See (Z)-9-tricosene RED (USEPA 1994a)).

Non-target Insects Effects 

Nithiazine belongs to a class of pesticides called neonicotinoids, which have been 

synthesized based on the structure of the naturally occurring pesticide nicotine (Jeschke 

and Nauen, 2008). Neonicotinoids are divided into the nitro-substituted and cyanosubstituted subclasses. According to Iwasa, et al., (2004), these substitutions are essential 

for insecticidal activity. The nitro-substituted compounds (Figure 3) are further divided 

into nitromethylenes and nitroguanidines (Table 5). Nithiazine is a nitromethylene 

neonicotinoid. Generally, the nitroguanidine neonicotinoids are the more toxic subclass. 

While there are no guideline studies on the toxicity of nithiazine to pollinators, a search 

of the literature yielded a report documenting the relative toxicity of neonicotinoids to 

honeybees. In a laboratory bioassay reported by Iwasa et al. (2004), imidacloprid and the 

other nitroguanidine neonicotinoids were more acutely toxic to honeybees than the only 

tested nitromethylene pesticide (nitenpyram) and the several tested cyano-substituted 

neonicotinoids (Table 5). 

10
Nitro-substituted Cyano-substituted 

Nitromethylenes 

(nithiazine) 

Nitroguanidines 

(e.g., imidacloprid) 

Neonicotinoids 

 Figure 3. Structural Relationship between Neonicotinoid Classes. 

Iwasa et al. (2004) suggest that typically the narrow spectrum insecticides like 

imidacloprid are more toxic than the broad spectrum chemicals like thiacloprid (Table 5). 

Nithiazine was not commercialized for broad agricultural use (Jeschke and Nauen, 2008) 

because of its rapid degradation due to photolysis. Jeschke and Nauen (2008) present 

information showing that nithiazine is 125 and 25 times less toxic (based upon LC90’s) 

than imidacloprid and thiamethoxam, respectively. The honey bee (Apis mellifera) LD50

for nitenpyram, which is in the same functional group as nithiazine (Table 5) is 7 times 

less toxic to bees than imidacloprid (Iwasa et al., 2004).

Table 5. Functional groups, chemical product, relative bee toxicity, and spectrum of nithiazine and several 

other neonicotinoids based on open literature studies. 

Functional Group2 Chemical Name Relative Bees 

Toxicity 

Spectrum Bee LD501

Nitro-substitution 

Nitromethylenes/nitroeamines Nithiazine NC2 NC2 ND4

Nitenpyram NC2 Fleas3 0.138 

Toxic to bees1,5 

N-Nitro-guanidines/N-Nitro-imines Imidacloprid Toxic Narrow1 0.0179 

Thiamethoxam Toxic NC 0.0299 

Clothianidin Toxic NC 0.0218 

Less toxic to bees1

Cyano-substitution 

N-Cyano-amidines/N-Cyno-imines Thiacloprid Safe Broad1 14.6 

Acetamiprid Safe Broad1 7.07 1 Iwasa et al., 2004 2 NC - not classified (Jeschke and Nauen, 2008) 3 Flea control orally taken by dogs and cats 4

 ND no data 

5

 Jeschke and Nauen, 2008 

11
2.5.1 Ecosystems Potentially at Risk 

Given the label prescribed use of nithiazine, ecosystems are not expected to be at risk. 

The bait is most likely to impact target insects (flies) at the point of treatment. It is less 

likely that non-target insects will be impacted at the point of treatment. Beyond this, 

direct or indirect exposure to ecological receptors is not expected. If used as directed on 

the product label, the likelihood of exposure to non-target wildlife and plants is minimal. 

2.5.2 Ecological Effects 

Ecological effects evaluations traditionally focus on direct effects to the groups of 

organisms residing in the ecosystems at risk and are based on ratios (risk quotients) of the 

estimated environmental concentration (EEC) to a designated toxicity endpoint for a 

surrogate test organism. Given the use of this product, direct or indirect exposure to nontarget ecological receptors, except potentially at the point of treatment, is not expected. 

Therefore, no risk quotients are calculated for birds, fish, mammals, or plants. 

There is no toxicity data for beneficial insects (e.g., pollinators) so risk quotients could 

not be determined. However, information is available to compare the relative toxicities of 

nithiazine to other neonicotinoids (see section 2.5 Non-target Insects Effects). 

2.5.2.1 Direct 

Direct effects of an organism from exposure to a pesticide are assessed based on impacts 

to the survival, growth, and reproduction of various taxa. The bait is most likely to impact 

target insects (flies) at the point of treatment. It is less likely that non-target insects will 

be impacted at the point of treatment. Beyond this, direct or indirect exposure to 

ecological receptors is not expected. If used as directed on the product label, then the 

likelihood of exposure to non-target wildlife and plants is minimal. Therefore, ecological 

exposure and direct effects are not expected from this use 

2.5.2.2 Indirect 

Transport to terrestrial areas and water bodies from the use site by runoff and drift should 

be negligible and indirect effects should be non-existent given label-dictated use practices 

(covered and off the ground), the formulation (solid on a paper strip), and rapid 

degradation due to photolysis. 

2.6 Risk Hypothesis 

The amount of active ingredient sold in nithiazine bait stations each year is small (< 100 

lbs a.i.5

) relative to amounts of insecticides marketed in non-bait station formulations. 

 

5

 Based upon information submitted by the Registrant (dated 10-07-08) provided by Jill Bloom, RPD, 

USEPA on 09-25-09. 

12
Nithiazine is used in a fly bait whereby the active ingredient is mixed with a sugar-based 

matrix and placed (as a solid) on a nonabsorbent strip. The product is used in selfcontained units applied in discrete locations with a spatial extent limited to building size 

areas with negligible potential for offsite transport. The application method does not lead 

to drift to terrestrial areas or to water bodies. The units are not intended for moist areas 

and do not contain amounts of active ingredient sufficient for runoff to be a concern. 

The bait is most likely to impact target insects (flies) at the point of treatment. It is less 

likely that non-target insects will be impacted at the point of treatment. Beyond this, 

direct or indirect exposure to ecological receptors is not expected. If used as directed on 

the product label, then the likelihood of exposure to non-target wildlife and flora is 

minimal. Therefore, ecological exposure and effects are not expected from this use. 

2.7 Results of Previous Assessments 

The documents available in the Office of Pesticide Programs Regulatory Docket and 

which serve as the basis for this assessment include the following: 

 January 1995 New Chemical Registration Decision Memorandum (From: S.L. 

Johnson; Director Registration Division; To: D. M. Barolo; Director Office Pesticide 

Programs. February 15. 1995) 

 December 1994 Pesticide Fact Sheet: (USEPA, 1994c) 

 January 2009 Ecological Problem Formulation for Nithiazine (USEPA, 2009)

The new chemical registration determined that the likelihood of exposure to non-target 

wildlife was minimal (Johnston, 1995). No new studies have been submitted since the 

initial registration decision. Therefore, results of the latest assessment do not differ from 

conclusions outlined here. The only exception is a fuller explanation of the active 

ingredient (Z)-9-tricosene (PC Code: 103201), a volatile, chemically synthesized 

pheromone present in glass ampoules in the outer shell of the bait station. Low doses of 

the pheromone have had reproductive effects on waterfowl and have been shown to be 

highly toxic to freshwater invertebrates. For additional information concerning the 

toxicity and ecotoxicity see the (Z)-9-tricosene RED (USEPA, 1994a). However, when 

product containing the pheromone is used correctly, and given the use pattern of the fly 

bait station, the risk to the environment is expected to be low. 

13
2.8 Analysis Plan 

This assessment was conducted in accordance with the methods and procedures described 

in the Overview Document (USEPA, 2004). 

2.8.1. Measures of Exposure 

Measures of exposure are normally based on aquatic and terrestrial models that estimate 

environmental concentrations of the chemical being assessed using labeled application 

rates and methods. 

The measure of exposure concentrations for aquatic species in water bodies receiving 

runoff and/or spray drift are typically estimated with the Tier I GENEEC model and the 

Tier II PRZM/EXAMS model. The measure of exposure for aquatic species in water 

bodies receiving base flow from ground water leachate originating at the site of 

application are usually estimated with SCI-GROW. 

The measures of terrestrial exposure for vertebrate and invertebrate animals are typically 

estimated with the T-REX model. Exposure for terrestrial plants is normally estimated 

with the TerrPlant model. 

However, due to use of the bait strip, it is unlikely that the nithiazine will reach aquatic or 

terrestrial environments. Therefore, aquatic and terrestrial exposure concentrations were 

not estimated. 

 2.8.2. Measures of Effect 

Measures of effect are obtained from a suite of registrant-submitted guideline studies that 

are conducted with a limited number of surrogate test species. 

The acute measures of effect used in this baseline-level assessment are the LD50 (median 

Lethal Dose), LC50 (median Lethal Concentration) or EC50 (median Effects 

Concentration). The endpoints for chronic measures of exposure are the NOAEC and the 

NOAEL. Acute toxicity studies were submitted for birds (3 studies), freshwater fish (2 

studies), freshwater invertebrates (1 study), and mammals (2 studies). The endpoints 

used for risk characterization were derived from studies that underwent review and were 

classified as “acceptable” (conducted under guideline conditions and considered to be 

scientifically valid) or “supplemental” (conditions deviated from guidelines but the 

results are considered to be scientifically valid). 

14
 2.8.3. Integration of Exposure and Effects 

The exposure and toxicity effects data are integrated in order to evaluate the risks of 

adverse ecological effects on non-target species. Generally, the risk quotient (RQ) 

method is used to compare estimated exposure and measured toxicity values. The RQ 

method involves dividing EECs by acute and chronic toxicity values. The resulting RQs 

are then compared to the Agency’s Levels of Concern (LOC) (USEPA, 2004) (Appendix 

A). These criteria are generally used to indicate when applications of pesticides, as 

directed on the label, have the potential to cause adverse effects to listed and non-listed 

non-target organisms. 

This method was not applied for nithiazine due to low toxicity values on an acute basis 

and, based upon the labeled use and application method, low potential for transport via 

runoff and drift to a non-target site. In addition, the rapid dissipation due to photolysis 

contributes to the assumption that chronic risk to terrestrial and aquatic organisms would 

be minimal. 

3.0 Exposure Assessment 

EFED concludes that based upon the labeled use of nithiazine, exposure is expected to be 

minimal. The product is used in self-contained units applied in discrete locations with a 

spatial extent limited to building-size areas with negligible potential for offsite transport. 

The application method does not allow for drift or runoff to terrestrial areas or to water 

bodies. The bait strips are not intended for moist areas and do not contain amounts of 

active ingredient sufficient for runoff to be a concern. The bait is most likely to impact 

target insects (flies) at the point of treatment. It is less likely that non-target insects will 

be impacted at the point of treatment. Beyond this, direct or indirect exposure to 

ecological receptors is not expected. If used as directed on the product label, then the 

likelihood of exposure to non-target wildlife and flora is minimal. Therefore, ecological 

exposure and effects are not expected from this use. 

3.1 Label Application Rates 

The mass of nithiazine in a bait strip is not specified on the label, but the registrant has 

indicated that each strip contains 114-120 mg nithiazine6

, or 2.65 x 10-4 lbs a.i. per strip. 

The label use rate is 1 station /300 ft2 for enclosed areas where fly populations are low 

and 1 station /100-150 ft2

 in open areas where fly populations are high. The number of 

strips allowed per year, how often a strip may be used, and the minimum number of days 

between strips is not stated on the label. The label indicates that a strip is effective for 

about 56 days (8 weeks). 

3.2 Aquatic Exposure 

 

6

 From: S.R. Spaulding, Senior Director, Regulatory Affairs, Central Life Sciences, Wellmark 

International. To: Jill Bloom, PRD, USEPA. Date: 11/18/09. 

15
Given the use of the bait strip and application method, exposure to aquatic animals and 

plants is not expected. 

3.3 Terrestrial Exposure 

 

Given the current labeled use and the fate characteristics of nithiazine, the likelihood of 

nithiazine residues being transported offsite to adjacent water bodies or soil (terrestrial 

environment) is minimal. Any residues transported away from the use site would be 

expected to degrade in the environment primarily by photolysis. Therefore, direct contact 

of terrestrial mammals, birds, and invertebrates to the nithiazine in the bait is the most 

likely means of exposure. Animals and insects may potentially be attracted to the bait 

because the active ingredient has been formulated into a sugar matrix and affixed to a 

strip. However, the label instructs users to keep the bait off the ground which will 

minimize exposure to small animals. Meanwhile, non-target insects may not be attracted 

to (Z)-9-tricosene as it is a pheromone specific for flies. Also, non-target insects may not 

be able to uptake the solid matrix. Similarly, given the labeled use and application 

method, terrestrial plant exposure is not expected. 

3.4 Soil Accumulation 

Soil accumulation is not expected given the use and rapid photolysis of nithiazine. 

4.0 Effects Assessment 

This assessment evaluates the potential for adverse affects as a result of nithiazine use. 

Assessment endpoints include direct toxic effects on the survival, reproduction, and 

growth of terrestrial and aquatic life. Toxicity endpoints are established based on data 

generated from guideline studies submitted by the registrant, and from open literature 

studies that meet the criteria for inclusion into the ECOTOX database maintained by 

EPA/ORD. As described in the Agency’s Overview Document (U.S. USEPA, 2004) and 

according to EFED policy, the most sensitive endpoint for each taxon is evaluated. In 

aquatic systems, taxa evaluated include aquatic plants, invertebrates, and fish. Fish serve 

as a surrogate for aquatic-phase amphibians when amphibian data are unavailable or 

unacceptable for quantitative use. Where data are available, respective endpoints are used 

for freshwater and estuarine/marine organisms. In terrestrial systems, taxa evaluated 

include birds and mammals; data for terrestrial plants were not available. Bird endpoints 

are generally derived from guideline studies on bobwhite quail and/or mallard duck. Bird 

data are used as a surrogate for reptiles and terrestrial-phase amphibians when data for 

these taxa are unavailable or unacceptable for quantitative use. Mammal data are derived 

from guideline studies conducted on laboratory rats, mice, or rabbits.

For this assessment, evaluated taxa include birds (3 studies), freshwater fish (2 studies), 

freshwater invertebrates (1 study), and mammals (2 studies). Table 6 summarizes the 

available registrant-submitted, ecological toxicity studies for nithiazine including 

16
endpoint toxicity values. All ecotoxicity data for (Z)-9-tricosene are available in the 

RED (USEPA, 1994a). 

Table 6. Ecological Effects Data Summary for Nithiazine and (Z)-9-Tricosene1 

Assessment 

Endpoint 

Measures of 

Effect2

Species Toxicity 

Value 

Toxicity 

Classification 

Data Available for 

Risk Assessment 

MRID 

Avian acute 

oral toxicity 

LD50 

Northern 

Bobwhite Quail 

(Colinus 

virginianus) 

2290 mg 

ai/kg bw 

Practically 

nontoxic 

Yes (Acceptable) 41650008 

Northern 

Bobwhite Quail 

(Colinus 

virginianus) 

>4364 

mg ai/kg 

diet 

Slightly toxic Yes (Acceptable) 41650009 

 

Abundance (i.e. 

survival, 

reproduction, 

and growth) of 

individuals and 

populations of 

birds 

Avian dietary 

toxicity LC50 

Mallard Duck 

(Anas 

platyrhynchos) 

>4573 

mg ai/kg 

diet 

Slightly toxic Yes 

(Acceptable) 

41650010 

Rainbow Trout 

(Oncorhynchus 

mykiss) 

117 ppm 

(ai) 

Practically 

nontoxic 

Survival and Yes (Acceptable) 41650011 

reproduction of 

individuals and 

communities of 

freshwater fish 

96-hr Fish 

acute toxicity 

LC50

Bluegill Sunfish 

(Lepomis 

macrochirus) 

142 ppm 

(ai) 

Practically 

nontoxic 

Yes (Acceptable) 41650012 

Survival and 

reproduction of 

individuals and 

communities of 

freshwater 

invertebrates 

48-hr Aquatic 

Invertebrate 

toxicity EC50 

Water Flea 

(Daphnia magna) 

33.85 

ppm (ai) 

Slightly toxic Yes (Acceptable) 41650013 

Acute Oral 

toxicity LD50

Rat 

Male 

Female 

285 mg 

ai/kg bw 

314 

mg ai/kg 

bw 

Yes (Acceptable) 

Guideline series 81-1 

41127501 Abundance (i.e. 

survival, 

reproduction, 

and growth) of 

individuals and 

populations of 

mammals 

Acute Dermal 

toxicity LD50

Rabbit 

Male; Female 

>5000 

mg ai/kg 

bw 

Tox Category 

III 

Yes 

(Acceptable) 

Guideline series 81-2 

41127502 

(Z)-9-tricosene 

Acute Oral 

toxicity LD50

Rat 

 Male; Female 

>10,000 

mg 

a.i./kg 

bw 

Tox Category 

IV 

Yes (Acceptable) 

Guideline series 81-1 

Abundance (i.e. 240209603 

survival, 

reproduction, 

and growth) of 

individuals and 

populations of 

mammals 

Acute Dermal 

toxicity LD50

Rabbit 

Male; Female 

>20,000 

mg 

a.i./kg 

bw 

Tox Category 

IV 

Yes (Acceptable) 

Guideline series 81-2 

240209605 

1

 Only the mammalian data are presented here for comparison, but additional data are available in the (Z)-9-tricosene RED 

(USEPA 1994a). 

2

All studies used technical grade IN A0159-26 (purity >99%) except when otherwise stated

17
4.1 Aquatic Effects Characterization 

Nithiazine was originally registered for use in 1995. Guideline studies from that time 

were available for freshwater aquatic invertebrates and fish. Overall, nithiazine is slightly 

toxic to invertebrates and practically non-toxic to fish on an acute basis. No chronic tests 

were conducted. 

96-Hour Freshwater Fish Acute Toxicity. Nithiazine is practically nontoxic to rainbow 

trout (Oncorhynchus mykiss) and bluegill sunfish (Lepomis macrochirus) with LC50

values of 117 ppm and 142 ppm, respectively. 

48-Hour Aquatic Invertebrate Toxicity. Nithiazine is slightly toxic to the water flea 

(Daphnia magna) with an EC50 value of 33.85 ppm. 

4.2 Terrestrial Effects Characterization 

Guideline studies evaluating effects on birds and mammals (rat and rabbit) are available 

for nithiazine. On an acute oral basis nithiazine is practically nontoxic to northern 

bobwhite quail. On a dietary basis nithiazine is slightly toxic to northern bobwhite quail 

and mallard duck. Nithiazine is moderately toxic to rats based on an acute oral study and 

is practically nontoxic to rabbits on an acute dermal basis. 

Avian Oral Toxicity. Nithiazine is practically nontoxic to northern bobwhite quail 

(Colinus virginianus), producing an LD50 of 2290 mg/kg-bw. 

Avian Dietary Toxicity. Nithiazine is slightly toxic to northern bobwhite quail (Colinus 

virginianus) and mallard duck (Anas platyrhynchos) with LC50 values of >4364 mg/kgdiet and >4573 mg/kg-diet, respectively, based on mean measured dietary concentrations 

of four replicate samples of the highest reported dose taken on the fifth and final day of 

dosing. The study authors reported the nominal LC50 values as 5620 ppm, which was the 

highest nominal concentration tested. Guidelines recommend that, in lieu of establishing 

a precise LC50 (as the case is here), it may instead be shown that the LC50 >5000 ppm. If 

in the future it becomes evident that actual use of the technical grade approaches or 

surpasses the measured LC50 values of the avian studies, these studies may be reevaluated and additional testing or information may be required. 

Mammal Oral Toxicity. Nithiazine is moderately toxic to rats with LD50s of 285 mg/kg 

for males and 314 mg/kg for females. The attractant, (Z)-9-tricosene, is practically 

nontoxic to rats on an acute oral basis (LD50 >10,000 mg/kg).

Mammal Dermal Toxicity. Nithiazine is practically nontoxic to rabbits with an acute 

dermal toxicity of > 5000 mg/kg for males. (Z)-9-tricosene is practically nontoxic to 

rabbits on an acute dermal basis (LD50 >20,000 mg/kg). 

18
4.2.1 Terrestrial Plant Data 

There are no registrant submitted data on plant toxicity. However, based upon the labeled 

use, there should be no terrestrial plant exposure to nithiazine. 

4.2.2 Terrestrial Invertebrate Data 

Registrant submitted data on terrestrial invertebrates, including honeybees, is not 

available. However, based upon the labeled use and components of the bait strip product, 

there should be no exposure beyond the point of treatment. 

4.2.3 ECOTOX Data 

Terrestrial data search in the public ECOTOX database 

(http://cfpub.epa.gov/ecotox/quick_query.htm) yielded ten house fly studies. Qualitative 

information concerning honey bee toxicity was obtained from Iwasa et al. (2004). 

5.0 Risk Estimation and Risk Description 

Risk is typically estimated by calculating the ratio of the expected environmental 

concentration and the appropriate toxicity endpoint. This value is the risk quotient (RQ), 

which is then compared to pre-established levels of concern (LOC) for each category 

evaluated. However due to the labeled use of the nithiazine baits and the application 

method, limited or no exposure is expected to aquatic or terrestrial organisms beyond the 

point of treatment. Therefore RQs were not determined for the nithiazine baits. 

5.1 Aquatic Risk Summary 

Based on currently available data, nithiazine appears to be of relatively low toxicity on an 

acute basis to aquatic fish and invertebrates in freshwater systems. Based upon the 

labeled use, there is low potential for transport via runoff and drift to a non-target site. In 

addition, dissipation due to hydrolysis and rapid dissipation due to photolysis contributes 

to the assumption that chronic risk to aquatic organisms (animals and plants) would be 

minimal. Nithiazine appears to pose very low risk to aquatic ecosystems based on the 

data currently available. 

5.2 Terrestrial Risk Summary 

Based on currently available data, nithiazine appears to be of relatively low toxicity on an 

acute basis to mammals and birds. Based upon the labeled use, there is low potential for 

transport via runoff and drift to a non-target site. In addition, the rapid dissipation due to 

photolysis contributes to the assumption that chronic risk to terrestrial organisms 

(animals and plants) would be minimal. Risk to terrestrial invertebrates (including 

19
honeybees) is not expected since the attractant pheromone, (Z)-9-tricosene, is specific for 

flies, and the solid sugar matrix does not represent a desirable feeding medium for bees. 

 

20
Citations 

Iwasa, T., N. Motoyama, J.T. Ambrose, R. M. Roe. 2004. Mechanism for the differential 

toxicity of neonicotinoid insecticides in the honey bee, Apis mellifera. Crop 

Protection: 371-378. 

Jeschke, P. and R. Nauen. 2008. Review Neonicotinoids – from zero to hero in 

insecticide chemistry. Pest. Manag. Sci. 64:1084-1098. 

USEPA. 1994a. (Z)-9-Tricosene. Registration Eligibility Decision (RED) U.S. 

Environmental Protection Agency. EPA 738-R-94-028. Washington, DC. 

USEPA. 1994b. (Z)-9-Tricosene. R.E.D. FACTS. U.S. Environmental Protection 

Agency. EPA 738-R-94-025. Washington, DC. 

USEPA. 1994c. Pesticide Fact Sheet: Name of Chemical: AO-159. New Chemical 

Registration. December 1994. U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. 

OPP/OPPTS. Washington, DC. 

USEPA. 2009. Registration Review – Problem Formulation for Nithiazine. DP Barcode 

D360687. 01/28/09. U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, OPP/OPPTS/ 

Environmental Fate and Effects Division, Washington, DC.

21
APPENDIX A. RQ methodology and LOCs 

 

RQ Tables for screening level ecological assessments. 

Risk characterization integrates the results of the exposure and ecotoxicity data to 

evaluate the likelihood of adverse ecological effects. The means of this integration is 

called the quotient method. Risk quotients (RQs) are calculated by dividing exposure 

estimates by acute and chronic ecotoxicity values. 

RQ = EXPOSURE/TOXICITY 

RQs are then compared to OPP's levels of concern (LOCs). These LOCs are used 

by OPP to analyze potential risk to nontarget organisms and the need to consider 

regulatory action. The criteria indicate that a pesticide used as directed has the potential 

to cause adverse effects on nontarget organisms. LOCs currently address the following 

risk presumption categories: 1) acute - potential for acute risk is high; regulatory action 

may be warranted in addition to restricted use classification, 2) acute restricted use - the 

potential for acute risk is high, but may be mitigated through restricted use classification, 

3) acute endangered species - endangered species may be adversely affected, and 4) 

chronic risk - if the potential for chronic risk is high regulatory action may be warranted. 

Currently, EFED does not perform assessments for chronic risk to plants, acute or 

chronic risks to nontarget insects, or chronic risk from granular/bait formulations to birds 

or mammals. 

The ecotoxicity values (measurement endpoints) used in the acute and chronic 

risk quotients are derived from required studies. Examples of ecotoxicity values derived 

from short-term laboratory studies that assess acute effects are: 1) LC50 (fish and birds), 

2) LD50 (birds and mammals), 3) EC50 (aquatic plants and aquatic invertebrates), and 4) 

EC25 (terrestrial plants). Examples of toxicity effect levels derived from the results of 

long-term laboratory studies that assess chronic effects are: 1) LOAEC (birds, fish, and 

aquatic invertebrates), 2) NOAEC (birds, fish and aquatic invertebrates), and 3) MATC 

(fish and aquatic invertebrates). For birds and mammals, the NOAEC generally is used 

as the ecotoxicity test value in assessing chronic effects, although other values may be 

used when justified. Generally, the MATC (defined as the geometric mean of the 

NOAEC and LOAEC) is used as the ecotoxicity test value in assessing chronic effects to 

fish and aquatic invertebrates. However, the NOAEC is used if the measurement end 

point is production of offspring or survival. 

Risk presumptions and the corresponding RQs and LOCs are tabulated below. 

22
Agency Risk Quotient (RQ) Metrics and Levels of Concern (LOC) Per Risk Class. 

RISK CLASS RISK DESCRIPTION RQ LOC 

Aquatic Animals (fish and invertebrates)

Acute Potential for effects to non-listed animals from acute 

exposures 

Peak EEC/LC501 0.5 

Acute 

Restricted Use 

Potential for effects to animals from acute exposures 

Risks may be mitigated through restricted use classification Peak EEC/LC501 0.1 

Acute Listed 

Species 

Listed species may be potentially affected by acute 

exposures 

Peak EEC/LC501 0.05 

60-day EEC/NOAEC 

(fish) Chronic Potential for effects to non-listed and listed animals from 

chronic exposures 21-day EEC/NOAEC 

(invertebrates) 

1 

Aquatic Plants 

Non-Listed Potential for effects to non-listed plants from exposures Peak EEC/LC501 1 

Listed Potential for effects to listed plants from exposures Peak EEC/NOAEC 1 

Terrestrial Animals (mammals and birds) 

EEC2/LC50 (Dietary) Acute Potential for effects to non-listed animals from acute 

exposures EEC/LD50 (Dose) 

0.5 

EEC2 Acute /LC50 (Dietary) 

Restricted Use 

Potential for effects to animals from acute exposures 

Risks may be mitigated through restricted use classification EEC/LD50 (Dose) 

0.2 

EEC2 Acute Listed /LC50 (Dietary) 

Species 

Listed species may be potentially affected by acute 

exposures EEC/LD50 (Dose) 

0.1 

Chronic Potential for effects to non-listed and listed animals from 

chronic exposures EEC 2

/NOAEC 1 

Terrestrial and Semi-Aquatic Plants 

Non-Listed Potential for effects to non-target, non-listed plants from 

exposures 

EEC/ EC25 1 

EEC/ NOAEC Listed Plant Potential for effects to non-target, listed plants from 

exposures EEC/ EC05

1 

1 LC50 or EC50. 2

 Based on upper bound Kenega values for foliar exposure. 

23
APPENDIX B Studies Submitted to the Agency. 

Guideline: 61-1 Chemical Identity 

------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 

MRID: 40661301 

Powell, J. (1988) DuPont Fly Trap SD35651 (AO159): Product Identity and Composition: Laboratory 

Project ID: PC/1-AO159. Unpublished compilation prepared by E. I. du Pont de Nemours and Co., Inc. 94 

p. 

MRID: 42730301 

McDaniel, J. (1993) Beginning Materials/Manufacturing Procedure: Zoecon 9023 Flybait Station. 

Unpublished study prepared by Zoecon Corp. 58 p. 

Guideline: 61-2 Description of Beginning Materials and Manufacturing Process 

------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 

MRID: 40661301 

Powell, J. (1988) DuPont Fly Trap SD35651 (AO159): Product Identity and Composition: Laboratory 

Project ID: PC/1-AO159. Unpublished compilation prepared by E. I. du Pont de Nemours and Co., Inc. 94 

p. 

MRID: 42730301 

McDaniel, J. (1993) Beginning Materials/Manufacturing Procedure: Zoecon 9023 Flybait Station. 

Unpublished study prepared by Zoecon Corp. 58 p. 

MRID: 44456803 

McDaniel, J. (1996) Sandoz 9023 Fly Bait Station: Description of Beginning Materials and Manufacturing 

Procedure: Final Report: Lab Project Number: 2331. Unpublished study prepared by Sandoz Agro, Inc. 8 

p. 

Guideline: 61-3 Discussion of Formation of Impurities 

------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 

MRID: 40661301 

Powell, J. (1988) DuPont Fly Trap SD35651 (AO159): Product Identity and Composition: Laboratory 

Project ID: PC/1-AO159. Unpublished compilation prepared by E. I. du Pont de Nemours and Co., Inc. 94 

p. 

MRID: 41650001 

Silveria, E. (1990) Determination of Nitrosamines in Technical A0159: Lab Project Number: AMR-1890-

90. Unpublished study pre- pared by Battelle. 21 p. 

Guideline: 62-1 Preliminary Analysis 

------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 

MRID: 40661302 

24
Silveira, E. (1988) Technical AO159 Product Chemistry: Analysis and Certification of Product 

Ingredients: Laboratory Project ID: PC/2-AO159. Unpublished compilation prepared by E. I. du Pont de 

Nemours and Co., Inc. 39 p. 

MRID: 42379801 

Waeghe, T. (1992) Technical Grade DPX-A0159: Analysis and Certification of Product Ingredients 

?Product Chemistry Data|: Lab Project Number: AMR 2243-91. Unpublished study prepared by E. I. du 

Pont de Nemours and Co. 31 p. 

MRID: 44456802 

Spoonemore, H. (1996) Method Validation for the Analysis of Sandoz 9023.005: Final Report: Lab Project 

Number: 9023ZOE00515RB: 2330. Unpublished study prepared by Sandoz Agro, Inc. 40 p. 

Guideline: 62-2 Certification of limits 

------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 

MRID: 40661302 

Silveira, E. (1988) Technical AO159 Product Chemistry: Analysis and Certification of Product 

Ingredients: Laboratory Project ID: PC/2-AO159. Unpublished compilation prepared by E. I. du Pont de 

Nemours and Co., Inc. 39 p. 

Guideline: 62-3 Analytical Method 

------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 

MRID: 44456802 

Spoonemore, H. (1996) Method Validation for the Analysis of Sandoz 9023.005: Final Report: Lab Project 

Number: 9023ZOE00515RB: 2330. Unpublished study prepared by Sandoz Agro, Inc. 40 p. 

Guideline: 63-0 Reports of Multiple phys/chem Characteristics 

------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 

MRID: 48675 

Shell Development Company (19??) SD 35651--Chemical Identity and Physical Properties. (Unpublished 

study received Jan 22, 1976 under unknown admin. no.; CDL:226468-A) 

MRID: 48679 

Shell Development Company (1976) Summary: ?SD 35651|. Includes two undated methods entitled: 

Determination of SD 35651 in air; Determination of SD 35651 in a fly trap--liquid chromatographic 

method. (Compilation; unpublished study received Jan 22, 1976 under unknown admin. no.; CDL:226468-

E) 

MRID: 49363 

Shell Development Company (1972) SD 35651--Chemical Identity and Physical Properties. (Unpublished 

study received on unknown date under 201-EX-54; CDL:226504-A) 

MRID: 55128 

Shell Development Company (1972) SD 35651--Chemical Identity and Physical Properties. (Unpublished 

study received Apr 6, 1976 under 201-EX-52; CDL:229058-A) 

25
MRID: 56516 

Shell Development Company (19??) SD 35651--Chemical Identity and Physical Properties. (Unpublished 

study received Apr 6, 1976 under 201-EX-51; CDL:230448-A) 

MRID: 56517 

Shell Development Company (1972) Vapor Pressure of 35651 and Mus- calure. (Unpublished study 

received Apr 6, 1976 under 201-EX- 51; CDL:230448-B) 

MRID: 65944 

Shell Development Company (1972?) ?Chemical Characteristics of SD 35651|. (Compilation; unpublished 

study received Apr 6, 1976 under 201-EX-51; CDL:229057-A) 

MRID: 44456801 

Moorman, R.; Witte, J. (1997) The Characterization, Density, pH, Color, Odor, and Physical State of 

Sandoz 9023.005: Final Report: Lab Project Number: N650: SANDOZ 9023: 2262. Unpublished study 

prepared by Sandoz Agro, Inc. 19 p. 

Guideline: 63-7 Density 

------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 

MRID: 41650002 

Silveria, E. (1990) Technical A0159: Physical and Chemical Chara- cteristics: Lab Project Number: AMR1888-90. Unpublished study prepared by E. I. du Pont de Nemours and Co. 9 p. 

Guideline: 63-10 Dissociation Constant 

------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 

MRID: 41650002 

Silveria, E. (1990) Technical A0159: Physical and Chemical Chara- cteristics: Lab Project Number: AMR1888-90. Unpublished study prepared by E. I. du Pont de Nemours and Co. 9 p. 

Guideline: 63-12 pH 

------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 

MRID: 41650002 

Silveria, E. (1990) Technical A0159: Physical and Chemical Chara- cteristics: Lab Project Number: AMR1888-90. Unpublished study prepared by E. I. du Pont de Nemours and Co. 9 p. 

Guideline: 63-17 Storage stability 

------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 

MRID: 49368 

Shell Development Company (19??) Fly Trap--Estimate of Lifetime: ?SD 35651|. (Unpublished study 

received on unknown date under 201-EX-54; CDL:226504-H) 

MRID: 55130 

26
Shell Development Company (19??) Fly Trap--Air Concentration of Ac- tive Ingredients. (Unpublished 

study received Apr 6, 1976 under 201-EX-52; CDL:229058-F) 

MRID: 56358 

Shell Development Company (19??) Fly Trap--Estimate of Lifetime. (Unpublished study received on 

unknown date under 201-EX-55; CDL:226509-G) 

MRID: 65945 

Shell Development Company (1976) Summary: ?SD 35651|. (Compila- tion; unpublished study received 

Apr 6, 1976 under 201-EX-51; CDL:229057-F) 

Guideline: 71-1 Avian Single Dose Oral Toxicity 

------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 

MRID: 41650008 

Culotta, J. (1990) H 18,253: An Acute Oral Toxicity Study with the Northern Bobwhite Wildlife 

International Ltd: Lab Project Num- ber: 112-235: 290-90. Unpublished study prepared by E. I. du Pont de 

Nemours and Co. 18 p. 

Guideline: 71-2 Avian Dietary Toxicity 

------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 

MRID: 41650009 

Driscoll, C.; Hoxter, K.; Smith, G. (1990) H 18,253: A Dietary LC50 Study with the Northern Bobwhite: 

Lab Project Number: 112-233: 291-90. Unpublished study prepared by Wildlife International Ltd. 26 p. 

MRID: 41650010 

Driscoll, C.; Hoxter, K.; Smith, G. (1990) H 18,253: A Dietary LC50 Study with the Mallard: Lab Project 

Number: 112-234: 292-90. Unpublished study prepared by Wildlife International Ltd. 26 p. 

Guideline: 72-1 Acute Toxicity to Freshwater Fish 

------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 

MRID: 41650011 

Baer, K. (1990) Static Acute 96-Hour LC50 of IN A0159-26 to Rainbow Trout, Oncorhynchus mykiss: Lab 

Project Number: HLR 201-90: MR- 4581-805. Unpublished study prepared by E. I. du Pont de Nemours 

and Co., Inc. 20 p. 

MRID: 41650012 

Baer, K. (1990) Static Acute 96-Hour LC50 of IN A0159-26 to Blue- gill Sunfish, Lepomis Macrochirus: 

Lab Project Number: HLR 200- 90: MR-4581-805. Unpublished study prepared by E. I. du Pont de 

Nemours and Co., Inc. 20 p. 

Guideline: 72-2 Acute Toxicity to Freshwater Invertebrates 

------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 

MRID: 41650013 

27
Baer, K. (1990) Static Acute 48-Hour EC50 of IN A0159-26 to Daphnia magna: Lab Project Number: HLR 

199-90: MR-4581-805. Unpublished study prepared by E. I. du Pont de Nemours and Co., Inc. 22 p. 

Guideline: 81-1 Acute oral toxicity in rats 

------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 

MRID: 48677 

Lukes, T.H.; Paa, H. (1974) Report to Shell Development Company: Acute Toxicity Studies with Technical 

SD 35651: IBT No. 601- 05907. (Unpublished study received Jan 22, 1976 under unknown admin. no.; 

prepared by Industrial Bio-Test Laboratories, Inc., submitted by Shell Chemical Co., Washington, D.C.; 

CDL:226468-C) 

MRID: 119122 

Lukes, T.; Paa, H. (1974) Report to Shell Development Company: Acute Toxicity Studies with Technical 

SD 35651: IBT No. 601- 05907. (Unpublished study received Jan 22, 1976 under unknown admin. no.; 

prepared by Industrial Bio-Test Laboratories, Inc., submitted by Shell Chemical Co., Washington, DC; 

CDL:225926-A) 

MRID: 41127501 

Sarver, J. (1989) Acute Oral Toxicity Study with DPX-A0159-24 in Male and Female Rats: Haskell Lab. 

Rept. No. 221-89. Unpublish- ed study prepared by E.I. du Pont de Nemours and Co., Inc. 36 p. 

Guideline: 81-2 Acute dermal toxicity in rabbits or rats 

------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 

MRID: 48677 

Lukes, T.H.; Paa, H. (1974) Report to Shell Development Company: Acute Toxicity Studies with Technical 

SD 35651: IBT No. 601- 05907. (Unpublished study received Jan 22, 1976 under unknown admin. no.; 

prepared by Industrial Bio-Test Laboratories, Inc., submitted by Shell Chemical Co., Washington, D.C.; 

CDL:226468-C) 

MRID: 119122 

Lukes, T.; Paa, H. (1974) Report to Shell Development Company: Acute Toxicity Studies with Technical 

SD 35651: IBT No. 601- 05907. (Unpublished study received Jan 22, 1976 under unknown admin. no.; 

prepared by Industrial Bio-Test Laboratories, Inc., submitted by Shell Chemical Co., Washington, DC; 

CDL:225926-A) 

MRID: 41127502 

Sarver, J. (1989) Acute Dermal Toxicity Study of DPX-A0159-24 in Rabbits: Haskell Lab. Rept. No. 180-

89. Unpublished study pre- pared by E.I. du Pont de Nemours and Co., Inc. 13 p. 

Guideline: 81-4 Primary eye irritation in rabbits 

------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 

MRID: 48677 

Lukes, T.H.; Paa, H. (1974) Report to Shell Development Company: Acute Toxicity Studies with Technical 

SD 35651: IBT No. 601- 05907. (Unpublished study received Jan 22, 1976 under unknown admin. no.; 

prepared by Industrial Bio-Test Laboratories, Inc., submitted by Shell Chemical Co., Washington, D.C.; 

CDL:226468-C) 

28
MRID: 49711 

Levenstein, I. (1976) To Determine If the Test Material Produces Any Irritation When Instilled into 

Rabbits' Eyes Employing the Reference Method Described: Assay No. 65448. (Unpublished study 

received Sep 14, 1976 under 201-EX-51; prepared by Leberco Labo- ratories, submitted by Shell Chemical 

Co., Washington, D.C.; CDL:229061-A) 

MRID: 49712 

Levenstein, I. (1976) To Determine If the Test Material Produces Any Irritation When Instilled into 

Rabbits' Eyes Employing the Reference Method Described: Assay No. 65447. (Unpublished study 

received Sep 14, 1976 under 201-EX-55; prepared by Leberco Labo- ratories, submitted by Shell Chemical 

Co., Washington, D.C.; CDL:229060-A) 

MRID: 119122 

Lukes, T.; Paa, H. (1974) Report to Shell Development Company: Acute Toxicity Studies with Technical 

SD 35651: IBT No. 601- 05907. (Unpublished study received Jan 22, 1976 under unknown admin. no.; 

prepared by Industrial Bio-Test Laboratories, Inc., submitted by Shell Chemical Co., Washington, DC; 

CDL:225926-A) 

MRID: 41127503 

Brock, W. (1989) Primary Eye Irritation Study with DPX-A0159-24 in Rabbits: Haskell Lab. Rept. No. 

192-89. Unpublished study pre- pared by E.I. du Pont de Nemours and Co., Inc. 19 p. 

MRID: 43003802 

Blaszcak, D. (1993) Primary Eye Irritation Study of Zoecon 9023 Flybait in Rabbits: Final Report: Lab 

Project Number: 1948: 92-0747: 9023. Unpublished study prepared by Pharmaco LSR, Inc. 21 p. 

Guideline: 81-5 Primary dermal irritation 

------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 

MRID: 48677 

Lukes, T.H.; Paa, H. (1974) Report to Shell Development Company: Acute Toxicity Studies with Technical 

SD 35651: IBT No. 601- 05907. (Unpublished study received Jan 22, 1976 under unknown admin. no.; 

prepared by Industrial Bio-Test Laboratories, Inc., submitted by Shell Chemical Co., Washington, D.C.; 

CDL:226468-C) 

MRID: 41127504 

Sarver, J. (1989) Primary Dermal Irritation Study with DPX-A0159-24 in Rabbits: Haskell Lab. Rept. No. 

168-89. Unpublished study prepared by E.I. du Pont de Nemours and Co., Inc. 12 p. 

MRID: 43003801 

Blaszcak, D. (1993) Primary Dermal Irritation Study of Zoecon 9023 Flybait in Rabbits: Final Report: Lab 

Project Number: 1950: 92-0746: 9023. Unpublished study prepared by Pharmaco LSR, Inc. 16 p. 

Guideline: 81-8 Acute neurotoxicity screen study in rats 

------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 

29
MRID: 42672101 

Foss, J. (1993) Acute Neurotoxicity Study of DPX-A0159-31 Administered Orally via Gavage to 

Crl:CDBR VAF/Plus Rats: Lab Project Number: 9427-001: 104-014: HLO 381-92. Unpublished study 

prepared by Argus Research Labs, Inc. 952 p. 

Guideline: 84-2 Interaction with Gonadal DNA 

------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 

MRID: 41650003 

Reynolds, V. (1990) Mutagenicity Testing of IN A0159-26 in the Sal- monella Tymphimurium Plate 

Incorporation Assay: Lab Project Num- ber: HLR 250-90: 4581-801: 500. Unpublished study prepared by 

E. I. du Pont de Nemours and Co., Inc. 27 p. 

MRID: 41650004 

Bentley, K. (1990) Mutagenicity Evaluation of IN A0159-26 in the CHO/HPRT Assay: Lab Project 

Number: HLR 231-90: 4581-801. Un- published study prepared by E. I. du Pont de Nemours and Co., Inc. 

20 p. 

MRID: 41650005 

Stahl, R. (1990) In Vitro Evaluation of IN A0159-26 for Chromosome Aberrations in Human 

Lymphocytes: Lab Project Number: HLR 258- 90: 4581-801: 545. Unpublished study prepared by E. I. du 

Pont de Nemours and Co., Inc. 22 p. 

MRID: 41650006 

Reynolds, V. (1990) Mouse Bone Marrow Micronucleus Assay of IN A0159-26: Lab Project Number: 329-

90: 4581-801: 572. Unpub- lished by prepared by E. I. du Pont de Nemours and Co., Inc. 17 p. 

MRID: 41650007 

Bentley, K. (1990) Assessment of IN A0159-26 in the In Vitro Un- scheduled DNA Synthesis Assay in 

Primary Rat Hepatocytes: Lab Project Number: HLR 230-90: 4581-801. Unpublished study prepar- ed by 

E. I. du Pont de Nemours and Co., Inc. 17 p. 

Guideline: 151-16 Analytical Methods for Certified Limits 

------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 

MRID: 42978902 

Nguyen, K. (1993) Method Validation for the Analysis of AO159 Technical, Fly Bait Premix and Fly Bait 

Station: Lab Project Number: 1908: 9023 ZOE 005 1 5 RB. Unpublished study prepared by Zoecon 

Corporation. 65 p. 

Guideline: 151-17 Physical and Chemical Properties 

------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 

MRID: 42978903 

Nguyen, K. (1993) Product Chemistry of ZOECON 9023 Flybait Premix Containing Approximately 5% 

AO159: Lab Project Number: 1965: 9023 ZOE005 15 RB. Unpublished study prepared by Zoecon 

Corporation. 15 p. 

30
Guideline: 152-15 Hypersensitivity Study 

------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 

MRID: 42978901 

Blaszcak, D. (1993) Closed-Patch Repeated Insult Dermal Sensitization Study of ZOECON 9023 Flybait in 

Guinea Pigs (Buehler Method): Final Report: Lab Project Number: 1949: 92-0748: 9023. Unpublished 

study prepared by Pharmaco LSR, Inc., Toxicology Services North America. 26 p. 

Non-Guideline Study 

------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 

MRID: 48676 

Citation: Shell Chemical Company (1974?) Summary: ?Technical SD 35651|. Sum- mary of study 

226468-C. (Unpublished study received Jan 22, 1976 under unknown admin. no.; CDL:226468-B) 

MRID: 48678 

Citation: Shell Development Company (19??) Potential Hazard of the SD 35651/ Muscalure Fly Trap. 

(Unpublished study received Jan 22, 1976 under unknown admin. no.; CDL:226468-D) 

MRID: 49364 

Citation: Shell Development Company (1974?) Summary: ?SD 35651|. (Unpub- lished study received on 

unknown date under 201-EX-54; CDL: 226504-B) 

MRID: 49366 

Citation: Shell Chemical Company (1976?) Summary: ?SD 35651|. Summary of studies 226504-G, 

226504-H and 226504-M. (Unpublished study received on unknown date under 201-EX-54; CDL:226504-

F) 

MRID: 49367 

Citation: Shell Development Company (19??) Fly Trap--Air Concentration of Active Ingredients: ?SD 

35651|. (Unpublished study received on unknown date under 201-EX-54; CDL:226504-G) 

MRID: 49370 

Citation: Shell Development Company (1975) Determination of SD 35651 in Air: Tentative Method. 

(Unpublished study received on unknown date under 201-EX-54; CDL:226504-J) 

MRID: 49372 

Citation: Shell Development Company (1975) Determination of SD 35651 in a Fly Trap--Liquid 

Chromatographic Method (Tentative). (Unpublished study received on unknown date under 201-EX-54; 

CDL:226504-L) 

MRID: 49373 

Citation: Shell Development Company (1976) ?Efficacy Studies with SD 35651-- Houseflies and 

Mosquitoes|. (Unpublished study received on un- known date under 201-EX-54; CDL:226504-M) 

MRID: 55129 

Citation: Shell Chemical Company (1974?) Summary: ?SD 35651|. Summary of study 229058-C. 

(Unpublished study received Apr 6, 1976 under 201-EX-52; CDL:229058-B) 

MRID: 55132 

Citation: Shell Development Company (1975) Determination of SD 35651 in Air: Tentative Method. 

(Unpublished study received Apr 6, 1976 under 201-EX-52; CDL:229058-H) 

MRID: 55133 

Citation: Shell Development Company (1976) Insecticide Screening--SD 35651. (Unpublished study 

received Apr 6, 1976 under 201-EX-52; CDL: 229058-K) 

31
MRID: 56359 

Citation: Shell Development Company (1975) Determination of SD 35651 in Air: Tentative Method. 

(Unpublished study received on unknown date under 201-EX-55; CDL:226509-H) 

MRID: 56518 

Citation: Shell Chemical Company (19??) Summary: ?SD 35651|. Summary of studies 230448-H, 

230448-I and 230448-N through 230448-R. (Un- published study received Apr 6, 1976 under 201-EX-51; 

CDL: 230448-G) 

MRID: 56520 

Citation: Shell Development Company (1975) Determination of SD 35651 in Air: Tentative Method. 

(Unpublished study received Apr 6, 1976 under 201-EX-51; CDL:230448-K) 

MRID: 56521 

Citation: Shell Development Company (1973) Insecticide Screening--SD 35651. (Unpublished study 

received Apr 6, 1976 under 201-EX-51; CDL: 230448-N) 

MRID: 56522 

Citation: Shell Development Company (1974) Fly Toxicity of Dry SD 35651. (Unpublished study received 

Apr 6, 1976 under 201-EX-51; CDL: 230448-O) 

MRID: 56523 

Citation: Shell Development Company (1974) Fly Toxicity of SD 35651 in a Water Trap. (Unpublished 

study received Apr 6, 1976 under 201- EX-51; CDL:230448-P) 

MRID: 56524 

Citation: Shell Development Company (1974) Room Studies with an SD 35651/ Water Fly Trap. 

(Unpublished study received Apr 6, 1976 under 201-EX-51; CDL:230448-Q) 

MRID: 56525 

Citation: Shell Development Company (1976) ?Efficacy of SD 35651|. (Compi- lation; unpublished study 

received Apr 6, 1976 under 201-EX-51; CDL:230448-R) 

MRID: 65947 

Citation: Shell Development Company (1975) Determination of SD 35651 in Air: Tentative Method. 

(Unpublished study received Apr 6, 1976 under 201-EX-51; CDL:229057-H) 

MRID: 73595 

Citation: Shell Development Company (19??) Potential Hazard of the SD 35651/ Muscalure Fly Trap. 

(Unpublished study received Apr 6, 1976 un- der 201-EX-51; CDL:230448-F) 

MRID: 73701 

Citation: Shell Development Company (19??) Potential Hazard of the SD 35651/ Muscalure Fly Trap. 

(Unpublished study received Apr 6, 1976 un- der 201-EX-52; CDL:229058-E) 

MRID: 79559 

Citation: Shell Development Company (19??) Potential Hazard of the SD 35651/ Muscalure Fly Trap. 

(Unpublished study received Apr 6, 1976 under 201-EX-51; CDL:229057-E) 

MRID: 119123 

Citation: Shell Chemical Co. (1976) Efficacy Data Demonstrating the Usefull- ness ?sic| of the Product for 

the Purpose Proposed. (Compila- tion; unpublished study received Jan 22, 1976 under unknown ad- min. 

no.; CDL:225926-D) 

32
MRID: 40661300 

Citation: E. I. du Pont de Nemours and Co., Inc. (1988?) Submission of Chem- istry Data in Support of Du 

Pont Fly Trap--SD 35651(AO159). Transmittal of 2 studies. 

MRID: 41127500 

Citation: E.I. du Pont de Nemours & Co., Inc. (1989) Submission of Toxicology Data to Dupport the 

Application for Du Pont Fly Trap - SD35651 for an Experimental Use Permit. Transmittal of 4 studies. 

MRID: 41397700 

Citation: E. I. du Pont de Nemours and Co. (1990) Submission of Environmental Fate Data in Support of 

A0159 Experimental Use Permit and Regis- tration. Transmittal of 1 study. 

MRID: 41397701 

Citation: Foster, J. (1975) Transport Potential of A0159: Lab Project Number: 1588-90. Unpublished 

study prepared by Shell Development Co. 45 p. 

MRID: 41650000 

Citation: E. I. du Pont de Nemours and Co., Inc. (1990) Submission of Chemistry and Toxicity Data in 

support of an application for registration for Du Pont Technical A0159 Insecticide. Transmittal of 13 

studies. 

MRID: 42379800 

Citation: E.I. du Pont de Nemours & Co., Inc. (1992) Submission of Data in Fulfillment of the 

Requirement for Analysis and Certification of Product Ingredients for Du Pont Technical A0159: Product 

Chemistry Study. Transmittal of 1 study. 

MRID: 42654400 

Citation: Du Pont (1993) Submission of toxicity data in support of the FIFRA 6(a)2 requirement for Du 

Pont Technical AO159 Insecticide. Transmittal of 1 study. 

MRID: 42654401 

Citation: Lin, W. (1993) Letter Sent to U.S. EPA Office of Pesticide Programs dated Feb. 1, 1993: 

Regarding preliminary toxicology information of Du Pont Technical AO159 Insecticide on rats. Prepared 

by Du Pont. 3 p. 

MRID: 42672100 

Citation: DuPont (1993) Submission of toxicity data in support of FIFRA 6(a)(2) requirements for DuPont 

Technical A0159 Insecticide. Transmittal of 1 study. 

MRID: 42730300 

Citation: Zoecon Corp. (1993) Submission of product chemistry data in support of the Zoecon 9023 

Flybait Station registration. Transmittal of 1 study. 

MRID: 42978900 

Citation: Zoecon Corporation (1993) Submission of Efficacy Data, Product Chemistry and Toxicology 

Data for Zoecon 9023 Flybait Station in Support of Registration. Transmittal of 4 Studies. 

MRID: 42978904 

Citation: Cocke, J.; Nolan, M.; Hogsette, J. (1993) ZOECON 9023 Flybait Station Housefly Efficacy Field 

Trials: Interim Report: Lab Project Number: 1484: 9023ZOE005I5RB. Unpublished study prepared by Ag 

Ventures, Inc.; Tarleton State University and Local Producers in Stephenville, TX Area. 111 p. 

MRID: 43003800 

Citation: Zoecon Corp. (1993) Submission of Acute Toxicology Data in Support of Registration of Zoecon 

9023 Flybait Station. Transmittal of 2 Studies. 

33
34

MRID: 43856800 

Citation: Sandoz Agro, Inc. (1995) Submission of Efficacy Data in Support of the Amended Registration 

of Sandoz 9023 Fly Bait Station. Transmittal of 1 Study. 

MRID: 43856801 

Citation: Barton, W. (1995) Paper vs. Plastic Nithiazine Fly Bait Station Efficacy: Interim Report: Lab 

Project Number: 2265: 311-95-51: N650. Unpublished study prepared by CAVL, Inc. 11 p. 

MRID: 44011700 

Citation: Sandoz Agro, Inc. (1996) Submission of Pesticide Use Data in Support of the Registration of 

Sandoz 9023 Fly Bait Station. Transmittal of 2 Studies. 

MRID: 44011701 

Citation: Barton, W. (1995) Paper vs. Plastic Nithiazine Fly Bait Station Efficacy: Final Report: Lab 

Project Number: 2265: 311-95-51: N650. Unpublished study prepared by CAVL, Inc. and Barry Miller 

Poultry Farm. 17 p. 

MRID: 44011702 

Citation: Ahrens, E. (1995) Paper vs. Plastic Nithiazine Fly Bait Station Efficacy: Final Report: Lab 

Project Number: 2264: N650. Unpublished study prepared by Randy Miller Dairy. 14 p. 

MRID: 44456800 

Citation: Wellmark International (1997) Submission of Product Chemistry Data in Support of the 

Registration for Sandoz 9023 Fly Bait Station. Transmittal of 3 Studies. 

MRID: 47040600 

Citation: Wellmark International (2007) Submission of Toxicity Data in Support of the FIFRA 6(a)(2) 

Data Requirements for Technical AO159 Insecticide. Transmittal of 1 Study. 

MRID: 47040601 

Citation: Beck, M. (2006) A 28-Day Oral (Gavage) Toxicity Study of RF2043 in Rats: Final Report. 

Project Number: 3101, WIL/551005, RF2043. Unpublished study prepared by WIL Research Laboratories, 

Inc. 358 p.