### UNITED STATES ENVIRONMENTAL PROTE C TION AGENC Y WASH IN GTO N

. D

. C

. 20 4 60

March 9

. 2016 OFF I CE OF CHEM I CAL SAFETY AND POLLUTION PREVE N T I ON

PC Code 112701 ; DP Barcode 429375 

### MEMORAN D UM

SUBJECT: 

### Problem Formulation for Registration Review of Brodifacoum

FROM: 

### Jose Melendez, Chemist 

# K**~ ~**  1 r-Brian Montague
, Fishery Biologist 

# (j}.W tv

. V

## ~,)_....__ . 

# 2f /f E n viro nm e nt a l Risk Branch V

REVIEWED BY: 

### Environmenta l Fat e and E ffects Division (7507P )

Justin Housenger
, B i ologist Gabriel Rothman

, Env ir onmenta l Sc i entist Env i ronmental Risk Branch V Environmental Fat e and Effects Division (7507P )

THROUGH: 

### Mah T. Shamim

, Ph

. D

. , Branch Chief

# '~ Env ironm ental Risk Branch V 

# fl 1


### Env ironm ental Fate and Effects Division (7507P )

TO: 

### Ricardo Jones, Chem ic a l Reviev. 1 

### Manager Melissa Grable

, Team Leader Neil Anderson

, Branch Ch i ef Risk Management and Implementation Branch I Pesticide Re-Evaluation Division (7508P)

Please

, find attached the Preliminary Problem Formulation for the Ecological Risk Assessment and Drinking Water Exposure Assessment for Registration Review to be conducted for Brodifacoum.

### 2 

# Problem Formulation for the Environmental Fate, Ecological Risk , Endangered Species, and Dr inking Water Exposure Assessment s in Suppor t of the Registration Review for Brodifacoum

Brodifacoum CAS No. 56073

- 10

- 0 PC Code 112701

Prepared by: Brian Montague

, Fishery Biologist José Meléndez , Chemist U. S. Environmental Protection Agency Office of Pesticide Programs Environmental Fate and Effects Division Environmental Risk Branch V 1200 Pennsylvania Ave., NW Mail Code 7507P Washington, DC 20460 Reviewed by: Justin Housenger, Biologist Gabriel Rothman, Environmental Scientist Mah Shamim, Ph.D. , Chief ERB5

### 3 

# Contents 1. Executive Summary

................................ ................................ ................................ .................... 4 2. Introduction

................................ ................................ ................................ ................................ . 5 3. Use Characterization

................................ ................................ ................................ ................... 6 4. Conclusions from Previous Risk Assessments

................................ ................................ ........... 8 4.1 Ecological Risk Assessments

................................ ................................ ........................... 8 4.2 Drinking Water Exposure Assessments

................................ ................................ ........... 9 4.3 Clean Water Act Programs

................................ ................................ ............................... 9 5. Environmental Fate and Transport

................................ ................................ ............................ 10 5.1 Transformation Products

................................ ................................ ................................ 12 6. Receptors

................................ ................................ ................................ ................................ ... 13 6.1 Toxicity Sum mary

................................ ................................ ................................ .......... 13 6.1.2 Effects to Terrestrial Organisms

................................ ................................ ................. 14 6.2 Secondary Poisoning Potential

................................ ................................ ....................... 15 6.3 Ecological Incidents

................................ ................................ ................................ ....... 16 7. E xposure Pathways of Concern

................................ ................................ ................................ 17 7.1 Aquatic Exposure

................................ ................................ ................................ ........... 17 7.2 Terrestrial Exposure

................................ ................................ ................................ ....... 18 8. Analysis Plan

................................ ................................ ................................ ............................ 18 8.1 Stressor s of Concern

................................ ................................ ................................ ....... 18 8.1.1 Ecological Risk Assessment

................................ ................................ ................... 18 8.1.2 Drinking Water

................................ ................................ ................................ ....... 19 8.2 Meas ures of Exposure

................................ ................................ ................................ .... 19 8.2.1 Estimating Primary Exposure for Terrestrial Organisms

................................ ........ 19 8.2.2 Accumulation through Multiple Feedings on Bait

................................ .................. 20 8.2.3 Estimating Secondary Terrestrial Exposure

................................ ............................ 21 8.2.4 Estimating Aquatic Exposure

................................ ................................ ................. 22 8.2.5 Available Water Monitoring Data

................................ ................................ .......... 22 8.3 Measures of Effect

................................ ................................ ................................ ......... 23 9. Endangered Species Assessments

................................ ................................ ............................. 23 10. Endocrine Disruptor Screening Program

................................ ................................ ................ 24 11. Preliminary Identification of Data Gaps

................................ ................................ ................. 24 11.1 Environmental Fate

................................ ................................ ................................ ..... 24 11.2 Effects

................................ ................................ ................................ ......................... 25 12. References

................................ ................................ ................................ ............................... 30 Appendix A. Brodifacoum Bibliography

................................ ................................ ...................... 32 Appendix B. EPI Suite v.4.1 Output File for Brodifacoum

................................ .......................... 45 Appendix C. SIPS Model Input/Output

................................ ................................ ........................ 57 Appendix D. Pending and Active Registrations For 112701 / 56073

- 10

- 0 / Brodifacoum

.......... 59

### 4 

# 1. Executive Summary

The Environmental Fate and Effects Division (EFED) has completed the preliminary problem formulation for the ecological risk, environmental fate, endangered species, and drinking water assessments to be conducted as part of the registration review of brodi facoum. Brodifacoum is a coumarin rodenticide for control of Norway rats, roof rats and house mice. T he primary route of transport for brodifacoum is through consumption of bait product within the bait box, accumulation of the ingested chemical within th e bodies of those organisms, followed by their subsequent movement to offsite locations. Brodifacoum may require a period of days before it kills birds, mammals, or other organisms which feed on the bait. These poisoned animals may in turn become sources of exposure to brodifacoum if consumed by predators, scavengers, or insectivores or if poisoned animals are fed by predators to their own young. These exposure pathways will be the primary focus of the Brodifacoum Preliminary Risk Assessment (PRA).

Th e problem formulation describes the methods planned to be used during the completion of drinking water and ecological risk assessments in support of registration review and provides an overview of the environmental fate, ecological effects, and potential r isks associated with the use of brodifacoum as well as uncertainties unique to risk assessment of brodifacoum. This document also identifies additional studies that would be beneficial to the conduct of an ecological risk assessment. Key uncertainties an d related data requirements for brodifacoum are listed below:

Environ mental Fate Uncertainties and Data Requirements Certain environmental fate studies were submitted and considered suitable for a deterministic risk assessment. Quantitative structure act ivity relationships (QSARs) ( e.g. , EPI Suite v.4.1) were used to determine the K OC 

### and BCF for this chemical. The K OW 

### reported by the registrant was also based on QSAR because it was too high to be measured experimentally. Data have not been submitted to fulfill some guidelines ; however, these data are not necessary for risk assessment at this time

. It appears that there is a low potential for residues of brodifacoum to leach (or be extracted) from the bait stations , if exposed to normal rainwater or runoff , and to reach surface water

. There is o ne possible exception : the use of the chemical in sewers systems. The concern s for sewer use are that

non

- target organisms may visit sewers and /or chunks of bait blocks could be knocked or broken off as bait is eaten, discharged with stormwater or sewage overflow, and then c onsumed by non

target organisms

. F or the uses on sewer systems, instructions indicate to thread wire through blocks and securely attach to a stationary structure such as the bottom step of a manhole ladder or a sewer grate, allowing just enough wire for the block to rest on manhole benching. If benching is not present, blocks should be suspended a few inches above the high water mark, thus preventing removal by rats or water. EFED recomme nds confirmation that suitable instructions are included in the labels, to limit exposure of brodifacoum to sewer water, or to non

- target organisms in sewer systems.

### 5 Ecological Effects Uncertainties and Data Requirements F or the ecological effects, no studies have been submitted to characterize chronic toxicity to avian species ( i.e. , avian reproduction studies) or oral toxicity to a passerine species. An acute contact toxicity study with the honey bee is not available for t his assessment. There are no studies to characterize chronic effects to aquatic organisms or acute effects to aquatic plants. The following guideline studies would clarify uncertainties, but only avian studies are requested at this time.

850.2100 Acute Oral Toxicity

– Passerine Species Smaller p asserine species may be more sensitive than species previously tested with brodifacoum. Currently no data is available to clarify this uncertainty. This study is requested.

850.2300 : Avian Reproduction Study : Little is known about the effects of low level sub

lethal dietary levels on reproductive success for non

- target avian species. Brodifacoum is shown to accumulate in adult tissues and blood of birds who have presumably ingested contaminated prey, but no t succumbed to these exposure levels. Due to the extreme acute toxicity of this chemical to birds a design protocol should be submitted before conduct of the studies for determination of test concentrations and methods. This guideline testing is requested for one upland game species and one waterfowl species.



# 2. Introduction

Brodifacoum is a coumarin second generation anticoagulant rodenticide (SGAR), for control of Norway rats ( Rattus norvegicus) , roof rats ( Rattus rattus ) and house mice ( Mus musculus )

. According to the 2004 Comparative Assessment ( USEPA 2004b ), the anticoagulant rodenticides’ mode of action is as follows: “The anticoagulant rodenticides are vitamin

- K antagonists that disrupt normal blood

- clotting mechanisms and induce capillary damag e ( Pelfrene 1991 ). Death results from hemorrhage, and exposed animals may exhibit increasing weakness prior to death. Behavior also may be affected ( Cox and Smith

, 1992 ).

S 

### econd

- generation anticoagulants tend to be more acutely toxic than are the first

generation anticoagulants, and they are retained longer in body tissues of primary consumers. The greater potency and duration of action of long

- acting anticoagulant rodenticides is attributed to their: (i) greater affinity for vitamin K(1)

- 2,3

- epoxi de reductase; (ii) ability to disrupt the vitamin K(1)

- epoxide cycle at more than one point; (iii) hepatic accumulation; and (iv) unusually long biological half

- lives due to high lipid solubility and enterohepatic circulation (Watt et al. 2005).

In general, rodents require only one feeding of bait to receive a lethal dose. Because it takes several days for the rodent to die, animals may return to feed on the bait, thus acquiring multiple doses and allowing for higher, more lethal concentrations of the rodenticide to accumulate. Second generation anticoagulant rodenticides become concentrated in the animal’s liver, with liver half

- lives of up to a year. If an animal that consumes a second generation anticoagulant rodenticide is eaten by a predato r or scavenger, then that animal can become secondarily exposed and affected by the

### 6 rodenticide. Because of their long half

- lives, these rodenticides have been shown to bioaccumulate in

non

- target wildlife

. 

### EFED evaluated the most recent ecological risk a ssessments for brodifacoum to update the toxicity, exposure, and usage information and determine if sufficient data are available or if further updates are needed to support registration review. Previous risk assessments are covered in detail under Secti on 4 and include assessments of the risk of brodifacoum use on endangered species, Reregistration Eligibility Decision (RED)

- Rodenticide Cluster in July 1998 ( USEPA, 1998b )

, Special assessment paper Potential Risks of Nine Rodenticides to Birds and Nonta rget Mammals: a Comparative Approach ( USEPA 2004b )

, a nd a 2012 endangered species assessment for the Alameda whipsnake, salt marsh harvest mouse, and San Joaquin kit fox ( USEPA 2012 ). In 2011 there was a Scientific Advisory Panel (SAP) and an Agency Notice of Intent to Cancel (NOIC) Non

- Compliant Rodenticides , including brodifacoum

. In addition, EFED considered the latest Agency science policies and risk assessment methodologies. The structure of brodifacoum, as well as the chemical names and othe r identifiers can be found in the Figure 1 and the chemical identity table ( Table 2 ).



# 3. Use Characterization

Current uses of brodifacoum have been established consistent with a Risk Mitigation Decision (RMD) in 2008 encompassing ten Rodenticides. The R MD primarily includes two important provisions that relate to brodifacoum. First, for all second generation anticoagulants (the subclass of rodenticides to which brodifacoum belongs), application is restricted to tamper resistant bait boxes for all above ground uses. These tamper

- resistant bait stations are required if the bait placement are within reach of pets, domestic animals, non

- target wildlife, or children under six years

- of

- age. Other types of bait stations may be constructed and used in settings , such as around livestock production buildings, where exposure to children and non

- target wildlife is less likely

. The second provision, regarding package size restrictions on these second generation anticoagulants, prevents the average consumer from pur chasing any package size less than 16 lbs . Prior to the RMD, consumers (particularly homeowners looking for readily accessible rodent control options) were able to purchase products containing brodifacoum in small packaging in grocery stores, warehouses a nd many other commercial establishments. It was expected that the movement of second generation rodenticides to tamper resistant bait boxes would reduce primary exposure of brodifacoum to non

- target organisms, but the potential for secondary exposure woul d still exist since brodifacoum is very acutely toxic to birds and mammals and has a long persistence in body tissues, making it available to secondary consumers such as predatory mammals and birds.

In agricultural settings, applications should occur in a nd within 100 feet of agricultural buildings and man

- made agricultural structures. The applications of brodifacoum are restricted to pest control operators (PCOs), except for applications in agricultural sites.

Current O ffice of Pesticide Programs (O PP ) use information lists 22 active end

- use products a s well as 3 products that are pending, and two of which are registered to the U.S. Department of Agriculture for Conservation use in eradication of invasive rodent species in sensitive habitats . Two regist rants produce the technical grade actives, Bell Laboratories (98% ai)

### 7 and Syngenta Crop Protection Products (90% ai). See Appendix D for a complete listing of registered products and their associated registrants. The products are f ormulat ed as solid/bait

, includ ing pellets /tablets , blocks , granules and solid concentrate . Currently, labeled uses of brodifacoum include sites in and around homes, agricultural, industrial and commercial buildings, food processing plant premises (nonfood contact), transport f acilities, vehicles , ships and boats, nonagricultural uncultivated areas, ornamental and/or shade trees and woody shrubs and vines, refuse/solid waste containers (garbage cans), and sewers. Application methods include bait treatment, sewer treatment, and animal burrow treatment. Product l abels for brodifacoum generally do not limit the amount of product or active ingredient that may be applied per unit area, the number of applications that can be made per unit time, or the minimum interval between applica tions . Labels state the amount of bait ( e.g. , number of blocks or mass of bait per placement) that may be placed in one location, and the linear distance between placements. The linear distance is 15 to 30 feet

. The concentration of brodifacoum in the b ait is 0.0025% or 0.005% for its products ( i.e. 25 or 50 mg a.i./kg bait). The maximum amount of active ingredient per placement, or the amount of active ingredient per linear f ee t, can be calculated for the products. This maximum amount allowed is 0.00005 lb a.i./placement. 1 

### Applications are allowed as needed.

The chemical profile produced by BEAD, located in the docket, lists the use patterns of maximum exposures for the current uses of brodifacoum. Since labels a re not explicit on the application interval, the annual maximum number of applications allowed, or application method, EFED will use application scenarios that result in maximum exposure for a given use for the risk
assessment.

1 For animal burrow treatment the maximum allowed is 0.00000625 lb a.i./burrow. For burrows, 3

- 4 oz product are

placed in each burrow entrance in piles or in cloth or re

- sealable plastic bags. An uninterrupted bait supply should be kept for at least 15 da ys or until rodent activity ceases. The maximum rate for broadcast applications is 0.0004 lb a.i./A.

### 8 

# 4. Conclusions from Previ ous Risk Assessments

**4.1 Ecological Risk Assessments** 

The Agency has conducted multiple ecological risk assessments that serve as a basis for this problem formulation , including an assess ment of the risks of several rodenticides , which included brodifaco um , in the Reregistration Eligibility Decision (RED): Rodenticide Cluster that was published in July 1998 ( USEPA, 1998b ) . An assessment of the risks of brodifacoum to terrestrial wildlife was also included in the 2004 document Potential Risks of Nine Rodenticides to Birds and Nontarget Mammals: a Comparative Approach ( USEPA 2004b , MRID 47114602). In 2012 an endangered species assessment was conducted for the use of brodifacoum and the federally threatened Alameda whipsnake (AW, Masticophis lateralis e uryxanthus ), the federally endangered salt marsh harvest mouse (SMHM, Reithrodontomys raviventris ), and the federally endangered San Joaquin kit fox (SJKF, Vulpes macrotis mutica ) USEPA 2012) and examined in depth the potential for exposure of these specie s and taxa to b rodifacoum use in California. In June of 2013 the California Department of Pesticide Regulation issued an extensive analysis of second generation rodenticide use in California entitled Second Generation Anticoagulant Rodenticide Assessment which also provides valuable information on effects of actual use of broadifacoum and other similar rodenticide products in that State.

In 2008, EPA released the Risk Mitigation Decision for Ten Rodenticides (RMD) (EPA 2008, Docket ID EPA

- HQ

- OPP

- 2006

- 0955 ). Brodifacoum products were included in the list of ten rodenticides addressed in th e document. The focus of this decision was:

1) T o minimize children’s exposure to rodenticide products used in homes by requiring that all rodenticide bait products marketed to general and residential consumers be sold only with bait stations, with loose bait ( e.g. , pellets and meal) as a prohibited bait form. 2) To reduce wildlife exposures and ecological risks, by requiring sale and distribution limits intended to prevent gen eral consumers from purchasing residential use bait products containing four of the ten rodenticides that pose the greatest risk to wildlife (the second generation anticoagulants

– brodifacoum, bromadiolone, difenacoum, and difethialone). Moreover, bait st ations will be required for all outdoor, above

- ground uses of these second generation anticoagulants.

For brodifacoum and difethialone, certain labels were not brought into compliance with these provisions of the RMD. Consequently, these second generation anticoagulant rodenticides, along with warfarin and bromethalin, were the subject of a Notice of Inte nt to Cancel (NOIC) hearing. In the case of bromethalin, there were both RMD

- compliant and non

- compliant labels. Additionally, two first generation anticoagulant rodenticides that would serve as the likely alternatives with the removal of the chemicals c oncerned in the NOIC (chlorophacinone and diphacinone) were assessed. To support the NOIC, EPA conducted an extensive assessment of the potential for primary and secondary effects of the rodenticides under evaluation which updated previous risk assessmen t findings conducted in support of the May 2008 RMD through the application of additional effects and exposure data, use of additional exposure modeling, and

### 9 quantitative risk assessment techniques. This work was brought before the Science Advisory Panel ( SAP) in 2011 for review. Meeting materials from the SAP are available under docket number EPA

- HQ

- OPP

- 2011

- 0718.

The primary risk issues have been identified for c ertain terrestrial non

- target animals, consiste nt with a rodenticide use . In the 2004 EPA p aper by Urban and Erickson the comparative assessment stated: “ Brodifacoum and difethialone stand out as the two rodenticides posing the greatest potential overall risk to birds and non

- target mammals, followed by bromadiolone and diphacinone.” Also the p aper states “Brodifacoum and difethialone pose the greatest potential risks to avian predators and scavengers that feed on target or non

- target animals poisoned with bait.”

The most recent, comprehensive assessment conducted for brodifacoum is the enda ngered species assessment (ESA) , which was issued in March 2012 ( USEPA 2012 ) . The major ecological conclusions presented in the ESA were as follows:

Table 1 . Summary of Risk Concerns Identified for Brodifacoum in Previous ESA

Birds Mammals Terr. Plants Terr. Inverts Fish BCF Aquatic Inverts Aquatic Plants Groundwater Contamination Persistence Degradates of Concern Yes Yes No 1 NA NA Yes 2 NA No 1 No Yes 2 None Yes = at least one LOC has been exceeded in previous assessments; “No ” = LOCs have not been exceeded in previous assessments; NA = RQs have not been calculated previously.

1 E ffects on terrestrial and aquatic plant communities were judged to be discountable.

2 Although there is no Fish BCF study for brodifacoum, open literatur e studies suggest that brodifacoum persists in liver tissue of terrestrial animals

– see Table 9 for references.



## 4.2 **Drinking Water Exposure Assessments**

A drinking water assessment has not been previ ously conducted on brodifacoum. The exclusive use of brodifacoum bait outdoors in bait stations, the extremely low concentrations in bait, and the hydrophobicity of the compound

, reduces potential for extraction (leaching) of brodifacoum residues from the bait station, or leaching to s ubsurfaces or runoff , if exposed to rainwater or surface runoff. Surface or groundwater exposure is expected to be negligible. Refer
to Section 8. 1.2 for further details.



## 4.3 **Clean Water Act Programs**

Brodifacoum is not identified as a cause of impairm ent for any water bodies listed as impaired under section 303(d) of the Clean Water Act , based on information provided at http://iaspub.epa.gov/tmd l_waters10/attains_nation_cy.cause_detail_303d?p_cause_group_id=885



### . No Total Maximum Daily Load (TMDL) criteria have been developed for brodifacoum , based on information provided at: http://iaspub.epa.gov/tmdl_waters10/attains_nation.tmdl_pollutant_detail?p_pollutant_group_id =885&p_pollutant_group_name=PESTICIDES . Aquatic benchmarks have not been established for brodifacoum (at http://www.epa.gov/pesticide

- science

- and

- assessing

- pesticide

- risks/aquatic

life

- benchmarks

- pesticide

- regi stration ) . Any data submitted or otherwise located as part of the registration review process may be used to update aquatic life benchmarks if applicable.

### 10 

# 5. Environmental Fate and Transport

Table 2 lists various important physic o chemical properties of brodifacoum

. Table 3 lists available environmental fate properties of brodifacoum

, from the submitted environmental fate and transport studies

. The structure of brodifacoum is provided in Figure 1

. In this problem formulation many of the physical/chemi cal properties of brodifacoum were obtained using the quantitative structure

- activity relationship (QSAR) estimation software EPI Suite ( USEPA 2011 ). For complete EPI Suite v.4.1 output file see the Appendix B

.

Figure 1 . Structure of Brodifacoum 2



### Table 2. Physicochemical Properties of Brodifacoum Property Value and units MRID or Source Molecular Weight 523.43 g/mole EPI Suite v.4.1 ( USEPA 2011 ) Chemical Formula C 31 H 23 BrO 3 EPI Suite v.4.1 ( USEPA 2011 )

CAS Name 3

- [3

- (4′

- bromo[1,1′

- biphenyl]

- 4

- yl)

- 1,2,3,4

- tetrahydro

- 1

- naphthalenyl]

- 4

- hydroxy

- 2 H

- 1

- benzopyran

- 2

- one Brodifacoum’s data sheet 1

IUPAC Name 3

- [(1 RS ,3 RS ;1 RS ,3 SR )

- 3

- (4′

- bromobiphenyl

- 4

- yl)

- 1,2,3,4

- tetrahydro

- 1

- naphthyl]

- 4

- hydroxycoumarin Brodifacoum’s data sheet 1

CAS No. 56073

- 10

- 0 41892202 Color/Physical State Cream colored, fine, powdery solid 41892201 Density 1.42 g/cm 3 at 25 0 C 41892201

pH 3.8 in a 1% v/v dispersion in water at approx. 20 0 C 41892201 Melting Point 232 0 C 41892202

Water Solubility 0.0038 mg/L at 20 0 C and pH 5.2 ; 0.240 mg/L at pH 7.4; 10.0 mg/L at pH 9.3 buffered water and 20 0 C 41892202; only the pH 5.2 solubility appears in EPI Suite 4.1’s database ( USEPA 2011 )

Vapor Pressure 1.11x10

- 18 mmHg (torr) at 25 0 C <<10

- 8 torr at 20 0 C ‘Non

- volatile from a field condition’ EPI Suite v.4. 1 Estimate ( USEPA 2011 ) 41892202 USEPA, 2008a

2 The structure of the chemical was obtained from the brodifacoum data sheet available a t http://www.alanwood.net/pesticides/brodifacoum.html (accessed 0 8/21/2015 ).

### 11 Property Value and units MRID or Source

Henry’s Law Constant 2.012 x 10

- 1 6 atm

- m 3 /mole at 25 0 C

<<10

- 8 atm

- m 3 /mole at pH 7.4 and 2 0 0 C EPI Suite v.4.1 calculated from WS and VP estimate ( USEPA 2011 ) 41892202

n

- Octanol

- water partition coefficient ( log K OW ) 3.16 x 10 8 (log K OW = 8.5) (Estimated based on SARs) MRID 41892202 ; solubility too low to obtain experimental value

Dissociation Constant (pK a ) 4.44 (Temperature not specified) EPI Suite 4.1 database ( USEPA 2011) (Tomlin, C. 1997 , cited by EPI Suite)

Air

- water partition coefficient (K AW ) K AW = C air /C water = HLC/RT K AW = 8.23 x 10

- 15 ‘Non

- volatile’ (from a water surface) Calculated Value, USEPA, 2008a

C water+soil /C air C water+soil /C air = (1/K AW ) (1/r + K d ) = 9.58 x 10 18 ‘Non

- volatile from moist soil’ Assuming K d ≈ 0.02 x K OC Calculated value USEPA, 2008a

n

- Octanol

- air partition coefficient (K OA ) 

### Constant Law s Henry' RT K
K K K OW

AW OW OA 

### = =

K OA = 3.84 x 10 22 Calculated value, using EPI Suite v.4.1’s K OW (USEPA 2011 ) UV/visible light absorption Maxima at around 205, 265 and 310 nm

. 41892202

1 http://www.alanwood.net/pesticides/brodifacoum.html (accessed 08/21/2015).



### It appears that the primary route of dissipation/transport for brodifacoum with the pertinent exposure pathways to terrestrial organisms is consumption of bait product and movement of the intact chemical with in the bodies of the vertebrates or invertebrate s that feed on the bait and move to offsite locations. Brodifacoum may require a period of days before it kills birds, mammals, or other organisms which feed on the bait. These poisoned animals may in turn become sources of exposure to brodifacoum if con sumed by predators, scavengers, or insectivores or fed by them to their own young. Brodifacoum has a high octanol/water partition coefficient (K OW 

### = 3.16x10 8 

### ) ( Table 2 ). Based on it octanol/water partition coefficient, it appears that brodifacoum has the potential to bioaccumulate/bioconcentrate. Brodifacoum has a very low vapor pressure of 1.11 x 10

- 18 

### mmHg, and its calculated Henry’s Law Constant is low (2.012 x 10

- 16 

### atm

- m 3 

### /mol). Brodifacoum has very little potential to volatilize.

For brodifacoum, the log K OA 

### is 22.5, the log K OW 

### is 8.5, the rate of transformation is relatively slow in the environment, and the rate of transformation appears to be relatively slow in fish (with an EPIWEB v.4.1 estimated half

- life of 351 days) ( Table 3 ); based on this information, it appears that brodifacoum has a potential to biomagnify in terrestrial food chains, based on the presumption made by Gobas et al. (2003) and Armitage & Gobas (2007) . Their presumption is that i f log K OA 

### > 5, log K OW 

### > 2 and the rate of chemical transformation is low, the chemical may biomagnify in terrestrial food chains . Even though an official reference or guideline to distinguish chemicals that biomagnify has not been established, Gobas et al. and Armitage & Gobas’ presumption was utilized here as a broad reference to identify the potential for biomagnification in terrestrial food chains. Evidence of brodifacoum in the terrestrial food chains and information on its liver retention half

- lives support the above mentio ned presumption. EPI Suite v.4.1’s estimate of the fish bioconcentration factor (BCF) is 2450 L/kg wet

- wt , with a very slow biotransformation rate (t 1/2 

### = 351 days).

### 12 Brodifacoum is stable to hydrolysis at pH 5, 7, and 9, relatively persistent in soil (t 1⁄2 

### = 157 days), and immobile in soil columns. Aged column leaching studies indicated that parent brodifacoum is immobile in soil columns of UK sand, sandy clay loam, silty clay and clay. The EPI Suite v.4.1 estimated K OC 

### s are on the order of 10 5 

### to 10 6 

### L/K g OC 

### . Brodifacoum is persistent, but little, if any, contamination of surface and ground waters is expected because of its use pattern and immobility in soil. Because brodifacoum is typically applied in bait stations and/or only in and around structures, bait is only 25 or 50 ppm ( 0.0025 or 0.005%) a.i. , and because it is immobile in soil, potential contamination of surface and ground water is expected to be low. Therefore, degradate identification, accumulation and decline, unaged column leaching, field dissipation, and adsorption/desorption data were not required.

Table 3. Summary of Brodifacoum Environmental Fate Properties

Study Value and U nit Major Degradate

Minor Degradates MRID No. or Citation Study Classification /

Comments

Hydrolysis Half

- life = No evidence of degradation at pH s 5, 7 and 9 Not applicable 42237701

, 43435801, 44021706 Acceptable; considered relatively stable
Atmospheric Oxidation Half

- life = 2.2 hours, hydroxyl radical reaction 2.0 hours, for ozone reaction Not avail able EPI Suite v.4.1 Estimate Not applicable

Aerobic Soil Metabolism Half

- life = 157 days, sandy clay loam at 21 0 C; No organic volatiles, and 14 CO 2 at 36% AR. Up to 11 degradates at up to 17.34% AR; they were not

identified. 42579401 Acceptable; only one soil is available

Organic

- Carbon N ormalized D istribution C oefficient (K OC ) K OC = 7.745 x 10 6 L/kg OC (estimate from Molecular Connectivity Index) 1.411 x 10 5 L/kg OC (estimate from K OW ) Not available EPI Suite v.4.1 Estimate Not applicable; Immobile ( FAO 2000 )

Aged Soil Column Leaching Brodifacoum was aged for 30 days. Shows low mobility in sand, sandy clay loam, silty clay and clay soil columns. ≤0.32% was recovered in the leachates. N o major degradates were observed in soil

or leachate. 42568301 Acceptable

Bioconcentration Factor (BCF) Regression based BCF= 2450 L/kg wet

- wt Biotransformation t 1/2 = 351 days (normalized to 10 g fish at 15 0 C) Not available EPI Suite v.4.1 Estimate Not applicable

Abbreviations: wt=weight, NA=Not Available, N/A=No t Applicable, AR = Applied Radioactivity



## 5.1 **Transformation Products**

Up to eleven [ 14 

### C] compounds other than [ 14 

### C]brodifacoum were isolated from the soil extracts at 2.07 to 17.34% of the applied (0.008 to 0.067 ppm) in the aerobic soil metabolism study, but none were identified. The identification, accumulation and decline of major metabolites (17.34% of applied) were not required at the time of the review.

### 13 

# 6. Receptors

**6.1 Toxicity Summary** 

Brodifacoum has a relatively small dataset for aquatic organism toxicity. Freshwater fish and invertebrates exposed to dissolved chemical have demonstrated very high acute toxicity. No chronic effect data has been submitted for freshwater or marine/estua rine invertebrates or fish. There are no submitted acute data available for assessment of toxicity to aquatic plant species. See Table 4 for listing of most sensitive aquatic study endpoints reviewed by the Agency.

Brodifacoum is very highly toxic to birds and mammals on an acute oral and subacute dietary exposure basis. In addition to lethal effects observed in toxicity studies, birds and mammals were observed to have sublethal effects including hemorrhaging, weight loss, decreased activity levels, wi ng droop, loss of equilibrium, and lethargy and other sublethal effects. No chronic data has been submitted for the evaluation of chronic toxicity levels to birds or mammals who might not initially ingest a lethal dose. N o data for evaluation of acute or chronic toxicity of brodifacoum to adult honey bees or their larvae is available. Finally, no data are available to characterize the toxicity to terrestrial plants. In the case of honey bee and terrestrial plants, the use of brodifacoum in tamper resista nt bait boxes is expected to limit their potential exposure to these taxa. Table 5 below summarizes the most sensitive terrestrial organism toxicity endpoints for studies reviewed by the Agency to date.

6.1.1 Effects to Aquatic Organisms

Table 4. Summary of the Most Sensitive Endpoints from Aquatic Toxicity Studies for Brodifacoum

Taxonomic

Group Study Type / % active (ai) Test Species Toxicity Value Acute Toxicity Classification Source/ Study Classification

Freshwater fish 1 Acute with 92.5% ai Rainbow Trout

, Oncorhynchus mykiss 96 hr LC 50 = 25 ug ai/L Very Highly toxic 00066943 acceptable

Chronic Early Life

- Stage -- No data available

Freshwater invertebrates Acute with 93.3% ai Water Flea

, Daphnia magna 48 hr EC 50 = 980 (900

- 1800)ug ai/L Highly toxic 00128442 acceptable

Chronic Water Flea

, Daphnia magna -- No data available

Estuarine/marine fish Acute or Chronic Sheepshead Minnow

, C yprinodon variegatus No data available

Estuarine/marine
crustacean Acute or Chronic Mysid, Americamysis bahia No data available

### 14 Taxonomic

Group Study Type / % active (ai) Test Species Toxicity Value Acute Toxicity Classification Source/ Study Classification

Estuarine/marine mollusc Acute Eastern Oyster

, Crassostrea virginica No data available

Aquatic plants and algae Vascular Duckweed

, Lemna sp.

-- No data available

Non

- vascular Algae

- multiple species -- No data available

1 Freshwater fish may be surrogates for aquatic

- phase amphibians.



### 6.1.2 Effects to Terrestrial Organisms

Table 5. Summary of Most Sensitive Endpoints from Terrestrial Toxicity Studies for B rodifacoum

Taxonomic

Group Study Type Test Species Toxicity Value ( level of active

ingredient) Acute Toxicity Classification Source/ Study Classification

Birds 1 Acute oral Mallard duck Anas platyrhynchos LD 50 = 0.26 (0

- 0.8)
mg ai /kg bodyweight Very highly toxic 41563303 acceptable

Sub

- acute dietary Bobwhite quail

, Colinus virginianus 40 Day LC 50 = 0.8 (0.1

- 4.7) mg ai/kg diet Very highly toxic 00124477 acceptable

Chronic No data available

Mammals Acute Oral Laboratory rat Rattus norvegicus LD 50 = 0.42 mg ai /kg

- bodyweight (females) Highly toxic 42687501 acceptable

Acute Dietary Laboratory rat LC 50 = 0.55 ( 0.45

- 0.68 ) mg ai/Kg diet Very Highly toxic Test Number 110 USEPA Beltsville, Md

Acute dietary Wild mammal Vole Microtus sp. LC50 = 1.4 ( 0.77

- 2.0 ) mg ai/Kg diet Very highly toxic 00080237 USFWS Denver lab

Chronic Laboratory rat Rattus norvegicus No data currently available for NO AEL or LOAEL in mg/kg/day

Insects Acute contact Honey bee Apis mellifera L. No Data available

Terrestrial plants Seedling Emergence Dicot

– No Data available

Monocot No Data available

1 Birds represent surrogates for terrestrial

- phase amphibians and reptiles.

### 15 

## 6.2 **Secondary Poisoning Potential**

Numerous laboratory and field studies regarding acute effects from secondary poisoning through ingestion of contaminated carcasses or live prey have been submitted and reviewed for wild mammals and birds. This secondary poisoning could occur to adult bird s feeding on poisoned carcasses or live animals as well as to young nesting birds when fed poisoned animal carcasses. These indirect adverse effects will be discussed in more detail in the characterization portions of the Registration Review. Citations for these studies as well as other studies related to exposure to and toxicity of Brodifacoum are included in the Ecological Effects Bibliography at the end of this document.

Table 6 Summary of Submitted and Reviewed Secondary Toxicity Studies

Taxonomic

Group Study Type Species Investigated Toxicological observations Source MRID/Author/Classification

Birds 1 Acute

- Non

guideline Barn Owl, Tyto alba In review 00080241 Morris, K.D. 1980

Owls 6 Barn owls fed rodents for 10 days

- 5 owls died 8

- 11 days after dosing

see Mendenhall, 1980 00080842

- Mendenhall 1979 00094694

- Mendenhall 1980 Supplemental 40777202

- same as 00094694 46750931

- same as 00094694 Raptors

- Golden eagle Aquila chrysaetos , Red

tailed hawk, Buteo jamaicensis Red

shouldered hawk Buteo lineatus Birds were fed treated rodents for 7

- 9 days All 4 Eagles survived All 4 RT hawks died 1 of 2 RS hawks died 00080243

- Marsh, R.E.; Howard, W.E. (1978)

Supplemental

Vole and American Kestral, Falco sparverius 3 day Vole LC50= 1.4
ppm

4 of 10 Kestrels fed treated voles for 6 days died 00080244

- Savarie, P.J 1979. Vole

- supplemental Kestrels

- invalid

38 Screech owls (other species monitored) Birds were studied in 15 different orchards

broadcasted pellets

– 20 owls died

- 9 had brodifacoum residues detected in liver 00128240

- Hegdal, P. 1980 Supplemental 00161158

American Kestr e l, Falco sparverius To be reviewed 00080199 Denver WRC

– USFWS, 1981

Meadow Voles and other Wildlife To be reviewed

- residue levels from 10 ppm treated orchard 00085726

Gray and Red foxes 4 Red foxes and 1 gray fox fed poisoned rat meat 1

- 4 days. 1 red and 1gray fox died after 9 days

- others survived. 00128422, Morris, K.D. Supplemental

### 16 Taxonomic

Group Study Type Species Investigated Toxicological observations Source MRID/Author/Classification

Field Incident Analysis

Red tailed hawk, Barred owl, Great horned owl, and Eastern screech owl Post mortem analysis 12 to 292 ppb

– residue levels in liver of dead birds I022978 Murray, M. 2011

- published open literature



### W ildlife Clinic of Tufts Cummings School of Veterinary Medicine , MA

Field Incident analysis San Joaquin Kit fox Post mortem analysis

Brodifacoum detection (26 out of 30 or 87%) dead foxes McMillen et al 2008. Published open literature I01600

- 001

Field Incident analysis Post mortem Raptor analysis (96 birds) in California brodifacoum residues detected in 83% of the birds while this number was 12% in the Central Valley birds Lima and Salmon (2010)

– published open literature



## 6.3 **Ecological Incidents**

T he Ecological Incident Information Sy stem (EIIS) is an OPP database that houses ecological incidents that have been reported to the Agency. When available, EIIS includes date and location of an incident, type and magnitude of effects observed in various s pecies, use(s) of pesticides known or suspected of contributing to the incident, and results of any chemical residue analysis or other analyses conducted during incident investigation. EIIS incidents are categorized according to the certainty that the inc ident resulted from pesticide exposure. The Avian Information Monitoring System (AIMS) is a database administered by the American Bird Conservancy that contains publicly available data on reported avian incidents involving pesticides. Many of the inciden ts listed in this database are also in the EIIS.

In a recent 2015 query of the EIIS system over 700 wildlife incident reports were obtained for brodifacoum use which far outnumbers incidents reported for any other currently registered rodenticide. The likelihood that an incident is caused by brodifacoum are classified with various certainty criteria based on the availability of a residue analysis of carcasses, visual verification of gross pathological observations such as hemorrhaging, or other evidence . For brodifacoum exposure certainty 296 were considered highly probable, 111 were considered probable and 108 were considered possibly attributable to brodifacoum uses. 122 incidents were classified as either unlikely or unrelated to brodifacoum use, th ough some evidence was present that it was used along with other chemicals. 82 were reports of exposure to residues only.

The majority of incidents were reported in only 4 states. This is due to the fact that these 4 states have more robust reporting s ystems and does not reflect that less incidents were necessarily occurring in other states, just that fewer were investigated or reported to the Agency by the other 15 states which reported incidents. Though 31 states did not report any incidents for bro difacoum uses, this should not be considered as a lack of incidents within those states, but more a lack of processes to document incidents and report them to federal regulators. It should be noted that this is probably an underestimate of nationwide impac t as 4 states reported 672 of these incidents

### 17 (California, New York, Wisconsin, and Massachusetts). In preparation for the SAP to support the NOIC, the incidents reported from 1980 to 2012 were analyzed and summarized regarding the species involved and the certainty of the chemical exposure causing effects that were observed.

A number of the individual incidents observed in Massachusetts were summarized in a published study (Murray, M. 2011). This study documented residue analysis conducted on 80 Red

tai led hawks, 40 Barred owls, 23 Eastern screech owls and 18 Great horned owls which were found dead or which subsequently died after showing adverse behavioral reactions and were brought to the Wildlife Clinic of Tufts Cummings School of Veterinary Medicine in North Grafton, MA. Of the 161 birds analyzed, 139 displayed residues of anticoagulant rodenticides in liver samples. Brodifacoum residues were found in the livers of 98% of these birds (136 of the 139 birds analyzed), thus indicating that widespread secondary exposure to poisoned prey was evident in the area from which the birds were found.

Over 200 incidents have been reported subsequent to the 2012 analysis and implementation of restricted use and bait box requirements imposed by the Agency. Furth er review and analysis of these additional incidents will be undertaken in the forthcoming Preliminary Risk Assessment.

Avian species suffering mortality by either primary exposure to the baits or by secondary exposure to contaminated carcasses or living organisms that had previously ingested brodifacoum baits include multiple species of hawks, eagles, seabirds, owls, vultures, quail, geese and passerine species. Mammalian poisoning incidents have involved predatory mammals such as bobcat, mountain lion, coyote, fox, and badger as well as non

- predators such as raccoon, opossum, skunk, squirrels, non

- target rodents, rabbits, and deer. These incidents involve Federally listed and non

listed species.



# 7. Exposure Pathways of Concern

For most conventional p esticides, p otential transport mechanisms typically include surface water runoff and spray drift. However, because the only use of brodifacoum is in bait for rodent control, no potential for spray drift exists, and exposure from volatilizat ion is expected to be minimal due to the chemical’s low vapor pressure and Henry’s Law Constant.



## 7.1 **Aquatic Exposure**

B ecause brodifacoum bait is applied in stations outdoors, little potential exists for residues of brodifacoum to leach (or be extracted) from the bait station , if exposed to normal rainwater or runoff. Furthermore , due to the extremely low concentration of active ingredient in the bait (0.0025 or 0.005%), the small amount applied per placement (~0.0001 lb a.i./placement) , and the hydrophobic nature of t he compound (log K OW 

### = 8.5), leaching of dissolved brodifacoum from the bait station would be so small that the potential for contaminating surface water is expected to be limited

. Similarly, exposure of surface water via erosion of soils that sorb brodif acoum is also expected to be negligible.

### 18 One possible exception would be the use of the chemical in sewers systems. The concern for sewer use is, both in the sewer ( i.e. , non

- target organisms may visit sewers), and below the sewer discharge ( e.g. , chunks of bait blocks could be knocked or broken off as bait is eaten, discharged with stormwater or sewage overflow, and then consumed by non

- target organisms). However, for the uses on sewer systems, instructions indicate to thread wire through blocks and

sec urely attach to a stationary structure such as the bottom step of a manhole ladder or a sewer grate, allowing just enough wire for the block to rest on manhole benching. If benching is not present, blocks should be suspended a few inches above the high wa ter mark, thus preventing removal by rats or water.



## 7.2 **Terrestrial Exposure**

The l ikely route of transport is within the bodies of animals which feed on the brodifacoum bait. Because these poisoned animals are not killed immediately, they may travel a s ignificant distance before dying, thereby potentially exposing other animals away from the application site. This transport within animals is the major route of exposure for larger terrestrial animals whose diet includes small mammals, birds, and reptiles , thus making them vulnerable to secondary exposure from consuming poisoned prey. This hypothesis is supported by numerous incidents in which animals too large to enter the bait boxes are found to contain significant levels of residues in liver or other ti ssues upon post mortem examinations. In addition, insects such as ants or cockroaches are sometimes attracted to the bait and may feed on it or transport it outside of the bait boxes where they

, as well as the bait particles, may be consumed by insectivor ous wildlife.

Use of brodifacoum in bait products to control rodent pests is not expected to result in significant exposure to plants. Bait is generally placed by hand in specific bait stations around buildings. The products containing brodifacoum should not be broadcasted. Any exposure to plants would be minor and limited to the area immediately around the bait placement.



# 8. Analysis Plan

**8.1 Stressors of Concern** 

8.1.1 Ecological Risk Assessment

For this assessment brodifacoum is the stressor of ecological concern for terrestrial and aquatic organisms , thoug h exposure to aquatic habitats may be limited. There is n o information about possible degradates of brodifacoum that could be derived from the available environmental fate s tudies. The only exception is that one degradate was observed in the aerobic soil metabolism study at around 17% of the applied radioactivity but it was not identified. Brodifacoum is relatively persistent in studies performed to assess its half

- life in livers of mice. Thus, it remains intact for several months if taken at sublethal levels (6.44 μg a.i./mouse, Vandenbroucke et al. , 2008 ) and it appears unlikely that major (≥10% AR) metabolites would be formed in animal tissues.

### 19 8.1 .2 Drinking Water

A s noted in Section 4 .2 , a drinking water assessment has not been previously conducted on brodifacoum. Because brodifacoum bait may be used outdoors in bait stations

, little potential exists for residues of brodifacoum to leach from the bait station , if exposed to rainwater or runoff. However, due to the extremely low concentration of active ingredient in the bait (0.0025 or 0.005%), small amount applied per placement, and the hydrophobic nature of the compound (log K OW 

### = 8.5), leaching of dissolved brodifacoum from the bait wo uld be so small that the potential for contaminating surface or ground water is expected to be insignificant. Similarly, exposure of surface water via erosion of soils that sorbed brodifacoum is also expected to be negligible. Therefore, a drinking water assessment for brodifacoum is not anticipated to be required.



## 8.2 **Measures of Exposure**

E xposure assessment methods employed by the Agency for the rodenticides differs from that for most other pesticides . For a roden ticide, the bait itself is the potential food item of concern. Thus, the amount of active ingredient in the formulated bait is used as an estimated environmental concentration ( EEC )

. This information is used to estimate the amount of grain bait that birds and mammals of various sizes need to consume to obtain a dose expected to be lethal to 50% of the individuals in the population ( i.e. , LD 50 

### dose).

8.2.1 Estimating Primary Exposure for Terrestrial Organisms

For birds and mammals, the assessment is based on the maximum concentration of brodifacoum in bait products used for rodent control. The maximum concentration is 0.005% (50 mg a.i./kg product) for products used to control rats and mice. For dietary

- based risk, the concentration of brodifacoum in the bait is compared directly to the toxicity endpoint from dietary toxicity studies ( i.e.
, 40

- day LC 50 

### studies for birds and 14

- day LC 50 

### studies for mammals due to delayed toxicity of brodifacoum). For dosed

- bas ed risk, the brodifacoum concentration in bait has to be converted to a daily ingestion rate first. This is done using the allometric equations of Nagy (1987) , as provided in USEPA’s Wildlife Exposure Factor Handbook ( USEPA, 1993 )

– see Table 7 below. In gested doses of brodifacoum (mg a.i./kg

- BW) will be calculated for birds and mammals of various assumed body weights. The doses calculated for birds could also be used for reptiles and terrestrial

- phase amphibians. This approach is consistent with other r odenticide risk assessments conducted by the Agency.

Table 7. Direct Exposure

Formulas for Calculation of Daily Intake Based on Consumption of Bait from Bait Boxes Passeriform bird food intake (g, dry weight ): FI (g dry

- wt/day) = 0.398 * Wt(g) 0.850



### Rodent mammal food intake (g, dry weight ): FI (g dry

- wt/day) = 0.621 * Wt(g) 0.564



### Food intake (g, wet weight ): FI (g wet

- wt/day) = FI (g dry

- wt/day) / 0.90

Brodifacoum intake (mg a.i./kg

- bwt/day) = FI (g wet

- wt/day) * mg a.i./kg

- bait / Wt(g)

### 20 Whe re: Wt(g) = weight (in grams) of the bird or mammal consumer

mg a.i./kg

- bait = 25

- 50 mg ai depending on brodifacoum concentration in bait

8.2.2 Accumulation through Multiple Feedings on Bait

Available data on the retention times of brodifacoum in animal tissues was assessed by the Agency in the 2010 White Paper for the Science Panel review. Due to the attractiveness of bait formulations within the bait boxes and the longer time to death from exposure to second generation rodenticides, smaller animals may revisit the bait stations more than once and thus could obtain higher residue levels than single feed calculations might predict. Given the long retention time within tissues these levels are expected to increase incrementally if target or non

- target animals return to feed multiple times before death occurs (4

- 9 days for Brodifacoum in rats). This can have implications for secondary toxicity assuming continually increasing accumulation levels within the potential prey of scavenging or predatory animals which feed on them. Accumulation of brodifacoum within the prey animal over time would be calculated using an elimination rate constant based on t he liver half

- lives t o approximate elimination. As can be seen in Table 8 below organisms may feed for days before death ensues.

Table 8

. Brodifacoum Residue Levels in Primary Consumers (Extracted from 2010 White Paper)

Mg a.i./kg bait Target species Site Sample size Days exposed Mean whole

- carcass residue in mg a.i /kg

carcass (range) Reference

50 Rat Field 50 Unknown Most < 7 Some up to 11

- 13 Kaukeinen 1993 a

50 Rat Field 6 Unknown 2.7 (0.1

- 6.6) ICI America 1979c

50 Rat Field 5 male 4 female 3 juvenile Unknown 7.08 (3.92

- 9.17) 5.61 (1.39

- 12.19) 8.63 (1.77

- 25.97) Howald 1997

50 Vole Field 74 1

- 7 4.07 ± 0.20 (SE) Merson et al. 1984

50 Vole Field 62 1

- 7 2.07 ± 0.17 (SE) Merson et al. 1984

50 Vole Lab 15 male 15 female 4 4 5.21 ± 2.06 (sd) 2.17 ± 1.17 (sd) Kaukeinen 1982

25 b Deer mouse Field 10 4

- 9 2.71 (0.68

- 4.25) Howald et al. 2001

20 b Mouse Lab nr 3 2.21 Anonymous 1981 a

20 b Mouse Lab 10 1 0.44 Newton et al. 1990

10 b Vole Lab 15 male 15 female 4 4 0.53 ± 0.24 (sd) 0.40 ± 0.20 (sd) Kaukeinen 1982

10 b Vole Field 43 1

- 7 0.35 ± 0.03 (SE) Merson et al. 1984 nr = not reported NA = not available sd

- Standard deviation

a Cited in US EPA (2004) Potential Risks of Nine Rodenticides to Birds and Nontarget Mammals: a Comparative Approach
b baits registered in the U.S. ar e 0.005% a.i.

### 21 8.2.3 Estimating Secondary Terrestrial Exposure

Secondary exposure analysis (from consumption of contaminated live organisms or carcasses) requires consideration of potential concentrations of residues in tissues of target and non

target organisms that are commonly consumed by predators and scavengers, how long the residues might persist in body tissues, and the quantity of contaminated prey or portions of prey that are consumed over a period of time by the species in question. Studies recording residue concentrations for non

- target animals fed rodents have been submitted by registrants and are available in open literature. In addition, significant numbers of b rodifacoum incident reports include post mortem analysis of residue s found in liver and other tissues. Given the long residence times of second generation rodenticides these analyses may prove invaluable in validating such estimates.

Brodifacoum has been shown to display significant retention time in liver tissues as we ll as blood after exposure. Retention times for brodifacoum in various laboratory small mammal species range from 113 to 350 days after initial dosage. Additional tested species (opossum and sheep) also were observed to retain hepatic residue levels for over 100 days. Table 9 below displays a number of study results for retention times in blood or liver tissue reviewed for brodifacoum. Further review of any additional data may be included in the registration review process.

### 22 Table 9 Retention of Brodifacoum in Blood and Liver

Species Dose (mg a.i./kg) # doses Blood t 1/2 a (days) Liver retention a,b (days) Reference (MRID)

Mouse 6.44 μg/mouse 1 91.7 307.4 (t 1/2 ) Vandenbroucke et al. 2008

Rat 0.02 or 0.15 0.35 1 1 NA 350 c (t 1/2 ) 128 d (t 1/2 ) Batten and Bratt 1990 (42007502)

Rat 0.2 1 NA 282 (t 1/2 ) Hawkins et al. 1991 (42596801)

Rat 0.25 1 NA 150

- 200 (t 1/2 ) Bratt and Hudson 1979 (00080235)

Rat 0.06 4 (at weekly intervals) NA 136 (t 1/2 ) Belleville 1991 (42065009)

Rat 0.35 1 NA 130 (t 1/2 ) Parmar et al. 1987 e

Rat unknown unknown 6.5 >80 Backmann and Sullivan 1983 f

Rat 0.1 1 NA 113.5 (t 1/2 ) Fischer et al. 2003 (48190801)
Possum 0.1 1 20

- 30 >252 Eason et al. 1996

Rabbit unknown unknown 2.5 NA Brechenridge et al. 1985 f
Sheep 0.2 or 2.0 1 NA >128 Laas et al. 1985 e
Dog unknown unknown 6 NA Woody et al. 1992 f
Dog unknown unknown 0.9

- 4.7 NA Robben et al. 1998 f

a t 1/2 for plasma and liver is the elimination half

- life
b liver retention is expressed as either the time period for which residues persist or as the elimination half

- life

c the elimination half

- life of 350 days is for a single oral dose of 0.02 or 0.15 mg a.i./kg; elimination was not biphasic
d the elimination half

- life of 128 days is the terminal phase for a single oral dose of 0.35 mg a.i./kg; elimination was biphasic

e Cited in US EPA (2004) Potential Risks of Nine Rodenticides to Birds and Nontarget Mammals: a Comparative Approach
f cited in Eason et al. 2001



### 8.2.4 Estimating Aquatic Exposure

Brodifacoum is restricted to use within tamper proof bait boxes or in cloth bags inserted into burrows. This limits the exposure pathways which could potentially result in aquatic exposure for products applied to soil surfaces. Furthermore, as described in Section 7, due to the extremely low concentration of active ingredient in the bait (0.0025 or 0.005%), the small amount applied per placement, and the hydrophobic nature of the compound (log K OW 

### = 8.5), leaching of dissolved brodifacoum from the bait station would be so small that the potential for contaminating surface water is expected to be insignificant. Similarly, exposure of surface water via erosion of soils that sorb brodifacoum is also expected to be negligible. Therefore, a modeling effort for aquatic exposure estimation is not being conducted for current registered outdoor uses.

8.2.5 Available Water Monitoring Data

The Agency is not aware of water monitoring conducted by fe deral and state agencies for brodifacoum. If new data for brodifacoum becomes available it may be considered in the preliminary assessment ; however, wa ter monitoring programs generally monitor for conventional

### 23 agricultural pesticides and typically do not include analysis for vertebrate control agents such as brodifacoum

. 

## 8.3 **Measures of Effect**

Toxicity dat a presented in Section 6 of this problem formulation will be used to calculate risk quotients. Any additional information submitted by the registrant or found in the open literature prior to conduct of the risk assessment will also be considered. O pen literature studies are oft en identified using EPA’s ECOTOXicology database ( www.epa.gov/ECOTOX ) , which employs a literature search engine for locating chemical toxicity data for aquatic life, terrestrial plants, and wildlife. The evaluati on of both sources of data can also provide insight into the direct and indirect effects of pesticides on biotic communities from loss of species that are sensitive to the chemicals and from changes in structure and functional characteristics of the affect ed communities.



# 9. Endangered Species Assessments

Consistent with EPA’s responsibility under the Endangered Species Act (ESA), the Agency will evaluate risks to federally listed threatened and endangered (listed) species from registered uses of pesticide s in accordance with the Joint Interim Approaches developed to implement the recommendations of the April 2013 National Academy of Sciences (NAS) report, Assessing Risks to Endangered and Threatened Species from Pesticides

. The NAS report outlines recommendations on specific scientific and technical issues related to the development of pesticide risk assessments that EPA and the Services must conduct in connection with their obligations under
t he ESA and FIFRA. EPA will address concerns specific to brodifacoum in connection with the development of its final registration review decision for brodifacoum

.
In November 2013, EPA, the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, National Marine Fisheries (the Services), and USDA released a white paper containing a summary of their joint Interim Approaches for assessing risks to listed species from pesticides. These Interim Approaches were developed jointly by the agencies in response to the NAS recommendations, and reflect a common approach to risk ass essment shared by the agencies as a way of addressing scientific differences between the EPA and the Services. Details of the joint Interim Approaches are contained in the November 1, 2013 white paper

, Interim Approaches for National

- Level Pesticide Endangered Species Act Assessments Based on the Recommendations of the National Academy of Sciences April 2013 Report.

Given that the agencies are continuing to develop and work toward implementation of th e Interim Approaches to assess the potential risks of pesticides to listed species and their designated critical habitat, this ecological problem formulation supporting the Preliminary Work Plan for brodifacoum does not describe the specific ESA analysis, including effects determinations for specific listed species or designated critical habitat, to be conducted during registration review. While the agencies continue to develop a common method for ESA analysis, the planned risk assessment for the registrat ion review of brodifacoum will describe the level of ESA analysis completed for this particular registration review case. This assessment will allow EPA to focus its future evaluations on the types of species where the potential for effects exists, once th e scientific

### 24 methods being developed by the agencies have been fully vetted. Once the agencies have fully developed and implemented the scientific methods necessary to complete risk assessments for listed species and their designated critical habitats, the se methods will be applied to subsequent analyses of brodifacoum as part of completing this registration review.



# 10. Endocrine Disruptor Screening Program

Brodifacoum was not included in the first group of 67 chemicals issued an order to conduct Tier 1 EDSP testing or the second list of 109 chemicals. For additional information the EDSP program, visit http://www2.epa.gov/endocrine

- disruption

.



# 11. Preliminary Identification of Data Gaps

11.1 Environmental Fate

Table 10 identifies environmental fate studies by MRID that offer data for each guideline requirement, as well as study classifications and whether or not further data are needed in order to support risk assessment.

Table 10 . Submitted Environmental Fate Data for Brodifacoum

OCSPP Guideline Data Requirement Submitted Studies (MRID) Study Classifications Are data needed to conduct risk assessment? Justification and Assumptions EPA will Make in Absence of Data

835.2120 Hydrolysis 42237701, 43435801 44021706 Acceptable No

--

835.2240 Aqueous photolysis None Not applicable No

-- 1

835.2410 Soil photolysis None Not applicable No

-- 1
835.4100 Aerobic soil metabolism 42579401

, 43435802 Acceptable No 1,2 Study conducted in only one soil. Study 43435802 is a response to comments.
835.4200 Anaerobic soil metabolism None Not applicable No

-- 1

835.4300 Aerobic aquatic metabolism None Not applicable No

-- 1

835.4400 Anaerobic aquatic metabolism None Not applicable No

-- 1

835.1230 Adsorption/ desorption and leaching 42024501 Unacceptable No

-- 835.1240 42568301 Acceptable

835.1410 Volatility

– laboratory None Not applicable No

-- 1

835.6100 Terrestrial field dissipation None Not applicable No

-- 1

### 25 OCSPP Guideline Data Requirement Submitted Studies (MRID) Study Classifications Are data needed to conduct risk assessment? Justification and Assumptions EPA will Make in Absence of Data

835.6200 Aquatic field dissipation None Not applicable No

-- 1

850.1730 Fish bioconcentration None Not applicable No

-- 1

850.6100 Analytical method in water None Not applicable No

-- 3

Analytical method in soil None Not applicable No

1. Data have not been submitted to fulfill some guidelines. Data gaps were not identified as these data are not necessary

for risk assessment at this time. 2. Study was conducted in only one soil, as opposed to the required four soils. 3. Studies are not recommended at thi s time because terrestrial exposure estimates are assumed to be either non

degraded bait, measured residues in tissues of animals that ingested brodifacoum, or estimated residues in tissues of animals that ingested brodifacoum. In the case of estimated re sidues, half

- lives in liver will be used to account for degradation.



## 11.2 Effects

Table 11 and Table 12 identify submitted ecological effects studies by MRID that were reviewed for each guideline requirement, as well as study classifications and whether or not further data are ne eded in order to support risk assessment. Rationale for the additional data requested is presented below

. 850.2100 Acute Oral Toxicity

– Passerine Species Smaller p asserine species may be more sensitive than species previously tested with brodifacoum. Currently no data is available to clarify this uncertainty. This study is requested.

850.2300 : Avian Reproduction Study : Little is known about the effects of low level sub

lethal dietary levels on reproductive success for non

- target avian species. Bro difacoum is shown to accumulate in adult tissues and blood of birds who have presumably ingested contaminated prey, but not succumbed to these exposure levels. Due to the extreme acute toxicity of this chemical to birds a design protocol should be submitte d before conduct of the studies for determination of test concentrations and methods. This guideline testing is requested for one upland game species and one waterfowl species.

850.1300 Chronic Lifecycle testing with Freshwater Invertebrate 850.1400 Earl y Lifestage Toxicity with Fish Brodifacoum displays very high acute toxicity to freshwater invertebrate and fish species. Chronic studies with fish and invertebrate species are generally required for all non

residential outdoor uses. U se in stormwater pipes or sewer system drains could potentially lead to exposure to aquatic habitats. However, for these use s, instructions indicate wire should be threaded through blocks and securely attach ed to a stationary structure above high water lev el, thus reducing exposure potential

. In addition, the hydrophobicity of the

### 26 compound, precludes potential for residues of brodifacoum to be leached from the bait station if exposed to rainwater or runoff. Surface or groundwater exposure is expected to be negligible. Though lack of chronic data is an uncertainty for future assessments these studies are not requested at this time , as exposure potential is low for current labeled uses.

850.3020 : Acute Contact Toxicity to Honeybees , 850.3030: Honeybee resi dues on Foliage , and Special Stud ies : Honeybee oral toxicity and adult and larval Chronic toxicity These studies are g enerally required of most outdoor use pesticides to which honeybees may be exposed or to which hives may be exposed through transport back to the colony. Though currently considered an uncertainty with respect to actual toxicity to honeybees, uses restricted to bait boxes are not expected to expose honeybees to second generation rodenticides such as brodifacoum. In addition, other than und er highly controlled Conservation uses, the current uses of brodifacoum are restricted to use near agricultural or industrial buildings, structures within commercial shipping areas such as docks or warehouses, or in transport vehicles such as rail cars or ships. Based on limited exposure potential , no honeybee studies will be required at this time.

Table 11 . Submitted Aquatic Ecological Effects Data for Brodifacoum

OCSPP Guideline Data Requirement Submitted Studies (MRID) / Species Study Classificatio

n Are data needed to conduct risk assessment? Justification and Assumptions EPA will Make in Absence of Data

850.1010 Freshwater invertebrate acute toxicity 00066948 Daphnia magna Invalid No Current data adequate for current uses as aquatic exposure potential is limited and will not be assessed 00128442 Daphnia magna TGAI Supplemental

00128442 Daphnia magna TEP Invalid

850.1025 850.1035 850.1045 850.1055 Saltwater invertebrate acute toxicity No data available No Current data adequate for current uses as aquatic exposure potential is limited and will not be assessed

850.1075 Freshwater fish acute toxicity 00066943 or 00124472

- RBT Supplemental No Data is not needed for current uses as aquatic exposure potential is limited and will not be assessed 00066944 or 00124473

- RBT Supplemental

00066945 or 00124474

- BG Invalid

00066946

- RBT Supplemental

00066947

- BG Supplemental

00088010 or 00124470

- RBT

00088011 or00124471

- BG Supplemental

### 27 OCSPP Guideline Data Requirement Submitted Studies (MRID) / Species Study Classificatio

n Are data needed to conduct risk assessment? Justification and Assumptions EPA will Make in Absence of Data

42641901

- BG Invalid

850.1075 Saltwater fish acute toxicity No data available No Data is not needed for current uses as aquatic exposure potential is limited and will not be assessed 850.1300 Freshwater invertebrate life cycle No data available No

850.1350 Saltwater invertebrates life cycle No data available No

850.1400 Freshwater fish early

- life stage No data available No

850.1400 Saltwater fish early

- life stage No data available No

850.1500 Fish life cycle No data available No

850.4400 Aquatic plant Toxicity Test using Lemna
spp. No data available No

850.4500 Algal toxicity No data available No

850.4550 Cyanobacteria No data No



### Table 12 . Submitted Terrestrial Ecological Effects Data for Brodifacoum

OCSPP Guideline Data Requirement Submitted Studies (MRID) Study Classification Are data needed for risk assessment ? Justification and Assumptions EPA will Make in Absence of Data

850.2100 Avian oral toxicity 00066942 with Mallard duck Invalid Yes

- for Passerine species only These data are partially adequate for risk assessment of currently registered uses

Risk to smaller passerine species cannot be estimated and sensitivity of this group may be higher than previously tested species 41563803 with Mallard duck Acceptable

46351303 with Ring neck pheasant Supplemental

46351304 with Japanese quail

- Supplemental

46351302 with Domestic chicken Supplemental

### 28 OCSPP Guideline Data Requirement Submitted Studies (MRID) Study Classification Are data needed for risk assessment ? Justification and Assumptions EPA will Make in Absence of Data

850.2200 Avian dietary toxicity 00080232 or 00080236 with Laughing gull Invalid No These data are adequate for risk assessment of currently registered uses

00097936 with Mallard duck Acceptable

00097937 with Bobwhite quail Acceptable

00124475 with Mallard duck

00124476 Mallard duck

- 40 day study Acceptable

00124477 Bobwhite quail 40 day study Acceptable

850.2300 Avian reproduction Gamebird Yes Feasibility of these long term studies to be determined after protocol review Waterfowl

Non

guideline Avian inhalation No data available No Volatility of brodifacoum is low

Non Guideline Avian Secondary Toxicity 40077205 with Barn owls Supplemental No These data are considered supplemental and useful for risk assessment purposes to characterize risk potential for secondary toxicity 00080239 with Barn owl Supplemental

00080241 with Barn owl Supplemental

40077202 with Barn owl Supplemental

40077207 with Chukar Supplemental

00080199 with American kestrel Falco sparverius Supplemental

00080243 with Raptor species Supplemental

00161693 with Screech owl Supplemental

Wild and Laboratory Mammal Acute toxicity

oral or dietary 00080237 with Vole Oral and Dietary/ Supplemental No These data are considered supplemental and useful for risk assessment purposes
00080248 with Mink Oral Supplemental

00087134 with dog and cat Oral Invalid

### 29 OCSPP Guideline Data Requirement Submitted Studies (MRID) Study Classification Are data needed for risk assessment ? Justification and Assumptions EPA will Make in Absence of Data

TNM 050 1 

### Laboratory rat Dietary Supplemental

TNM 079 1 

### Laboratory rat Dietary Supplemental

TNM 082 1 

### Laboratory rat Dietary Supplemental

TNM 110 1 

### Laboratory rat Dietary rat Supplemental

TNM 112 1 

### Laboratory rat Dietary rat supplemental

00074376 00084356 Meadow voles Field exposure

48638401 Richardson’s ground squirrel Supplemental

Secondary toxicity

mammals 128422 Red and Gray foxes fed 3

- 4 days Supplemental These data are considered supplemental and useful for risk assessment purposes

850.3020 Honey bee
acute contact toxicity No data available No These data are not needed at this time for risk assessment of currently registered uses

Burrow or bait box use not expected to expose honeybees 850.3030 Honey bee residue on foliage No data available No

850.3040 Field testing for pollinators No data available No

850.4100 S eedling E mergence and Seedling Growth No data available No These data are not needed at this time for risk assessment of currently registered uses

850.4150 V egetative V igor No data available No

1 Studies conducted at the USEPA Animal Biology Lab in Beltsville, Maryland

### 30 

# 1 2

. References

Albert, C.A., L.K. Wilson, P. Mineau, S. Trudeau, and J.E. Elliott . 2009. Anticoagulant Rodenticides in Three Owl Species from Western Canada, 1988

– 2003 Arch Environ mental Contam ination Toxicol ogy. Armitage, J.M., & Gobas, F.A.P.C . 2007. A terrestrial food

- chain bioaccumulation model for POPs. Environmental Science and Technology, 41 , 4019

- 4025. Arnot, J. A., & Gobas, F. A. P. C. 2004. A food web bioaccumulation model for organic chemicals in aquatic ecosystems. Environmental Toxicology and Chemistry, 23 (10), 2343

- 2355. Cox, P. and R.H. Smith. 1992. Rodenticide ecotoxicology: pre

- lethal effects of anticoagulants on rat behavior. Proc. Vertebr. Pest Conf. 15:165

- 170. Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations. FAO PESTICIDE DISPOSAL SERIES 8. Assessing Soil Contamination: A Reference Manual. Appendix 2. Parameters of pesticides that influence processes in the soil. Editorial Group, FAO Information Division: Rome, 2000. http://www.fao.org/DOCREP/003/X2570E/X2570E00.htm (accessed 0 8/25/2015 )

. Gobas, F.A.P.C., B.C. Kelly and J.A. Arnot. 2003. Quantitative structure activity relationships for predicting the bioaccumulation of POPs in terrestrial fo od webs. QSAR Comb. Sci. 22:329

- 336. Howald GR, Mineau P, Elliott JE, Cheng KM (1999) Brodifacoum poisoning of avian scavengers during rat control on a seabird colony. Ecotoxicology 8:431

– 447 Lutz, W. 1986. Study on the possible secondary haza rds to buzzards ( Buteo buteo) by the rodenticide brodifacoum. Report for BBA, Bonn, Germany. Masuda, B.M, Fisher, P., and Beaven, B. 2015. Residue profiles of brodifacoum in coastal marine species following an island rodent eradication. Ecotoxicol. Environm. Saf., 113 (2015), pp. 1

- 8

. Murray, M. 2011. Anticoagulent Exposure and Toxicosis in Four Species of Birds of Prey Presented to a Wildlife Clinic in Massachussetts, 2006

- 2010. Journal of Zoo and Wildlife Medicine 42(1):88

- 97. (also assigned Inc ident Number I022978 in USEPA/ OPP Incident data system (IDS). Pelfrene, A.F. 1991. Synthetic organic rodenticides. Handbook of Pesticide Toxicology, vol. 3: Classes of Pesticides, pages 1271

- 1316. Academic Press, Inc. USEPA. 1993. Wildlife Exposure Handbo ok . Office of Research and Development, United States Environmental Protection Agency. Available at http://www.epa.gov/ncea/pdfs/toc2

- 37.pdf (a ccessed June 19, 2009 ). USEPA. 1998 a

. Guidelines for Ecological Risk Assessment . United States Environmental Pro tection Agency (USEPA). Risk Assessment Forum. Office of Research and Development. USEPA. 1998b

. Reregistration Eligibility Decision (RED): Rodenticide Cluster. EPA738

- R

- 98

- 007. 3 19 pp. http://www.epa.gov/pesticides/reregistration/status_page_r.htm#rodenticides (accessed 08/25/2015 ) , and see docket EPA

- HQ

- OPP

- 2006

- 0955, available at www.regulations.gov

. USEPA. 2004 a

. Overview of the Ecological Risk Assessment Process in the Office of Pesticide Programs . United States Environmental Protection Agency (USEPA). Environmental Fate and Effects Division. Office of Pesticide Programs. Available at http://archive.epa.gov/pesticides/reregistration/web/pdf/ecorisk

- overview.pdf (accessed 10/23/2015).

### 31 USEPA. 2004b. Potential Risks of Nine Rodenticides to Birds and Nontarget Mammals: A C omparative Approach. Environmental Fate and Effects Division. Office of Pesticide Programs. USEPA. 2008a. OPPTS 835.6100 Terrestrial Field Dissipation . EPA 712

- C

- 08

- 020. October 2008. Office of Chemical Safety and Pollution Prevention (formerly Office of Prevention, Pesticides, and Toxic Substances). United States Environmental Protection Agency. Available at http://www2.e pa.gov/test

- guidelines

- pesticides

- and

- toxic

- substances/series

835

- fate

- transport

- and

- transformation

- test (accessed 10/23 /2015). USEPA . 2008b. Risk Mitigation Decision for Ten Rodenticides (EPA

- HQ

- OPP

- 2006

- 0955

- 0764). Office of Chemical Safety and Pollution Prevention (formerly Office of Prevention, Pesticides, and Toxic Substances). Office of Pesticides Program. Available at www.regulations.gov

. USEPA. 2012. Risks of Brodifa coum Use to the Federally Threatened Alameda Whipsnake ( Masticophis lateralis euryxanthus ), and the Federally Endangered Salt Marsh Harvest Mouse ( Reithrodontomys raviventris ) and San Joaquin Kit Fox ( Vulpes macrotis mutica ). Pesticide Effects Determinatio n. Environmental Fate and Effects Division. Office of Pesticide Programs. March 30, 2012. Available at http://iaspub.epa.gov/apex/pesticide s/f?p=CHEMICALSEARCH:7:0::NO:1,3,31,7,12,25: P3_XCHEMICAL_ID:1585 (accessed 10/23/2015). USEPA. 2015. Estimation Programs Interface SuiteTM for Microsoft ® 

### Windows, v 4.11. United States Environmental Protection Agency, Washington, DC, USA. Available at http://www2.epa.gov/tsca

- screening

- tools/epi

- suitetm

- estimation

- program

- interface (site accessed 10/23 /2015). USFWS. 1993. U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service Biological Opinion. Effects of 16 Vertebrate Control Agents on Threatened and Endangered Species . U.S. Fish and Wildlife Serv ice. Vandenbroucke, Virgine, et al. 2008. Multi

- residue analysis of eight anticoagulant rodenticides in animal plasma and liver us ing liquid chromatography combined with heated electrospray ionization tandem mass spectrometry. Journal of Chromotography B. Vol 869, Issues 1

- 2, 15 June 2008, pages 101

- 110

. Watt, B.E., A.T. Proudfoot , S.M. Bradberry, and J.A. Vale. 2005. Anticoagulant rodenticides. Toxicol. Rev. 24(4):259

- 269. Yu, C.C., Y.H. Atallah, and D.M. Whitacre. 1982. Metabolism and disposition of diphacinone in rats and mice. Drug Metabolism and Disposition 10:645

- 648.

FOR A BIBLIOGRAPHY OF STUDIES SUBMITTED TO EPA, SEE THE APPENDIX A.

### 32 

# Appendix A. Brodifacoum Bibliography 112701 Brodifacoum Fate/Chemistry Bibliography 161

- 1 Hydrolysis

MRID Citation Reference

129702 Hendley, P.; Lightfoot, Y. (1978) Brodifacoum: Hydrolysis in Aqueous Systems in the Dark: RJ 0047A. (Unpublished study re

- ceived Mar 30, 1979 under 10182

- 26; prepared by Imperial Chem

- ical Industries, Ltd., Eng., submitted by ICI Americas, Inc., Wilmingt on, DE; CDL:237938

- C)

42237701 Jackson, R.; Priestly, I.; Hall, B. (1992) The Determination of the Hydrolytic Stability of ?carbon 14|

- Brodifacoum: Lab Project No. 381420: 8330. Unpublished study prepared by Inveresk Research International. 77 p.

43435 801 Griggs, R. (1994) Response to Comments in EPA Letter Dated 10

- 28

- 93 Concerning Brodifacoum Hydrolysis Study: MRID 422377

- 01: Lab Project Number: 381420. Unpublished study prepared by Inveresk Research International Ltd. 10 p.

44021706 Mathis, S.; Ben ner, J.; Skidmore, M. (1995) Brodifacoum: Aqueous Hydrolysis in pH5, pH7 and pH9 Solutions at 25 degrees C: Lab Project Number: 94JH253: RJ1927B. Unpublished study prepared by Jealott's Hill Research Station, Zeneca Agrochemicals. 56 p. 

# 162

- 1 Aerob ic soil metabolism

MRID Citation Reference

129701 Arnold, D.; Rapley, J.; Weissler, M. (1978) Brodifacoum: The Degradation of the Pesticide in Soil under Laboratory Condi

- tions : Report Series RJ 0040B. (Unpublished study received Mar 30, 1979 under 10182

- 26; prepared by Imperial Chemical In

- dustries, Ltd., Eng., submitted by ICI Americas, Inc., Wilming

- ton, DE; CDL:237938

- B)

42579401 Hall, B.; Priestly, I. (1992) Brodifacoum: Metabolism in Soil under Aerobic Conditions: Lab Project Number: 381441. Unpublished study prepared by Inveresk Research International. 63 p.

43435802 Griggs, R. (1994) Response to Comments in EPA Letter Dated 1 0

- 28

- 93 Concerning Brodifacoum Aerobic Soil Metabolism Study: MRID 425794

- 01: Lab Project Number: 381441. Unpublished study prepared by Inveresk Research International Ltd. 23 p.

80250 ICI Americas, Incorporated (1979?) Degradation of Brodifacoum in Soil under Laboratory Conditions. Summary of studies 245705

- B through 245705

- E. (Unpublished study received Jul 22, 1981 under 10182

- 38; CDL:245705

- A)

80251 Arnold, D.J.; Rapley, J.H.; Weissler, M.S. (1979) Brodifacoum: Development of Methods To Study Its De gradation in Soil: Report Series RJ 0064 B. (Unpublished study received Jul 22, 1981 under 10182

- 38; prepared by Imperial Chemical Industries, Ltd., England, submitted by ICI Americas, Inc., Wilmington, Del.; CDL:246705

- B) 

# 163

- 1 Leach/adsorption/de sorption

### 33 MRID Citation Reference

80252 Stevens, J.E.B.; Hill, I.R. (1979) Brodifacoum: Leaching on Soil Thick

- layer Chromatograms: Report Series RJ 0072 B. (Unpub

- lished study received Jul 22, 1981 under 10182

- 38; prepared by Imperial Chemical Industries Ltd., England, submitted by ICI Americas, Inc., Wilmington, Del.; CDL:245705

- D)

157733 Newby, S.; White, B. (19??) Brodifacoum: Adsorption and Desorption in Soils Measu red Under Laboratory Conditions: TMJ 1764B. Un

- published study prepared by ICI. 54 p.

42024501 Newby, S.; White, B. (1979) Brodifacoum: Adsorption and Desorption in Soils Measured Under Laboratory Conditions: Lab Project Number: TMJ 1764 B. Unpublished study prepared by ICI Agrochemicals 59 p.

42568301 Jackson, R.; Hall, B. (1992) Aged Soil Leachi ng of [ carbon 14 ] Brodifacoum: Lab Project Number: 381986. Unpublished study prepared by Inveresk Research International. 72 p.

92195018 Skidmore, M. (1990) ICI Americas Inc. Phase 3 Summary of MRID 00157733. Brodifacoum: Adsorption and Desorption in Soi ls Measured under Laboratory Conditions: Report No. TMJ 1764B. Prepared by ICI AGROCHEMICALS JEALOTT'S HILL. 21 p. 

# 164

- 1 Terrestrial field dissipation

MRID Citation Reference

157963 Ussary, J. (1979) Brodifacoum Dissipation in Soil: ( Interim Report ): TMU 0424/B. Unpublished study prepared by ICI Americas Inc. 8 p.



# Non Guideline Selections

142798 Bland, P. (1983) Pesticide Formulations: High Pressure liquid chromatographic determination of Brodifacoum in formulations: Collaborative study. J. Assoc. Off. Anal. Chem

. 66(4):993

- 998.

Acc. No. 237938. K. G. Koubek and J. P. Ussary. An HPLC Method For the Determination of Brodi facoum in Soil. January 29, 19 79. ICI Report S eries TMU 0423/A. I CI Subm i ssion Vol IV, Reference 3J

. EPA Acc. No. 237938.
Gowman, M.A. and D. Riley. Determination of t h e Physi cal and Chemical Properties of Soils. (Method i n use at J ealott' s H ill Research Sta tion.) Report Series TMJ 1190A. 19 J anua ry 1 978. ICI Plant Protection Division. ( confidential )



# 71

- 1 Avian Single Dose Oral Toxicity

MRID Citation Reference

### 34 66942 invalidated Ross, D.B.; Roberts, N.L.; Cameron, D.M. (1978) The Acute Oral Tox

- icity (LDI50^) of PP 581 to the Mallard Duck: ICI 122WL/78507. (Unpublished study received Aug 15, 1978 under 10182

- 26; pre

- pared by Huntingdon Research Centre, England, submitted by ICI Americas, Inc., Wilmington, Del.; CDL:234655

- J)

129705 Data summary ICI Americas, Inc. (1979) Talon Rodenticide Containing Brodifacoum: ?Fish and Wildlife Safety Summary|. (Unpublished study re

- ceived Jul 19, 1979 under 10182

- 26; CDL:238840

- A)

41563303 Acceptable Ross, D.; Roberts, N.; Fairley, C. (1990) Brodifacoum: Th e Acute Oral Toxicity (LD50) OF Brodifacoum to Mallard Duck: Lab Project Number: ICI 308 WL/791275. Unpublished study prepared by Hunting don Research Centre. 24 p.

46351303 Supplemental Roberts, N.; Fairley, C. (1985) The Acute Oral Toxicity of Brodifac oum to the Ring

- Necked Pheasant: Final Report. Project Number: ISN/13BT/85982, AX3474. Unpublished study prepared by Huntingdon Life Sciences, Ltd. 27 p.

46351302 Ross, D.; Roberts, N.; Cameron, D. (1977) The Acute Oral Toxicity (LD50) of PP581 to the Chi cken: Final Report. Project Number: ICI/122WL/77600. Unpublished study prepared by Huntingdon Life Sciences, Ltd. 14 p.

46351304 Supplemental Ross, D.; Roberts, N.; Cameron, D. (1977) The Acute Oral Toxicity (LD50) of PP581 to the Japanese Quail: Final Re port. Project Number: ICI/122WL/77599. Unpublished study prepared by Huntingdon Life Sciences, Ltd. 14 p.



# 71

- 2 Avian Dietary Toxicity

MRID Citation Reference

80232 Invalidated Fink, R.; Grimes, J. (1979) Final Report: Forty

- day Dietary LC50

-- Laughing Gull: Project No. 123

- 125. (Unpublished study received Jul 22, 1981 under 10182

- 38; prepared by Wildlife International Ltd., submitted by ICI Americas, Inc., Wilmington, Del.; CDL: 245704

- B)

97936 Acceptable Fink, R. (1976) Final Report: Eight

- day Dietary LC50

-- Mallard Duck: PP 581 Technical: Project No. 123

- 115. (Unpublished study re

- ceived Jan 3, 1978 under 10182

- EX

- 10; prepared by Wildlife International, Ltd., submitted by ICI Americas, Inc., Wilming

- ton, Del.; CDL:232750

- C)

97937 

### Acceptable Fink, R. (1976) Final Report: Eight

- day Dietary LC50

-- Bobwhite Quail: PP 581 Technical: Project No. 123

- 114. (Unpublished study received Jan 3, 1978 under 10182

- EX

- 10; prepared by Wild

- life International, Ltd., submitted by ICI Americas, Inc., Wilmington, Del.; CDL:232750

- D)

124475 Fink, R.; Beavers, J. (1978) Dietary LC50

-- Mallard Ducks: Technical Brodifacoum: Project No. 123

- 124. Final rept. (Unpublished study received Feb 27, 1979 under 10182

- 26; prepared by Wildlife International, Ltd., submitted by ICI Americas, Inc., Wilming

- ton, DE; CDL:237703

- F)

124476 Acceptable Fink, R.; Beavers, J.; Grimes, J.; et al. (1978) Forty

- day Dietary LC50

-- Mallard Duck: Technical Brodifacoum: Pro ject No. 123

- 128. Final rept.

### 35 (Unpublished study received Feb 27, 1979 under 10182

- 26; prepared by Wildlife International, Ltd. and Washington College, submitted by ICI Americas, Inc., Wilmington, DE; CDL:237703

- H)

124477 Acceptable Fink, R.; Beavers, J. ; Grimes, J.; et al. (1978) Forty

- day Dietary LC50

-- Bobwhite Quail: Technical Brodifacoum: Project No. 123

- 127. Final rept. (Unpublished study received Feb 27, 1979 un

- der 10182

- 26; prepared by Wildlife International, Ltd. and Wash

- ington College, submi tted by ICI Americas, Inc., Wilmington, DE; CDL:237703

- I)

143277 Lipha Chemicals, Inc. (1985) Toxicity Comparison between Talon and Maki: Lipha Report No. 85

- 013. Unpublished study. 4 p.

80199 referenced LaVoie, G.K. (1981) Secondary LCI50^ Study of the Toxicity of the Anticoagulant Brodifacoum to American Kestrels (~Falco spar~

- ?~verius~: Work Unit 920.17. (Unpublished study received Jul 22, 1981 under 10182

- EX

- 21; prepared in cooperation with U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, Denver Wildlife Research Center, sub

- mitted by ICI Americas, Inc., Wilmington, Del.; CDL:245702

- E)

80233 Invalidated Choice test Ross, D.B.; Roberts, N.L.; Phillips, C.N.K. (1979) Assessment of the Palatability of Talon Pellets Containing 0.005% (50 ppm) Brodifacoum to the Bob white Quail: ICI 296 WL/79864; CTL/C/812. (Unpublished study received Jul 22, 1981 under 10182

- 38; pre

- pared by Huntingdon Research Centre, England, submitted by ICI Americas, Inc., Wilmington, Del.; CDL:245704

- C)

80234 Invalidated Ross, D.B.; Roberts, N.L.; Phillips, C.N.K. (1979) Assessment of the Palatability of Talon Pellets Containing 0.005% (50 ppm) Brodifacoum to the Ring

- necked Pheasant: ICI 276 WL/781181. (Unpublished study received Jul 22, 1981 under 10182

- 38; pre

- pared by Huntingdon Research Centre, England, submitted by ICI Americas, Inc., Wilmington, Del.; CDL:245704

- D)

80236 Invalidated Forty day LC50

- Laughing Gull (1979) Test performance by Wildlife International for ICI Americdas, Inc. Accession on Number 245704, Volume II ref. February 9, 1979.

84343 Choice test Kaukeinen, D.E.; Marsh, R.E.; Tobin, M.E. (1981) Volid: Laboratory Acceptance of Blank 3/16 Inch and 3/32 Inch Pellets to Sparrows, Finches, Robins and Starlings: Report Series TMUD3679/B. (Un

- published study received Sep 10, 1981 under 10182

- 58; prepared in cooperation with Univ. of California

-- Davis, Agricultural Ex

- periment St ation, Wildlife and Fisheries Biology Div., sub

- mitted by ICI Americas, Inc., Wilmington, Del.; CDL:245924

- C)



# 71

- 3 Domestic and Wild mammal toxicity

MRID Citation Reference

2467 Pank, L.F.; Hirata, D.N. (1976) Primary and Secondary Toxicity of Anticoagulant Rodenticides: Job Completion Report: Work Unit DF

- 103.7. (Unpublished study received on unknown date under unknown admin. no.; prepared by U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, Denver Wildlife Research Center

, Wildlife Damage Research Station, submitted by Velsicol Chemical Corp., Chicago, Ill.; CDL: 230307

- B)

### 36 80248 Supplemental Ringer, R.K.; Aulerich, R.J.; Padgett, G.; et al. (1979) Determina

- tion of Oral LDI50^ of Brodifacoum for Mink. (Unpublished study received Jul 22, 1981 under 10182

- 3 8; prepared by Michigan State Univ., Dept. of Poultry Science, Fur Animal Project, submitted by ICI Americas, Inc., Wilmington, Del.; CDL:245704

- S)

92195006 Registrant summary Kaukeinen, D. (1990) ICI Americas Inc. Phase 3 Summary of MRID 00080248. Deter mination of the Oral LD50 of Brodifacoum for Mink: RR 90

- 292 B. Prepared by MICHIGAN STATE UNIVERSITY 16 p.

80200 Non

- guideline study Morris, K.D.; Jaber, M.B. (1981) Laboratory Comparison of Brodi facoum Tissue Residue in Voles Fed 10 0r 50 PPM Volid Pel lets in a No

- choice Feeding Situation for 3 Days: Report Series TMUE0006/B. (Unpublished study received Jul 22, 1981 under 10182

- EX

- 21; prepared in cooperation with Virginia Tech and Analytical Biochemistry Laboratories, submitted by ICI Americas, Inc., Wi lmington, Del.; CDL:245702

- F)

80247 Invalid

- not useful Parkinson, G.R. (1976) PP581: Acute Oral Toxicity to Sheep, September 1976, Report No. CTL/P/259 (Revised 31 Jan. 1979). Acct # 245704. Only

- 2 sheep tested

87134 Invalidated by HED Parkinson, G.R. (1976) WBA 8119 Acute Oral Toxicity to Beagle Dogs and Cats. Jan. 1976. Acc. # 245704, Submitted by ICI Americas, Performed by English Part of Company.

80237 Reviewed

- non

guideline Kaukeinen, D.E.; Ussary, J.P.; Koubek, K.G. (1980) Brodifacoum Residues i n Rodents, Pheasants and Ground Rat Tissue: Report Series TMU0545/B. Includes method GRAM

- 2 dated Jan 4, 1979 and undated method GRAMM

2/I. (Unpublished study received Jul 22, 1981 under 10182

- 38; submitted by ICI Americas, Inc., Wilming

- ton, Del.; CDL:24 5704

- H)

No MRIDs USEPA Laboratory Rat Dietary Toxicity Studies at Beltsville Animal Biology Lab , Beltsville Md. Test Numbers 50, 82, 110, 112

48638401 Reviewed

– see open lit Baril, S., and G. Pallister. 1981. Laboratory Determinations of Acute Oral L D50 and Efficacy of Brodifacoum on the Richardson Ground Squirrel, Spermophilus richardsonii. Montanta Department of Agriculture Environmental Management Division. Technical Report 81

- 1.



# 71

- 5 Simulated or Actual Field Testing

MRID Citation Reference

139518 Invalidated Kaukeinen, D.; Byers, R. (1981) Volak : Potential Hazard of the 50 ppm Black Pellet Broadcast at Three Rates As Indicated by Penned Ring

- necked Pheasants: Report Series TMUD3451/B. (Un

- published study received Apr 29, 1983 under 10182

- 58; submitted by ICI Americas, Inc., Wilmington, DE; CDL:2 50077

- C)

40077201 Christopher, M.; Balasubramanyam, M.; Purushotham, K. (1984) Toxi

- city of three anticoagulant rodenticides to (male hybrid leg

- horns). A. Angew. Zool. 71:275

- 281.

### 37 40077205 J001726 Hegdal, P.; Blaskiewicz, R. (1984) Evaluation of the potential hazard to barn owls of Talon used to control rats and house mice. Environmental Toxicology Chemistry 3:167

- 179.

40077207 Hoppe, A.; Krambias, A. (1982) The response of captive Chukar par

- tridges to the ingredients and anticoagulant poisons us ed in ro

- dent baits in Cyprus. P. 639

- 646 in Proceedings of a conference on the organization and practice of Vertebrate Pest Control; Aug 30

- Sept 3, 1982, Elvetham Hall, Hampshire, England.

74376 ACC 244802 Efficacy

multiple field studies

supplemental Kaukeinen, D.E.; Byers, R.; Merson, M.; et al. (1980) Volak^(TM)I: Efficacy to Meadow Voles and Wildlife Hazard from Broadcast Application of 50 ppm Pellets at 9.4 and 41 lb/A in a Dormant Apple Orchard (Virginia): Report Series TMUD3344/B. (Unpub

- lished study received Apr 2, 1981 under 10182

- EX

- 12; prepared in cooperation with Virginia Polytechnic Institute, Winchester Fruit Research Lab., submitted by ICI Americas, Inc., Wilming

ton, Del.; CDL:244802

- B)

84344 Choice test Kaukeinen, D.E.; Morris, K.D. (1979) Volak: Effect of Candidate Avian Repellent Agents on Laboratory Group Acceptance of Blank Volak Pellets to Meadow Voles: Report Series TMUD2608/B. (Un

- published study received Sep 10, 1981 under 10182

- 58; submitted by ICI Americas, Inc., Wilmington

, Del.; CDL:245924

- E)

84345 Choice test Kaukeinen, D.E.; Morris, K.D. (1979) Volak^(TM)I: Effect of Can

- didate Avian Repellent Agents on Laboratory Group Acceptance of Blank Volak Pellets to Pigeons: Report Series TMUD2621/B. (Unpublished study received Sep 10, 1981 under 10182

- 58; submit

- ted by ICI Americas, Inc., Wilmington, Del.; CDL:245924

- F)



# 72

- 1 Acute Toxicity to Freshwater Fish

MRID Citation Reference

66943 or 124472 supplemental Hill, R.W. (1978) PP 581: Determination of the Acute Toxicity of PP 581 to Rainbow Trout (Salmo gairdneri): BL/B/1877 . Includes undated method entitled: Analytical method for PP 581 in aqueous solution. (Unpublished study received Aug 15, 1978 under 10182

- 26; prepared by Imperial Chemical Industries, Ltd., submitted by ICI Americas, Inc., Wilmington, Del.; CDL:234655

- K)

66944 Hill, R.W. (1978) PP 581: Determination of the Acute Toxicity of Formulation JFU 5074 to Rainbow Trout (Salmo gairdneri): BL/ B/1874. Includes undated method entitled: Analytical method for JFU 5074 in aqueous solutions. (Unpublished study received Aug 15, 1978 under 10182

- 26; prepared by Imperial Chemical Indus

- tries, Ltd., submitted by ICI Americas, Inc., Wilmington, Del.; CDL :234655

- L)

66945 supplemental Hill, R.W. (1978) PP 581: Determination of the Acute Toxicity of Formulation JFU 5074 to Bluegill Sunfish (Lepomis macrochirus): BL/B/1879. Includes undated method entitled: Analytical method for JFU 5074 in aqueous solutions. (Unpublished study received Aug 15, 1978 under 10182

- 26; prepared by Imperial Chemical Industries, Ltd., submitted by ICI Americas, Inc., Wilmington, Del

### 38 66946 Supplem ental Will, R.W.; Clyburn, M. (1978) PP 581: Talon

-- Feeding Trials with Rainbow Trout (Salmo gairdneri): BL/B/1881 . (Unpublished study received Aug 15, 1978 under 10182

- 26; prepared by Imperial Chemical Industries, Ltd., submitted by ICI Americas, Inc., Wi lmington, Del.; CDL:234655

- N)

66947 Supplemental Hill, R.W.; Clyburn, M.M. (1978) PP 581: Talon

-- Feeding Trials with Bluegil l Sunfish (Lepomis macrochirus ): BL/B/1878 . (Unpub

- lished study received Aug 15, 1978 under 10182

- 26; prepared by Imperial Chemic al Industries, Ltd., submitted by ICI Americas, Inc., Wilmington, Del.; CDL:234655

- O)

88010 or 124470 Hill, R.W.; Maddock, B.G.; Hart, B.; et al. (1976) Determination of the Acute Toxicity of PP581 to Rainbow Trout (?~Salmo gaird~?

- ?~nerii ~?): BL/B/1758 . (Unpublished study received Jan 3, 1978 under 10182

- EX

- 10; prepared by Imperial Chemical Industries, Ltd., submitted by ICI Americas, Inc., Wilmington, Del.; CDL: 232750

- E)

88011 or 124471 Not accepted Hill, R.W.; Maddock, B.G.; Hart, B.; et al. (1976) Determination of the Acute Toxicity of PP581 to Bluegill Sunfish (?~Lepomis~ ?~macrochirus~?): Report BL/B/1771 . (Unpublished study received Jan 3, 1978 under 10182

- EX

- 10; prepared by Imperial Chemical In

- dustries, Ltd., submitted by ICI Americas, Inc., Wilmington, Del.; CDL:232750

- F)

124473 or 66944 Supplemental Hill, R. (1979) PP 581: Determination of the Acute Toxicity of For

- mulation JFU 5074 to Rainbow Trout: BL/B/1874 . (Unpublished study received Feb 27, 1979 under 10182

- 26; prepared by Imperial Chemical Industries, Ltd., Eng., submitted by ICI Americas, Inc., Wilmington, DE; CDL:237703

- D)

124474 or 66945 invalidated Hill, R. (1979) PP 581: Determination of the Acute Toxicity of Formulation JFU 5074 to Bluegill Sunfish: BL/B/1879 . (Unpublished study received Feb 27, 1979 under 10182

- 26; prepared by Imperial Chemical Industries, Ltd., Eng., submitted by ICI Americas, In c., Wilmington, DE; CDL:237703

- E)

124472 66943 Supplemental Hill, R. (1979) Determination of the Acute Toxicity of PP 581 to Rainbow Trout: BL/B/1877. (Unpublished study received Feb 27, 1979 under 10182

- 26; prepared by Imperial Chemical Indus

- tries, Lt d., Eng., submitted by ICI Americas, Inc., Wilmington, DE

143277 Lipha Chemicals, Inc. (1985) Toxicity Comparison between Talon and Maki: Lipha Report No. 85

- 013. Unpublished study. 4 p.

42641901 Invalidated Sankey, S.; Caunter , J.; Stanley, R. (1992) Brodifacoum: Acute Toxicity to Bluegill Sunfish (Lepomis macrochirus) of a 50 mg/kg Formulation: Lab Project Number: BL4614: W080/A: FT84/91. Unpublished study prepared by ICI PLC Group environmental Lab. 20 p.



# 72

- 2 Acute Toxicity to Freshwater Invertebrates

MRID Citation Reference

66948 Invalidated Getty, C.; Wilkinson, W.; Sealey, C. (1978) Brodifacoum: Toxicity to First Instar~Daphnia magna~: Report Series RJ0007 B. (Un

- published study received Aug 15, 1978 under 10182

- 26; prepared by Imperial Chemical

### 39 Industries, Ltd., submitted by ICI Ameri

- cas, Inc., Wilmington, Del.; CDL:234655

- P)

128442 Supplemental

– TGAI Invalid

- TEP Getty, C .; Wilkinson, W.; Sealey, C. (1978) Brodifacoum: Toxicity of the Liquid Concentrate Pelleted Bait and Technical Material to First Instar Daphnia magna: Report Series RJ0046B. (Unpub

- lished study received Mar 29, 1974 under 10182

- 26; prepared by Imperial C hemical Industries Ltd., Eng., submitted by ICI Ameri

- cas, Inc., Wilmington, DE; CDL:237909

- A)

92195012 Registrant summary Hamer, M. (1990) ICI Americas Inc. Phase 3 Summary of MRID 00128442. Brodifacoum: Toxicity of the Liquid Concentrate, Pelleted Bai t and Technical Material to First Instar Daphnia magna: Report No. RJ0046B; Study No. PP518/CH/01. Prepared by ICI AGROCHEMICALS JEALOTT'S HILL RESEARCH STATION. 19 p.



# NON Guideline Studies

- Many Secondary Toxicity Studies

80199 LaVoie. G.K., 1990. A study of the toxicity of the anticoagulant Brodifacoum to American kestrels ( Falco sparverius) . Proceedings of the Third International Conference on plant protection in the Tropics IV pp 27

- 29

80238 A Literature Search Jaber, M.J. (1981) A Literature Se arch of the Dietary Habits of Avian Predators: Report Series TMUE0001/B. (Unpublished study received Jul 22, 1981 under 10182

- 38; submitted by ICI Americas, Inc., Wilmington, Del.; CDL:245704

- I)

80239 Hegdal, P.L.; Blaskiewicz, R.W. (1981) Hazards to Barn Owls Asso ci ated with the Use of Talon^(R)I (Brodifacoum Bait) for Control

- ling Rats and House Mice. (Unpublished study received Jul 22, 1981 under 10182

- 38; prepared in cooperation with U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, Wildlife Research Center, submit ted by ICI Americas, Inc., Wilmington, Del.; CDL:245704

- J)

80240 Morris, K.D.; Kaukeinen, D.E. (1980) Talon^(TM)I 15

- day Choice Feeding of Blank Talon Pellets Containing Demeclocycline vs. EPA Meal Using Albino Norway Rats: Report Series TMUD3245/B. (Un

- published study received Jul 22, 1981 under 10182

- 38; submitted by ICI Americas, Inc., Wilmington, Del.; CDL:245704

- K)

80241 Secondary Poisoning Morris, K.D.; Kaukeinen, D.E. (1980) Talon: Rodent Baiting Sites of the Barn Owl: Secondary Hazard Study: Report Series TMUD3335/B. (Unpublished study received Jul 22, 1981 under 10182

- 38; sub

- mitted by ICI Americas, Inc., Wilmington, Del.; CDL:245704

- L)

80242 46750931 J001738 Secondary Poisoning Mendenhall, V.M.; Pank, L.F. (1979) Secondary Poisoning of Owls by Anticoagulant Rodenticides. (U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, Patuxent Wildlife Research Center; unpublished study; CDL: 245704

- M)

### 40 80243 Secondary Poisoning Marsh, R.E.; Howard, W.E. (1978) Secondary Toxicity Hazards Tests of Brodifacoum to Raptor s. Prelim. rept. (Unpublished study received Jul 22, 1981 under 10182

- 38; prepared in cooperation with Univ. of California

-- Davis, Dept. of Avian Science, Raptor Center, submitted by ICI Americas, Inc., Wilmington, Del.; CDL:245704

- N)

80244 Secondary Poi soning Savarie, P.J.; LaVoie, G.K.; Hayes, G. (1979) Secondary Toxicity Hazards of the Anticoagulant Brodifacoum to American Kestrals (Falco sparverius): Research Report Work Unit 940.16. (Unpublished study received Jul 22, 1981 under 10182

- 38; prepared in cooperation with U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, Denver Wildlife Research Center and Arapahoe Animal Hospital, submitted by ICI Americas, Inc., Wilmington, Del.; CDL:245704

- O)

80249 Invalidated

Secondary Poisoning Morris, K.D.; Kaukeinen , D.E.; Brooks, C.; et al. (1978) Talon^(TM)I: Secondary Toxicity of Brodifacoum to Dogs (Bea

- gles): Report Series TMUD1997/B. Rev. (Unpublished study re

- ceived Jul 22, 1981 under 10182

- 38; submitted by ICI Americas, Inc., Wilmington, Del.; CDL:245704

- U)

84346 Repellency trials Morris, K.D.; Kaukeinen, D.E. (1981) Volid: Effect of Candidate Avian Repellent Agents on Laboratory Acceptance of Blank Volid Pellets to Pine Voles: Report Series TMUD3591/B . (Unpublished study received Sep 10, 1981 under 10182

- 58; submitted by ICI Americas, Inc., Wilmington, Del.; CDL:245924

- G)

84347 Morris, K.D.; Kaukeinen, D.E. (1981) Volid: Effect of Candidate Avian Repellent Agent s on Laboratory Acceptance of Blank Volid Pellets to Meadow Voles: Report Series TMUD3592/B . (Unpublished study received Sep 10, 1981 under 10182

- 58; submitted by ICI Americas, Inc., Wilmington, Del.; CDL:245924

- H)

84348 Morris, K.D.; Kaukeinen, D.E. (19 81) Volid: Effect of Candidate Avian Repellent Agents on Laboratory Group Acceptance of Blank Volid Pellets to Pigeons: Report Series TMUD3593/B . (Unpub

- lished study received Sep 10, 1981 under 10182

- 58; submitted by ICI Americas, Inc., Wilmington, Del.; CDL:245924

- I)

84349 Kaukeinen, D.E.; Jackson, W.B. (1981) Volid: Effect of Potential Avian Aversive Agents on Wild Pigeons: Report Series TMUD3682/B. (Unpublished study received Sep 10, 1981 under 10182

- 58; pre

- pared in cooperation with Bowling Green St ate Univ., Environ

- mentl Studies Center, submitted by ICI Americas, Inc., Wilming

- ton, Del.; CDL:245924

- J)

84350 Morris, K.D.; Kaukeinen, D.E. (1981) Volid^(TM)I: Acceptability of 50 ppm Volid Pellets Containing 5% Graphite versus Blank, Undyed Volid P ellets Using Wild Meadow Voles: Report Series TMUD3658/B. (Unpublished study received Sep 10, 1981 under 10182

- 58; submitted by ICI Americas, Inc., Wilmington, Del.; CDL:245924

- K)

84351 Morris, K.D.; Kaukeinen, D.E. (1980) Volak : Three

- day Choice Feeding of 50 ppm Volak Pellets Containing 5% Graphite versus ?~Microtus~Challenge Diet Using Pine Voles: Report Series TMUD

- 3107/B. (Unpublished study received Sep 10, 1981 under 10182

- 58; submitted by ICI Americas, Inc., Wilmington, D el.; CDL: 245924

- L)

84352 Morris, K.D.; Kaukeinen, D.E. (1981) Volid: Acceptance of 50 ppm Volid Pellets Containing 5% Graphite versus Blank, Undyed Volid Pellets Using Pigeons: Report Series TMUD3594/B . (Unpublished study received Sep 10,

### 41 1981 under 101 82

- 58; submitted by ICI Americas, Inc., Wilmington, Del.; CDL:245924

- M)

84353 Morris, K.D.; Kaukeinen, D.E. (1981) Volid: Acceptability of 50 ppm Volid Pellets Containing 5% Graphite versus 50 ppm Volid Pellets Containing 50 ppm Rhodamine B Using Ring

- ne cked Pheas

- ants: Report Series TMUD3595/B . (Unpublished study received Sep 10, 1981 under 10182

- 58; submitted by ICI Americas, Inc., Wilmington, Del.; CDL:245924

- N)

84354 Morris, K.D.; Kaukeinen, D.E. (1981) Volid: Acceptability of 50 ppm Volid Pellets Containing 5% Graphite versus Blank, Un

- dyed Volid Pellets Using Pigeons: Report Series TMUD3659/B . (Unpublished study received Sep 10, 1981 under 10182

- 58; sub

- mitted by ICI Americas, Inc., Wilmington, Del.; CDL:245924

- O)

84355 Invalidated Morris, K.D .; Kaukeinen, D.E. (1981) Volid^(TM)I: Acceptability of 10 ppm Volid Pellets Containing 5% Graphite vs 50 ppm Volid Pellets Containing 50 ppm Rodamine B Using Ring

- necked Pheas

- ants: Report Series TMUD3625/B. (Unpublished study received Sep 10, 1981 under 10182

- 58; submitted by ICI Americas, Inc., Wilmington, Del.; CDL:245924

- P)

84356 Kaukeinen, D.E.; Byers, R.; Merson, M.; et al. (1981) Volid^(TM)I: Efficacy to Meadow Voles and Wildlife Hazard from Broadcast Application of 10 ppm Pellets at 20.4 lb/A (2 2.9 kg/ha) in a Dormant Apple Orchard: Report Series TMUD3683/B . (Unpublished study received Sep 10, 1981 under 10182

- 58; prepared in coopera

- tion with Virginia Polytechnic Institute, Winchester Fruit Re

- search Laboratory, submitted by ICI Americas, Inc., Wilmington, Del.; CDL:245924

- Q)

84357 Merson, M.H.; Byers, R.E. (1981) A Study of Nontarget Species Hazard of Brodifacoum Use as an Orchard Rod enticide. (Unpub

- lished study received Sep 10, 1981 under 10182

- 58; prepared by Virginia Polytechnic Institute and State Univ., Winchester Fruit Research Laboratory, submitted by ICI Americas, Inc., Wilmington, Del.; CDL:245924

- R)

85726 Kaukeinen , D.E.; Ussary, J.P.; Koubek, K.G.; et al. (1981) Brodi

- facoum Residues in Meadow Voles and Other Wildlife from a 10 ppm Volid~(TM)~ Treated Orchard

-- Trial 24VA81

- 001: Report Series TMU0660/B

. (Unpublished study received Jul 22, 1981 under 10182

- EX

- 21; su bmitted by ICI Americas, Inc., Wilmington, Del.; CDL:245702

- D)

85729 Dickie, B.C.; Balk, M.W.; Rao, G.N.; et al. (1980) Palatability of a Rodenticide Base in Dogs: Raltech Study No. 80527. Final rept. (Unpublished study received Jul 22, 1981 under 10182

- 38; prepared by Ralston Purina Co., submitted by ICI Americas, Inc., Wilmington, Del.; CDL:245704

- T)

94694 or 46750931 or 40077202 Supplemental Mendenhall, V.M.; Pank, L.F. (1980) Secondary poisoning of owls by anticoagulant rodenticides. Wildlife Society Bulletin 8(4):311

- 315. (Also~In~unpublished submission received Feb 7, 1982 under 12455

- 34; submitted by Bell Laboratories, Madison, Wis.; CDL: 246741

- C)

128238 Summary of Toxicity Data ICI Americas, Inc. (1983) Volid Rodenticide Pellets (Containing Br odifacoum) for Control of Microtus in Orchards: ?Summary of Toxicity Data|. (Unpublished study received Apr 29, 1983 under 10182

- 58; submitted by ICI Americas, Inc., Wilmington, DE; CDL:250077

- A)

128239 invalidated Merson, M. (1983) Rodenticide Applicati on and Vole Population Estimation in 1981: Secondary Poisoning Study . (Unpublished study received Apr 29,

### 42 1983 under 10182

- 58; submitted by ICI Americas, Inc., Wilmington, DE; CDL:250077

- E)

128240 Supplemental Secondary toxicity Hegdal, P.; Colvin, B.; B laskiewicz, R.; et al. (1983) Secondary Hazards to Screech Owls Associated with the Use of Volid

-- Brodi

- facoum Bait for Controlling Voles in Orchards. (Unpublished study received Apr 29, 1983 under 10182

- 58; prepared by U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, Wil dlife Research Center, submitted by ICI Americas, Inc., Wilmington, DE; CDL:250077

- G)

128421 Morris, K.; Kaukeinen, D.; Brooks, C.; et al. (1978) Talon: Second

- ary Toxicity of Brodifacoum to Dogs (Beagles): Report Series TMUD1997/B

. Rev. (Unpublished study received Aug 15, 1978 un

- der 10182

- 26; submitted by ICI Americas, Inc., Wilmington, DE; CDL:234658

- B)

128422 Supplemental Secondary toxicity Morris, K.; Kaukeinen, D.; Brooks, C.; et al. (1978) Talon: Second

- ary Toxicity of Br odifacoum to Foxes: Report Series TMUD1998/B. (Unpublished study received Aug 15, 1978 under 10182

- 26; submit

- ted by ICI Americas, Inc., Wilmington, DE; CDL:234658

- C)

139519 Invalidated Kaukeinen, D.; Byers, R. (1981) Volak: Potential Hazard of the 10 ppm Black Pellet Broadcast at 3 Rates As Indicated by Penned Ring

- necked Pheasants: Report Series TMUD3512/B. ( Unpublished study received Apr 29, 1983 under 10182

- 58; submitted by ICI Americas, Inc., Wilmington, DE; CDL:250077

- D)

139520 invalidated Kaukeinen, D.; Ussary, J.; Peterson, F. (1983) Brodifacoum Residues in Screech Owls and Other Wildlife from Volid

- treated Apple Orchards: Report Series TMU0910/B. (Unpublished study received Apr 29, 1983 under 10182

- 58; submitted by ICI Americas, Inc., Wil mington, DE; CDL:250077

- F)

152102 Acceptable Edwards, P.; Swaine, H. (1983) Brodifacoum: Hazard to Non

- target Animals from the Use of 'Klerat' Bait on Farms in the UK for Control of the Common Rat Rattus norvegicus: Report No. RJ0305B. Unpublished study prepared by ICI Plant Protection Division. 36 p.

152103 Supplemental Edwards, P.; Swaine, H.; Kennedy, S. (1984) Brodifacoum: Hazard to Non

target Animals from 'Pulsed' Baiting with 'Klerat' Pelleted Bait around Farm Buildings: Report No. RJ0369B . Unpublished study prepared by ICI Plant Protection Division. 61 p.

152104 Supplemental Edwards, P.; Swaine, H.; Coulson, J.; et al. (1984) Brodifacoum: Hazard to Non

- target Animals from 'Pulsed' Baiting with Wax Block Baits around Farm Buildings: Repor t No. RJ0375B. Unpub

- lished study prepared by ICI Plant Protection Division. 64 p.

161693 Hegdal, P.; Colvin, B.; Blaskiewicz, R.; et al. (1983) Secondary Hazards to Screech Owls Associated with the Use of Volid (Brodi

- facoum Bait) for Controlling Vole s in Orchards. Unpublished study prepared by U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, Wildlife Re

- search Center. 110 p.

163158 ICI Americas Inc. (19??) Brodifacoum: Mode of Action and Antidote Studies. Unpublished compilation. 19 p.

46360601 Probabilistic Asse ssment Giddings, J.; Warren

- Hicks, W. (2004) A Probabilistic Assessment of the Risk of Brodifacoum to Non

- target Predators and Scavengers. Project Number: T001270/04. Unpublished study prepared by the Cadmus Group, Inc. 114 p.

### 43 47114602 EPA Paper Erickson, W.; Urban, D. (2004) Potential Risk of Nine Rodenticides to Birds and Nontarget Mammals: A Comparative Approach. Prepared by US EPA, OPP, EFED, Environmental Risk Branch. pp. 81

- 85.

47668004 Veitch, C.; Clout, M. (2002) The Eradication of Alien Mammals f rom Five Offshore Islands, Mauritius, Indian Ocean. Turning the Tide: The Eradication of Invasive Species. IUCN SSC Invasive Species Specialist Group. IUCN, Gland, Switzerland and Cambridge, UK: 40

- 45.

47668005 Veitch, C.; Clout, M. (2002) Eradication of Rabbits and Mice from Subantarctic Enderby and Rose Island . Turning the Tide: The Eradication of Invasive Species. IUCN SSC Invasive Species Specialist Group. IUCN, Gland, Switzerland and Cambridge, UK: 319

- 328.

48396204 Efficacy

– open lit Byers, R. (1981) Pine Vole Control with Anticoagulant Baits in Apple Orchards (Diphacinone, Chlorophacinone, Bromadiolone, and Brodifacoum). Journal of the American Society of Horticultural Science 106(1): 101

- 105.

48396205 Efficacy

– open lit Byers, R. (1979) Meadow Vole Control Using Anticoagulant Baits (Diphacinone, Chlorophacinone, and Brodifacoum). HortScience 14(1): 44

- 45.

80237 bioaccumulation ICI Americas Inc., (1981) Agricultural Chemicals Division, Research and Development Dept. Report Series TMU 0545/B, Dec. 17, 1980 Acc. #245704 Brodifacoum Residues in Rodents, Pheasants and Ground Rat Tissues

48435601

- 48435607 2005

- 2011 Buckelew, S.; Howald, G.; Alifano, A, Wegmann,A, Eisemann, J.; et al. Palmyra Atoll Rat E radication Assessment, Monitoring, and Methods.

ACC 225704 Supplemental

HED review? Brodifacoum: Absorption, excretion and tissue retention i n the rat, by H. Bratt, & Pamela Hundson for I C I , LTD, Alderly Park, Macclesfield, Cheshire, UK CTL Study No. URO110, Report No.

- CTL/P/468,

ACC 250077 Invalidated Morris, K.D. (1983) Analysis of Screech Owl Mortality as Revealed by Banding Studies. ICI Americas, Inc., Acc#250077.
Merson, M.H. 1984. Residues of th e Rodenticide Brodifacoum in Voles and Raptors After Orchard Treatment

. J. Wildl. Manage., Vol 48, No. 1, pp. 212

- 216

Acc. #250077 open lit Van Camp, Laurel F . , & Charles J. Henny (1975). The Screech Owl: Its L i f e H i s t o r y and P o p u l a t i o n Ecology i n Northern Ohio. USDI, FWS, North American Fauna, Nurnbeg 71 p u b l i s h e d by USFWS . 63 pp.

J001730 = PDF copy 

### Hegdal PL, Colvin BA (1988) Potential hazard to eastern screech owls and other raptors of brodifacoum bait used for vole co ntrol in orchards. Environ Toxicol Chem 7:245

– 260

J007888 = PDF copy Joermann, G . 1998. A Review of secondary

- poisoning studies with rodenticides

. Bull e tin OEPP/EPPO #26 pp 157

- 176

E151555 = PDF copy Vandenbroucke, V. , 2008. Pharmacokinetics of Eight anticoagulant rodenticides in mice after single oral administration

J000317 = PDF copy Stone, W. B., J. C. Okonlewski, and J. R. Stedelin 1999. Poisoning of Wildlife with Anticoagulant Rodenticides in New York

. Journal of Wildlife Diseases 35(2) 187

- 193

### 44 J001732 = PDF copy Birks, J. D. S. , 1998. Secondary Rodenticide Poisoning Risk Arising From Winter Farmyard Use by the European Polecat Mustela putorius

. Biological Conservation, Vol. 85, pp. 233

- 240

J001920 = PDF copy Hegdal, P. L., T. A. Gatz, and E. C. Fite. 1980. Secondary Effects of Rodenticides On Mammalian Predators

### 45 

# Appendix B . EPI Suite v.4.1 Output File for Brodifacoum

CAS Number: 056073

- 10

- 0 SMILES : c1cc(Br)ccc1c(cc2)ccc2C3Cc4ccccc4C(C5=C(O)c6ccccc6OC5(=O))C3 CHEM : Brodifacoum MOL FOR: C31 H23 Br1 O3 MOL WT : 523.43

------------------------------ EPI SUMMARY (v4.10)

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

Physical Property Inputs: Log Kow (octanol

- water): 8.50 Boiling Point (deg C) :

------ Melting Point (deg C) : 230.0 0 Vapor Pressure (mm Hg) :

------ Water Solubility (mg/L): 0.0038 Henry LC (atm

- m3/mole) :

------
KOWWIN Program (v1.68) Results:

===============================
Log Kow(version 1.68 estimate): 8.51

Experimental Da tabase Structure Match: Name : Brodifacoum CAS Num : 056073

- 10

- 0 Exp Log P: 8.50 Exp Ref : TOMLIN,C (1997)

SMILES : c1cc(Br)ccc1c(cc2)ccc2C3Cc4ccccc4C(C5=C(O)c6ccccc6OC5(=O))C3 CHEM : Brodifacoum MOL FOR: C31 H23 Br1 O3 MOL WT : 523.43

------- +

----- +

-------------------------------------------- +

--------- +

--------

TYPE | NUM | LOGKOW FRAGMENT DESCRIPTION | COEFF | VALUE

------- +

----- +

-------------------------------------------- +

--------- +

--------

Frag | 2 |

- CH2

- [aliphatic carbon] | 0.4911 | 0.9822 Frag | 2 |

- CH [aliphatic carbon] | 0.3614 | 0.7228 Frag | 2 | =CH

- or =C< [olefinc carbon] | 0.3836 | 0.7672 Frag | 24 | Aromatic Carbon | 0.2940 | 7.0560 Frag | 1 |

- Br [bromine, aromatic attach] | 0.8900 | 0.8900 Frag | 1 |

- C(=O)O [ester, aliphatic attach] |

- 0.9505 |

- 0.9505 Frag | 1 |

- OH [alcohol, olefinic attach] |

- 0.8855 |

- 0.8855 Factor| 1 | Cyclic ester [olefinic type] correction |

- 0.2969 |

- 0.2969 Const | | Equation Constant | | 0.2290

------- +

----- +

-------------------------------------------- +

--------- +

-------- Log Kow = 8.5143

MPBPVP (v1.43) Program Results:

=============================== Experimental Database Structure Match: Name : Brodifacoum CAS Num : 056073

- 10

- 0 Exp MP (deg C): 2 30 Exp BP (deg C):

--- Exp VP (mm Hg):

---
SMILES : c1cc(Br)ccc1c(cc2)ccc2C3Cc4ccccc4C(C5=C(O)c6ccccc6OC5(=O))C3 CHEM : Brodifacoum MOL FOR: C31 H23 Br1 O3 MOL WT : 523.43

------------------------ SUMMARY MPBVP v1.43

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

Boiling Point: 691.46 deg C (Adapted Stein and Brown Method)

Melting Point: 349.84 deg C (Adapted Joback Method) Melting Point: 290.08 deg C (Gold and Ogle Method) Mean Melt Pt : 319.96 deg C (Joback; Gold,Ogle Methods) Selected MP: 302.03 deg C ( Weighted Value)

### 46 Vapor Pressure Estimations (25 deg C): (Using BP: 691.46 deg C (estimated)) (Using MP: 230.00 deg C (user entered))

VP: 6.64E

- 027 mm Hg (Antoine Method) : 8.85E

- 025 Pa (Antoine Method) VP: 1.11E

- 018 mm Hg (Modified G rain Method) : 1.48E

- 016 Pa (Modified Grain Method) VP: 5.46E

- 015 mm Hg (Mackay Method) : 7.28E

- 013 Pa (Mackay Method) Selected VP: 1.11E

- 018 mm Hg (Modified Grain Method) : 1.48E

- 016 Pa (Modified Grain Method) Subco oled liquid VP: 1.77E

- 016 mm Hg (25 deg C, Mod

- Grain method) : 2.36E

- 014 Pa (25 deg C, Mod

- Grain method)

------- +

----- +

-------------------- +

---------- +

---------

TYPE | NUM | BOIL DESCRIPTION | COEFF | VALUE

------- +

----- +

-------------------- +

---------- +

---------

Group | 2 |

- CH2

- (ring) | 26.44 | 52.88 Group | 2 | >CH

- (ring) | 21.66 | 43.32 Group | 2 | =C< (ring) | 28.19 | 56.38 Group | 1 |

- OH (alcohol) | 106.27 | 106.27 Group | 16 | CH (aromatic) | 28.53 | 456.48 Group | 6 |

- C (aromatic) | 30.76 | 184.56 Group | 2 | C (3a aromatic) | 45.46 | 90.92 Group | 1 |

- COO

- (ring) | 172.49 | 172.49 Group | 1 |

- Br (to aromat) | 61.85 | 61.85 * | | Equation Constant | | 198.18

=============+====================+==========+========= RESULT

- uncorr| BOILING POINT in deg Kelvin | 1423.33 RESULT

- corr | BOILING POINT in deg Kelvin | 964 .62 | BOILING POINT in deg C | 691.46

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

------- +

----- +

-------------------- +

---------- +

---------

TYPE | NUM | MELT DESCRIPTION | COEFF | VALUE

------- +

----- +

------------- ------- +

---------- +

---------

Group | 2 |

- CH2

- (ring) | 7.75 | 15.50 Group | 2 | >CH

- (ring) | 19.88 | 39.76 Group | 2 | =C< (ring) | 37.02 | 74.04 Group | 1 |

- OH (alcohol) | 44.45 | 44.45 Group | 16 | CH (aromatic) | 8.13 | 130.08 Group | 6 |

- C (aromatic) | 37.02 | 222.12 Group | 2 | C (3a aromatic) | 37.02 | 74.04 Group | 1 |

- COO

- (ring) | 53.60 | 53.60 Group | 1 |

- Br (to aromat) | 43.43 | 43.43 * | | Equation Constant | | 122.50

=============+====================+==========+========= RESULT | MELTING POINT in deg Kelvin | 819.52 RESULT

- limit| MELTING POINT in deg Kelvin | 623.00 | MELTING POINT in deg C | 349.84

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

Water Sol from Kow (WSKOW v1.42) Results:

========================================

Water Sol: 5.276e

- 006 mg/L

Experimental Water Solubility Database Match: Name : Brodifacoum CAS Num : 056073

- 10

- 0 Exp WSol : 0.0038 mg/L (20 deg C) Exp Ref : TOMLIN,C (1997); pH 5.2

SMILES : c1cc(Br)ccc1c(cc2)ccc2C3Cc4ccccc4C(C5=C(O)c6ccccc6OC5(=O))C3 CHEM : Brodifacoum MOL FOR: C31 H23 Br1 O3 MO L WT : 523.43

---------------------------------- WSKOW v1.42 Results

------------------------ Log Kow (estimated) : 8.51

### 47 Log Kow (experimental): 8.50 Cas No: 056073

- 10

- 0 Name : Brodifacoum Refer : TOMLIN,C (1997) Log Kow used by Water solubility estimates: 8.50 (user entered)

Equation Used to Make Water Sol estimate: Log S (mol/L) = 0.693

- 0.96 log Kow

- 0.0092(Tm

- 25)

- 0.00314 MW + Correction

Melting Pt (Tm) = 230.00 deg C (Use Tm = 25 for all liquids)

Correction(s): Value

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

No Applicable Correction Factors

Log Water Solubility (in moles/L) :

- 10.997 Water Solubility at 25 deg C (mg/L): 5.276e

- 006

WATERNT Program (v1.01) Results:

========================== =====

Water Sol (v1.01 est): 6.8599e

- 007 mg/L

Experimental Water Solubility Database Match: Name : Brodifacoum CAS Num : 056073

- 10

- 0 Exp WSol : 0.0038 mg/L (20 deg C) Exp Ref : TOMLIN,C (1997); pH 5.2

SMILES : c1cc(Br)ccc1c(cc2)ccc2C3Cc4ccccc4C(C5=C(O)c6ccccc6OC5(=O))C3 CHEM : Brodifacoum MOL FOR: C31 H23 Br1 O3 MOL WT : 523.43

------- +

----- +

-------------------------------------------- +

---------- +

---------

TYPE | NUM | WATER SOLUBILITY FRAGMENT DESCRIPTI ON | COEFF | VALUE

------- +

----- +

-------------------------------------------- +

---------- +

---------

Frag | 2 |

- CH [aliphatic carbon] |

- 0.5285 |

- 1.0570 Frag | 2 | =CH

- or =C< [olefinc carbon] |

- 0.3646 |

- 0.7292 Frag | 16 | Aromatic Carbon (C

- H type) |

- 0.3359 |

- 5.3738 Frag | 1 |

- Br [bromine, aromatic attach] |

- 0.5661 |

- 0.5661 Frag | 1 |

- C(=O)O [ester, aliphatic attach] | 0.5757 | 0.5757 Frag | 8 | Aromatic Carbon (C

- substituent type) |

- 0.5400 |

- 4.3196 Frag | 2 |

- CH2

- [aliphatic carbon, cyclic] |

- 0.3308 |

- 0.6617 Frag | 1 |

- OH [alcohol, olefinic attach] | 0.0000 | 0.0000 Const | | Equation Cons tant | | 0.2492

------- +

----- +

-------------------------------------------- +

---------- +

--------- Log Water Sol (moles/L) at 25 dec C =

- 11.8825 Water Solubility (mg/L) at 25 dec C =6.8599e

- 007

ECOSAR Program (v1.00) Results:

============================== SMILES : c1cc(Br)ccc1c(cc2)ccc2C3Cc4ccccc4C(C5=C(O)c6ccccc6OC5(=O))C3 CHEM : Brodifacoum CAS Num: ChemID1: ChemID2: ChemID3: MOL FOR: C31 H23 Br1 O3 MOL WT : 523.43 Log Kow: 8.51 (KowWin estimate) Melt Pt: 230.00 deg C Wat Sol: 0.0038 mg/L (measured)

ECOSAR v1.00 Class(es) Found

------------------------------ Acrylates Vinyl/Allyl Alcohols Predicted

### 48 ECOSAR Class Organism Duration End Pt mg/L (ppm)

=========================== ================== ======== ====== ========== Acrylates : Fish 96

- hr LC50 0.196 * Acrylates : Daphnid 48

- hr LC50 0.158 * Acrylates : Green Algae 96

- hr EC50 0.821 * Acrylates : Fish 30

- day ChV 0.000 247 Acrylates : Daphnid ChV 0.000599 ! Acrylates : Green Algae ChV 0.062 * Acrylates : Fish (SW) 96

- hr LC50 0.217 * Acrylates : Mysid Shrimp (SW) 96

- hr LC50 0.006 * Acrylates : Fish (SW) ChV 0.007 *! Acrylates : Mysid Shrimp (SW) ChV 1.51e

- 007 !

Vinyl/Allyl Alcohols : Fi sh 96

- hr LC50 1.735 * Vinyl/Allyl Alcohols : Daphnid 48

- hr LC50 0.527 * Vinyl/Allyl Alcohols : Green Algae 96

- hr EC50 0.035 * Vinyl/Allyl Alcohols : Fish ChV 0.000159 ! Vinyl/Allyl Alcohols : Daphnid ChV 0.000755 ! Vinyl/Allyl Alcohols : Green Algae ChV 0.022 *

================= ========== ================== ======== ====== ========== Neutral Organic SAR : Fish 96

- hr LC50 0.00124 (Baseline Toxicity) : Daphnid 48

- hr LC50 0.00157 : Green Algae 96

- hr EC50 0.010 * : Fish ChV 0.000102 : Daphnid ChV 0.000459 : Green Algae ChV 0.012 *

Note: * = asterisk designates: Chemical may not be soluble enough to measure this predicted effect.

Note: ! = exclamation designates: The toxicity value was determined from a predicted SAR using established acute

- to

- chr onic ratios and ECOSAR regression techniques which are documented in the supporting Technical Reference Manual. When possible, this toxicity value should be considered in a weight of evidence approach.

Acrylates:

--------- For Fish, Daph nid and Mysid Shrimp Acute Toxicity Values: If the log Kow of the chemical is greater than 5.0, or if the compound is solid and the LC50 exceeds the water solubility by 10X, no effects at saturation are predicted for these endpoints.

For Green Algae Acute Toxicity Values: If the log Kow of the chemical is greater than 6.4, or if the compound is solid and the EC50 exceeds the water solubility by 10X, no effects at saturation are predicted for these endpoints.

For All Chronic Toxic ity Values: If the log Kow of the chemical is greater than 8.0, or if the compound is solid and the ChV exceeds the water solubility by 10X, no effects at saturation are predicted for these endpoints.

ECOSAR v1.00 SAR Limitations:

----------------------- ----- Maximum LogKow: 5.0 (LC50) Maximum LogKow: 6.4 (EC50) Maximum LogKow: 8.0 (ChV) Maximum Mol Wt: 1000

Vinyl/Allyl Alcohols:

-------------------- For Fish and Daphnid Acute Toxicity Values: If the log Kow of the chemical is greater than 5.0, or if the compound is solid and the LC50 exceeds the water solubility by 10X, no effects at saturation are predicted for these endpoints.

For Green Algae Acute Toxicity Values: If the log Kow of the chemical is greater than 6.4, or if the compound is solid a nd the EC50 exceeds the water solubility by 10X, no effects at saturation are predicted for these endpoints.

For All Chronic Toxicity Values: If the log Kow of the chemical is greater than 8.0, or if the compound is solid and the ChV exceeds the water solubility

### 49 by 10X, no effects at saturation are predicted for these endpoints.

ECOSAR v1.00 SAR Limitations:

---------------------------- Maximum LogKow: 5.0 (LC50) Maximum LogKow: 6.4 (EC50) Maximum LogKow: 8.0 (ChV) Maximum Mol Wt: 1000

Baseline Toxicity SAR Limitations:

--------------------------------- Maximum LogKow: 5.0 (Fish 96

- hr LC50; Daphnid LC50) Maximum LogKow: 6.4 (Green Algae EC50) Maximum LogKow: 8.0 (ChV) Maximum Mol Wt: 1000

HENRYWIN (v3.20) Program Results:

============== ===============

Bond Est : 5.40E

- 013 atm

- m3/mole (5.47E

- 008 Pa

- m3/mole) Group Est: Incomplete

SMILES : c1cc(Br)ccc1c(cc2)ccc2C3Cc4ccccc4C(C5=C(O)c6ccccc6OC5(=O))C3 CHEM : Brodifacoum MOL FOR: C31 H23 Br1 O3 MOL WT : 523.43

--------------------------- HENRYWIN v3.20 Results

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

---------- +

--------------------------------------------- +

--------- +

---------- CLASS | BOND CONTRIBUTION DESCRIPTION | COMMENT | VALUE

---------- +

------------- -------------------------------- +

--------- +

----------

HYDROGEN | 6 Hydrogen to Carbon (aliphatic) Bonds | |

- 0.7181 HYDROGEN | 16 Hydrogen to Carbon (aromatic) Bonds | |

- 2.4687 HYDROGEN | 1 Hydrogen to Oxygen Bonds | | 3.2318 FRAGMENT | 3 C

- C | | 0.3489 FRAGMENT | 3 C

- Car | | 0.4858 FRAGMENT | 1 C

- Cd | | 0.0635 FRAGMENT | 24 Car

- Car | | 6.3314 FRAGMENT | 1 Car

- Br | | 0.2454 FRAGMENT | 1 Cd

- CO | | 1.9260 FRAGMENT | 1 CO

- O | | 0.0714 FRAGMENT | 1 Car

- Car Ring

- to

- Ring (biphenyl

- type) | | 0.1490 FRAGMENT | 1 Cd

- O | | 0.2051 FRAGMENT | 1 Car

- Cd | | 0.4371 FRAGMENT | 1 Car

- O | | 0.3473 FRAGMENT | 1 Cd=Cd | | 0.0000

---------- +

----------------- ---------------------------- +

--------- +

----------

RESULT | BOND ESTIMATION METHOD for LWAPC VALUE | TOTAL | 10.656

---------- +

--------------------------------------------- +

--------- +

---------- HENRYs LAW CONSTANT at 25 deg C = 5.40E

- 013 atm

- m3/ mole = 2.21E

- 011 unitless = 5.47E

- 008 Pa

- m3/mole

-------- +

----------------------------------------------- +

------------ +

-------- | GROUP CONTRIBUTION DESCRIPTION | CO MMENT | VALUE

-------- +

----------------------------------------------- +

------------ +

-------- | 1 Cd (C)(CO) | ESTIMATE | 0.10 | 1 CH2 (C)(C) | |

- 0.15 | 1 CH2 (C)(Car) | |

- 0.19 | 1 CH (C)(C)(Car) | | 0.29 | 16 Car

- H (Car)(Car) | | 1.76 | 3 Ca r (C)(Car)(Car) | | 2.10 | 2 Car (Car)(Car)(Car) external | ESTIMATE | 0.66 | 1 Car (Car)(Car)(Br) | | 0.49 | 1 Car (Car)(Car)(O) | |

- 0.43 | 1 CO (Cd)(O) | ESTIMATE | 4.00 | 1 Car (Car)(Car)(Cd) | ESTIMATE | 0.75 | MISSING Value for: CH (C)(Cd)(Car) | MISSING Value for: Cd (O)(Car)

### 50 | MISSING Value for: O

- H (Cd) | MISSING Value for: O (CO)(Car)

-------- +

----------------------------------------------- +

------------ +

--------

RESULT | GROUP ESTIMATION MET HOD for LOG GAMMA VALUE | INCOMPLETE | 9.38

-------- +

----------------------------------------------- +

------------ +

--------

For Henry LC Comparison Purposes: Exper Database: none available User

- Entered Henry LC: not entered Henrys LC [via VP/W Sol estimate using User

- Entered or Estimated values]: HLC: 2.012E

- 016 atm

- m3/mole (2.038E

- 011 Pa

- m3/mole) VP: 1.11E

- 018 mm Hg (source: MPBPVP) WS: 0.0038 mg/L (source: User

- Entered)

Log Octanol

- Air (KOAWIN v1.10) Results:

======================================
Log Koa: 19.156

SMILES : c1cc(Br)ccc1c(cc2)ccc2C3Cc4ccccc4C(C5=C(O)c6ccccc6OC5(=O))C3 CHEM : Brodifacoum MOL FOR: C31 H23 Br1 O3 MOL WT : 523.43

--------------------------- KOAWIN v1.10 Results

------ --------------------
Log Koa (octanol/air) estimate: 19.156 Koa (octanol/air) estimate: 1.432e+019 Using: Log Kow: 8.50 (user entered) HenryLC: 5.4e

- 013 atm

- m3/mole (HenryWin est) Log Kaw:

- 10.656 (air/water part.coef.)

LogKow : 8.50 (exp database) LogKow : 8.51 (KowWin estimate) Henry LC:

--- atm

- m3/mole(exp database) Henry LC: 5.4e

- 013 atm

- m3/mole (HenryWin bond estimate)

Log Koa (octanol/air) estimate: 19.166 (from KowWin/HenryWin)

BIOWIN (v4.10) Program Results:

============================== SMILES : c1cc(Br)ccc1c(cc2)ccc2C3Cc4ccccc4C(C5=C(O)c6ccccc6OC5(=O))C3 CHEM : Brodifacoum MOL FOR: C31 H23 Br1 O3 MOL WT : 523.43

--------------------------- BIOWIN v4.10 Results

----------------------------
Biowin1 (Linear Model Prediction) : Biodegrades Fast Biowin2 (Non

- Linear Model Prediction): Biodegrades Fast Biowin3 (Ultimate Biodegradation Timeframe): Months Biowin4 (Primary Biodegradation Timeframe): Weeks Biowin5 (MITI Linear M odel Prediction) : Does Not Biodegrade Fast Biowin6 (MITI Non

- Linear Model Prediction): Does Not Biodegrade Fast Biowin7 (Anaerobic Model Prediction): Does Not Biodegrade Fast Ready Biodegradability Prediction: NO

------ +

----- +

----------- --------------------------------- +

--------- +

---------

TYPE | NUM | Biowin1 FRAGMENT DESCRIPTION | COEFF | VALUE

------ +

----- +

-------------------------------------------- +

--------- +

---------

Frag | 1 | Aliphatic alcohol [

- OH] | 0.1587 | 0.1587 Frag | 1 | Ester [

- C(=O)

- O

- C] | 0.1742 | 0.1742 Frag | 1 | Aromatic bromide [

- Br] |

- 0.1103 |

- 0.1103 Frag | 3 | Alkyl substituent on aromatic ring | 0.0547 | 0 .1640 MolWt| * | Molecular Weight Parameter | |

- 0.2492 Const| * | Equation Constant | | 0.7475

============+============================================+=========+========= RESULT | B iowin1 (Linear Biodeg Probability) | | 0.8849

### 51 ============+============================================+=========+=========

------ +

----- +

-------------------------------------------- +

--------- +

---------

TYPE | NUM | Biowin2 FRAGMENT DESCRIPTION | COEFF | VALUE

------ +

----- +

-------------------------------------------- +

--------- +

---------

Frag | 1 | Aliphatic alcohol [

- OH] | 1.1178 | 1.1178 Frag | 1 | Ester [

- C(=O)

- O

- C] | 4.0795 | 4.0795 Frag | 1 | Aromatic bromide [

- Br] |

- 1.6779 |

- 1.6779 Frag | 3 | Alkyl substituent on aromatic ring | 0.5771 | 1.7313 MolWt| * | Molecular Weight Parameter | |

- 7.4327

============+============================================+=========+========= RESULT | Biowin2 (Non

- Linear Biodeg Probability) | | 0.6957

============+============================================+=========+==== =====

A Probability Greater Than or Equal to 0.5 indicates

-- > Biodegrades Fast A Probability Less Than 0.5 indicates

-- > Does NOT Biodegrade Fast

------ +

----- +

-------------------------------------------- +

--------- +

---------

TYPE | NUM | Biowi n3 FRAGMENT DESCRIPTION | COEFF | VALUE

------ +

----- +

-------------------------------------------- +

--------- +

---------

Frag | 1 | Aliphatic alcohol [

- OH] | 0.1600 | 0.1600 Frag | 1 | Ester [

- C(=O)

- O

- C] | 0.1402 | 0.1402 Frag | 1 | Aromatic bromide [

- Br] |

- 0.1360 |

- 0.1360 Frag | 3 | Alkyl substituent on aromatic ring |

- 0.0749 |

- 0.2246 MolWt| * | Molecular Weight Parameter | |

- 1.1 567 Const| * | Equation Constant | | 3.1992

============+============================================+=========+========= RESULT | Biowin3 (Survey Model

- Ultimate Biodeg) | | 1.9821

============+======= =====================================+=========+=========

------ +

----- +

-------------------------------------------- +

--------- +

---------

TYPE | NUM | Biowin4 FRAGMENT DESCRIPTION | COEFF | VALUE

------ +

----- +

-------------------------------------------- +

--------- +

---------

Frag | 1 | Aliphatic alcohol [

- OH] | 0.1294 | 0.1294 Frag | 1 | Ester [

- C(=O)

- O

- C] | 0.2290 | 0.2290 Frag | 1 | Aromatic bromide [

- Br] |

- 0.1535 |

- 0.1535 Frag | 3 | Alkyl substituent on aromatic ring |

- 0.0685 |

- 0.2056 MolWt| * | Molecular Weight Parameter | |

- 0.7552 Const| * | Equation Constant | | 3.8477

============+============================================+=========+========= RESULT | Biowin4 (Survey Model

- Primary Biodeg) | | 3.0919

============+============================================+=========+===== ====

Result Classification: 5.00

- > hours 4.00

- > days 3.00

- > weeks

(Primary & Ultimate) 2.00

- > months 1.00

- > longer

------ +

----- +

-------------------------------------------- +

--------- +

---------

TYPE | NUM | Biowin5 FRAGMENT DESCRIPTION | COEFF | VALUE

------ +

----- +

-------------------------------------------- +

--------- +

---------

Frag | 1 | Aliphatic alcohol [

- OH] | 0.1611 | 0.1611 Frag | 1 | Ester [

- C(=O)

- O

- C] | 0.3437 | 0.3437 Frag | 1 | Aromatic bromide [

- Br] | 0.1668 | 0.1668 Frag | 1 | Aromatic

- CH2 |

- 0.0557 |

- 0.0557 Frag | 2 | Aromatic

- CH |

- 0.0098 |

- 0.0195 Frag | 16 | Aromatic

- H | 0.0082 | 0.1315 Frag | 1 |

- CH2

- [cyclic] | 0.0197 | 0.0197 MolWt| * | Molecular Weight Parameter | |

- 1.5572 Const| * | Equation Constant | | 0.7121

============+============================================+=========+========= RESULT | Biowin5 (MITI Linear Biodeg Probability) | |

- 0.0974

============+============================================+=========+=========

------ +

----- +

-------------------------------------------- +

--------- +

---------

TYPE | NUM | Biowin6 FRAGMENT DESCRIPTION | COEFF | VALUE

------ +

----- +

------- ------------------------------------- +

--------- +

---------

Frag | 1 | Aliphatic alcohol [

- OH] | 1.0041 | 1.0041 Frag | 1 | Ester [

- C(=O)

- O

- C] | 2.4462 | 2.4462 Frag | 1 | Aromatic bromide [

- Br] | 1.5021 | 1.5021 Frag | 1 | Aromatic

- CH2 |

- 0.1246 |

- 0.1246 Frag | 2 | Aromatic

- CH | 0.2624 | 0.5248 Frag | 16 | Aromatic

- H | 0.1201 | 1.9223 Frag | 1 |

- CH2

- [cyclic] | 0.2365 | 0.2365

### 52 MolWt| * | Molecular Weight Parameter | |

- 15.1108

============+============================================+=========+========= RESULT |Bio win6 (MITI Non

- Linear Biodeg Probability)| | 0.0062

============+============================================+=========+=========

A Probability Greater Than or Equal to 0.5 indicates

-- > Readily Degradable A Probability Less Than 0.5 indicates

-- > NOT Readily Degradable

------ +

----- +

-------------------------------------------- +

--------- +

---------

TYPE | NUM | Biowin7 FRAGMENT DESCRIPTION | COEFF | VALUE

------ +

----- +

-------------------------------------------- +

--------- +

---------

Frag | 1 | Aliphatic alcohol [

- OH] | 0.1328 | 0.1328 Frag | 1 | Ester [

- C(=O)

- O

- C] | 0.1719 | 0.1719 Frag | 1 | Aromatic bromide [

- Br] | 0.0000 | 0.0000 Frag | 3 | Alkyl substituent on aromatic ring |

- 0.1145 |

- 0.3434 Frag | 1 | Aromatic

- CH2 |

- 0.0073 |

- 0.0073 Frag | 2 | Aromatic

- CH | 0.0331 | 0.0662 Frag | 16 | Aromatic

- H |

- 0.0954 |

- 1.5269 Frag | 1 |

- CH2

- [cyclic] |

- 0.1200 |

- 0.1200 Const| * | Equation Constant | | 0.8361

============+============ ================================+=========+========= RESULT | Biowin7 (Anaerobic Linear Biodeg Prob) | |

- 0.7907

============+============================================+=========+=========

A Probability Greater Than or Equal to 0.5 in dicates

-- > Biodegrades Fast A Probability Less Than 0.5 indicates

-- > Does NOT Biodegrade Fast

Ready Biodegradability Prediction: (YES or NO)

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

Criteria for the YES or NO prediction: If the Biowin3 (ultima te survey model) result is "weeks" or faster (i.e. "days", "days to weeks", or "weeks" AND the Biowin5 (MITI linear model) probability is >= 0.5, then the prediction is YES (readily biodegradable). If this condition is not satisfied, the prediction is NO (not readily biodegradable). This method is based on application of Bayesian analysis to ready biodegradation data (see Help). Biowin5 and 6 also predict ready biodegradability, but for degradation in the OECD301C test only; using data from the Ch emicals Evaluation and Research Institute Japan (CERIJ) database.

BioHCwin (v1.01) Program Results:

============================== SMILES : c1cc(Br)ccc1c(cc2)ccc2C3Cc4ccccc4C(C5=C(O)c6ccccc6OC5(=O))C3 CHEM : Brodifacoum MOL FOR: C31 H23 Br1 O3 MOL WT : 523.43

-------------------------- BioHCwin v1.01 Results

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

NO Estimate Possible ... Structure NOT a Hydrocarbon (Contains atoms other than C, H or S (

- S

- ))

AEROWIN Program (v1.00) Results:

================== =============

Sorption to aerosols (25 Dec C)[AEROWIN v1.00]:

Vapor pressure (liquid/subcooled): 2.36E

- 014 Pa (1.77E

- 016 mm Hg) Log Koa (Koawin est ): 19.156

Kp (particle/gas partition coef. (m3/ug)): Mackay model : 1.27E+008 Octanol/air (Koa) model: 3.52E+006 Fraction sorbed to airborne particulates (phi): Junge

- Pankow model : 1 Mackay model : 1 Octanol/air (Koa) model: 1

AOP Program (v1.92) Results:

===========================

### 53 SMILES : c1cc(Br)ccc1c(cc2)ccc2C3Cc4ccccc4C(C5=C(O)c6ccccc6OC5(=O))C3 CHEM : Brodifacoum MOL FOR: C31 H23 Br1 O3 MOL WT : 523.43

------------------- SUMMARY (AOP v1.92): HYDROXYL RADICALS (25 deg C)

-------- Hydrogen Abstraction = 7.8831 E

- 12 cm3/molecule

- sec Reaction with N, S and

- OH = 0.1400 E

- 12 cm3/molecule

- sec Addition to Triple Bonds = 0.0000 E

- 12 cm3/molecule

- sec **Addition to Olefinic Bonds = 38.5000 E

- 12 cm3/molecule

- sec **Addition to Aromatic Rings = 11.6952 E

- 12 cm3/molecule

- sec Addition to Fused Rings = 0.0000 E

- 12 cm3/molecule

- sec

OVERALL OH Rate Constant = 58.2183 E

- 12 cm3/molecule

- sec HALF

- LIFE = 0.184 Days (12

- hr day; 1.5E6 OH/cm3) HALF

- LIFE = 2.205 Hrs

......... ............... ** Designates Estimation(s) Using ASSUMED Value(s)

------------------- SUMMARY (AOP v1.91): OZONE REACTION (25 deg C)

----------- OVERALL OZONE Rate Constant = 13.650000 E

- 17 cm3/molecule

- sec HALF

- LIFE = 0.084 Days (at 7E11 m ol/cm3) HALF

- LIFE = 2.015 Hrs

Experimental Database: NO Structure Matches Fraction sorbed to airborne particulates (phi): 1 (Junge

- Pankow, Mackay avg) 1 (Koa method) Note: the sorbed fraction may be resistant to atmospheric oxidation

KOCWIN Program (v2.00) Results:

============================== SMILES : c1cc(Br)ccc1c(cc2)ccc2C3Cc4ccccc4C(C5=C(O)c6ccccc6OC5(=O))C3 CHEM : Brodifacoum MOL FOR: C31 H23 Br1 O3 MOL WT : 523.43

--------------------------- KOCWIN v2.00 Results

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

Koc Estimate from MCI:

--------------------- First Order Molecular Connectivity Index ........... : 17.081 Non

- Corrected Log Koc (0.5213 MCI + 0.60) .......... : 9.5039 Fragment Correction(s): 1 Aliphatic Alcohol (

- C

- OH) ........... :

- 1.3179 1 Ester (

- C

- CO

- O

- C

- ) or (HCO

- O

- C) ...... :

- 1.2970 Corrected Log Koc .................................. : 6.8890

Estimated Koc: 7.745e+006 L/kg <===========

Koc Estimate from Log Kow:

------------------------- Log Kow (User entered ) ......................... : 8.50 Non

- Corrected Log Koc (0.55313 logKow + 0.9251) .... : 5.6267 Fragm ent Correction(s): 1 Aliphatic Alcohol (

- C

- OH) ........... :

- 0.4114 1 Ester (

- C

- CO

- O

- C

- ) or (HCO

- O

- C) ...... :

- 0.0656 Corrected Log Koc .................................. : 5.1497

Estimated Koc: 1.411e+005 L/kg <===========

HYDROWIN Program (v2.00) Results:

================================ SMILES : c1cc(Br)ccc1c(cc2)ccc2C3Cc4ccccc4C(C5=C(O)c6ccccc6OC5(=O))C3 CHEM : Brodifacoum MOL FOR: C31 H23 Br1 O3 MOL WT : 523.43

--------------------------- HYDROWIN v2.00 Results

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

Hydrolyzable Function detected: Cyclic Ester

### 54 - C

- C(=O)

- O

- C...

|____________|

QSARs are not currently available to estimate hydrolysis rates for cyclic carboxlic acid esters. Rates may be similar to non

- cyclic esters; however, steric hindrance and ring strain effects may be important. Butyrolactone (a 5

- member ring) hydrolyzes very slowly in neutral water with the hydrolys is rate increasing in alkaline conditions (Kirk

- Othmer, 4th ed, 1:212, 1991). In contrast, Propiolactone (a 4

- member ring) has a reported neutral rate constant of 0.0000568/sec at 25 deg (Gold & Butler, 1962) which corresponds to a half

- li fe of 3.39 days.

BCFBAF Program (v3.01) Results:

============================== SMILES : c1cc(Br)ccc1c(cc2)ccc2C3Cc4ccccc4C(C5=C(O)c6ccccc6OC5(=O))C3 CHEM : Brodifacoum MOL FOR: C31 H23 Br1 O3 MOL WT : 523.43

--------------------------------- BCFBAF v3.01

-------------------------------- Summary Results: Log BCF (regression

- based estimate): 3.39 (BCF = 2.45e+003 L/kg wet

- wt) Biotransformation Half

- Life (days) : 351 (normalized to 10 g fish) Log BAF (Arnot

- Gobas upper trophic): 6.53 (BAF = 3.38e+006 L/kg wet

- wt)

Log Kow (experimental): 8.50 Log Kow used by BCF estimates: 8.50 (user entered)

Equation Used to Make BCF estimate: Log BCF =

- 0.49 log Kow + 7.554 + Correction

Correction(s): Value

N o Applicable Correction Factors

Estimated Log BCF = 3.389 (BCF = 2449 L/kg wet

- wt)

=========================================================== Whole Body Primary Biotransformation Rate Estimate for Fish:

=========================================== ================

------ +

----- +

-------------------------------------------- +

--------- +

---------

TYPE | NUM | LOG BIOTRANSFORMATION FRAGMENT DESCRIPTION | COEFF | VALUE

------ +

----- +

-------------------------------------------- +

--------- +

---------

Frag | 1 | Aliphatic alcohol [

- OH] |

- 0.0616 |

- 0.0616 Frag | 1 | Ester [

- C(=O)

- O

- C] |

- 0.7605 |

- 0.7605 Frag | 1 | Aromatic bromide [

- Br] | 0.3964 | 0.3964 Frag | 3 | Alkyl substituent on aromatic ring | 0.1781 | 0.5342 Frag | 1 | Aromatic

- CH2 |

- 0.3365 |

- 0.3365 Frag | 2 | Aromatic

- CH |

- 0.4629 |

- 0.9259 Frag | 16 | Aromatic

- H | 0.2664 | 4.2620 Frag | 1 |

- CH2

- [cyclic] | 0.0963 | 0.0963 Frag | 2 | Number of fused acyclic rings | 0.6477 | 1.2953 Frag | 2 | Number of fused 6

- carbon aromatic r ings |

- 0.5779 |

- 1.1557 Frag | 1 | Biphenyl |

- 0.5319 |

- 0.5319 Frag | 1 | Tetralin | 0.0000 | 0.0000 L Kow| * | Log Kow = 8.50 (user

- entered ) | 0.3073 | 2.612 4 MolWt| * | Molecular Weight Parameter | |

- 1.3422 Const| * | Equation Constant | |

- 1.5058

============+============================================+=========+========= RESULT | L OG Bio Half

- Life (days) | | 2.5451 RESULT | Bio Half

- Life (days) | | 350.9 NOTE | Bio Half

- Life Normalized to 10 g fish at 15 deg C |

============+========================================== ==+=========+=========

Biotransformation Rate Constant:

kM (Rate Constant): 0.001976 /day (10 gram fish) kM (Rate Constant): 0.001111 /day (100 gram fish) kM (Rate Constant): 0.0006247 /day (1 kg fish) kM (Rate Constant): 0.0003513 /day (10 kg fish)

### 55 Arnot

- Gobas BCF & BAF Methods (including biotransformation rate estimates): Estimated Log BCF (upper trophic) = 2.986 (BCF = 967.3 L/kg wet

- wt) Estimated Log BAF (upper trophic) = 6.529 (BAF = 3.38e+006 L/kg wet

- wt) Estimated Log BCF (mid trophic) = 3.155 (BCF = 1430 L/kg wet

- wt) Estimated Log BAF (mid trophic) = 6.200 (BAF = 1.586e+006 L/kg wet

- wt) Estimated Log BCF (lower trophic) = 3.207 (BCF = 1609 L/kg wet

- wt) Estimated Log BAF (lower trophi c) = 5.952 (BAF = 8.956e+005 L/kg wet

- wt)

Arnot

- Gobas BCF & BAF Methods (assuming a biotransformation rate of zero): Estimated Log BCF (upper trophic) = 3.240 (BCF = 1739 L/kg wet

- wt) Estimated Log BAF (upper trophic) = 6.895 (BAF = 7.844e+00 6 L/kg wet

- wt)

Volatilization From Water

=========================

Chemical Name: Brodifacoum

Molecular Weight : 523.43 g/mole Water Solubility : 0.0038 ppm Vapor Pressure :

----- Henry's Law Constant: 5.4E

- 013 atm

- m3/mole (estimated by Bond SAR Method)

RIVER LAKE

--------- --------- Water Depth (meters): 1 1 Wind Velocity (m/sec): 5 0.5 Current Velocity (m/sec): 1 0.05

HALF

- LIFE (hours) : 2.481E+009 2.706E+010 HALF

- LIFE (days ) : 1.034E+008 1.128E+009 HALF

- LIFE (years) : 2.83E+005 3.087E+006

STP Fugacity Model: Predicted Fate in a Wastewater Treatment Facility

====================================================================== (using Biowin/EPA draft method) PROPERTIES OF: Br odifacoum

------------- Molecular weight (g/mol) 523.43 Aqueous solubility (mg/l) 0.0038 Vapour pressure (Pa) 0 (atm) 0 (mm Hg) 0 Henry 's law constant (Atm

- m3/mol) 5.4E

- 013 Air

- water partition coefficient 2.20844E

- 011 Octanol

- water partition coefficient (Kow) 3.16228E+008 Log Kow 8.5 Biomass to water partition coefficient 6.32456E+007 Temperature [deg C] 25 Biodeg rate constants (h^

- 1),half life in biomass (h) and in 2000 mg/L MLSS (h):

- Primary tank 0.00 999.99 1000.00

- Aeration tank 0.01 100.00 100.00

- Settling tank 0.01 100.00 100.00

STP Overall Chemical Mass Balance :

--------------------------------- g/h mol/h percent

Influent 1.00E+001 1.9E

- 002 100.00

Primary sludge 5.90E+000 1.1E

- 002 58.96 Waste sludge 1.31E+000 2.5E

- 003 13.14 Primary volatilization 2.29E

- 014 4.4E

- 017 0.00 Settling volatilization 2.02E

- 014 3.9E

- 017 0.00 Aeration off gas 5.00E

- 014 9.5E

- 017 0.00

Primary biodegradation 1.73E

- 001 3.3E

- 004 1.73

### 56 Settling biodegradation 1.68E

- 001 3.2E

- 004 1.68 Aeration biodegradation 2.21E+000 4.2E

- 003 22.14

Final water effluent 2.35E

- 001 4.5E

- 004 2.35

Total removal 9.76E+000 1.9E

- 002 97.65 Total biodegradation 2.55E+000 4.9E

- 003 25.55

(** Total removal recommended maximum is 95 percent)

Level III Fugacity Model (Full

- Output):

======================================= Chem Name : Brodifacoum Molecular Wt: 523.43 Henry's LC : 5.4e

- 013 atm

- m3/mole (Henrywin program) Vapor Press : 1.11e

- 018 mm Hg (Mpbpwin program) Liquid VP : 1.18e

- 016 mm Hg (super

- cooled) Melting Pt : 230 deg C (user

- entered) Log Kow : 8.5 (user

- entered) Soil Koc : 7.75e+006 (KOCWIN MCI method)

Mass Amount Half

- Life Emissions

(percent) (hr) (kg/hr) Air 0.0156 1.38 1000 Water 2.76 1.44e+003 1000 Soil 36.9 2.88e+003 1000 Sediment 60.3 1.3e+004 0

Fugacity Reaction A dvection Reaction Advection

(atm) (kg/hr) (kg/hr) (percent) (percent) Air 1.13e

- 022 926 18.5 30.9 0.616 Water 5.91e

- 020 157 326 5.23 10.9 Soi l 1.34e

- 021 1.05e+003 0 35 0 Sediment 9.88e

- 020 381 142 12.7 4.75

Persistence Time: 3.94e+003 hr Reaction Time: 4.7e+003 hr Advection Time: 2.43e+004 hr Percent Re acted: 83.8 Percent Advected: 16.2

Half

- Lives (hr), (based upon Biowin (Ultimate) and Aopwin): Air: 1.383 Water: 1440 Soil: 2880 Sediment: 1.296e+004 Biowin estimate: 1.982 (months )

Advection Times (hr): Air: 100 Water: 1000 Sediment: 5e+004

### 57 

# Appendix C

. SIPS Model Input/Output

Table 1. Inputs Parameter Value Chemical name Brodifacoum Solubility (in water at 25 o C; mg/L) 0.24

Mammalian LD 50 (mg/kg

- bw) 0.42 Mammalian test species laboratory rat Body weight (g) of "other" mammalian species

Mammalian NOAEL (mg/kg

- bw) 0 Mammalian test species Body weight (g) of "other" mammalian species

Avian LD 50 (mg/kg

- bw) 0.26 Avian test species mallard duck Body weight (g) of "other" avian species Mineau scaling factor

Mallard NOAEC (mg/kg

- diet) 0 Bobwhite quail NOAEC (mg/kg

- diet) 0 NOAEC (mg/kg

- diet) for other bird species Body weight (g) of other avian species NOAEC (mg/kg

- diet) for 2nd other bird species Body weight (g) of 2nd other avian species

Table 2. Mammalian Results Parameter Acute Chronic Upper bound exposure (mg/kg

- bw) 0.0413 0.0413 Adjusted toxicity value (mg/kg

- bw) 0.3230 0.0000 Ratio of exposure to toxicity 0.1278 0.0000

Conclusion* Exposure through drinking water alone is a

potential concern for mammals Due to insufficient data,

risk cannot be precluded

Table 3. Avian Results

### 58 Parameter Acute Chronic Upper bound exposure (mg/kg

- bw) 0.1944 0.1944 Adjusted toxicity value (mg/kg

- bw) 20.5400 0.0000 Ratio of exposure to acute toxicity 0.0095 0.0000

Conclusion* Drinking water exposure alone is NOT a potential concern for birds Due to insufficient data,

risk cannot be precluded

*Conclusion is for drinking water exposure alone. This does not combine all routes of exposure. Therefore, when aggregated with other routes ( i.e ., diet, inhalation, dermal), pesticide exposure through drinking water may contribute to a total exposure that has potential for effects to non

target animals.

### 59 

# Appendix D. Pending and Active Registrations For **112701 / 56073**

**- 10** 

**- 0 / Brodifacoum** 

Registration # Registration Name Company Name Current Status % of Active Ingredient

100

- 986 B rodifacoum C oncentrate S yngenta C rop P rotection , LLC Active

- Registered (24

- Oct

- 1980)
, Concurrent

- Under Reregistration (11

- Aug

- 1998) .25

100

- 987 B rod ifacoum Technical S yngenta C rop P rotection , LLC Active

- Conditionally Registered (24

- Oct

1980)
, Concurrent

- Under Reregistration (19

- Mar

- 2002)
, Concurrent

- Under Reregistration (11

- Aug

- 1998) 90

100

- 1050 TALON

- G R odenticide B ait P ack M ini

- P ellets W ith B itrex S yngenta C rop P rotection , LLC Active

- Conditionally Registered (18

- Sep

1991)
, Concurrent

- Under Reregistration (11

- Aug

- 1998) .005

100

- 1051 T ALON

- G R odenticide B ait P ack P ellets W ith B itrex Syngenta Crop Protection, LLC Active

- Conditionally Registered (18

- Sep

1991)
, Concurrent

- Under Reregistration (11

- Aug

- 1998) .005

100

- 1052 TALON

- G R odenticide P ellets W ith B itrex Syngenta Crop Protection, LLC Active

- Conditionally Registered (23

- Feb

2001)
, Concurrent

- Under Reregistration (11

- Aug

- 1998) .005

100

- 1053 HAVOC R odenticide BAIT PACK P ellets W ith B itrex Syngenta Crop Protection, LLC Active

- Conditionally Registered (18

- Sep

1991)
, Concurrent

- Under Reregistration (11

- Aug

- 1998) .005

100

- 1054 HAVOC R odenticide BAIT PACK MINI

P ellets W ith B itrex Syngenta Crop Protection, LLC Active

- Conditionally Registered (18

- Sep

1991)
, Concurrent

- Under Reregistratio n (11

- Aug

- 1998) .005

100

- 1055 TALON WEATHERBLOK XT Syngenta Crop Protection, LLC Active

- Conditionally Registered (23

- Feb

2001)
, Concurrent

- Under Reregistration (11

- Aug

- 1998) .005

100

- 1056 HAVOC R odenticide BAIT PACK P ellets W ith B itrex Syngenta Crop Protection, LLC Active

- Conditionally Registered (23

- Feb

2001)
, Concurrent

- .005

### 60 Under Reregistration (11

- Aug

- 1998)

100

- 1057 TALON

- G R odenticide MINI

P ellets W ith B itrex Syngenta Crop Protection, LLC Active

- Conditionally Registered (23

- Feb

2001)
, Concurrent

- Under Reregistration (11

- Aug

- 1998) .005

100

- 1080 B rodifacoum CONCENTRATE II Syngenta Crop Protection, LLC Active

- Conditionally Registered (17

- Jul

- 1994)
, C oncurrent

- Under Reregistration (11

- Aug

1998) .25

100

- 1368 WEATHER BLOK AG BAIT W ith B itrex S yngenta C rop P rotection , LLC Active

- Registered (15

- Apr

- 2010) .005

3282

- RNU D

- CON BAIT STATION XV KILLS MICE R eckitt B enckiser LLC Pending

- Under Review (18

- Oct

- 2010) .005

3282

- RNL D

- CON BAIT STATION XVI KILLS MICE Reckitt Benckiser LLC Pending

- Under Review (18

- Oct

- 2010) .005

3282

- 112 d

- CON® Farm, Ranch & Home Reckitt Benckiser LLC Active

- Registered (29

- May

- 2014) .005

12455

- 88 B rodifacoum Technical Bell L aboratories, Inc. Active

- Conditionally Registered (10

- Oct

1997)
, Concurrent

- Under Reregistration (11

- Aug

- 1998)
, Concurrent

- Under Reregistration (19

- Mar

- 2002) 98

12455

- 89 FINAL ALL

WEATHER BLOX Bell L aboratories, Inc. Active

- Conditionally Registered (16

- Oct

1997)
, Concurrent

- Under Reregistration (11

- Aug

- 1998)
, Concurrent

- Under Reregistration (19

- Mar

- 2002) .005

12455

- 90 FINAL R odenticide Bell Laboratories, Inc. Active

- Conditionally Registered (21

- Oct

1997)
, Concurrent

- Under Reregistration (11

- Aug

- 1998)
, Concurrent

- Under Reregistration (19

- Mar

- 2002) .005

12455

- 91 FINAL R odenticide READY

- TO

- USE PLACE PACS Bell Laboratories, Inc. Active

- Conditionally Registered (16

- Oct

1997 )
, Concurrent

- Under Reregistration (11

- Aug

- 1998)
, Concurrent

- .005

### 61 Under Reregistration (19

- Mar

- 2002)

12455

- 94 FINAL R odenticide PLACE PACS Bell L aboratories, Inc. Active

- Conditionally Registered (14

- May

1998)
, Concurrent

- Under Reregistration (11

- Aug

- 1998)
, Concurrent

- Under Reregistration (19

- Mar

- 2002) .005

12455

- OI FINAL PREBAITED MOUSE BAIT STATION Bell L aboratories, Inc. Pending

- Under Review (07

- May

- 1999) .005

12455

- 108 FORMUS ALL

WEATHER BLOX Bell Laboratories, Inc. Active

- Conditionally Registered (20

- May

2009) .0025

12455

- 139 Final Soft Bait Bell Laboratories, Inc. Active

- Registered (26

- Jul

- 2012) .0025

56228

- 36 B rodifacoum 25W Conservation U.S. D epartment of A griculture Active

- Conditionally Registered (18

- Mar

2008) .0025

56228

- 37 B rodifacoum 25D Conservation U.S. D epartment of A griculture Active

- Conditionally Registered (18

- Mar

2008) .0025

61282

- 27 BDF C hunks H acco, Inc

. Active

- Conditionally Registered (15

- Jul

- 1997)
, Concurrent

- Under Reregistration (11

- Aug

1998) .005

61282

- 28 BDF B ait P acks H acco, Inc

. Active

- Conditionally Registered (15

- Jul

- 1997)
, Concurrent

- Under Reregistration (11

- Aug

1998) .005

61282

- EO DESTRUCTO(TM) CHUNKS K ills R ats & M ice H acco, Inc

. Pending

- Under Review (29

- Jan

- 2002) .005

AZ130001 Final Soft Bait Bell Laboratories, Inc. Active

- Registered (28

- Aug

- 2013) .0025

338

- EUP

- 1 U.S. F ish and Wildlife Service Active

- Issued (07

- Jul

2006) .0025

10182

- EUP

- 21 S yngenta Crop Protection, LLC Active

- Issued (27

- Jul

1982) 100